Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 22 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Finishing unfinished nom for User:Pundit, apparently Twinkle screwed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks! The reason for deletion: The article is a prod contested by the only author, and a former copyvio (in my view still potentially an issue, as some structures have not been rewritten). The article is on a minor karate shotokan federation. The only author claims the sources cannot be provided because the notable masters do not have time to write articles or give interviews. Although the federation PERHAPS could be notable, if the data were verified, the article is in so poor a state that keeping it now makes no sense. In the meantime, the author insists on making non-wiki edits, in spite of requests/instructions, but this is not that much relevant to this AfD. Pundit|utter 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article appears to be copied from another source for which one user who has little contribution outside says he has the .Notablity is questionable and further it appears to be WP:COI and whether copyright is violated or not is not clear.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If it were an article about WJKA, an FM radio station in Wilmington, North Carolina, that would be a keeper. This is the World Junior Karate Association-- all karate, all the time!! Mandsford (talk) 01:48, 23 February 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. Carioca (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Claims to be a renaissance man in various sports, winning national-level chess tournaments. Google search shows that he posts in NFL Sports boards and has played in high school tournaments; nothing that really backs up his grandiose claims. I figured prod would be a waste of time so I went straight to AfD. JuJube (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No creditability. Page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.116.183 (talk) 07:06, 25 February 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. Esteffect (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Love & Peace (sifow) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

Also nominating:

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. Actually, I would even include Sifow, as there are no independent, reliable sources, that indicate the reliability of the artist, let alone the songs by the artist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 29 February 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 and move to Concert T-shirt. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Black concert T-shirt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject hardly warrants its own article. Non-notable topic. At the very best, it should be deleted, at the very worst, merged with heavy metal fashion. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as is, but we should have an article on concert T-shirts. Just not this one. bd2412 T 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Could just move this article to Concert T-shirt. This was suggested by at least one of the Keep voters in the previous AFD for this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and I agree with the move. Few other types of events lend themselves to a particular color as well as concerts. It's part of the culture, and there are several explanations for why rock concert T-shirts are black rather than, say, dayglo orange: they don't stand out in when the lights are turned down in the arena; they don't show stains as easily; they fit in with the concept of rebelling and conforming at the same time; and they display the tour schedule on the back well. Mandsford (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have concert t-shirts in black, white, red, dark blue. Maybe it's the most popular, but it's hardly monolithic. bd2412 T 03:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, smart merchandisers will offer a white, red or dark blue concert T-shirt. There are parents who associate the black T-shirt with trouble (such as parenting guru John Rosemond) and won't allow their children to purchase the shirt that everyone else is wearing. Nothing says "bootleg" like a red AC/DC T-shirt. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That tone is really unnecessary. —Torc. 07:51, 27 February 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, no prejudice to placing {{prod}} back on the article. Coredesat 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Black metal fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly comprised of original research. The subject hardly warrants its own article. At the least, this should be merged with either black metal, or more ideally, heavy metal fashion. I think merging it with the latter would be the best choice if this is not straight out deleted - overall I say the topic is hardly notable; at least not to the point where it deserves its own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to heavy metal fashion. Fashion for the black metal genre is NN on its own Doc Strange (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect any sourcable information per above.--h i s r e s e a r c h 14:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:OR and the Haunted Angel (kudos; good one for the AFD). The article is so non notable I can't even begin to explain. I suppose it could be mentioned in heavy metal fashion or black metal, but I think it should be short and it would have to be carefully worded. I also have to state my postion (yes, my POV) that I think the word "fashion" should not be stated anywhere in the article. If it has to be talked about at all (which it shouldn't be) it should be referred to as black metal "attire". There is already an article on corpse paint and other than that notable feature of 2nd Wave, the attire is pretty much the same as other heavy metal genres, such as thrash metal. Black leather jackets, black leather pants and possibly forearm spike bands are all the same. Oh wow...I just took a look at the heavy metal fashion article...urgh...it's horrible as well. Blizzard Beast 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, however I'd also like to point out that this should never have been brought to AfD. It had a prod tag on it already, and if it hadn't been brought to AfD it would have been deleted by the end of the day today. Oh well. -- Atama 18:12, 27 February 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. Consider merging onto

Kosovo Forces fatalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's a long standing convention that lists which only include people who are not individually notable are generally unencyclopedic. This applies to lists of fatalities and other honor rolls. As such, I am proposing that this article be deleted, with a summary of the number of fatalities and national breakdown of these deaths being included in the article Kosovo Force. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:31, 22 February 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 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Next to no information exists on Anjana in Hinduism other than how she gave birth to Hanuman, which is more relevant to, and discussed in, his article. The article consists solely of "Mother of Hanuman", and a message asking that the article not be deleted in order to prevent red links, and something to do with preventing confusion with the article Anjani. Laïka 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – I am sorry, but I have to ask, have you read the discussion page concerning this article and the history of the editor's Mahitgar request for NOT deleting? Please review and possibly reconsider Afd nomination. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although a poor article at current, this nevertheless seems to have the potential for expansion with sources. Several articles appear to discuss Anjana beyond a name-check: this in particular, but also here. I do not currently have full copies of these articles, so further examination is clearly required, but it looks as though sufficient material for an article might be available even without looking for Hindi sources (of which there are doubtless more). Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sorry I mis-spoke. I meant the articles history page. New fingers….old brain :-). The editor is a great contributor - Never any hint of problems and always provided necessay information. What I mean is that this article may be better served in talking with the editor, rather than nominating for Afd at this time. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added one version of the story of Anjana, with reference. This can be expanded, but is certainly enough to keep now. Also removed the nonsense 'notice' on the page. ~ priyanath talk 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To Keep or no to keep I leave it to learned majiority of english wikipedia.But not having that article had created problem for us at Marathi Language Knowledge due to illinformed interwiki bots and illinformed enthusiasts follower of Singer Anjani had been inserted her photograph in Marathi Language article referring to Mother of Hanuman.

Some thing may be nonsense to one can make sense to some else so whetether civility does not ask to mind the langugae during the discussion?

Thanks any way

Mahitgar (talk) 08:15, 27 February 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. Coredesat 03:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Clear hoax. Google returns big fat goose egg. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Yup, it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Am I missing something here, like his name being an obvious obscene pun? Fail to see how you all jump to the conclusion that this is a hoax based on a one minute Roman alphabet language internet search of a single French-style transcription of the name of an African Muslim who travels around telling stories in places that aren't well represented on the internet. cab (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Because if it's as well known as the article says it was, it would have been written about by at least some African Muslim scholars. World societies no longer exist in a vacuum. JuJube (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A very weak assumption, that a single use of the word "legendary" by a new user whose native language is likely not English implies that this man should be well-known enough to be written about by scholars in English (and that any such academic coverage would be under the name and transcription used as the title of the article --- Qoussa/Qussa being a generic Arabic term for a storyteller, as I understand, that means the article is called "Massa the storyteller"). Massa Qoussa may just be an average travelling entertainer --- some of whom are notable, others who are not. (And I have no objection to the default assumption that someone is non-notable unless sources are provided to show otherwise). But it's extremely premature to call "hoax" (IMO a violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE) and it's disappointing to see others jumping on that bandwagon based on the flimsiest of evidence. cab (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some reference can be provided to establish notability. I don't think it's a hoax, but I'm not sure whether the subject is a real person - "legendary" could mean an archetypal wandering story-teller about whom there are legends, rather than a real one who is famous. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the discoussion. I am sorry to have taken your time with this folkloristic person or person. I have heard about him so many places in the muslim world, so he can not be one single person, but I never actually met a Massa Qoussa. Notability is unprovidable, since he is moving amongst common nonacademic people. The spelling Qoussa differs from the word qussa, but this spelling have many possibbilities in arab and muslim-afro countries, Qoussaï being a common one, and as well as Qoussa a traditional name for a storyteller. But again, no authorised documentation, so untill then, please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by author.195.47.134.17 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, it sshould be: person or persons. Written by author, Nyamhawa.--195.47.134.17 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 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 defaulting to Keep, leaning strongly towards keep with the new sources found at the end of this discussion. Please add sources to the article. Davewild (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable film. Can't find an entry for it on IMDB, it doesn't have any references and has no incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - based on one solid reliable source, I think it would be appropriate to give it a bit more time to see if other sources can be dug up to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the first reference seems to be a passing reference to the movie. I can't read the ALM article as I don't want to spend $15, however searching for the title of the film shows an excerpt that would indicate that it is only a passing mention. The third reference is an actual review of the movie. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment – Our Notability Standards! Please, and what would that be today? So we should just throw away information? After the sites provided above demonstrate that, the film has received secondary and third source reviews? I am sorry, I disagree. Shoessss |  Chat  01:49, 29 February 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. Coredesat 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox Valley Sailing School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete reads like a brochure, no significant coverage in reliable sources shown. fails WP:CORP, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Free Radicals (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC Mr Senseless (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New notable citations have been added: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Those sources are now listed. Sarsnic (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources are an integral part of any article, but the band itself still needs to pass the guidelines in WP:MUSICw and the sources are what can prove that, which as of right now, the band does not. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
But, Mr Senseless, if a band is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." then it does pass WP:MUSIC criterion #1 and that is all that's needed. --Paul Erik 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
With a second set of sources, WP:MUSIC is passed, but the notes you put in link to the Knight Rider Knowledge article, not the actual article you're referencing. If you fix it so they point to the reference, I'll withdraw the AfD. Mr Senseless (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The articles are not accessible online without paying a fee, so I did not include links. You can find one here and the other here. --Paul Erik 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I'd pefer to see something that readers could actually click to and read, seeing the links above makes me feel better. I withdraw the AfD Mr Senseless (talk) 00:09, 25 February 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. Coredesat 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician part of a non-notable band, no indication whatsoever that the subject passes WP:MUSIC Mr Senseless (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this AfD, in light of the fact that a contributor found new non trivial sources that cover both Nick and Free Radicals, they both now pass WP:MUSIC. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New notable citations have been added: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Those sources are now listed on the Free Radials page. Sarsnic (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have now added references to the Houston Chronicle and to Knight Ridder news service. There's enough there to satisfy WP:N. It appears that he has been the major force in at least two notable bands (even though an article on Sprawl has not yet been written), and has done some record-producing work that the Chronicle has also taken note of. Keep. --Paul Erik 21:02, 24 February 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. Coredesat 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Minus Now! (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. Coredesat 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scene (fashion trends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Textdump, borderline patent nonsense, just a junk article in general. There is related AfD Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Scene (subculture). Speedy denied by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Snowball and Delete I agree with using WP:Snow here. The article has been succesfully CSD'ed before, is badly written, and created by a user which so far is nothing more then a CSD necessarily article spammer. Unless someone steps forward to revamp this one within reasonable time, this can just go to the infernal shredder. Excirial 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no sources, not notable, OR. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 24 February 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 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete nn contributer to Mad, but sufficiently nn that we don't know where or when he was born or other normal things one would expect to find in a notable person's encyclopedia biography/ Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 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. — Edokter • Talk • 13:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chekesha Johnson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chekesha Johnson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 69.201.157.241 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Edokter http://en.wikipedia.org/Escape_Routes


We know that she is a model, but there's not really an assertion of notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 22 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Just another school newspaper, nothing notable about it. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 22:23, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails Knowledge:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased ("not (or not yet) made available for distribution") albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete:The album was scheduled to be released in 2006 but it has been 2 years and there is still no album.I dont think it will be dropping any time soon plus the article for this album is 4 lines long and not worthy of page.So i think it should be deleted immediatly

Comment The only source in the article is the sohh piece which is a summary of a Rolling Stone article with some editorial comments added in. What it describes as an interview with sohh is actually sohh quoting Rolling Stone quoting the artist. The only source in the article, then, is not a reliable source. There is no MTV cite in the article. In any event, that the artist worked on an album and discussed it with Rolling Stone does not amount to "substantial coverage". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If/when this album is released, that will be a valid argument. Until then, this article needs substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - There's already a reliable source plus a lot more available that I can't be bothered to add for this article, Sandwich. Flesh-n-Bone 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The album has one source. It requires more reliable information (yes, many hip hop fans could say sohh is reliable - I'm saying more than two to allow for useful details) as to make it worthy of its own article. For now, and considering the article is basically currently just a quote - this can be merged into Ja Rule's article (under it's relevant section that already exists, 'The Mirror (2008)') until more information is available. For a notable artist with an impending album, it shouldn't be much trouble to wait like this until there are more reliable sources. -- Harish - 19:13, 25 February 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. Coredesat 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Little Miss Obsessive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, not confirmed to be on Ashlee Simpson's new album unconfirmed. No sources cited, not confirmed as next single. Save-Me-Oprah 21:59, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A Good Woman in Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystal balling; fails WP:NFF. A google search pulled up one or two sources from 2006, presumably from when this film was first announced (). However, an article from last month () indicates that filming has not yet begun. The article provides no references, the IMDb link is bogus, and the bulk of the article is a copyvio anyway.PC78 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 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, including the redirects, discography page, and the category. Coredesat 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable band; tagged for notability since July with no improvement. A search for reliable sources, charting singles, etc. found none.

Also listing the related article:

The Emmons Sisters discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Note to admin: This page is redirected from In the Springtime, God's Gift (Emmons Sisters album), God's Gift (Emmons Sisters Album), and Possibilities (Emmons Sisters Album).) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete As a non-notable band. I will say though the line "Because the string was kind enough to break on a beat the sisters just kept singing through their giggles." might be one of the most unintentionally funniest things I've read on Knowledge. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 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. Most likely a hoax, but still an unsourced bio at best. Friday (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Richbold, Count of Breisgau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Thoroughly nonnotable person, found only in genealogical trees. It was tagged for quick and painless deletion two times, but some want to waste time of more people while not moving a single fingerprint to provide a minimal assertion of notability. `'Míkka>t 21:53, 22 February 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. No prejudice against relisting after the ArbCom injunction is lifted. Never mind that part. There's still no consensus. Coredesat 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional nation. Article consists almost entirely of plot summary. Delete or merge to List of planets in the Honorverse per WP:FICT. Jfire (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Are they? I thought the injunction was very specifically limited to characters in television shows (plus episodes), not to everything covered by WP:FICT, and this is both not a character and from a book. —Quasirandom (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Those may be suitable as sources for articles on the books themselves, but not for this article. Those articles have only passing mentions of the subject, not the sort of detailed critical analysis of Masada itself that would be required to support this article per WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. This article offers no real-world context or sourced analysis; it's an obvious WP:PLOT failure. Jfire (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge - per nom. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper
we dont play games like that with arb com.DGG (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the extent of the arbcom injunction, and your opinion has been noted/criticised there. Others feel differently. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that an attack against DGG? A few editors have expressed opinions that differ from DGG's. I was one of them. That's all you can say about the RFC. Please don't make it sound like the RFC has received wide paticipation, because it has not (only 4-5 people), and that there was some consensus there, because there certainly was not... as far as RFC's go that one was/is a complete flop, so citing it is a very weak argument, particularly if doing do is an attempt to tear-down a highly respected and experienced wikipedian like DGG. JERRY contribs 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
All I was saying is the extent of the injuction is itself controverial, so much so that somebody has made a RfC. Has that ever happened before? The level of controversy on the subject of allowing unsourced articles to survive suggests to that many people don't want unsourced articles on Knowledge. Does DGG really expect that the arbcom committee will destroy the First Pillar because one editor wasn't abiding by the Fourth Pillar? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse me breaking in, but I've just commented there. In fact, nobody had told me about the RfC--and in the multiplicity of discussions I must have missed it. I dont expect arbcom will give us detailed rules about article notability or content, just conduct, though I hope they will give some guidance about the formation and reliance on policy. As for the first pillar, I strongly support the encyclopedic nature of WP, and personally delete about a dozen articles a day that do not meet it. The meaning of "encyclopedic" is subject to interpretation. Interpretation by consensus. DGG (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The injunction, itself, is very limited in it's scope, and it does not apply to this article or AfD. Having said that, and having done significant research into the basis for the injunction, however, I also agree that the result of the ARBCOM case will undoubtedly apply to all fiction-related articles.

The arguments for deletion associated with the fictional television series and characters articles were that the series and characters had no "real world context" for notability. Meaning that if we blank from our mind that the fictional work exists, does the character appear in non-fiction literature or media? And if it does, we better ignore it if it is in any way promoting the fictional work. And then we have to take all description of the plot of the work away, as plot summary cruft. Then we have an article with sufficiently little content to justify its' deletion.

You see, the basis of the complaints against the handling of these fictional works, was that the arguments were systemically and recursivey applied in a manner that had been determined to be effective in practice, to ensure the eventual deletion of any article to which the techniques were applied. It was a self-feeding deletion machine. This kind of systemic deletion approach could be fine-tuned and used to delete almost anything: Find a reason to invalidate some of its content. Restrict what can be added, make it such that anything added is formatted in such a way that later it can be targeted for deletion, and then once it has been stripped down to a sub-stub, go in for the kill.

So is this article about an episode or character in a television series? No. Is it being fed to the currently idle deletion machine? Maybe. This article does contain some commentary about the evolution of the fictional universe from one book to another. A purely in-universe pespective would be unable to do that, because it could not acknowledge that it was in fact a fictional universe. So in that context, the content, although written to describe plot elements, is actually encyclopedic. Just as an article about the works of Samuel Clemens would undoubtedly have to tell something about the life and times of Mr. Tom Sawyer. No encyclopedic treatment of that subject could feasibly leave that out. So when we eventually do have some clear guidance about the handling of fiction in wikipedia, we will undoubtedly have some broad guidance, not just TV stuff. JERRY contribs 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

True, that. And the same applies here. SciFipedia, Sheldon Brown's website, and the author's own notes could be a start. But don't expect the same volume of coverage in a 10-year old work as compared to the just slightly older Tom Sawyer series. JERRY contribs 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are not reliable. You know, there are editors, like me, who have tried very hard to abide by the rules. I have argued to keep each and every article for which I found reliable sources, and argued to delete articles for which no reliable sources can be found. If the result of this arbcom is to allow unsourced articles to survive, it will be a slap in the face for editors like me. Those who envision a change of many of the basic principles underlying the success of Knowledge to allow their favorite characters to have their own unsourced fan pages will eventually drive out all reasonable editors along with extremists like TTN. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Or, you could choose not to take it personally, and accept that maybe the world does not rotate the way you have tried so hard to make it rotate. A less entrenched personal lose-lose battle would be beneficial to the community. To you a policy that allows these articles to remain is a slap in the face. To the wikiproject who created the Bionicle articles (which I personally deleted by the way -- almost all of them), deleting their 3 years worth of work was at least a slap in the face. To have guidelines to help all concerned know what we will have and not have should not be viewed as a slap in the face, it should be viewed as a breath of fresh air. JERRY contribs 01:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking it personally. The material can be transwikied. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SERIES, WP:SUMMARY, etc. It's already been stated that this is only a separate article because it was too large for the main article. It doesn't need to satisfy WP:N on its own. Large topics may require multiple articles for practical reasons. Let's try to avoid making people skittish about rightfully splitting off large sections of articles for fear that they'll get deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:13, 24 Feb 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 under WP:CSD#A1. KrakatoaKatie 05:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

A search is problematic due to results for other types of traders, but there's no evidence that this dialect has any notability outside the book series (which don't have an articlem so no place to merge) and it doesn't appear that it would fit in the author's article. Travellingcari (talk) 21:49, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Lots of false positives but no evidence that this label ever released anything but its creator's music. Per the article it 'planned' to release more in 2006 Travellingcari (talk) 21:45, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seven Hour War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like Black Mesa incident, cruft which fails WP:FICT almost entirely; this should or can easily be discussed in the setting portion of Half-Life 2. David Fuchs 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That article fails the above guidelines and policies just as bad, if not worse, then the Seven Hour War. David Fuchs 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about content, merely just about the topic. Okay, another example, Battle of Yavin. Hołek ҉ 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the Battle of Yavin can be cited with secondary sources and critical commentary. As it is, I would delete it in a jiffy. I've looked for information on the war, and its frankly such a small subtopic no one's going to talk about it. It's not just that it fails WP:FICT; it's that I can't ever see it being able to satisfy those requirements. David Fuchs 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Read Knowledge:FICT#Defining_notability_for_fiction. The Half-Life universe, and elements thereof, are not automatically considered notable, with some exceptions; this is not one. Also, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for why we're not addressing the other crappy articles out there. David Fuchs 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to carefully reread the final statement made in Knowledge:FICT#Defining_notability_for_fiction. In short; I disagree that "this is not one", as you put it. I will leave it to users with an actual investment (emtional or otherwise) in this article to search and add reliable sources independent of the subject to provide real-world context. At any rate, FICT seems to indicate that tags requesting third party sources as well as a rewrite of the article to alleviate any and all in-universe issues are more appropriate than a deletion proposal in this matter. Thus, I stand by my initial opinion. DaedricDancer (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done a search for sources that could be added; AfD is not cleanup, after all. And I can't find any third party sources, ergo the AfD and why it fails FICT. David Fuchs —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 25 February 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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Coredesat 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Mesa incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure cruft which fails WP:FICT. These events can be summarized in the respective game articles without going into unnecessary detail. David Fuchs 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

keep, it is worthy as it is part of the plot for many half life games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.148.85 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 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. Organization, local in scope, does not meet notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unaffiliated / Independent Voters in Howard County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability that would enable it to pass WP:CORP especially ' 'Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.' ' Travellingcari (talk) 21:05, 22 February 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 Thanks for the headache - (smile) - a very interesting debate and at times I wish I didn't start the close however there is no consensus for delete - hence Keep. I might also add that I looked very carefully at the various points of view expressed and whilst I know that I might be setting myself up for a flurry of activity at my talk page - the reality is that a combination of the merge and keep nominators (not withstanding that this is NOT A VOTE) did give a total of (I think my count is correct) 27 keeps (inclusive of 3 single issue IP nominators and one person who expressed clear COI) & 8 Merge (inclusive of 1 who later changed his/her mind) versus 19 deletes (inclusive of 1 single issue IP nominator) and 1 absolute Redirect.--VS 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Viki Iseman is notable only for her alleged (and denied) improper involvement with John McCain. Until that story broke we had no biography, nor is a lobbyist worthy of one. Now, one could argue that a 2 day story is news and WP:NOT news. But even if the controversy is encyclopedic, it is covered quite adequately at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and in addition a fork at John McCain lobbyist controversy. How many times do we need it? Iseman is not notable outside of that, so this breaches WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:COATRACK. Sure, in election years people want to cover scandals, but we don't need bios of bitplayers who are not otherwise notable. No relevant information will be lost be deleting (and possibly redirecting) this. Doc 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Late note to closing admin Starting with the nominator, numerous editors have referred to WP:BLP1E. Up until very recently (as far as I know) that link led to the WP:BLP section now linked to through WP:ONEEVENT. My early edits here used the former link, which I've used many times in the past in AfDs, but until I learned in this discussion that the link had changed, I thought I was directing editors to WP:BLP, a policy. I assume some other editors made the same mistake and were also referring to the policy. I'm not sure how much that matters, but it might. Noroton (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is one way that this confusion might hurt my argument for not keeping: Delete or merge proponents use WP:BPL1E thinking they're pointing people to a policy and instead other editors go to the notability guideline, which is much less authoritative and which can be seen in context with other notability guidelines. I don't know whether or not this is the reasons I found so few arguments actually addressing the policy that most directly relates to this AfD -- WP:BLP. If this article were to be relisted, I will contact each contributor here, mention the possible WP:BLP1E confusion (and maybe it only affected a few of us) and ask them to look over the arguments again. Noroton (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for adding her to that category? --72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable. Knowledge has many "worthy" articles for lobbyists, just look at . WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Please name the single event. I assert the subject has been a political operator over many years, and while she lobbies many people, her association with this one legislator over time has brought her to this visibility. BusterD (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The single event is the accusation in the New York Times of inappropriate closeness between her and Senator McCain. Without this factor she would not be notable as a lobbyist. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The reporting in the NYT covered actions she took many years ago, and referred to potential conflicts of interest which occurred in 2000. That something was only announced lately doesn't negate that subject's own actions over many years caused the eventual report. If what the NYT has reported is true, this was going to get out eventually. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been even more extensive discussion about this at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 which currently has not reached consensus. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as one of the page watchers/builders. If it's contended that these are the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, then I would assert that the minutes are not yet up, and therefore we can't know anything about the subject's long-term notability. We do know that subject is a registered lobbyist with both US House and Senate. We know that as a registered lobbyist, she must file a public report twice yearly disclosing every meeting, travel, meal and each's purpose; each such transaction becomes part of the public record. So I would assert subject is a public figure by law, at least when she's on the clock. This isn't like a barber's license; the system is designed to guarantee public transparency of each and every lobbying transaction by federal law. From the first minutes of this article's history, great care has been taken by virtually all page editors to properly cite each assertion and keep a neutral point of view (with varying perspectives on success). Now that the controversy propelling her into public view has been absorbed in its own article, the pagespace subject of this process is a relatively innocuous bare-bones stub-class biography, and has bare mention of the controversy. If this process chooses to delete or redirect, I suspect we'll either see each other again in deletion review or dispute resolution before long. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Based partially on this assessment by former WH counsel John Dean (thanks to attorney User:TJRC at BLP/N), I'm conceding Iseman is not by statue a public figure. I still maintain my assertion of de facto significance. BusterD (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
15 minutes of fame cannot be decided in the first 15 minutes. When that's passed, if she's still famous, we can reconsider. For now, we record the controversy elsewhere, and leave the rest for the verdict of time. The rule of BLP is "if in doubt don't", not keep "just in case".--Doc 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Would that it were true (8th nomination). BusterD (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Doc 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But this wasn't my argument. I was merely bemoaning that consensus often resolves "if in doubt" inconsistently. In this case we have a public figure who aroused media attention in consequence of the performance of her job. Seems pretty notable, given correct citation from non-tabloid sources). BusterD (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Where in WP:BLP does it say "if in doubt, don't". I see this:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced and entirely neutral -- exactly where is the harm? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you help me understand how the article is "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject", the definition of WP:COATRACK.? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is a coatrack because it is a bio of a person who never would have had a bio article except for her entanglement with a Presidential candidate. Someone trots out an old story from 2000 only when McCain is a frontrunner. Despite my call for a merge, I note that we have articles on other women such as those alleged to have geen involved with or assaulted by Bill Clinton, including Dolly Kyle Browning , Sally Perdue , Gennifer Flowers , Juanita Broaddrick , Kathleen Willey , Paula Jones , and Monica Lewinsky , those alleged to have been involved with other Democrats including Donna Rice and Fanne Foxe. From the UK we have Christine Keeler . These women are only notable for their actual or suspected relationships with prominent politicians. If there is enough coverage in newspapers and broadcast media over a long enough period, or if the whiff of scandal proves the undoing of the politician, then apparently WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. If it always applies absolutely to politicians' honeys who get in the limelight, then nominate the Browning, Perdue, Flowers, Broadderick, Willey, Jones, Lewinsky, Foxe and Rice articles for AFD. We should not apply WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK in a way which appears to favor any one political party. Edison (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I agree with Therefore. If the list of girls that Bill Clinton was alleged to have been involved with all have pages and Brian McNamee has a page, then she needs a page. Just like them, she is notable for only one reason. Unlike them, she is a general purpose public figure. A reader who gains interest in the event is likely to gain interest in the person involved in the event. That page has biographical information unavailable elsewhere on Knowledge which would not be appropriate on another page. Failureofafriend (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not keep pages to balance US political parties. In any case, time has kept many of the Clinton era figures in the public eye and interest, that cannot (yet) be said here. If anyone still cares who she is in a year, then write a bio. We don't do bios on bitplayers on today's news - not even to even political scores.--Doc 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Therefore. Also, it solves no problem to delete or merge this article. The sheer amount of news interest about her makes the topic of her life sufficiently notable to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Traditional/paper? No. Online? Yes. They are different standards. By the way, Doc, the argument based on the comparison to Bill Clinton's girls is not about balancing US political parties or evening political scores. It is about precedence having been set for this type of thing. --Unflappable (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Week delete. It is too early to know whether this one event will be the springboard for lasting notability as it was, say, for Donna Rice. The scandal is barely breaking at this point. Therefore, at the moment we should take a look to see if she has independent notability. Based on the sources, and my own poking around on google, I think she falls under the standard. There are multiple independent mentions in reliable sources, but they are very minor sources and the coverage is more incidental than substantial. She's just not notable on her own. Not yet. Give it a few months and ask again. We shouldn't be in a hurry here. In the meanwhile a little of the information here might be mergeable into the article on the scandal. Incidentally, notability and being a public figure are not interchangeable, nor is it entirely clear she is a public figure per the legal definition. Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. whether the allegations are true or not, they exist and are therefore part of public arena. it is information that at some point could be referenced even if it turns out to be a mere footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.192.116.77 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Therefore and Unflappable. Also: there is a tremendous amount of interest about her right now and people will be consulting Knowledge wanting to know about her biography. Even if this current scandal passes, she will continue to be subject to increased scrutiny in her lobbying activity because of the notoriety she gained because of her link with McCain. I think that if it is reasonably certain that members of the general public will be consulting Knowledge in the months and years to come wanting information about her, then she is notable enough to warrant an entry. Adam_sk (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also totally unclear as to why anyone would think she doesn't satisfy Knowledge:Notability guidelines. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which of these criteria has this article possibly failed to meet?? The only criteria that I can see someone arguing about is if there has been "significant coverage", but certainly coverage in pretty much every newspaper and on every news broadcast in the country has to qualify as "significant coverage", doesn't it? If not, there's a LOT of material on Knowledge that wouldn't meet this incredibly high standard. Adam_sk (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The "significant coverage" relates to the controversy, so the controversy is notable, and we have an article on that controversy. Show me any significant biographical coverage unrelated to the controversy?--Doc 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, so, the controversy is notable, but the woman who is at the very center of the controversy is not notable? What a ridiculous, Jesuitical distinction. If the controversy is notable, she's notable. There are approximately a million people who are notable solely because they're involved in a controversy, but the fact that they were involved in a notable controversy is evidence that they are notable, not evidence that they are not notable.
Doc's standards strike me as ridiculous. It'd be like saying: George W Bush is notable only because he's the President of the United States, and it's the United States that is really notable, so we should merge his biography into the United States page.
Adam_sk (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As it is in practice almost inevitable that he will be the Republican candidate, this becomes of historical importance regardless of further developments in the matter. always the case with major polticians. DGG (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the "almost inevitable" bit, since when were you are to define what "becomes of historical importance" immediately? Can I borrow your crystal ball? --Doc 08:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we don't know that there will be an Olympics in 2008. Could be that China collapses, Beijing becomes a war zone, and all the athletes are killed. At some point we have rely on probabilities. Where the line lies isn't entirely clear, but IMHO this is pretty safely past the gray area. — xDanielx /C\ 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Even though I support McCain, this woman does have notable importance.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the controversy? Please explain.--Doc 16:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that it is because of the controversy that she is notable. Sort of like Monica Lewinsky.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The person is not notable, the event is notable. This article on her should be deleted and the info about the event should be retained in an appropriate article, Jons63 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete With no actual evidence of any wrongdoing on her part, the allegations against her are innuendo at best. The result is an article which will simply repeat these allegations, and by repeating give the appearance that they are true. This is not to mention that she is notable for only this one topic, and even then is ancillary to the greater issue regarding McCain. Most support to keep, it should be noted, is related to the actual incident and not the person. Arzel (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources are reliable. If you read Vicki Iseman, you will see that the controversy is only given a passing mention. The article provides background information unrelated to the controversy. I don't see how the sources are saying her role is ancillary -- they state that she bragged about her connection with McCain which McCain advisers felt was wrong. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There're plenty of reliable sources out there; it's all over the press. The edit histories of some of the "delete" votes here are telling, by the way. Shem 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Again I ask, are there sources relating to the individual apart from the recent controversy? Why do we need this in addition to the article we have dealing with the controversy. (Oh and the same is true of some keep voters - so let's stick to the issues).--Doc 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep. Subject has been covered extensively in major media, and claims that the story would fade quickly have been shown false, as the New York Times has doubled down on its coverage of her association, political and otherwise, with Mr. McCain. Notability is clear, and countless users will be looking to Knowledge to provide an article, information, and background on this newly-notable person. If the story fades very suddenly and quickly, we may want to take another look at deleting this article, but this appears very unlikely to happen at this point. It is virtually certain that this individual will continue to meet notability guidelines throughout the campaign - really, does anyone think this will die down in the general election? - and that people will be looking to Knowledge for information on her specifically, not just the scandal. She needs a page specifically devoted to her, because she is important enough and people will want the information on her career and background. Lee Harvey Oswald is notable solely due to the Kennedy assassination, but his article should not be merged into the assassination article. Sure, she's not as important as him, but she will almost certainly continue to be a major figure for some time. Mr. IP (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me add something I brought up in the merge discussion: People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. People will want specific information about her - because she is now notable and likely will continue to be - of the exact sort that is inappropriate to include in a non-biographical article. That information will be unavailable if a merge or deletion takes place. Mr. IP (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Question Can you explain how her background is of any relevance to the 2008 US Presidential election? I understand how the controversy surrounding the alleged relationship is relevant, but not her background. Jons63 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Answer Her list of clients may prove to be very relevant. The Washington Post has inteviewed the retired head of Paxson Communications, and he suggests that Iseman was present at a meeting between he and McCain that McCain denied would have taken place. Her clients are her career; being a biography, additional facts about her, properly cited, simply complete the article. –Yamara ✉ 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You said "background is plainly of great relevance to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election", I still don't understand how the information that is currently in the article can be of any relevance to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. to summarize the article as it stands right now, she was born, NYTimes reported she had a relationship with McCain, she graduated high school, college and delivered a commencement address, she got a job, promoted and made partner, she had clients who she lobbied for (mostly TV and communications, oh and her high scool and college). Did I miss anything? What about her is notable and of any relevance to the 2008 US Presidential election, other than the part in the lead that isn't even discussed in her article (there is a See Also)? Jons63 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You could say the same for - and I admit this is an extreme example - Lee Harvey Oswald. You can't just merge him into the assassination article. Without that article, he probably doesn't get his own article, but at the same time he's a notable figure, so it's important to include some biographical information of the sort that would be inappropriate and out of place in the event article. This is a woman who has recently become notable. Mr. IP (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. She has almost no notoriety and to create an entire article for her based on the wikipedia userbase's reaction towards one NYT story is a bit absurd. A Knowledge article needs to be about people, topics, ideas, and things that will still have relevance and durability over time. This person is NOT relevant over time; at best, the event will survive. This article should be deleted. Its ideas can be placed in another article or, probably better, placed in the John McCain 2008 Presidential campaign article. --Mystalic (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons that things endure over time is that records of them are created and maintained, rather than deleted and destroyed. This woman has become notable, and it's important to have some biographical information about her - information that would be out of place in the McCain article. Mr. IP (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a dearth of background information on Iseman, particularly after her employers have pulled her bio. She's a news figure at the moment, and lobbying is one of the most important issues in US politics today. Casual users should be able to easily find a spot for information about her education and professional background. --McChris (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep When I heard about Vicki Iseman from various verifiable, notable media sources, I came to Knowledge to find out everything encyclopedic about her. I think that I'm not the only one who, when they hear about somebody in the news, immediately type 'wp $person' into their web browser location bar. eigenlambda (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jons63, Hepcat, Therefore, you can find this on WP:AFD: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Identifying very new registered users (not IPs) who may have registered just to participate in this discussion would be useful. I hope this explanation helps. Noroton (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't realize that this was considered biting anyone. I apologize if I offended anyone, just was making an observation. I won't do it again. How about not biting at editors who have been around for a little while and don't assume I am accusing them of anything Jons63 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be a good deal of news and secondary source coverage and on this person. Some here argue that since she wasn't notable before the NY Times article, then she shouldn't be notable now. Since when does someone need multiple bases of notability? I think her notability rests on the fact that she has changed the tactics of a presidential nominee. --Hepcat748 (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (see changed vote just below) Folks, we actually have a Knowledge policy section meant to address this exact situation: WP:BLP1E. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that (a) this person has any other claim to notability whatever; and there is every reason to remember that (b) the "scandal" is currently revolving more around the New York Times editorial decisions. The information has a role in articles about the election, about McCain and about the New York Times. That doesn't make an article on this person's life something notable. Some other situations/articles have been brought up. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and in some other cases the controversy was ongoing, with implications for Bill Clinton's impeachment. If this story is resurrected or if the subject is found to be notable for some other episode in her life, then we can revisit. But by the time this discussion is closed the subject likely will have receded back further into obscurity. Or keep the article and just revel in unreliable dirt. Noroton (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't bar the use of comparisons.

    While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

    Don't dismiss those who argue that similar articles would not be deleted for similar reasons that this one (arguable) shouldn't. WP:BLP1E doesn't preclude this article. It precludes relatively unimportant incidents. The sources used for this article are independent of the event article, a requirement of BLP1E. Iseman is notable as defined by Knowledge:Notability (people):

    A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

    ∴ Therefore | talk 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Change to Keep & Merge to John McCain lobbyist controversy. Avb's comment at 00:20, 25 Feb, along with DGG's and Therefore's, and some more reflection all have persuaded me. This meets another objection of mine: It's revolting for us to enshrine an allegation of an affair with the name of the accused woman, even though the NY Times article didn't even actually allege an affair, just indicated it. Can we please try to be less unfair to people; whether or not the New York Times is going to be unfair to them? There are implications to the event that are important to the campaign and the Times that should be covered, so let's keep the relevant information in the encyclopedia. But let's not put her name in the article title. Have a little humanity, people. Noroton (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (rewrote "Keep/Merge" to "Keep & Merge" just to make very clear what I'm saying. Noroton (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into John McCain lobbyist controversy. We have Crystal Gail Mangum as a precedent here; the incident in which she was involved was unquestionably notable, but there was little coverage of her beyond that single incident. (Note the redirect to the appropriate incident.) She is nowhere near as notable as Monica Lewinsky, who almost brought down an American presidency, or Donna Rice, in which incontrovertible documentary evidence scuppered the ambitions of a plausible candidate for that same office. BLP1E is not negotiable, and this is essentially a single issue, from eight years ago to boot. Horologium (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • BLP1E is a guideline and doesn't preclude discussion. It states:

    When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

    This isn't a relatively unimportant event. Although it *may* in fact not be warranted, BLP1E certainly doesn't proscribe it necessarily. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT states:
Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
Avb 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I havn't had time for a complete dig but so far the only mention I can find outside current events is a blink and you will miss it mention in congressional records see here.Geni 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
oh a mention of some lobying from 2001.Geni 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Even policy, even BLP policy, is interpreted flexible in accordance with the situation: note the word "usually"; it is not there by accident.. The community here has the right to decide what is the appropriate resolution. DGG (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, she's notable now. Over 90,000 google hits. She's now part of history. It will be a footnote in history, but footnotes need to point somewhere. Knowledge seems to be a fine home for those seeking an objective bio. -- Quartermaster (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is a biography, and not a "coatrack". The main focus of the article is Iseman's achievements as a lobbyist, and those are independent of the McCain story (which, for the record, I think is a complete load of speculation which the NYT ought to be ashamed of). Information about the Iseman-McCain story goes in the story about the incident, but if a reader wants to know about Iseman's role in Washington, they should come to the biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Nominator and other participants have argued, "this material can be covered adequately in the John McCain article." No offense, but this argument overlooks one of the very important strengths of the wikipedia -- the properly maintained watchlist. Readers may be interested in having John McCain on their watchlist, and be un-interested in the details of Ms Iseman's life. Similarly other readers may be interested in Ms Iseman, or the scandal, and uninterested John McCain. IMO having two articles is a courtesy to readers. IMO merging two related but distinct articles is generally a disservice. Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Which of the examples in WP:COATRACK, a guideline, most closely resembles this article? WP:COATRACK by fiat needs more. This article's subsance is about Iseman's personal and professional career from sources independent of the event article with a mention of the controversy. I think I can see the rack for the coats. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Will 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep as meeting WP:BIO. It is generally a very bad idea to delete things based on BLP penumbra concerns when we have no complaints from the subject. The notability concerned is much higher than that which BLP1E would normally trigger. Claims of COATRACK are also unpersuasive as explained by Sjakkalle above. I would not however be strongly opposed to a merger to John McCain lobbyist controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment can any of the pro-Keep editors say with a straight face that they have any interest in this subject at all beyond its connection with McCain? ... Anyone? ... No, I didn't think so. That's when you merge. Let your conscience be your guide. Noroton (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply As I asked someone earlier on this page, why are you WP:AGF anything about other editor's actions? You should assume that what they are saying is their actual intentions until proven otherwise. Jons63 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I'm assuming lack of thought and an underlying bias that editors themselves don't see or are avoiding seeing. I think editors who don't consider the lack of humanity involved in naming the article after this woman or editors who dismiss humane considerations should consult their conscience. Because what we'd be doing is really that bad, and I don't mind saying so. Noroton (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Can anyone say a straight face that they have any interest in John Hinkley at all beyond its connection with Reagan? Should we get rid of that article? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Bogus comparison. Hinckley has been a name well known for 25 years (not 5 days). He's famous for shooting someone (not allegedly maybe supposedly having sex, according to rumours). He was tried and convicted (not condemned maybe by one journalist). Utterly nonsensical comparison, to a woman who's getting 15min in a newspaper - and that's it. Now maybe this woman will turn out to have enduring fame, maybe not, a safe comparison would be to Alexandra Polie - whom I suspect you'll have to google to remember? --Doc 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • If this woman does what John Hinkley did, I will support an article under her name. I promise. I would first like the New York Times to positively report that what she did, in fact, did happen. I don't think that's too much to ask. I think changing the course of history might well make a person so notable that we should have an article. JoshuaZ, are you saying that because we have the Hinkley article or John Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan we should eliminate WP:BP1E (or whatever we're calling it now)? Noroton (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, I agree that Hinckley is much more notable than Iseman. The point was limited to the the observation that being mainly notable for interaction with someone else does not by itself really mean that much. BLP1E has limits and we need to discuss where those limits are; simply crying "BLP1E" is not sufficient; and by the actual wording of BLP1E it is hard to see how it applies in this case especially given that the canonical examples of BLP1E are unimportant criminals and people who are the subjects of involuntary internet memes. Incidentally, I have no idea who "Alexandra Polie" is but since it turns up exactly one google hit. Is there a typo there? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • My point isn't about notability. Sure, this story is notable. I might argue that it is a news story, and thus not (yet) encyclopedic, but I'd lose that argument. However, at this time their is nothing notable about this woman that isn't to do with the story, and sourced through the story - thus we should narrate the story and her involvement with it (John McCain lobbyist controversy) and leave it at that. The one event rule isn't "did the notability come through one event?" else we'd redirect Lee Harvey Oswald to John F. Kennedy assassination - which would clearly be daft. The one event rule is "is there anything encyclopedic to say about this person that doesn't directly relate to the interest in this case?" I mean Monica Lewinsky is famous for one (cough) event, but that fame is such that people are now interested and commenting on the person, sometimes without reference to oral sex. That level of "notability" does not (yet) belong to Iseman, and if the story doesn't walk, it may never do.--Doc 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with a controversy page or Delete. - She isn't notable enough for her own article especially one that centres on the controversy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Like it or not, this story has made her notable, and a large amount of the detail in this page about her could not fit and would be lost in the controversy page. It's also well sourced and cited. Xmoogle (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I used noticed from above "Until this issue came about, she was a unknown to the majority of the United States" This reason will do nicely for removing essentially 1000% of the content from WP. DGG (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And that would be bad why? --nyc171 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect DGG means that for every notable topic, the topic was not notable until some one issue came about; it's always one issue that moves a topic across the line to being notable. Now, with time, other issues may add to that, but what made any topic notable the first time it became notable is some one particular issue. So, if you go back in time to the one issue that made a topic notable, and discount it, then the topic would no longer be notable. And that would apply to essentially all of the content in WP. --Unflappable (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What are the other incident(s) or material or facts that makes this person notable besides the single incident? --nyc171 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Explain to me why we need to have this information in John McCain, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, John McCain lobbyist controversy and Vicki Iseman (yes, it is addressed in all four articles). Iseman is not herself notable; the alleged relationship with McCain is the notable part, and changing this to a redirect to the lobbyist controversy article would be the appropriate way to handle it (as was done with Crystal Gail Mangum, as I noted above). Most of the deletes here are frustrated at the massive POV-forking at work here, rather than the information in the article itself. BLP concerns should be the first concern here; there are no direct allegations against her and absolutely no evidence that she did anything improper. The "one event" is the alleged improper relationship, which does not need to be pinned to a single date to be a single event. Horologium (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Make that five separate articles, as it's also in Criticism of The New York Times. Can you say "overkill"? Horologium (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Make that Six seperate articles, it is also in Alcalde and Fay. Jons63 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Content gets put in multiple articles all the time; it is a general result of the wiki process. You are of course welcome to edit it out of some or minimize with to minor mentions. But this isn't an argument for deletion of this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've read the article and followed the sources and this article appears to be pathetic when it comes to notability. Let's review the sourcing: The entire WP article depends on the notability conferred by the New York Times article, which can't actually say she actually had an affair because they don't actually know. What we know is that there were suspicions from McCain's staff and they spoke to McCain and this woman about it. Oh, and they definitely report that she and the senator knew each other. Exactly how this confers notability mystifies me. Given what the public editor of the New York Times has said about the article, it mystifies him, too.
What else have we got? A few paragraphs from her college alumni magazine? We should all be so notable. In fact, many of us are. I look down the references and see the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette follow up on the Times article because she lived in that area. That article would never have been written without the prior NYT coverage. Same thing for the online report from the local TV station. Then we've got a reference to the OpenSecrets website, which relies on public documents. The really humorous citation is the coverage of the Homer-Center School Board where she gave a presentation as a volunteer to support her old high school. "BOARD EXPEDITES SUPPORT FOR BASEBALL FIELD" The face that launched a thousand expeditings. She's so notable that she got mentioned in the 49th paragraph. Or was it the 50th. It's kind of hard to count that many paragraphs down. What else is there? I get it: The one event she is famous for occurred on February 21, 2008. That was the day the New York Times published innuendo about her. It took the Times months of digging to come up with innuendo. Well, let's start some appropriate categories for this kind of subject: Category:Women acquainted with John McCain, Category:Lobbyists who have appeared before the Homer-Center School Board, Category:Victims of New York Times innuendo, Category:People made victims on February 21, 2008, and let's not forget Category:Victims of Knowledge. People who get hit by trucks have more notability.
Perhaps a supporter of this article could actually supply the reason why we should avoid the clear recommendations of WP:BLP1E. Perhaps a supporter of the article can explain why its so important for us to keep this article rather than have it merged into the other one, as proposed. Are we going to miss having the information that she lobbied for a high-school gymnasium? That she started out as a receptionist? That she was a cheerleader? Why have notability criteria at all if we're going to stretch the guideline like taffy?Noroton (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's what the New York Times editor, Bill Keller, told the Times ombudsman: "If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career." So the possible affair was not even the point of the NY Times story. Knowledge is basing its article on the fact that McCain aides were suspicious. The woman herself may have been doing just exactly what lobbyists are paid to do: ingratiate themselves. I ask again: What makes the subject of this Knowledge article notable? The New York Times in this instance was not a reliable source. As its own ombudsman "public editor" wrote: hat the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.
When Knowledge notability policy catches up to Knowledge practice we'll have a section at WP:BIO on "Suspicions by staff". Noroton (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well said, Noroton. If this doesn't explain the point of WP:BLP1E WP:ONEEVENT and its application here, I don't know what will. Avb 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
While I've admitted to being one of those who has some vestment in this pagespece and in this process, I take issue with two things Noroton has said above. In my view, after a thorough reading of the NYT's webinterview, I believe Keller maintained the point of the article was to demonstrate the inconsistency between McCain's words on the subject of lobbying and his actions involving several lobbyists, one of whom was Iseman. IMHO, the spin machine has been broadcasting night and day about how this is a potential sex scandal for McCain. The pagespace subject of this process does not reflect that point of view, and has never reflected that point of view by my page watching (except for the normal ip rudeness) since the first minutes of inception (and the first four hours or so were a very cool, responsible process undertaken by people who were trying to get the story straight; click through the diffs). As of this timestamp, the article currently up for deletion has exactly one reference to John McCain lobbyist controversy (an article created by cutting and pasting from this pagespace in order to maintain balance here), and none to John McCain. The second issue with which I disagree with Noroton is about what lobbyists are paid to do. While they often do ingratiate themselves as a tool of their intention, my general impression is that in the United States, federal lobbyists are paid to influence national legislative opinion on issues of enormous public significance. Lobbyist often are seen to work against the public interest, in favor of their client, IMHO. This adds significance, in my view. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether lobbyists act for or against the "public interest" isn't that relevant (this is aside from the point that lobbyists always represent a subset of the public). There are many other lobbyists of her level of success and no one is arguing for their inclusion. So that sort of argument seems less than persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • BusterD, if the point of even the NYT article is McCain's conduct and not the conduct of this woman, then it suggests that she's exactly the kind of bit player in a single event that WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT were designed to cover. It also suggests that Knowledge coverage should be focused on McCain, not the woman, and the proper place for that is in the article we should merge this article into. You mention the process of creating this article, but the process is irrelevant because we're here to judge not the editors but the article, which is a failure. It's a failure on this level: You don't broadcast gossip, and you don't use the figleaf of legitimate public interest in the character and actions of a presidential candidate to damage the reputation of a private person without having solid evidence. It's very understandable for editors to be lulled into thinking that they're doing something legitimate because the New York Times put the information on its front page. The authority of the NYT is high. But it's not absolute, and the controversy swirling around the article, including criticism from the Times' own ombudsman, indicates that in this case the Times was not a reliable source. Look at Knowledge:Biographies of Living Persons#Sources: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used The New York Times is a source of dubious value in this case, as shown by the enormous negative reaction from many, many quarters about this story, including from the Times' own ombudsman. The Times piece might be useful for establishing that some, mostly anonymous, staffers were concerned about the appearances and no more. What an incredibly weak reed to support the notability of a biographical subject of a Knowledge article! You mention the public interest in shining light on lobbying. I sympathize. Ask yourself if innuendos of adultery (and, in essence, a kind of prostitution) against a private person are a fair and responsible way of doing that. Noroton (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

convenience break

  • Comment User:Therefore states repeatedly above that WP:BLP1E / WP:ONEEVENT are not absolutes that we can invoke without thinking about them. Good point. We'd be wikilawyering if we just take the language to look for loopholes. Instead, Knowledge policy tells us we need to look at both the spirit and the language of any policy and guideline and use our common sense. The spirit of WP:BLP is crystal clear and there are numerous statements in it that apply directly to this case:
  1. Nutshell graph up top: Knowledge articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility.
  2. 1st paragraph: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity Certainly, some has been shown, but not enough.
  3. 2nd paragraph: Be very firm about the use of high quality references (Again, the NYT is not a high quality reference in this case.) See also the "Sources" section for more on that.
  4. 3rd paragraph: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm" At this point, the article is actually written that way, but when it's written in conformance to WP:BLP, it shows a failure to demonstrate notability, and simply stating that the woman has received news coverage doesn't fill that void, as WP:BLP explicitly states (see #7, below). So notability can't be justified without violating WP:BLP. We must have higher standards for these articles than for typical articles. I do not believe editors in this discussion have shown they recognize that.
  5. The section in "Sources" on "weasel phrases" is exactly analagous to Times editor Bill Keller's weasel justification for the article: Knowledge: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Keller's weaselly justification: "If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” citation Knowledge has its own obligations.
  6. Editors too lazy to read the the "Presumption of privacy" section should at least let their eyes scan the subsection titles: Basic human dignity, Well known public figures, People who are relatively unknown, Articles about people notable only for one event
  7. From the "Articles about people known only for one event" subsection: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. How does this not apply?
  8. From the "Writing style: section:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

–Jimmy Wales

If editors here can't explain away the clear policy implications of WP:BLP in this case, which are direct and strong, then the closing admin of this AfD is required to do so under WP:DGFA regardless of how many "Keep" !votes there are. If the closing admin doesn't, then Deletion Review is obligated to overturn, and if DR doesn't, then WP:ANI or the Knowledge Arbitration Committee are required to uphold policy. If ArbCom doesn't do it then Jimbo Wales may be asked to explain why what he has said in the abstract doesn't apply to this specific case because the disjunction is so jarring and prominent. In fact, the only way to address this for those who want to Keep is to explain how WP:BLP does not apply in this case. I have heard barely any argument on that so far (mostly from BusterD and Therefore) and nothing at all convincing. If new information comes out, that might change the situation enough to justify a Keep. I'm only addressing the article and the situation as it stands; if the news coverage brings out more information, that could make her notable, but if we're dependent on that, it indicates it was premature to create the article this soon.Noroton (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Noroton, extreme remarks aside, people can legitimately disagree about whether or not something is a BLP issue when it isn't a case of strict libelous content. I suggest you read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. That's why for example we've kept multiple articles about people who want their articles deleted. The situation isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be, and I and others have given explanations as to why this individual is notable. It is in general not a good idea at all to delete articles based on BLP-penumbra concerns when a) the individual's name and face have been in (the notion that a Knowledge article might somehow adversely impact her at this point is simply absurd) b) the individual has not expressed any desire to Knowledge to have this article deleted. Between a) and b) there's no good reason to invoke a penumbra BLP concern at all. Your suggestions that the closing admin "must" do something based on BLP1E which is in general a statement of general attitude towards "relatively unimportant criminals" and involuntary internet memes is unproductive and frankly hard to understand. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to understand because in the nine minutes from 18:05 when I posted my long comments and 18:14 when you replied, you missed a lot, perhaps by reading too quickly. Your description of my position is cartoonish, probably for that reason. I pointed out that editors were ignoring or obviously misreading policy (obviously WP:BLP is the most relevant one), and I invited alternative interpretations of policy, which I think strongly supports my view. Everyone at every level takes a risk of being overturned if they don't justify what they're doing as a good interpretation (not necessarily my interpretation) of policy. I read your essay twice and I suggest you reread my two essay-length comments.
You're not addressing WP:BLP well enough, either: (a) We have no reason to believe at this point that the news coverage generated will be ongoing except in journalism magazines examining the news judgment and ethics at the Times; you're much too impressed by "reputable national and international news sources" which have largely been commenting on the work of the Times (usually condemning it) -- that's buzz, not reporting. WP:BLP points out that we're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, newspaper, or Wikinews. (b) WP:BLP applies whether or not the subject complains to us. The whole point of having a BLP policy, as WP:BLP explicitly states, is to prevent the preventable complaints and to do the right thing whether or not complaints come in. I'm so tired of saying "as WP:BLP explicitly states", but at almost every turn here it's got something to say.
I wish you would respond to my points, one of which is that this is a poorly sourced (because unreliably sourced) BLP article. Serious concerns have been raised all over the place about the Times coverage. This subject spans your essay's distinction between simple and penumbra (ethics-related) BLP issues. In your essay, you take a much more nuanced view of some of the problems here than you have in this discussion. The caveat you mention, However, a neutral description of an invasion of privacy or grotesquely negative information can still be hurtful and add to the general problem, is a useful point. Remembering that a Knowledge article will likely be high up on search engine results for casual readers who type in her name five years from now is also worth considering. Noroton (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your points that I thought deserved substantial responses. I'll try to expand on my earlier remarks. If there is any point you feel I have not sufficiently covered please let me know. It may simply be because it is a point I agree with. For example I agree with most of your comment at 18:05 . I also agree that there should be serious concern about trying to justify that this isn't BLP1E by using some of the prior minor coverage that any moderately successful individual would generate. Such material is fine for filling out an article once we've agreed there should be one; it is not at all a good idea to use it to justify an article.
Now to the meat: I agree that the Times should be not be treated a reliable source in this case; that's ok because we've got a tremendous amount of other coverage determining what was and was not ok with the Times coverage. So as long as we are careful not to accept the Times coverage by itself we are in the penumbra rather than strict BLP circumstance. I think the level of penumbra concern here is not reasonable given the circumstances. For example, you quote Jimbo as saying "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words"- this is true, but in this case any possible damage that was done was done by the New York Times. If anything at this point a Knowledge article written neutrally sticking to the facts will if it has any impact heal rather than hurt. Similarly, while a I do say "a neutral description of an invasion of privacy or grotesquely negative information can still be hurtful and add to the general problem" the circumstance where that would be most relevant would be minor internet memes like the Star wars kid. The overarching thought process there is that although the person in question had their name show up in reliable sources, they were clearly unhappy about it and moreover many sources did not mention the name at all. So it isn't unreasonable for us to be concerned that the kids future dates or employers might try to google him and that at that point the first hit is Knowledge connecting the kid to that viral video. However, we're not going to be in any circumstance like that; any serious invasion has already occurred; any future employer or love interest will have a rough idea of who Iseman is and what she became known for; we can't do anything about that; we can't go and delete other websites. The most we can do is present a fair neutral account of her work, her life, and how she became a household name. That's an account that when actually written in an NPOV perspective makes her look a lot better than the more tawdry press coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep the article under her name as a redirect to the article on the incident, limiting the information on her to information about the incident. This would keep all information relevant to the public interest in Knowledge but leave out an extensive biography. My concern in this case and similar cases is not about employers or others that she knows well, it's about people she doesn't know well -- casual friends and acquaintances, neighbors, or even potential clients (edited to add: potential clients in any business or career she gets into after this. Her effectiveness as a Washington lobbyist is likely very crippled at this point). Some of these people very likely would not tell her that they've googled her but they may make decisions about her that isn't in her best interest and do so because of the fact that we have a Web page devoted to her rather than a mention or even a few paragraphs in a section of another article. It's not the love interest but the guy who won't ask for a date. You may consider the difference minor, but I think it's major: A Knowledge webpage lends authority to the idea that this person is important and important for a rumored affair. I'm concerned that people, especially people unfamiliar with Knowledge, would look on the Web page as lending more authority to the rumors and some paragraphs in the article would not do that. Unfortunately for her, there is an overriding public interest in having the essential information in Knowledge, and I think common sense and WP:BLP allow it. Also, a full article on her cries out to be added to, so more and more information about this private person gets thrown on the page, which is, frankly, a separate outrage in itself.
As a policy WP:BLP charges us with being humane. Your comment above addresses that point in a small way and is just about the only comment on the Keep side that does so. Since being humane is the main motivating factor on the Delete and even merge side, responding to that concern with more emphasis here and in other discussions would be an extremely good idea for you and people with your position. I also don't want Knowledge's reputation hurt if it is proven later that she's done nothing wrong. It happens. Richard Jewell and Ray Donovan went through that experience. I'm not much concerned about legal liability (although the New York Times perhaps should be). She may well ask to have the article removed from Knowledge, and if she did already, we'd have heard about it, but it's early. No one could fault us for having an article about the incident, but if this turns into a Jewell- or Donovan-type situation, it would be an easy line in future media coverage to add "... and she even became the subject of a 'Vicki Iseman' Knowledge article." That's much less likely to be said if the article is redirected at this point.
Keep in mind that the placement of the New York Times article at the top of the front page has been one of the points of the criticism directed at the Times (Howard Kurtz' column in the Washington Post mentions it, for example). It's not just that the information is out there, but the prominence of the placement of the information matters a great deal in these situations. Anyone involved in newspapers or magazines will agree with this and there are analogies in the broadcast media. The way we treat the information creates a framework that affects the way our readers treat it. That's why there's a big difference between having a separate article with her name on it as opposed to having the information about the incident in another story. Noroton (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Added a clause in italics, as noted Noroton (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add: A Knowledge article will likely be high up in search engine rankings for her name. I assume it would be less if she was only included in an article about the incident. I don't mean now, but years from now when the Knowledge article remains. Her name will naturally fade on the Internet, but much less so with a Knowledge article. I think there are practical consequences for her if we keep the article. Noroton (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete BLP1E still applies here, but over time if more reporting is done on her we can readily and immediately recreate this article. It doesn't matter what brought her into the spotlight--if she's heavily reported on later and becomes more than a footnote here, we're fine. It's just far too limited in scope now. Lawrence § t/e 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment and today we have yet more coverage- . This list does not include letters to the editors and a fair number of op-eds from individual who are not themselves notable. This isn't going away any time soon and a lot of the coverage is focusing on Iseman herself. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ cites several new sources; none of these relate to Iseman, except in the context of her alleged relationship with McCain. Knowledge's notability guidelines state:

“ ” None of the new citations you list meet that (they're not about Iseman, they're about McCain and Iseman), and the handful of articles about Iseman are utterly trivial (she spoke in favor of a motion at a school-board hearing; she has clients in her career as a lobbyist). The article on her fails to assert notability at all; she sounds like the thousands of lobbyists in Washingon, few of whom have an article dedicated to them. As Knowledge Policy states: “ ” Only two of the cited sources discuss her outside of the context of her connection to McCain, both in trivial fashion, which indicates that the connection to McCain is the only notable thing. Horologium (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment ignores WP:ONEEVENT policy: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I feel your comment ignores WP:BIO and a host of other relevant policies, as this article hardly focuses on one event. RFerreira (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Note that WP:BLP is a policy; WP:BIO is a guideline. I'm not afraid to change my mind 180 degrees if you can show me how a host of relevant policies is more important here and undercut the policy I've cited and the points I've made. Noroton (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete BLP and bs nonsense. Simply an article trying to attack McCain. Mønobi 04:24, 1 March 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. No notability established. — Edokter • Talk • 13:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Some references turned up on Google News archives, and the Montreal Gazette wrote about them (J. Rodriguez, "More dewy than deep", The Gazette, 2 March 2006, p. D3.) in a 2006 article about French musicians who sing some songs in English. I'd say there's enough for a keep under WP:MUSIC criterion #1. --Paul Erik 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree somewhat, with Paul about the coverage. I can't tell if any of the French-language sites are more than major zines. The Gazette article is only five paragraphs long. Not enough to establish notability. A mention in a big newspaper does not make a local band notable, nor does even a cover article in an alternative weekly. The band barely passes criterion #1 on a technicality, and doesn't pass any others. I vote weak delete. -Freekee (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what do you mean by "local band"? The band is from France. The Gazette and Voir are both newspapers from Canada. --Paul Erik 05:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not clear in my statement, but what was going on in my head with that comment was generalities and examples. But it's a good point to bring up. How much notability does an article confer if it's from a source halfway around the world from its subject? -Freekee (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, if a band has attracted media attention in Canada (The Gazette, Voir, and 24 Heures all being Canadian newspapers) then that makes for a stronger argument that the band is notable than if the articles had only appeared in the media in their hometown of Bois d'Arcy, France. --Paul Erik 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Supprimer aka Delete - fails WP:BAND. The only real relevant article of those cited above fromthe Google archive search (7 of which are unrelated) is this from Le Voir, a local weekly freebie from my home town. The band is French but has so far only made a single appearance in Montreal that has attracted even this low level of attention. No prejudice against recreation if they go on to greater things. Eusebeus (talk) 23:46, 28 February 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 - fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Does not in any way assert notability in any shape or form Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The album was released to CD in 2002, so it meets WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

12 Hits from Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Holiday for Pans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Knowledge:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - One problem: that release doesn't have Pastorius playing on it, according to the Pastorius estate. (see also many of the customer reviews on Amazon). That leaves the Pastorius album unreleased. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The website claims that Pastorius doesn't play bass on the album, not that he was in no way involved with it. The labeling of the album as "bootleg" by jacopastorius.com seems more to be one of disagreement and objection over exploitation of his name, not of legal force. The release seems to have been a legal one, at least in Japan, unless you have reference to a lawsuit that has been settled differently. —Torc. 23:16, 26 February 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. Coredesat 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salix alba (talk) 20:07, 22 February 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 earrly delete afterr a Barrel Roll orr two to avoid blasts of not-so-cunning hoaxes! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Killer Fox-like Creatures from Outer Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax ˉˉ╦╩ 19:59, 22 February 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. (Non-admin closure of AfD debate after deletion.) Mr Stephen (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Clearly a modified copy of James (name), purpose unclear, but should be deleted ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 22 February 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 by Orangemike as CSD G12. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church Janakpuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article reads like an advertisement, is unsourced, and no discernible assertion of notability can be seen in it. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 22 February 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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Coredesat 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Until My Death (Quan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Knowledge:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums ("not yet released" = unreleased) are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:47, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Justification of copyright infringement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

terrible justification, not sourced at all, view of one person. Not for an encyclopedia LightSpeed3 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Supposed sources do not discuss the supposed topic. This might work as a paper for class, but it is WP:OR here. (Unable to find this topic through various searches.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Original research. No opposition to a proper article being created if sourced and verifiable, as the topic is notable. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete -- it's not as all bad as that but needs work, and I'm not sure we need this given numerous other articles on the general topic. It is a reasonable list of some justifications that have been used, and it isn't problematically POV. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Deletion nomination. Long, resume like article about an academic that shows no evidence that it passes the relevent guidelines for inclusion, such as WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:PROF Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No evidence that he passes WP:MUSIC Travellingcari (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per A7. This article doesn't even say why he is important, never mind such nuanced arguements as WP:N concerns. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 22 February 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 stubbify and keep. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Knowledge is not a travel guide, the article is wholly unsourced and unable to be sourced and continually verified due to the changing nature of these clubs to avoid scrutiny. It's almost entirely a list of red links (for NN clubs) and ghits on the topic are primarily forum discussions looking for info in particular cities. Travellingcari (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and stubbify The concept is real, and possibly encyclopedic in nature, but this article needs to be renamed (to After hours club) and the entire list need to be removed. The article is a mess, but it could be cleaned up. Since a valid encyclopedia article COULD be written about this topic, I see no reason to delete it as is. Massive cleanup needed is not a valid reason for deletion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree a need for cleanup is not a reason for deletion, the reason for deletion was the complete lack of reliable sources about the topic to be found. Travellingcari (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of google news shows that this is a legitimate concept; while it may be hard to parse out sources which describe the concept of an "after hours club" rather than simply reporting on specific after hours club, there is at least enough here to show me that as a concept, this is a solid real thing. Even if the article is crap, the fact that numerous real, reliable publications discuss it show that it should at least merit an article now. Also, even google scholar has good stuff. Again, while it is hard to parse out sources about the concept "after hours club" from sources that simply mention a specific after hours club in passing, such sources are clearly there. So, the best solution for this article may be to clear out the bullshit lists, leave it as a stub, and let someone who cares come along and expand it later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done I didn't see anything in your sources that actually defined an after-hours club but that's for someone else to figure out. You can close if you want. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - but it is a stub with a list. What amazes me is that so many of the venues appear to have articles. I am not sure about the present article-name. Might not "Afterhours nightclubs" be better. There are lots of these in England, dating back to the period when pubs had top close at 10.30 or 11 pm, but they are called nightclubs. They operated on the theoretical basis that they were private members clubs, not open to members of the public. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Sourcing would seem to be trivial.DGG (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no references to verify anything claimed in this article. No prejudice against creation of a sourced article that illustrates the subject's notability. y'american (wtf?) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is a stub for an important topic. Stub needs expanding, but it certainly should be kept. Dgf32 (talk) 16:12, 26 February 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. Coredesat 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Reason We Took It Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No RS coverage, scant ghits and unable to verify the party's sole claim to questionable notability. Travellingcari (talk) 19:10, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Number 1 Homestead on the Lenina Street, Vynohrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Similar to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/P'yatyhatky, Vynohrad, this is not a neighborhood or community but rather one particular house on a street of dubious notability. It's written in poor style, but that's not the issue. If it were notable it could be re-written, but there's no evidence it is. Travellingcari (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • for the same reasons I'm adding:
The main coach station and the crossroads, Vynohrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Travellingcari (talk) 19:07, 22 February 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. Coredesat 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Ghits identify a plethora of Wiki mirrors but no evidence of any notability. Article created by parent company or representative thereof. Travellingcari (talk) 18:48, 22 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield  18:22, 22 February 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. Chetblong 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Another contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (merely being signed by a club does not count, and he doesn't even appear in the club's official roster ). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:18, 22 February 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 Ignoring all rules for 5 days on this one. Clearly WP:OR as author's name is in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs)

Romeo & Juliet - Sadeer Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 22 February 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 close, another discussion is already open below this one. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To Kill A Mockingbird - Sadeer Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly original research and NPOV. Would be speedily deleted if there was an appropriate category. ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 22 February 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 Invoking WP:IAR, author has been warned againist recreation/new additions to these articles or new topics. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To Kill A Mockingbird - Sadeer Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:18, 22 February 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. – Sasquatch t|c 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairy Princess (Novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without comment by anonymous IP. This shows no evidence that the book is notable, see WP:BK#Criteria; see also WP:BK#Not yet published books. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 22 February 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. While I agree that there is no reason to have a list of all characters of fictional work "X", a list of notable, important, major, ... characters for a notable work of fiction is perfectly acceptable (within our policies and guidelines, and to the majority of people commenting on this AfD). So I would recommend a discussion on the talk page of this list (or on a more general page, like the talk page of the fiction guideline) to decide which criteria will be used to include some characters and exclude others. If people want to preserve the full list anyway, they can transclude it. Fram (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Honorverse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

150kb dump of in-universe information. Delete per WP:PLOT (it can be transwikied to the honorverse wiki (http://honorverse.wikia.com/)) --TS 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to closer: I (TS, the nominator) also use the account Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We obviously don't want the information to be destroyed (although of course it's already in the books). The Transwiki process would make the article available as an external link from related Knowledge articles. There are already quite a lot of articles about significant Honorverse characters. This is a sort of directory of honorverse, indiscriminate in the sense that it seeks to document the most minor characters alongside the most significant, and that's a different matter. --TS 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We draw a distinction between significant and non-significant characters all the time. Bilbo is highly significant. His aunt Lobelia Sackville-Baggins less so. Samwise is significant in his own right, but Gaffer Gamgee only insofar as he's Sam's dad and he reveals significant information to a Nazgûl. At some point we might decide that the fact that a character is mentioned in a published book does not require that we record that fact in Knowledge. --TS 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no opinion on transwiki. Excessive level of detail for a general-interest encyclopedia--even a sci-fi encyclopedia or literary encyclopedia wouldn't attempt to list every named character in an entire book series. Nor are there any sources besides the books themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Delete - No establishment of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Valid summary style spin-off of the series articles. Needs a fair bit of cleanup, but as we are all constantly reminded, AfD is not cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Remove the insignificant minor characters, keep the rest. -- ShinmaWa 05:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Delete Keep - I wouldn't support simply deleting or truncating this information; it's too useful and too much work has gone into it. However, this article would fit better in the Honorverse wiki. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 18:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Addendum (commenting on my own comment): The reason I don't think any names should be removed from this article is that the list is invaluable to people who are reading the series. David Weber introduces so many characters that it can be impossible to remember who is who without a list like this—in fact, I believe this list started life as someone's notes to keep track of the Honorverse characters. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
However, the nice thing about having the list be licensed under the GFDL is that we can, in fact, have it both ways. We can transwiki the whole list to the specific Wikia as-is for those people who want it, while keeping a shorter, more concise list on the general-purpose Knowledge. Despite how it appears by some of the !voting here, a transwiki to Wikia does not necessitate a delete from Knowledge. -- ShinmaWa 04:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is however the issue I mentioned: how do we decide who is notable enough to stay and who is not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That, like all things, is a matter of consensus. However, that discussion is outside the scope of an AfD and this is not the appropriate forum for it. -- ShinmaWa 14:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you (ShinmaWa) have a point, so I've changed my vote from "transwiki and delete" to "transwiki and keep". I think the Knowledge version of this list could be pared down significantly just by removing characters that only appear once, briefly, or are even only mentioned in passing. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 02:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why are we having this conversation about this particular one? Am puzzled. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Because it's one of our largest articles and it's completely in-universe. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Very questionable rationale for putting this up on AFD. This is clearly a cleanup issue. Under the rules the rules established according to the Knowledge:Notability (fiction) series is notable as a whole due to booksales. The notability of this page in particular is clarified as notable if you read the section under the heading "Notable topics merit individual articles" . I admit to a vested interest in this article having worked on it, but having read the guidelines of Wikipedias policies for other AFD discussions, this article does not fall into that status. --Unak78| talk 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    The grounds for deletion has nothing to do with notability (we do have articles about the Honorverse). The grounds is that this particular article is, and is intended to be, "a comprehensive list of the names of even minor characters in the Honor Harrington series and its related works". As such it's indiscriminate. There are many articles about the Honorverse, its main locations, organisations, events and characters. Only this one, as far as I'm aware, contravenes WP:PLOT in such a gross manner.
    To get the issue of "notability" out of your mind, consider instead whether you would countenance an article about every single character, even minor, in the Tolstoy novel War and Peace. Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether War and Peace is "notable". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (TS) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    We are however not talking about articles for dozens of non-notable fictional characters, but a list containing both notable and possibly non-notable characters. Unless anybody can present a reasonable way to draw a clear line between notable and non-notable characters (we can all agree on examples, but the middle ones I doubt), such lists should remain, as an alternative is no lists at all. I prefer a comprehensive list with some useless data than no information at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    The alternative isn't "no list at all" in this case. There are over two score separate character articles pertaining to the Honorverse. If someone want s to make an encyclopedic lists, those can be used as the core. What we've got at the moment is an estimated 500 characters (I didn't actually count, of course), with important characters mixed up with the less important. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    That sounds like you are retracting your AfD nomination, Tony. Are you? If not, could you clarify your stance? -- ShinmaWa 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    I think you may have misread it. I favor nuking the current list article because it would be much easier to start again from a nucleus of the two score or so characters who have their own articles than to trim down a list of 500, most of whom are the novelistic equivalent of "extras". The full list article might well be considered an asset on Honoverse wiki, which is why I suggest a transwiki option. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. I do agree with you that there's no reason in the world that the full list as-is can't be transwikied over to Wikia. However, we certainly don't need consensus here to do that. Piotr, or whoever else is interested in copying the list over, can do so at any time. -- ShinmaWa 15:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The quality of the article isn't really the issue. If it's inadequate, improve it, don't delete! Other fictional series get character lists. I agree with Piotr. SpaceCaptain (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep AFD violates the current Arbcom injunction. Jtrainor (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please, let's not wikilawyer. I may not agree with Tony, but I see nothing bad faithed about his actions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Jtrainor placed this same thing on a bunch of fiction-based AFDs. I don't think it has anything to do with Tony. However, I scanned through ArbComm's archives and don't see any such "injunction" against any good faith AFD -- period. Perhaps Jtrainor would care to explain? -- ShinmaWa 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: Jtrainor inappropriately is applying an injunction against television series character deletions. However, that injunction doesn't apply here because these characters are in novels, not on television. Also, there's nothing in the injunction about aborting the AfD process with speedy keeps. I've recommended to Jtrainor to strike his speedy keep. -- ShinmaWa 01:42, 27 February 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 under WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#G11. KrakatoaKatie 05:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Taman Bukit Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's not a town/village/etc it's a development. Ghits don't assert any notability as they're primarily real estate listings, maps and wiki mirrors Travellingcari (talk) 17:41, 22 February 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: an awful lot of electrons given far too much work to do as a lot of words were exchanged at cross purposes, with far too many comments from editors who clearly had not read either the previous AfD debate or the highlky-relevant discussions on the article's talk page. (Please folks, it's great to have more people joining these debates, but it is not at all helpful in reaching a conclusion if you haven't made some effort to catch up a little on the background of a complex issue like this).
One of the points of confusion on both sides of the debate was around the title "list of massacres". Many "keep" commentators noted that there have indeed been many notable massacres, and that these are real and verifiable; the "delete" arguments countered that this was too simplistic. The "delete" arguments were very persuasive: that definitions of a massacre vary, and are inherently POV. The term "massacre" is rarely applied by the perpetrators, and looking at some of the incidents in the list, I suspect that the "verb" massacre fits neatly in the only game of conjugation: I conduct measured security operations, you cause excessive civilian casualties, he massacres.
However, there was a persuasive response from the "keep" commentators that the list had already been restructured to cope with that POV issue, by relying on WP:V and WP:NOR, and including only those events which are named as a "massacre" in reliable sources and/or where "massacre" is the accepted name. That is not accepted by the delete commentators as a satisfactory solution, because many events are known by different names in different contexts, and a "reliable source" (per wikipedia's definition) may still be a minority point of view.
It was suggested that the article be renamed to reflect the fact that the inclusion criteria are based solely on the name, to List of events named massacres, and no persuasive reasons were offered to oppose that renaming, which accords with WP:LIST#List_naming's requirement that "A list's title should be as clear and unambiguous as possible" — so the choice, is narowed to renaming or deletion.
Favouring deletion, Folantin pointed out that such a list is both partial and arbitrary, while others pointed to precedents for abitrary lists such as List of bands named after places. Subsiduary arguments were raised about concerns that a list such as this will inevitably be a POV-magnet, that its scope could be huge, and others pointed to an imbalance between the developed world and developing nations, with events in latter tending to be included only if they were much bigger than than in the West. Those concerns are serious, but are not grounds for deletion: the George W. Bush article is a POV-magnet, but we don't delete that, and WP:LISTS explicitly acknowledges that some list may never be complete.
So the deciding issue is whether the arbitrary nature of a list justifies its deletion rather than its renaming. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS suggests the existence of other arbitrary lists is no grounds for keeping this one, but nonetheless there is no consensus in this debate that the list under discussion here is so uselessly arbitrary as to require its deletion .... so the result is rename to List of events named massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
List of massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom for User:Ledenierhomme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See previous AFD request Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (8 December 2007)

Is this an invitation to a poll?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Exactly WHY is this being nominated? This is a well sourced and presented list. I see it was nominated only 8 weeks ago for AFD and was kept (albeit by no consensus). What has changed since the last nomination to make it a sure fire deletion? Or is the nom trying to prove a point? Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    AFAICT no one who recommended keeping this page in the last AFD has been constructively engaged in trying to make something of this train wreck. No that you have suggested keeping it are you going to be actively engaged it editing it and discussing the POV problems inherent in the word massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has recently undergone a period of instability. Having just agreed criteria after long and patient discussion, we are now starting to make it into a useful resource. Like many list articles on Knowledge it will likely never be complete, but so what? If it can remain stable and well-referenced, there is no reason to delete. I hate to say it but the nomination comes after the nominator tried three times to add an event which falls outside the criteria we agreed. This makes the nomination look rather pointy. Next time, try a post on the discussion page rather than going straight to AfD, especially as it is so soon after a much poorer version of the article survived a previous nomination. --John (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • John you are trying to impose a definition on the page which a number of editors have voiced their disagreement. When you write "recently undergone a period of instability" this page has been unstable for months in not years and none of the issues I bought up in the last AFD have been addressed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
John in response to your question on my talk page here is a list of editors who have objected to using massacre in the lead of another article since Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 5#Definition. Myself PBS As I have repeatedly stated inclusion should use Knowledge content policies and guide lines (like WP:V), also Sarah777, Flying tiger|, Knulclunk. Those who have expressed positive support for it are Yourself, Tyrenius, CarbonLifeForm, One Night In Hackney. Passively accepted: Modernist, Passively rejected - because did not comment on the talk page but did so by page edits and placing the AFD Ledenierhomme. 4+1 to 4+1 does not seem like a consensus to me. Basically despite all the postings to the talk page very few people have in the last few weeks been involved in the talk page debate. John unless you intend to police this page indefinitely then I suggest you change you opinion because I think this page is a rock you are setting you self up as Sisyphus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Philip, for an admin you seem to have a rather strange view of how a consensus is built. First of all I do not recall you stating clearly prior to this that you were against the compromise we adopted, although you have had many opportunities. The only dissenting voice I was aware of was Sarah's, although she did not have a viable alternative to suggest. Secondly, declining to take part in a discussion then editing against the outcome of the discussion is not "passive rejection". Thirdly, I was unsure myself that it constituted a consensus to go forward. I asked for advice, and Rockpocket said on my talk that he too supported the course of action we took. Consensus is not a head count, and I felt at that point that we had enough support to implement the compromise. With proper verifiable criteria for inclusion such as we have now, and which can always be amended in light of future discussions, the page will be less likely to need "policing" going forward, assuming it survives this deletion debate. It might be best to continue this if necessary at the article talk page but I felt it deserved an answer here. --John (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for all the reasons I gave in the last AFD request (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of massacres)--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no affiliation with the nominator here; all I did was complete the nomination. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — After reading the previous deletion discussion, I agree that this article should be kept. The criteria needs to be worked on so that it will include other massacres that don't included the word "massacre" in their title, but the article works in the meantime. — Val42 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Of what worth is an article that merely lists events on the grounds that a certain noun from Old French is used in the title? (It's worth pointing out that there are several events that are not commonly referred to with the term "massacre", that are nevertheless included) Why not create an article of events that use the term "Bloody" (Sunday) or "Rape" (of Nanking) or "Assault" or "The" in the title? How is this in any way encyclopedic? How is it helpful? How is it educational? What does ANYONE stand to gain from the existence of such a list??? Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's easy. This list is a navigation & reference aid. Highly encyclopedic. For example: you want to look up a particular massacre, but you can't remember the name of it. You remember the place (France) and even the date (1792), just not its name. This list would help you immensely, and would speed up your search because you wouldn't be forced to look through dozens of articles to ascertain which one was the one you were looking for. Another example: you are a student and your teacher has given the class the assignment to write a paper on a massacre of your choice. This list would help you select one. Another example: you are a journalist in a town where a massacre has just taken place and you have been given the assignment to compare it to similar massacres. This list would help you find them. Another example: You are studying atrocities and crimes against humanity throughout history, and are looking for some major ones. This list makes their scope immediately apparent. The Transhumanist    12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Your glib response ignores the central concern, and I'm sure you're aware of that. By only including events with the term "massacre" in their popular title, the list will leave out many significant massacres, and include many historically insignificant "massacres". Highly misleading for a student, journalist, etc. You'd be much better off using Google. You know the inherent POV problems with such a arbitray list, and these problems will NEVER dissipate, as is demonstrated AGAIN and AGAIN when someone tries to add/delete a controversial event. No serious, academic publication in the world would ever consider compiling and publishing a list of events simply because they feature the term "massacre" in their most popular title. It's patently ludicrous. Ledenierhomme (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Never going to be a viable article. The number of potential entries is ridiculously large. Just cataloguing all the car-bombings in Iraq and the mass killings in Algeria in the 90s is going to be a nightmare. You might as well try compiling a List of murders. Then, of course, the very culture of Knowledge makes this kind of article impossible. It's a POV-magnet. There'll be archives and archives of edit wars between soapboxers and others over whether an incident was a massacre or not - plus plenty of WP:POINT violations guaranteed. A complete black hole for everybody's time and effort. (PS: I see there's been an attempt to limit this: "This is a list of events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name". That's really very arbitrary and it won't fly, per Ledenierhomme). --Folantin (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article was a train wreck, but has now achieved an objective criterion, which is working well, namely that the event should be known with the word "massacre" in its name, if it is to be included. There are obviously various reasons, whether social, political, historical or other, why certain events have come to be called that, and not others. It's a useful resource of notable events named in that way, and is properly referenced. Length is not an issue, as the article can be divided into separate ones, if needs be. We don't delete articles because they are POV magnets, but because they fail other criteria, which this one doesn't. The "List of" format is in widespread use on wiki. Tyrenius (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not an objective criterion, it's original research and it's completely arbitrary. Our article entitled Nanking massacre even states it's commonly known as the "Rape of Nanking" (that's certainly what I've always known it as), so if we moved it to that heading it would cease to be a massacre? Likewise the Stockholm Bloodbath could easily be put under the title "Stockholm Massacre", its alternative name, and so make the list. The selection is purely random and tells us nothing encyclopaedic. And an article never being capable of having an NPOV version is a good reason to delete it. --Folantin (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly. Well said Folantin. The use or absence of the word "massacre" is a mere linguistic convention. the Rape of Nanking, Bloody Sunday in St. Petersberg 1905, the Bloody Sundays in Ireland - these are all massacres, by definition, they are simply known by various differing names. To decide whether an event should be included or not based on such an arbitrary criterion is, to be frank, quite hilarious. Or at least it would be if it weren't so offensive. Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)You are conflating two entirely different considerations. One is the objective criterion for inclusion: on your evaluation many article titles are WP:OR, in as much as editors choose a topic. The other consideration is whether any specific event meets that criterion. That is something that needs to be established within the article on that event, where the issues can be examined properly. Some events are widely known by two or more names, and if one of them is includes "massacre", either in the article title or in bold in the lead as an alternative name, then the event is eligible, but this needs to be validated in the article with sound references. If Stockholm Bloodbath meets this criterion, then it is eligible. I have removed Massacre of Novgorod from the list and questioned it on the article talk page, as the reference does not seem sufficient. WP:NPOV is being followed here, as it is up to the sources, not an editor's choice]], whether "massacre" features in an acknowledged name for an event. Tyrenius (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Tyrenius, that may very well be your own personal perception of the article, but that is not how the article has proceeded, over here in reality. You've just invented your own "eligibility test". "This is a list of events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name." Also, look at the hidden talk "This article is a list of events which Knowledge calls a massacre, either in the article title or in bold in the lead." Only those events which have "massacre" in the title merit inclusion, according to the numerous editors that monitor this page. "which wikipedia calls a massacre" - since when is referring to Knowledge an acceptable authority for Knowledge articles???? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The names of such articles are decided by Knowledge:Naming conventions (events), therefore it's an acceptable authority. You could have taken part in the lengthy discussion about the future direction of the article, you chose not to, and now you've done this because you can't have your pet "massacre" on the list. One Night In Hackney303 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"The names of such articles are decided by Knowledge:Naming conventions (events), therefore it's an acceptable authority" bahahahahahahaha! circular reasoning, perchance? There's literally an infinite number of massacres that will not be able to be included under the present criterion (that the event has "massacre" in it's most well-known title, i.e. "common parlance"). Bloody Sunday '72 is merely an explication of the ludicrousness of this "article". Do you want Knowledge to be informative or disinformative? As it stands, this list is totally arbitrary - anyone who hasn't happily got their own "pet massacres" listed would no doubt admit to this. Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, those show how reliable sources are used to determine the name of an event. Then when the name is determined, we go from there. The list becomes totally arbitrary if we include any event that someone has used the word "massacre" to describe, which is what you're in favour of. One Night In Hackney303 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What? No events "merit an agreed-upon name". Events have names, yes. Some "massacres" are known by the word "massacre" in their title. Some aren't. Including only the ones that are, is pure arbitrariness. Do you have any comment on what should be done with regards to massacres that took place that aren't commonly referred to in their title (Bloody Sunday, Rape of Nanking, etc) as massacres? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Gtstricky, I believe you are mistaken. How is it useful, if it only refers to events which, in common parlance, employ the particular noun "massacre" in their title? Surely "people searching for this type of information" would wish to know of all possible events that could be termed "massacres", even if some other noun or adjective is typically used when referring to said events. e.g. Bloody Sunday, 1905, St. Petersburg, and countless others. No? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not what this article is doing. It is listing events which are named "massacres", which is essentially applied subjectively (not in "common parlance" but by reliable sources—certainly not what wiki editors think something should be called—hence conforming to WP:NPOV). There is a certain social-political-historical implication in such a name. You may wish to start another list, or perhaps a fuller article, with a different definition to document the events you mention, such as Demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers or whatever. Tyrenius (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
*Demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers "eh? What, like the Taksim Square Massacre? Oh no, that must be included because it has the word "massacre" in its title! oh dear!" Get it yet? Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the page makes it clear that the list is generated by the word "massacre" and is not a complete list. If people were doing research and typed in massacre this page would be a fine start for them. However, based on another AFD that I was commenting on I am changing to Delete. This type of listings of existing pages should be handled by the catagory system so that individual pages do not need to be created and maintained. Gtstricky 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
arggg. good point. Gtstricky 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete is provided in the nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - this "article" is total bull. It is actually a compilation of "things that are called massacres in Wiki articles"; not an actual list of massacres. It should be called what it is. Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep After December 2007, when the article was previously nominated, there were some major revisions. This is a much smaller article than the 200K all-inclusive monster that was there before, with the old list being blanked "so that a new one can be built with only verifiable sources that claim an event was a massacre". One of the persons who urges a delete in this discussion was the principal architect of those revisions, but I think that the revisions were a great improvement. Mandsford (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Correction-- make that two of the persons were working on revisions and now want to delete the article. Mandsford (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
— Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The list can be limited as Mandsford says to those incidents which have reliable sources which state that they are considered "massacres." I count over 130 distinct references so far, which places this article in the top few percentile for the presence of references. It trivializes mass killings which will be an enduring part of human history (witness the ones remembered from a millinium ago) to say they are as trivial as buildings of a specified height range. It is a useful adjunct to the main article on Massacres. Edison (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The list is not a list of "mass killings", it is a list of events with the word "massacre" in their title. As such, it proscribes most "mass killings" in history from inclusion. Ledenierhomme (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is the point.Tyrenius (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has been improved, it still has problems, and it needs work. That the potential is a compelling compilation of brutality bespeaks a harsh brand of human truth. Modernist (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article is now a list based on the presence of the word "massacre" in the name arbitrary given by some to events from different periods. I would have supported a broader view based on at least, common sense (found in dictionary) synonyms such as «slaughter, carnage, annhilation etc». There is no scientific basic to such a restrictive interpretation. On this basis, two editors have argued against the addition of the Operation Sankō, during which 2,7 millions people died, because historians used the word "annihilation"... The same could be true of events which were called "massacres" by Knowledge but "slaughter" by historians. This artificial distinction between words covering the same reality may make editing more easy by keeping away troublesome edits, but is it really useful ? Anyone can use google with the words "wikipedia" and "massacre" and find those events...--Flying tiger (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You prove exaclty what I argued earlier... Operation Sankō is a good example as Knowledge article does not uses the word "massacre" but "destruction", but here is an excerpt from Herbert Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, page 365 : «...Hirohito also knew of and approved the "annihilation" campaigns in China. These military operations caused death and suffering on a scale incomparably greater than the totally unplanned orgy of killing in Nanking (...) These operations targeted for destruction "enemies pretending to be local people" and "all males between the ages of fifteen and sixty whom we suspect to be enemies."» And Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that "more than 2,7 millions civilians died" during the operation. Is it different than a "massacre" ? --Flying tiger (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest taking this to Talk:Three Alls Policy. If you can get the article changed it can be incorporated at List of massacres. If you cannot, that will also tell you something. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
CommentAn admin encouraging an editor to perform original research, in order to change the title of an historic event, in order to get said event included in this list. Nice. What is happening to this place?!?? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, an admin encouraging an editor to research more deeply into the name of an event to establish through reliable sources whether a name for it has been omitted which should be included in the the article. This helps to sharpen naming criteria. Tyrenius (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article has become silly, as a consequence of using this arbitrary guide for inclusion. Any parameter that includes Kent State Massacre where 4 students died and 9 were injured but excludes the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where several hundred/thousand died, because of the name of the event, is of little real use, except, perhaps, as an exercise in how underlying biases distort an historical record. (I think that Tiananmen Square article needs to be revisited; it has been written as if to please the Chinese government. Tyresuis has a point; hist to the pounding of thousands of Wikipedian feet , racing off to rename their favourite article of a "death of more than one". What fun those talk pages will be!) The List of massacres now has the feel of a bad compromise made merely to justify its continuing existence. (And, yes, I have read all the talk, and the prior AFD, and several earlier versions of the article.) It will remain, definition notwithstanding, an outrageous bone of contention, with, in the end, no real value because of the pure subjectivity of the underlying rationale. Many eitors have tried very hard to come up with a rationale for keeping this list, though I am not sure why; however, there has been not solution that was meaningful, historically accurate and amenable to a consensus that these two conditions had been met. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"Tiananmen Square Massacre" shows up on google 108,000 times. The Transhumanist    12:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment What absurdity, we don't like a word so lets throw it all out, we don't agree - so lets dump the lot, - lets not negotiate an intelligent and reasonable solution, and create a worthwhile and historical article, lets just get rid of it, because the word isn't what we want it to be, lets not have another article or two other articles or three other articles, lets just can this one. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT seems the message of the day. Modernist (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Bielle makes an important point. Inclusion is entirely subject to the vagaries of Knowledge titling. It's obvious that "Tiananmen Square massacre" is the most common English name for the incident, yet the article has been placed at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (in violation of WP:COMMONNAME). I predict that other editors will simply follow this lead and rename "massacre" articles to keep them off the list, further increasing its uselessness. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not actually a policy page and very few editors have contributed to it. It's also self-contradictory: "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view". Well, there is a "particular common name" for this incident even though it "implies a controversial point of view", namely "Tiananmen Square massacre". The later "reasoning" against using this is entirely specious (and appears to have been added by a single user, Rfc1394 last October) . I would expect to see much more of this sophistry occurring across Knowledge should this list be kept. --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a guideline page which has consensus, and according to the talk page discussion for it took place on the main naming conventions talk page. "Tiananmen Square massacre" doesn't even adequately describe the contents of the article or the majority of the protest anyway. One Night In Hackney303 09:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nope, as I said, the particular reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre in the "guideline" was only added last October by a single user with no evidence of any prior talk page discussion. Policy and guidelines should not be created by lone editors, especially when the result contradicts itself. But this just illustrates my general point that there is little purpose in creating a List of massacres called massacres in their Knowledge page titles when the whole process is arbitrary and any user (or group of users) can come along and change things to the way they like. --Folantin (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, but anything can be edited, and the mere fact it hasn't been removed (until you removed it in an attempt to distort this debate) shows it has consensus per policy. In fact take a look at the article in question, it's never been called Tiananmen Square massacre. So if the guideline is wrong, why has the article never been at the place you think it should be? One Night In Hackney303 09:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Right, so any individual can edit obscure guideline pages (I was completely unaware of the existence of this one) and that's a binding consensus on the rest of us, is it? What idiocy. No wonder Knowledge is failing. A single guy adds a passage that contradicts the very first point of the existing guideline ("If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view") and this is supposed to be acceptable? I don't think so. --Folantin (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article represents a single resource for reference in historical examples of massed atrocities. It represents and important centralised repository of reference and sources for anyone researching into abuse of human rights in the extreme and is likely to be recreated because of the continued interest in the research within this area.
The article has significant scope for greater definition, clarification, expansion, and contributing to other articles in the field, and within the project. Not an insignificant effort has been put into its development, and it would be a waste to discard what it a noteworthy contribution to Knowledge in an area that invites readership in understanding how these atrocities were perpetrated through comparative research to identify means of mitigating their causes in future. The article contributes to human knowledge in real ways as a possible avenue of atrocity prevention.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment From what I can synthesize of the thousands of talk-space words, Modernist, that is the very point: every solution you mention has been "negotiated", argued over, tried and reverted and, and, and. The current solution is the result. This is not a new article, after all, and it has seen a lot of very good editors trying to work things out. I have no ojection to the word "massacre". It is useful, in English, to demonstrate a strength of emotional response to events, but one newspaper's "massacre" is another's "appropriate armed response". We can certainly make a list of every event that, in Knowledge, is called a "massacre". That's a straightforward exercise, though it would leave out, for example, almost everything that is listed under Category:Massacres in India, where the definition appears to be somewhat less stringent. Does Knowledge require complete internal consistency? Probably not; however, I would expect there to be, as a user of Knowledge, some connection among the articles that deal with Massacres, even if it is to be only that word. However, once we go beyond the historical use of the specific word, there remains no definition of the word "massacre" that also suits both the emotions of all the contributors and the facts of all the possible events. That is the source of this controversy, and it is only superficially resolved, in my view, by the current restriction. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OT: You're right about that category, incidentally, I've started cleaning it up a bit. Relata refero (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and discuss contents on the talk page (not that this is all that likely to definitively solve the problems, but its the only way to deal with it & seems to be making progress). Some opposition now as before seems possibly due to disagreement over specific inclusions or omissions. We can't give up on the problem articles if we're to deal with human problems. DGG (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I notice a distinct tendency of well meaning "newcomers" to suggest the reasonable (usually) tactic of "discussing it on the talk page". This has been done and done and done, repeatedly and repeatedly for THE LAST FIVE YEARS. Please, everyone, if your only suggestion is "let's try to fix it", you have missed the point. I request that if you want to KEEP the page, please make a substantive suggestion (that hasn't already been tried/discussed/dissected and include it with your vote. That is what we need. That is what we do not have.
The preceding was intended to be polite, but it's difficult to not sound personal when discussing other peoples' opinions.Aaaronsmith (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
— Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Because the reasons to delete are absurd. Massacres exist. This list helps find them. It may not help find all of them, but Knowledge is no place for all or nothing reasoning. Our mission is to help people find the information they are looking for. Deleting the list does not help that mission. Partial help is better than no help at all. The Transhumanist    12:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Have you actually read any of the reasons to delete? I think everybody who's commented here is quite aware that "Massacres exist". "Knowledge is no place for all or nothing reasoning". Funny, I thought we had WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Besides, attempting to keep this list manageable by limiting it to "massacres Wikipedians have designated by the title 'massacre'" is ridiculous. Omitting some famous massacres in history just because they went under different titles is hardly encyclopaedic. (And in spite of months of effort, many historically significant massacres still aren't on the page, e.g. Adana massacre, Hue massacre, 1973 Ezeiza massacre and the "Philippeville massacre" - which doesn't even have an article yet. Plus, I know from experience you're going to attract plenty of attention when you add the Khojaly massacre and not the Sumgait pogrom. I look forward to seeing how you cope with that). --Folantin (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Clearly at the end of this....the inclusions have to be expanded beyond the particular use of the word Massacre. Awhile back I proposed including the Saturday Night Massacre (somewhat in jest) because in strict interpretation - its called a massacre. I think at this point secondary articles or expansion into other interpretations of massacre is called for; as this is an attempt at recording human slaughter, genocide, pogroms, and other official atrocities; the application of WP:UCS is going to need to be applied to the article. Quitting and failure is not an option. Modernist (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"Use common sense" leads to the conclusion that starting this list was an incredibly bad idea. It's obvious to anybody with any experience of Knowledge that this was never going to work. We already have a super-category ("Massacres by country" ) with loads and loads of entries and I suspect even that is fraught with problems. Putting them all on one page as a "list" is insane. "Quitting and failure is not an option". Yes it is. After months of pointless endeavour the sensible option is to quit and do something more productive. "Don't throw good money after bad", as they say. --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "And in spite of months of effort, many historically significant massacres still aren't on the page, e.g. Adana massacre, Hue massacre, 1973 Ezeiza massacre" - have you checked the talk page of the article lately? "Plus, I know from experience you're going to attract plenty of attention when you add the Khojaly massacre and not the Sumgait pogrom. I look forward to seeing how you cope with that" - quite simple, they both get added, as you'd be more than aware if you'd actually read the talk page. Now please familiarise yourself with the article talk page, including the latest archives, before making any further totally incorrect statements that only serve to confuse this discussion. One Night In Hackney303 13:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "have you checked the talk page of the article lately?" Erm yes. Didn't see any reference to those massacres though. "They both get added"...but that won't stop your page being subject to endless Armenian-Azeri edit wars. "Now please familiarise yourself with the article talk page, including the latest archives, before making any further totally incorrect statements that only serve to confuse this discussion". Your accusation of "totally incorrect statements" is itself totally incorrect. I'm quite aware of the contents of the talk page which show continuing confusion over what this page should include. Please stop clutching at straws to save this dog's dinner of an article (especially when there are already several categories devoted to massacres). --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  • Keep. No reason for deletion given. Besides, it's well-sourced. One interesting distinction in types of massacres is between ones for political, religious or terrorist reasons (7/7), or ones for personal reasons (Virginia Tech massacre). This list only includes the former, although both types are often carried out by disturbed young men who can't get laid - maybe that's the real reason. But to not recognise this distinction here as the media see it would be original research.--h i s r e s e a r c h 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep - well-sourced list of notable events - but if we are going to be selective and not include the likes of the Tiananmen Massacre this article should be deleted as irredeemably POV . EJF (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. No reason for deletion given. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - This is celarly encyclopaedic, but some criteria need to be agreed as to what should appear. I would suggest:
    • that the event is commonly referred to as a massacre
    • that at least 50 people were killed.
Accordingly, I would suggest that the following should not appear, save as cross-references:
    • several schools killings though referred to as massacres.
    • the sack of a city after a seige is a category of its own. These were horrific events, but the accepted rules of war of the period allowed rape and murder. The end of siege is a nasty business
    • terrorist outrages resulting in multiple deaths. These too are horrible events but rarely lead to that many deaths.
    • conversely the results of Israeli retaliation against what suicide bombers have done.
    • at the opposite extreme, events widely recognised as genocide. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
And Peterkingiron what about WP:OR or do you have a verifiable reliable source for massacres meaning "At leas 50 people" and "events widely recognised as genocide"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well done Peterkingiron, those criteria are clearly objective and uncontroversial and will lead to a useful article. (note: sarcasm) - Ledenierhomme (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a new article structure and suggested definition of a massacre. Please contribute to discussion there.
It seems to me that the reason this article failed in the first place is because lists are hard to define and justify, and lists that are controversial even more so.
Now, consider this - WAY more effort has been spent on debating over keeping of deleting, then actually editing the article!
It is an important article that deals with a unique, notable and rather horrific part of the human experience. It is a global scope article for a large number of other existing articles which focus on their subjects and can not address the phenomena of "massacre" or whatever they have been called in a more analytical manner. Analysis by Knowledge editors is not POV, but the EXPECTED ability of contributing experts and researchers to assist the user in understandning the subject.
I am honestly surprised that so may well meaning and experienced editors were unable to come up with the list scope based on a reasonable definition.
I am going to suggest that all lists in Knowledge must have, like all other articles, an introduction, a definition, a statement of scope and one of the reason why it should exist, the purpose. A list has no place in an ecyclopaedia unless it actually conveys information other then its entries. Without the standard encyclopaedic entry, a list is called a catalogue. I will also suggest that the Knowledge:What Knowledge is not page is amended accordingly.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think that is a very interesting suggestion. I suggest you take it to the relevant MoS discussion page where I might be inclined to support an appropriately worded proposal along the lines you suggest. It does not seem like a valid deletion rationale though, given our current guidelines. --John (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, Its on the Knowledge:What Knowledge is not page. I thought that was the policy page to post it to, although it may have been the Knowledge:Village Pump? In any case, I thank you for being inclined to support. Can you suggest the MoS page?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting an article that could benefit from improvement seems silly. Write the objective definition for inclusion in the lead section, apply it consistently, and move on to other, more productive endeavors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I understand why this topic seems encyclopedic, the very word massacre makes the whole notion of the article hopelessly PoV and unlikely to ever stabilize. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You want to delete it because you can't arrive at a NPOV title?! Can't use "indiscriminate killing" because most are highly discriminate. "Unresisted group killing" is not something the average reader would look for, so redirects would still be required. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is called List of massacres but this topic by whatever name is far too PoV for a stable article. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"far too PoV for a stable article"? This subject is currently dealt with by international law. And there is not one massacre on this list --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how this mysterious bit of international law applies in this case. And the list you claim includes such gems as "Israel-Palestine" and "India - politics and history" which means its at a somewhat more rarefied level than individual massacres. Relata refero (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Article inclusion rejected proposal was that "articles that fail to reference sufficient written sources published over a course of time may be scrutinized as being inappropriate for inclusion in Knowledge". It therefore seems that unreasonable is also good ;O) The WPA only applies if the word is (AFAIK) clichéd. Almost any event can be and have been called massacres. In fact many are known to history under these terms. This is a fact of history, and can not be changed. The bias is source-embedded. The editor would be adulterating the source by expunging the word massacre from it when citing it in the article! IMHO it is better to use the word, but objectively contextualise it in Knowledge, then completely ban it from the encyclopedia because our modern PC can't cope with history. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not banned from the encyclopaedia. We're deleting a useless list. Please don't over-react. Relata refero (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep If we can get the criteria set, than I see no reason not to keep. If things are still troublesome in a few months, we can revisit this then. I just don't think e should delete an article because it is a magnet for POV. Instead, we should work together, estavlish consensus about what type of massacres do and do not qualify for this list, and go from there. Consensus isn't always easy to achieve and I think there are more avenues to pursue here before this is deleted. AniMate 11:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided, just like in fact most are, albeit without realising it because they forgot or refused to properly offset their respective POV. (What a generally awful AfDiscussion.) I personally think the inclusion criterion is silly. Perhaps not totally invalid, but silly nevertheless. That's my main concern, and in a perfect world (i.e. if I ruled everything) the article would be nuked (by me). Alas, the world is not perfect and compromises have to be made. Speaking of which, couldn't better criteria be found e.g. via further clarifying the semantic relation between the expressions "mass killing", "mass murder" and "massacre"? Incidentally, I just added mass murder to the massacre disambig, mainly because the former lists the latter expression as a synonym, in bold letters. Dorftrottel (ask) 15:36, February 24, 2008
    • I believe the primary reason why I think the criterion is silly is because particularly the word "massacre" is a typical tabloid expression. Dorftrottel (complain) 15:45, February 24, 2008
  • Keep -- The nomination only says "Completing unfinished nom for" ?? what does this mean, there is not even a reason given. --SSman07 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Massacre" is an obviously POV-loaded tabloid term. Unless we can adopt an firm criteria here, something like "List of incidents where N or more non-combatants were slain" (seriously, you try to think of something better), these lists will forever be unmaintainable. Anyone familiar with me knows I don't yell "delete" very often, but there is clearly a time and a place for it, and think I've found it. Unless we can restructure this according to actual death toll (upon the victims) rather than emotional impact (upon us), we might very well be better off without it. — CharlotteWebb 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. And use categories instead. This thing is unencyclopaedic and simply attracts POV pushing, and if the proposal to include or exclude on the basis of the word "massacre" being in the title were really acted upon, it will lead to a lot more POV pushing on titles, where now there is none, because people who object to the event being termed a "massacre" now accept the title simply because that is how it is called in academia or on google. "Nemmersdorf massacre" is a good example. And will the future article "MassacreS at Treuenbrietzen" (plural, because the first killings were by Nazi German troops) qualify? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I hadn't mentioned before, I can't understand why this can't be handled with categories if its helpfulness is based mostly on navigation. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) and Knowledge:AN/I#Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD. Two disinterested editors who have commented on Tyrenius's complaint that I should not have posted reasons for deletion to the top of this article, have suggested speedy close and reopen with reasons. As this will mean more work for those that have already contributed here, please voice your objections if you have any to Knowledge:AN/I#Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD if you do not think it needs to be done. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the point - it'll just end up as a no consensus, just like the current debate. Lugnuts (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't start another debate here instead reply to Knowledge:AN/I#Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD if you think it is unnecessary --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin stepping in here... Rather then closing and reopening the entire debate, I suggest Philip moves his argument to the proper place, because they are just that: your arguments. Putting your arguments on top of the debate and calling them "reasons" is a mirepresentation of your arguments, since you are not the nominator. Having to close the debate, only to have you re-open it with your arguments at the top again is not an option; I view that as gaming the system. So if this AfD is to be closed, Philip may not restart it, as it basically does not change the situation. — Edokter • Talk • 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

who are you, "uninvolved admin"? Ten Pound Hammer and Philip Baird Shearer were both merely doing me a favor, as I am rather a novice at Knowledge and didn't carry out the nomination fully. If I say that I agree with the reasons PBS has posited, will that be enough to forget about this petty formalism? And get on with the business of deciding whether this is ever going to be a workable article? No? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As some entries have said keep because no reasons are given for deletion here are some:

  • The primary Oxford Dictionary entry for massacre is "The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this". This is a very loose definition and no one has come up with a more precise one. The motives for claiming that a massacre has occurred may be simply to create an eye catching headline for a news item, or it may be because the author of a report believes the incident to be a massacre, so determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter.
  • If we have a list of massacres why not also a list of carnage, butcheries and slaughters?
  • Like terrorism (see WP:TERRORIST) it is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to the actions one's enemies and opponents. For example it was Protestants and not Catholics that labelled the the killing of Huguenots the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre -- One of the first recorded usages of the word.
  • The recent heated debate on the talk page of the article over the inclusion or exclusion of the Second Battle of Fallujah is an example of how difficult editors of the page find it to agree on the contents of the list. Currently the entry has been deleted because it is not mentioned in the lead of Second Battle of Fallujah despite the fact that Knowledge has an article on the accusation under the name Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre] and when it was in the list carried full citations. .
  • If the list is restricted to those which the English language media call massacres, the word has no formal legal definition the creation of a list of massacres tends to fall foul of the Knowledge systemic bias that words with a formal legal definition like genocide do not.
  • The current suggestion that only massacres listed else where in Knowledge in the lead of an article should be included is a good faith attempt to build a list. But if suffers from the flaws that massacre can also be used as a verb and that not all events that reliable third party sources describe a massacre as occurring are necessarily called massacres. Also it is an arbitrary definition no supported by the three content policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and if someone includes a massacre such as Drogheda which comply with the three content policies, the reasons for deleting it seem arbitary and not covered by the content policies. However if we go back to only with third pary sources using the term we end up with an arbitary list based on third party usage of a word with several synonims (an article my use the word massacre to describe one instance and in the next paragraph use "bnrutal slaughter" for another just as a matter of style . And if we go back to editors decide then potentally every mass killing of two or more people in any insident can be include....

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Response
  1. determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter. That is not what we are determining. We are determining whether it is named a massacre by reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV it is not our job to determine motivations of sources.
  2. a list of carnage, butcheries and slaughters? Events do not get named as such. Other lists may be viable, as I suggest below. See Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century for a list with a different definition.
  3. St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. It now seems to be a widely accepted name, however.
  4. Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre. This is the name of a book, not of the event. If the name "Fallujah massacre" or "Massacre of Fallujah" is the accepted name for the event, it meets inclusion criteria. This needs to be first established in the relevant article.
  5. restricted to those which the English language media call massacres. Other language media can be discussed on the talk page. It is not a point that has arisen as yet. But that objection applies to over 99% of sources used on the English wikipedia.
  6. not all events that reliable third party sources describe a massacre as occurring are necessarily called massacres. Quite, and as this is a list of events named massacres—not those described as massacres—those which do not meet the criterion are not included.
Tyrenius (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not your decision. You have nom'd but you don't control the ensuing debate. There is an established procedure for AfDs and this suggestion is completely counter to it. Statements are made and then responded to. If this goes at the top, responses to it will go under it. Then we have a new debate started at the top of the page, which is preceded by the debate lower down the page. Some people will continue to post at the bottom; some will post under the new debate at the top to answer those points. Some people will look at the bottom of the debate to see new posts and will miss it altogether. This is chaotic and makes the development of argument impossible to follow. It is a disruptive move and should not be done. Tyrenius (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  • Comment Some delete reasons are based on misapprehensions.
  1. That this article is based on what wikipedia articles happen to be named (i.e. with "massacre" in the title). It is not. It is based on that name being in accepted usage for an event, as established by reliable sources. It has been decided to devolve that usage or lack thereof to the individual article, where it can be discussed in depth.
  2. That this article fails because it does not include certain mass killings which do not happen to be named a "massacre". It does not attempt (with its present rationale) to include every mass killing, only those which are named "massacre". This is a viable way or organising certain information. Other related articles can be created which organise related information that this one does not include. There are already a number that exist: Atrocity, Indian massacre, Mass deaths and atrocities of the 20th century, Mass grave, Mass murder, Spree killer and War crime, for example. As I have suggested above, others can easily cover areas such as Demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers, List of mass deaths through slave labour etc.
  3. In the light of the above, I propose naming this article List of events named massacres.

Tyrenius (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Clearly this list cannot encompass all and everything. Equally clear is the inadvisability of deleting the already compiled information there. A name change, and a number of other new articles that covers more related territory seems like a reasonable proposal. Modernist (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Why should deleting already complied information be inadvisable? By that criteria we would never delete any article! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"...named massacres" by whom? Us? For any incident with a plural death toll there will be sources which describe it as a "massacre", sources which describe it as a "N-tuple homicide", and sources which describe it as a "fair fight with lopsided results". I don't want this to become any more "List of events named massacres (by editors of the English Knowledge articles about said events, specifically whoever most recently moved each page)" than it already is. Anyone who wants that list probably knows where to find it. It is ridiculous to suggest that the article's POV issues would be solved making its inheritance of bias (from other articles) explicit rather than implicit. — CharlotteWebb 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unlike some editorial about "massacres", potential articles like List of demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers would have clear and objective criteria for inclusion. Sounds like a good step in the right direction, but we still need some place to file the remainder of the events which we currently have alleged to be "massacres". Obviously I can't comment on "Mass deaths of slave labor" without knowing, number-wise, what constitutes critical mass of dead slaves. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh and we might need a separate List of demonstrations where retired soldiers have been killed by active duty soldiers... or is this not "massacre" enough for our taste? — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Exactly what purpose does a "List of events named massacres" (as is now being proposed) serve? Does it have any encyclopaedic value or are you just trying to create a criterion which will allow you to have a manageable Knowledge page? Every piece of historical literature I've read on the Sicilian Vespers refers to a "massacre", yet simply because the word "massacre" doesn't appear in the title it won't be included on the Knowledge list. This is completely arbitrary. It's like excluding "switchblade" and "bayonet" from a "List of knives" because they don't contain the word "knife". We already have plenty of categories for massacres which serve readers far better. --Folantin (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment if this move is necessary Tyrenius then if it does not happen would you support deletion of the current list? If not why not? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary, but I think helpful. The lead defines it as such anyway. You suggestion of List of named massacres is succinct. Tyrenius (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I am opposed to deleting or renaming. Consensus has achieved stability. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What consensus are you talking about? Did you not see my posting on this higher up the page? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal
  1. This article has had 23,128 views in January. It clearly serves a purpose for many readers.
  2. There are in excess of 600 named massacres as wiki articles. The current format is not suitable to accommodate them all (it contains just over 50 at the moment). I propose instead a list format along the lines of List of American artists (see two linked lists), giving abbreviated details.
  3. This list should work in combination with other lists, as I've suggested previously on this page.

Tyrenius (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I suspect almost 100% of those 23,128 views is for comic relief. Do a search on the web. This page is something of a joke - WORLDWIDE.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

— Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true. I used to be IP 67.161.166.20. This address never changed so I didn't bother to create a handle. As a joke I created IP67,161,166,20 (barely used it). When Philib Baird Shearer (admin) requested, I started using a regular handle like everybody else.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The same observation applies to User:67.161.166.20. User:IP67,161,166,20 has no edits. That's probably enough jokes for now. Tyrenius (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, this is not the page to get into a disagreement, but I did not include commas in that address by accident. I suggest (politely) you try the correct address: In fact try User talk:IP,67,161,166,20 for the whole story (not really worth the time, but it's there). Hoping this is the worst disagreement we ever have.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I owe you an apology. You did get it right. I left the comma out between IP and 67. Sorry about that.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits for the correct address, just for the record. Tyrenius (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you read the page, you will see at the top of this section: "Some delete reasons are based on misapprehensions. 1) That this article is based on what wikipedia articles happen to be named (i.e. with "massacre" in the title). It is not. It is based on that name being in accepted usage for an event, as established by reliable sources." Your judgement is based on a misunderstanding. Tyrenius (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. An excellent resource. An important navigation aid. Categories are good but not sufficient. Valid issues have been raised, but deletion is not the answer to any of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So what are you answers to the valid issues? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page. File an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not a valid question on an afd. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
All questions should be welcomed and presumed valid. Many questions are not appropriate for AfD because they are off the point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it not a valid question? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have also raised valid issues which deleters have not answered. Tyrenius (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any valid issues raised. could you point them out? Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Valid issues questions of whether all the entries meet the same criteria. There has been criticism of collecting entries based upon the mere use of a word. However, apparently the criterion is a description in a secondary source. But do different secondary sources use different definitions. Is it original research to catalogue the contents of wikipedia? Is it original research to discriminate between mass murder and a massacre, or is it original research to group these two things together? Is the title appropriate? Is the subject inherently POV? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - this "article" is more appropriate to the Guinness Book of Records than Wiki. What we have is a "List of Wiki Articles with 'massacre' in the title"; not a "List of massacres". If this is a 'navigation aid' it should be dealt with by categorisation, not an "article". Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As per the first pillar, if it is appropriate to the Guinness Book of Records, it is appropriate to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment; this is Sarah's second delete !vote in this discussion. --John (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops. Inadvertent. I have been unavoidably away from Wiki for reasons John is aware of. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Categories and lists and other things can be complementary, individually are inadequate, and should be allowed to evolve. See Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigational templates --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 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 - no sources, fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Saul H. Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP with not sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 17:18, 22 February 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. Chetblong 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Article is a dictionary term already transcluded to Wiktionary, dictionary entries have no place in Knowledge, propose delete and link to Wiktionary out (work • yada) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, will not argue with that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:57, 25 February 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 action - merging is not the purpose of AFD and does not require deletion. KrakatoaKatie 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Best of Princess Superstar (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be merged with The Best of Princess Superstar. Not needed. Redmarkviolinist 16:31, 22 February 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. WikiProject Martial arts may be a better venue for this discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

An unnecessary list (categories and List of Olympic medalists in judo do the job better) with no inclusion criteria (any judoka, or "any judoka with a Knowledge article" could be on the list, which renders it useless - again compared to a category). The few judoka who've had lasting impact, such as the founder of the sport, should be mentioned in prose in the article judo. In short, this fails Knowledge:Lists#Purposes of lists in that it's not needed for information, not navigative and not developmental. Punkmorten (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of celebrity judoka has criteria for inclusion:
"Having an entry in Knowledge is not sufficient notability criteria for inclusion on this list.
"People on this list must be notable for factors other than their judo expertise.
"As a guide, to be included on this list, the person must have either done a credible amount
"of judo training, or else have done it in front of a large audience.
List of judoka has no criteria. jmcw (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep but delete around 90% of the entries and rename it to List of notable judoka. I have added notability criteria, but that is difficult to do as usual. People who are notable enough for inclusion may or may not be included in the body of the judo article (like Koizumi), and keep people like Geesink on the list. Someone who is most knowledgeable could start deleting now. --David Broadfoot (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Now it's even worse: Your criteria are completely arbitrary! Punkmorten (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The criteria for whether any sentence should be included in any Knowledge article is just as arbitrary. It's not possible to define "notable" succinctly. I have defined criteria for why people should not be included on that list. Wikipedians are smart enough to work from that. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, it's not. WP:BIO have pretty clear inclusion criteria. Generally, consensus decides what goes on here. May I remind you that your criteria are not based on consensus, it's just something you made up. The criteria are "major contribution to judo" or "achieved significant results" - completely vague. Knowledge doesn't need lists without good inclusion criteria. Another thing: Who, do you imagine, will work on the list? Almost nobody on Knowledge cares about judo. Guess who created some 97% of the judo biographies here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
          • (1)But the criteria for inclusion on this list is MUCH stronger than required by WP:BIO so it's of no help. (2) to argue that my criteria are not based on consensus and are "just made up" is quite specious. That is equivalent to claiming that every contribution to Knowledge must be subject to consensus before being placed on the page. (3) The list will need very little work to maintain. How often does a "notable" judoka come along? Your argument is more applicable to lists of gold medalists. Let's delete all those lists first. (4) As to your "who cares about judo" argument, we might as well delete the main judo article on that basis. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see the need for this discussion to be carried further, as there are strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps 5 more days will sort this out, perhaps not! Procedural, abstaining from opinion Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What does "relisting" mean? I presume we are to respond to the original proposal all over again, ignoring any prior comments (particularly because they relate to out-of-date versions of the article)? --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I went back and forth on this one. What pushed me to delete was the opinion that this page is trying to do the same thing that a category would accomplish. The category system seems perfect to accomplish what this page is trying to do. Gtstricky 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
never mind. WP:CSL applies to my prior answer. So back over the fence I go to Weak Keep Gtstricky 20:43, 22 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOT, Bristol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see what is notable about this topic. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article doesn't make LOT's notability clear to me either. Saying that it "stretched the long-established template of the non-profit making artist-run space" is just a peacock statement – what was new about it? I'm not impressed by the References list either. The Guardian piece turns out to be a one-paragraph review of one exhibition, only mentioning LOT itself in the final line as the name of the venue. I haven't checked the other references, but even if they do contain information demonstrating LOT's notability, the article fails to communicate that. EALacey (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. I find it rather telling that of the 8 people listed as involved in it, we only have an article on one, and that's a microstub. The fact that it lasted for all of 2 years doesn't speak much for notability either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 22 February 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 and retained edit history, information sourced has been merged, other information should be merged if sources are found. Gnangarra 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced gang article. Lacks notability above any other street gang in the world. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:00, 22 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GOOOH National Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"We believe GOOOH, a growing national movement, should remain listed. Here is further justification: - We have been on talk radio in 40+ cities (see http://www.GOOOH.com/Media.aspx) for specifics. Many of the stations are still replaying the interview and most have us schedule to return - Google GOOOH - there are dozens of sites linking to us - We have been in newspapers from Texas to New Hampshire to Washington (state). - Most importantly, we have had 60,000 visitors come to our Web site and WP: Org specifically states, “Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education... arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.”

We would not be on so many talk radio stations or having tens of thousands of visitors come to our site if we were not notable or attracting notice. Granted, we are just getting started, but with the November election getting closer, our popularity will only increase.

Thanks for your consideration."

(original statement made at 17:01, 22 February 2008, by user:Goooh; pasted in here by DS (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC) )

  • Keep I see no grounds to delete based on WP:ORG, please clarify as this assertion appears groundless based on 1) multiple newspaper articles from mid-sized metropolitan areas (as shown here , here , and here ), 2) dozens of blog and website references (incl. one as notable as Richard Winger ), and 3) a published book on the process found on Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com . Regarding the article having a POV: that is possible, but warrants a cleanup - not a deletion. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
note to closing admin, Ericwooten3 (talk · contribs), is an WP:SPA with only six edits on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
* subnote to closing admin, I have asked Jossi (talk · contribs) to explain his WP:SPA label, as he provides no material refutation of my WP:ORG comments above, but simply points out that I have made a limited amt of edits. This is true, but in no way should it diminish the credibility of the points in my Keep vote - they must be evaluated on their own merits - which has not yet been done. I would hate to think that I was being dismissed simply because I am a neophyte. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 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. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe Gomez Drummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod reason was "Doesn't appear to fit notability guidelines for people or music. Also you may wish to read Knowledge:Autobiography" Sbowers3 (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, as a transwikied dicdef --Stephen 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Transwikied dictionary definition. Previously denied for A1 speedy, so does not rally qualify for PROD. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 15:59, 22 February 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 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Article has been butchered, but wasn't very good to start with. Has some interesting press, but the fact remains that it is a "pre-alpha" piece of software. I would have tagged it CSD#A7 if not for the coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Seesmic is now in closed beta and has backing by some big names–including Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, Steve Case of AOL fame, Michael Parekh, managing director at Goldman Sachs and Red Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn. The new investment round of 6.6 million comes from an investment fund created by the founders of Skype and this will certainly generate a lot of user interest.Sm2755 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 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) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Postmodern Collaborative Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a new therapy method. Article doesn't establish notability and is mostly a bunch of links to books. Prod reviewed by another editor, removed by the author without any major improvement being made on the article. JuJube (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MSGJ (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I know ghits!notability but it is covered in a number of books. Is there somewhere it can be merged? I don't think it's encyclopedic but I don't know on what grounds. Travellingcari (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability. The only references I can find are from the two creators of the therapy who seem to be notable, if at all, for creation of this therapy. (Theory X is not notable because of Author Q if Author Q is only notable for Theory X.) A walled garden in the making. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:21, 22 February 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).

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

The article seems to vary between talking about the Kyle David Group and the redlinked Kyle Kappel. Either way, Kyle David doesn't appear notable nor does the parent company. Ghits appear to be primarily blog and forum, with a smattering of directory listings. No evidence this company passes WP:CORP Travellingcari (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:00, 22 February 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 with no prejudice against recreation. As the article currenctly stands, it has not evolved since the last AfD. As the general process is already covered in Wire transfer, this article adds little more then some jargon. If this article is to evolve into an article that provides any braoder context besides textbook reading, it should be written from scratch. Ping me if you want to salvage some content. — Edokter • Talk • 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I know this was at AfD in December 2006 minutes after creation when it was a dictionary definition. Valid arguments were made that it was more than a dictionary and could be encyclopedic, but I find no evidence that the concept is of standalone notability. It's too general to be covered in one article due to all the varieties from one country to another and probably from one bank to another within a particular country. I cannot see how this can ever meet WP:V without applying only to one bank/country's regs and or possibly cover every variation on international payments, so I'm bringing it here for another look. Travellingcari (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The concept itself is certainly notable enough to have an article in Knowledge. Although the article is currently badly written, a plethora of reliable sources may be used to improve its text. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment and how would you suggest using those so that it's not a dictionary definion or turning into a HowTo guide to international payments? I think if stubbed the article could be valid and verifiable, but then it's simply a dictionary definion. That's what I see as the problem with this article. It's a term or a process. Just my .02 TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not understand the nominator's argument. The international payment system is pretty standardized and the basic mechanisms do not differ between banks or between countries. Moreover, there are more general concepts covered in a single article. No one has raised the issue of "generality" as a reason to delete God or Physics. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree this is heavily US/Europe focused, having dealt with the Asian banking world I can tell you there are differences. International payments is an overarching system that includes SWIFT and others. How do you write an encyclopedia article that's more than a dicdef without crossing into a howto? TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per indiscriminate collection of information. What salvageable info is here already exists at various other banking-related articles and this simply put cannot aspire to be an encyclopedic topic and should be deleted. Eusebeus (talk) 23:50, 28 February 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 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO as lacking sources and failing to assert notability beyond Teachers Hall of Fame. David Fuchs 16:02, 22 February 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Canon EOS 5/A2/A2e (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Reads as an advertisement; Knowledge is not a Canon catalog. Knowledge is not a camera guide. Almost completely unreferenced -- after removing what's referenced or how-to, we've got nothing left. Insufficient third-party references exist to make an article that's anything more than a review or an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the AfD3 template is incompatible with article names that have strokes in them. I've tried to work around the problem by manually editing the post-substituted wiki markup on this page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge to an overall list as with the recent camera discussions. There really needs to be some consensus over camera/cell phone, etc. notability or lackthereof. Travellingcari (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - looks like there are quite a lot of articles like this, judging by the template at the bottom of the page. Just how many camera articles are there on Wiki? I too am inclined to think we may need a clearer policy about products, because I too think we should not be acting like a catalogue but at the same time it would seem unfair to pick on this particular article if there are many others. If this one goes, IMO so should they all. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Knowledge is an encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Knowledge is a specialist encyclopedia as well as a generalist one. An encyclopedia of photographic equipment would certainly contain this. This product was notable for both technical innovation and commercial success. Furthermore, it should be becoming clearer to Mikeblas that his opinions on Knowledge inclusion are not shared. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Fine article. Just needs more sources which exist. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid subject for an encyclopedia. Every camera model from the major makers (and many from the minors) is reviewed in the various magazines. They all merit articles. Companies make far too many models to put them all in one article. Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails Knowledge:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close The album is by a notable artist and comes out in 2 weeks. Mdsummermsw really needs to calm down and stop sending things to to AFD for questionable reasons. Ridernyc (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Article does not demonstrate substantial coverage in reliable sources. The artist is certainly notable, but this is about the unreleased album. If/when it is released it will easily pass notability. At the moment, it does not. (Incidentally, please restrict your comments to the topic.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It will be released in 2 weeks. Your nominations are increasingly getting more and more pointy Ridernyc (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, please keep your comments on topic. If you take issue with me and/or my actions, discuss them on my talk page or take it to dispute resolution. Thanks. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just silly we are going to have a 5 day AFD on it, delete it, then allow it be recreated a week later? Ridernyc (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep A couple of sites can at least verify the track listing, and CDUniverse provides an album cover, so this may just be good enough for now -- nothing seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - A blank page (except for the title and catalog number) certainly does not amount to substantial coverage. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to. All it has to do is confirm that the album exists and will be released. The fact that it's a release by a notable artist establishes notability. It's not "unreleased", it's 'scheduled for release at a future date'. "Unreleased" refers to albums like Smile (Beach Boys album), not albums confirmed for a release date one week from today. —Torc. 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - It has not been released, so it's un+released. Beyond Aston was "going-to-be-released-I-swear", so were Physical Education, Lovechild, etc. One Day at a Time will be out any day now... Yes, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge." This, at present, is not an "officially released album". Right now, the article says "Released: March 4, 2008". Should we add <ref>Crystal ball, accessed 26 February 2008.</ref>? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you're misreading the guideline and misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. "Unreleased" is a reference back to bootlegs, demos, etc., not to scheduled upcoming releases, hence the use of a semi-colon in that sentence. Pointing out tense problems in the infobox is a non-argument; the box is not dynamically created and cannot be easily changed. The allowance for future albums has been overwhelmingly endorsed, and WP:CRYSTAL forbids only unsourced speculation, not sourced articles about scheduled future events. —Torc. 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The debate you reference saved Template:Future_album, with significant notes re articles that are WP:CRYSTAL problems and adding a usage note to the template in that regard. The "tense problem" in the infobox is part of the problem. With no source or caution, it lists the date this album "was" released. The telling point is this: you said, "and WP:CRYSTAL forbids only unsourced speculation, not sourced articles about scheduled future events." Ruthless (album) is, in fact, an unsourced article about a scheduled future event. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And you could have sourced this article in less time then it took you to send it to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets notability only because release is imminent. Bands have put out fake or wrong track lists in advance before and Knowledge is not a directory, music store or any other such thing. Orderinchaos 01:53, 28 February 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, without prejudice. Should a new article be more completely sourced, this could certainly be re-evaluated. - Philippe | Talk 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

K. S. Balachandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page should be deleted because there is no evidence of notability per WP:BLP and WP:N. The article has been tagged for many moons, for numerous issues. The only source has a trivial mention of the subject, with a significant claim that can not be verified. It needs more reliable sources, as having one is not enough for the guidelines. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete and check related edits and editors I tried googling this name and came up with something a bit odd -- a wiki user account with that name. Not unheard of, but the first edit to that user page was supposedly done by User:Akradecki back in September 2006. Akradecki apparently made the first edit to User:Austexjoshua user page about the same time. Neither edit was at all typical of Akradecki's edits. I checked Akradecki's talk page and user contributions, and it looks like he was hounded by trolls and vandals before ceasing to edit in December. This bio article about a living person is too poorly sourced to keep, and those who have contributed text to it should review WP:COI and WP:Verifiability. --Edibility (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called userfication. While it's usually done by moving pages, in this particular case, the usefying was done with a copy/paste. There's no harm here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Gogo Dodo, I didn't know this. --Edibility (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article is poorly sourced and the subject lacks notability. Stormbay (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have done a Google Search and he asserts the notability.Quior (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Balachandran is a very common name in that part of India - I suspect, from reading some of the pages found at Google that these persons are not all the same. Asserting notability only helps it survive speedy deletion. I never proposed deleting it without an XfD discussion. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You might be wrong. We need opinion from WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.Quior (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He is a notable person according to tamilvision among Sri Lankan Tamils.Quior (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete No notablity at all. Looks like advertising. Igor Berger (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This Blog further supports his influence over ordinary Sri Lankan Tamil folks who are far away in Australia while K. S. Balachandran is living in Canada.Quior (talk) 02:16, 28 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Not quite up to the standards of the music notability guideline. The band has released one EP on a small indie label and, by the article's own admission, is inactive since last summer. I can't find much third-party coverage beyond a couple of passing mentions and CD reviews from not-so-reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 15:33, 22 February 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. Bduke (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy thoughts (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 as a notable company - Philippe | Talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hendrick Manufacturing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Google search shows 80 ghits, but do not establish notability. No hint in google news search. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. Google News brings forth mostly investment listings and obituaries of people who used to work there. As a factory business making solid goods, I'm inclined to give them some leeway, but I'm coming up with blanks here. There may be something available in histories of the areas in which it ran plants that might push this over the edge, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to change my opinion to keep and stub this. As Gatoclass points out, this business has a long history. The links given establish that it has contributed industrial drawing materials to the Smithsonian; notability doesn't get much better than that. The plumboleum invention is sourceable to a Texaco journal from 1944, a third party source from people who presumably know something about industrial lubricants, and therefore reliable and objective enough for our purposes.

    It is not without regret that I have to conclude that most of the company history must go. As the talk page indicates, much of the history was compiled for this article by someone with access to company documents. While conflict of interest issues can be forgiven IMO if the writer with the conflict writes well and keeps objective - and for me, this is a well written and reasonably neutral article - verifiability is a core policy that can't be met by referring to private, unpublished sources; this is original research, unfortunately.

    I'd give the author every encouragement to keep writing his history of the company. If he gets it published in an edited source, we can expand this article with information taken from it. But until that time, we probably need to cut this back substantially. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - article does include one piece on the company from fabricator.com, which appears to be a reliable industry publication. But I'm not sure if one article from one independent source is quite enough to establish notability. The company has been around a long while, which is one thing in its favour. But if the article stayed, it would have to be completely rewritten to read less like an ad and to stick only to what secondary sources have found worth mentioning. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Article needs to be revised and sourced (as stated above), but the subject matter is clearly notable, and the article's newbie contributor should be encouraged, not bitten. Writing decent well-sourced articles about industrial businesses is difficult (one reason why there are so many more Knowledge articles about new music CDs than about companies that have been in business for 132 years). I imagine that many of the company documents in the Hendrick archives are old newspaper accounts and similar items that could be cited as sources. Even a quick Google search turned up some material that helps to corroborate, in some instances contradict, or could supplement the information in the article, such as this genealogical article mentioning Eli Hendrick's wife, generic industry information, this article that mentions the company's relocation in 1976, this short historical account about a related company, and a recent press release. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Additional info: Eli Hendrick apparently is covered in The Book of prominent Pennsylvanians a standard reference, Pub. Date 1913, 258 pages, which is supposedly online at http://apps.libraries.psu.edu/digitalbookshelf/bookindex.cfm?oclc=29242741 (returns a 403 error). --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 26 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete This person was a victim of a bomb explosion in Philippine Airlines Flight 434. But do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic article. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:20, 22 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 22:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Email, Phone, Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 22 February 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; notability has not been proven conclusively - Philippe | Talk 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard Moss (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Howard Moss has been speedily deleted under a couple of slightly different titles already. Although the article asserts notability with top twenty hits on the Irish charts, there appear to be no independent ghits for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - I found his MySpace page right away, where he makes the claim that the song Delilah off of the album Tempus Fugit was one of those hits. A search at Amazon turned up that album, although there's only one used item available. I did find this link and this link repeating the claims, but the similarity of the language between the two sites suggests to me that this is the bio he hands out for bookings, and so I'm reluctant to call them reliable sources.
The claims, if true, would mean that the subject passes WP:MUSIC with no problem. Sadly, the Irish charts only go back to the beginning of 2007. I admit it is a little suspicious that information on a charting musician would be so scarce on the web, but I'm not ready to call it a hoax just yet. While I have to come down in favor of deletion due my current inability to verify the claim establishing notability, I've tagged the article for rescue and am hoping for the best. --jonny-mt 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I can categorically state that Howard Moss wrote & performed the hits that were in the charts during the nineties. He is and remains a regular live performer on the European circuit. Frank observer (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC) It seems Howard Moss is performing regularly in Cyprus at the present time. He is an important musician who has written numerous songs & has had chart hits. It appears that you can search Howard Moss lyrics or Howard Moss Cyprus to discover more. This article needs expanding.Frank observer (talk) 09:10, 23 February 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, without prejudice to renomination - Philippe | Talk 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicious and Delicious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tag team. They did nothing notable as a team itself. Being a part of the New World Order doesn't instantly make this team more important. Relevant information is already on the Scott Norton and Buff Bagwell articles. From the article log: , this has been deleted in the past twice. Recreation shouldn't have happened in the first place. I suggest a protection delete if this doesn't survive this deletion debate. Also it should be noted: the article creator removed the prod I placed on this, and gave no reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The other two deletions occured within weeks of each other and over two years ago. The first deletion did not occur after a debate but because of an expired PROD - meaning, no debate took place. You phrase your PROD statement "it should never have been recreated" as if there was some sort of consensus. There was no consensus on deleting the article, just silence and wikipedia policy. McJeff (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as the team themselves are not notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the following reasons.
    • The assertion that the team is unnotable is arbitrary and unreasonable. They were together for two years during WCW's boom period and were solid fixtures of the WCW midcard scene. That's notable.
    • The "relevant information" does NOT appear in both articles. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear in either. Both articles merely claim that such a team as Vicious and Delicious existed with no further explanation. It does not appear at all in the Buff Bagwell article. The Bagwell article merely mentions that such a team existed. The info does appear in the Norton article.
    • Unlike many stub class articles, it is well sourced.
  • McJeff (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced and notable enough. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. It should be noted Dan and Jeff edit other articles together, so it's likely McJeff told Dan to come here. From the recent edits of Dan, there is no wrestling related ones. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment He and I work on one article together. And I'm sure the fact that he and I told you off on the discussion page for aforementioned article has nothing to do with the fact that you PROD'd this one. McJeff (talk) 05:12, 25 February 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 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete fails WP:BIO. Only sign of notability given, i.e. "who gained notoriety in 1928 when he won a race around the world" is not verifiable. Also there is another sentence to prove notability - "He has written many books, most notably Prince of the Air: Around the World in 33 Days". But the book shows only one ghit in google search - wikipedia. There is no evidence that the book is notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was addressing your claim of there being only one ghit on the book, rather than the entire deletion rationale. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since I was told on my talk page that this was nominated, I'm assuming I created it?..yea..I think I must've. Anyways, it was on the list of Requested pages or something, so I created it. Obviously, I was only able to produce a tiny stub. Since I'm the creator, I won't vote, but I'm leaning on deleting it because he's not really notable.--theblueflamingo 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neier's citation, coupled with the books and numerous references (including in the cite) that he did do the race, would seem to verify that he is notable. Keep as a valid stub and, per editorial policy, wait for someone to expand. Possibly, if you're impatient, notify the relevant Wikiproject that it needs attention. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 23 February 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 hoax. I realize this is only a day old discussion, but the research has been done and it's obviously not a legitimate article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable individual that does not stand up to scrutiny. Subject does not appear on List of Medal of Honor recipients and neither does any conflict in Slovakia. When article was initially created it was proposed for speedy deletion based on the fact that the subject was noted as having been born in 1993 and joined the army at age 17, which using basic mathematics points to a nonsense article. These dates have since been changed significantly to make the article fit. Also it fails WP:COI as the article creator is Thefischer (talk · contribs). Roleplayer (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Article references improved Mayalld (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete nn musician with no reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Only nn in the opinion of deleter. Tucker is well known in the worldwide psych-folk scene, has received notices in mainstream media and has collaborated with legendary figures such as Stephen O'Malley. I am adding sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie runout (talk • contribs)
  • Comment notability isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of policy. Knowledge policy (WP:BAND) describes what constitutes notability. This guy appears not to meet the requirements. If he has received non-trivial coverage (articles about him, rather than articles that mention him in passing) in the mainstream media, then add these sources to the article. Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 20 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Canon EOS-1v (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Knowledge is not a Canon catalog. Knowledge is not a camera guide. Completely unreferenced, written like a marketing brochure, including grandiose "all needs" assertions. Mikeblas (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Knowledge isn't just a general encyclopedia, but a specialized encyclopedia too. An encyclopedia of photographic equipment would certainly contain this, which is almost certainly Canon's last professional film camera and groundbreaking in a number of respects. I agree that the current article is pretty crap and nowhere near the standard we could have, and should not be written like a marketing brochure. For proof that an article on a camera model can be much better than this, see Canon T90, which is a featured article (yes, I wrote most of it, but that's not really the point). Extensive sources exist to make this a much better article, including reviews, news articles in the photographic press, in-depth analyses of its performance, etc. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable product, widely-reviewed when it came out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not a camera directory, reviewed when it came out!notable Travellingcari (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Knowledge is a encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Matthew Brown (Morven), or possibly Merge. Some guideline for cameras should probably be created to examine the most notable breakthroughs but then simply mention the other releases in some minor way. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • IMO, having individual articles makes sense for most of these; the information including photo and specifications would be rather unwieldy in a list form. I'd agree with listifying most compact digital cameras, for instance, because there are so many, sources for more than stats are hard to find, and they never get much serious attention in the photographic press. SLR cameras, however, can generally have about five paragraphs of sourced useful info written about them, and I think that's sufficient for an article. Remember, also, that camera equipment fans definitely find these things "notable" enough, just as automobile fans do (I haven't noticed anyone wanting to get rid of articles on automobile models). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid subject for an encyclopedia. Every camera model from the major makers (and many from the minors) is reviewed in the various magazines. They all merit articles. Companies make far too many models to put them all in one article. Features vary too widely for any table or list. Fg2 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 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 Carlton Publishing Group Bduke (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Apparently non-notable publishing subsidiary (parent itself of questionable notability); assertion of "main imprint" is minimal importance to avoid CSD:7; failed prod. No sources or non-primary EL ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:21, 18 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebu Provincial History Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an encyclopedic article as well as lacking notability. The content itself is described as a "project" and therefore would have been better off as part of Knowledge Tambayan Philippines. Starczamora (talk) 02:42, 19 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

D.B. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A City Of Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A New Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pretty obvious hoax article about a supposed Romanian rapper who works with Dr. Dre and is signed his label, Aftermath. Claims the artist's single was #3 on the Billboard Top 100; song doesn't appear in Billboard's database. No verifiable references because, one suspects, none exist. Including articles for said single and a "forthcoming" album. —Hello, Control 15:09, 19 February 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. I am giving this the benefit of doubt for now. It has developed. Let us see whether it develops further. Bduke (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete fails WP:N. no WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why are you wanting to delete this article? It is about a valid organization/site/event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.163.160 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is about a valid organization/site/event, but the question is of notability. Reliable sources lacking, notability has not established. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The page has now been overhauled with references, categories, and some facts either corrected or summarized. I expect if this article is deleted it will only resurface again, as the FAWM project appears to grow in size and cultural impact each year. Also -- the entry should be listed under "FAWM", not "Fawm." I don't know how to change this. Tatou27 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm also sorry to see according to rules of use that my comment will almost certainly be ignored because I have made few other edits. This may be because I know something about this, as I am involved as a participant. I am not confident enough using Wiki to post normally, and so haven't done so. I hope that you will appreciate that I am not acting maliciously. What sort of "reliable sources" do you need that would validate this article? If Wiki is for everyone, and FAWM is getting a high number of hits on google (regardless of whether they are blogs or otherwise) surely keeping this is not harming anyone? I'm happy to try to find validating sources, but two are already listed (pitchfork and madison) in addition to the several thousand google hits. What else do you guys need? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesstrel (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources because there is no editorial control, people can say what they want regardless if it's true whereas content in Knowledge needs to me verifiable from reliable sources. I'm sure you're here in good faith but it's important to understand Wiki guidelines regarding articles. This article may be kept, we don't know yet. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How long do I have to provide a source? BBC Radio York plan to do a piece on FAWM on monday morning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesstrel (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 February 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. JERRY contribs 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fort Minor Milita EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fake/Bootleg/Unofficial fan-made CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackSparrow (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Mix tapes are not notable for the most part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This information is relevant as a warning that this album is fake. Faking is all too frequent and often notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've had this discussion with people (in paticular, about Linkin Park bootlegs), and believe me, I've got the same arguement as you do, but the way this was labeled, it was in the normal discography, labeled as an official release, with notes trying to further dictate it's a legit CD, (The entire article was created by me by the way, as I've got a friend that bought a copy of it, which I posted on the Music Wiki under Fakes/Bootlegs for the very reason you mentioned), but for inclusion on this Wiki, I don't think it qualifies. If it does, there's 100+ fake/bootlegs that need to be added to the Linkin ark discography as well, along with some other fake Fort Minor releases. I actually had the same arguement as you, about putting up bootlegs labeled as such, but it was shot down. And, this article has already been deleted off Knowledge, twice if I remember, because I had it taken down, and then somebody put it back up, and I had it taken down again. Jay (talk) 20:10, 7 February 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 Speedily deleted as an obvious hoax, and therefore vandalism. An alleged town that was in "south Switzerland" that was home to the "Swiss royal family", but annexed by Germany in the 4th century. (Note to hoaxer: Germany is north of Switzerland.) This was illustrated with a picture of the Perchten, said to be a native Yeti costume. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Unable to find any evidence that this place exists or where it is. --Snigbrook 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - This appears a hoax. I can't find any evidence of this being a place. You'd think if this was where the "Swiss royal family" resided, there would be a ton of information. And in the 4th century, Germany didn't exist as a country and the area known as Switzerland was in fact invaded and occupied by the Roman Empire. --Oakshade (talk) 06:29, 20 February 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. Canley (talk) 12:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Impalers of the Clannic Shelf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no mention of this. Anywhere. WP:ORG. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. I met these guys once. Nice fellows, once you get past the whole impalement thing, but not really article material. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I remember the two sides being Vikings and Barbarians, and as I recall neither had any particular name or backstory. I guess it's possible these elements were added in other editions, but come on: this is ultra-trivial detail about one edition of a relatively obscure board game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 22 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The whole article is a hodge podge of different sources and ideas - e.g. Martial races theory, 1971 Bangladesh atrocities - which have been conflated with the term "Indophobia". This article does note that the term was coined by "American Indologist Thomas Trautmann to describe negative attitudes expressed by some British Indologists against Indian history, society, religions and culture", so really should only be a Wiktionary entry. It was just a term used in scholarly discourse, that can also apply to prejudice against people of the Indian subcontinent - that's about it. All of the stuff in this article belongs elsewhere - the article as it stands is just a pov mêlée of sources.
Pahari Sahib 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. An article being in a bad state is not a reason for its deletion. The term is discussed in several books and papers; it deserves an encyclopedic entry, just like Anglophobia. Or it could be moved to an article titled Anti-India sentiment, like the other articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment. utcursch | talk 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment How about reducing this article to simply a description of the term? The rest of the information, about Pakistan and Bangladesh, seems like it violates WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN) in most cases, unless the sources actually characterize the sentiment in both Pakistan and Bangladesh as "Indophobic." The issue with these "-phobic" pages is that "Islamophobic" is the only one that has a sizable body of scholarly literature on it. Moreover, it appears as though this page was created with the intent to "offset" the Islamophobia page, as we are already aware of the tensions between South Asian countries. Sentences like this: "In academic discourse, racial prejudices directed against these people from their host countries fall under the rubric of Indophobia." need to simply be weeded out, since they then allow the editors to have too much liberty in adding whatever content they wish, even if it hasn't be characterized as Indophobic by the actual sources. The article needs clean up, but not necessarily deletion. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In a quick search I found two reliable sources discussing the term: a Times of India article at and a Daily Times (Pakistan) article at . These two sources are sufficient to establish notability alone. Notability aside, the article, as written, has an excess of information of no direct relevance. This should be reduced and/or removed from the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:13, 27 February 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 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Odell Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ad for a non-notable brewing company, no reliable sources. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced the speedy deletion request is justified. The brewery seems to be a semi-established one and much what article content there is is not very different in character from other existing brewery articles. Given the author appears to be still working on this we should perhaps wait a while and see if a worthwhile article emerges. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. And there are no reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair point on the other articles' existance not being enough to justify this one. With regard to lack of sources do you mean in the article or at all? A quick search reveals lots of mentions elsewhere, whether those are reliable or significant I've not had time to investigate. I'm still in favour of waiting to see if the article improves since it looks like its still a work in progress, perhaps some relevant sources will be added? Ultimately I might change my mind and agree with deleation, but at present it seems premature. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per the availibility of significant sources including and and and and and and and and and . These took 10 minutes and google to find. These are all extensive and independent; beyond just establishing that others have noted this company (the basis of notability), these could be put together into quite a good set of refs to write a really good article. They've won numerous awards, not only for their beers apparently, but for their company (the last is to Coloradoan Magazine, that named them the Best Business for 2007). Given the relative easy in turning these up, there's plenty out there to establish that this meets WP:N and WP:CORP requirements. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Small breweries market consumer products that usually generate independent, third party literature, as Jayron32 points out. Being brick and mortar businesses with physical plants and limited distribution areas; so the risk of using Knowledge for self-promotion is relatively small. They therefore typically pass the business notability guidelines. This one has competed and won awards at the Great American Beer Festival, which admittedly has large numbers of categories and therefore large numbers of winners, but it means that they have been noticed by third party sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Odell are a notable small brewer and the article is OK. It would be nice to see it expanded, but it shouldn't be deleted. Bardcom (talk) 16:29, 22 February 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. It can be recreated if and when it is released and there are suitable sources demonstrating notability. Bduke (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced article about an as-yet-unreleased album (crystal ballism). There are claims that a song that will be on the album got airplay in 2007, but no references (and the song did not chart, according to australian-charts.com)—track is not even confirmed as appearing on the album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. A prod was removed with a statement that the editor would work to improve the article but that was the last edit made to the article by that editor. —Hello, Control 21:38, 20 February 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 --Stephen 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't Have To (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable under WP:MUSIC, part of an on-going sock-puppet drama. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The article claims that the song charted, but for only two weeks -- I don't think that's enough for WP:MUSIC. There's no chance that this will ever expand beyond a stub, and the album it was released from is apparently unreleased. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 13:37, 22 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverie Sound Revue debut album (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. — Edokter • Talk • 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was tagged for speedy deletion, but the nominator had stripped it him or herself of all assertions of notability. I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday addressing what seemed to be substantial padding, like the assertion that her “professional career began with a co-starring role on Dawson's Creek”, which turned out to be evidently an uncredited, unnamed part as “dancing girl”. While this woman has some small assertions of notability, including a public access t.v. show that I can’t verify through independent sources, her one sourced indie movie role doesn’t seem notable, and I can’t find anything reliable on the other film (the IMDb bio, which is not a reliable source, claims it was an indie short). The work in which she’s currently engaged, as the lead character in ‘’The Adventures of Captain SchoolGirl’’, does not itself seem to meet the notability threshold. It has 21 distinct hits on Google, and according to the Lollipop Magazine piece featured in the article is available through a now dead website and the vanity publisher . WP:BIO sets out as criteria for entertainers (abbreviated) (a) significant roles, (b) large fan base or cult following; (c) unique, prolific or innovative contributions. I don’t see any evidence that this woman yet meets any one of these criteria and believe that until she does this article should be deleted. For those reviewing notability, let me add that the IMDb biography (which is not in any case reliable), like the article in the past, seems to contain some misleading inflation. For instance, “Voted Hottest Canadian” comes down to this, which seems somewhat less significant in context. As a final point, I tagged it yesterday for notability, and it was edited last night, but only to change the dates of some claims in a way that does not meet the sourcing. This original research, like the non-neutral text, makes me wonder if there is a conflict of interest here. Moonriddengirl 12:53, 22 February 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 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Complete (self-?)aggrandizement, but even if not so, insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am, of course, arguing that WP should have an article about him, saying the existing one needed much improvement, expressing my willingness to improve it,--and saying I had started doing so, as I try to do when the subject is notable and the needed improvements obvious. I just did a little more. I come to afd to help get rid of the junk, which is most of it -- and help improve what can be, which includes this one DGG (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoting music in Ateneo De Manila University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

found this while sorting through uncat pages. Article reads like an advert, violates WP:OR and WP:RS Lenticel 11:22, 22 February 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. Knowledge is not a game guide. - Philippe | Talk 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

THAC0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism, with no relevance outside the game it is used in. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can also support a Trim and Merge into another article, particularly one that is itself notable. Armor class is one possibility, because AC exists in several different game systems (whereas THAC0 is in D&D 2E and nothing else), but some sort of D&D mechanics article would be good.--Ig8887 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge It is a distinctive search term and hits can be found in Google News and Google Scholar, let alone the hobby press which is not online. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment google hits don't generally establish notability. If any of those hits constitute substantial, independent secondary coverage then please link to them from the article; otherwise, it fails to meet the notability requirements. Regarding the hobby press: can you give any examples of non-TSR/WotC publications dedicating substantial coverage to THAC0? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment in fact, I've followed those google links, and none of the hits are articles about THAC0; rather they are trivial mentions, which don't establish notability at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a hostage-taking exercise to drive editing activity. The point of my searches, which were made quickly, was to demonstrate the penetration of this term. They are indicative rather than definitive. More substantial coverage will be in specialist magazines and works covering the field which are typically not online or in Google. I remain unpersuaded that there is any need to delete this article. It can safely be left for further editing work to be done over the fullness of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Except that you haven't really proven anything, because you haven't found even one article that is about THAC0 and its notability instead of simply using THAC0 in its place as a rule terminology. If reliable sources discussing THAC0's significance can be found, then yes, the article should be kept and cleaned up. "Penetration of the term" is a meaningless distinction if nobody ever actually writes about the term itself. Your assertion that "More substantial coverage will be in specialist magazines and works covering the field which are typically not online or in Google," is simply unsupported at best, wishful thinking at worst. Hell, I read Dragon Magazine for the entire Second Edition period, and I can't remember a single article regarding the impact or significance of the term "THAC0". If there are any such reliable third-party sources, at least two must be produced in order for this subject to be established as notable. The vague hope that they might exist, somewhere, is not sufficient. --Ig8887 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Exactly. - I don't see a compelling reason why any publication outside of TSR/WotC would give coverage to THAC0. Mention it, yes, but not devote coverage to it. And if that coverage doesn't exist, then the article isn't notable, and that isn't a problem that we can leave for editors to fix later, because they never will. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
              • The term is notoriously confusing and so it seems quite likely that there was some deep coverage of it in journals back in the day. I might look for this just to prove you wrong but the effort involved is disproportionate for deciding this matter and it is simply not needed. My searching indicates that there's sufficiently currency for the term that someone might want to search for it. The article then would be fine as a redirect to an article like Armor class, say, which is a broader topic. What I utterly reject is your idea that exact detailed sources have to be produced right now simply because Gavin Collins has turned his baleful eye this way. Notability is just a guideline and should not be interpreted in a rigidily bureacratic way, per WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
                • That the notability requirements are just a guideline doesn't mean we shouldn't follow them. Equally, we shouldn't include stuff for now when the references aren't forthcoming. I believe you when you say there was some coverage, and indeed I've read a lot in Dragon trying to explain it - but unless secondary sources exist, the topic isn't a notable one, and you haven't established that they do, or even made it look likely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, it DOES need to be proven right now (or rather, within the next few days). That notability needs to be proven at ANY point at which an editor feels that an article does not meet the standards of Knowledge is the very basis of the entire Deletion Proposal process, whether initiated by Gavin Collins or anyone else. If notability cannot be proven now, then we must conclude that it cannot be proven at all, and therefore must be deleted. "I can't be bothered to look for it, but, you know, someone should," isn't a valid reason to keep an article on a topic whose notability independent of its parent topic has yet to be proven. If you want to keep it, do the research. Go ahead and prove me wrong, I'd be happy to change my vote to Keep an article that actually had proper proof of notability. I dug up articles to successfully oppose Gavin Collins' AfD on slaad, so I'm not asking you to anything that I haven't done in the past. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • I have already done more research here than anyone seems to and am satisfied that the results are good enough to satisfy WP:RFD#KEEP. Deleting the article rather than retaining it as a useful redirect does not seem helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • If you've done substantial research and failed to find secondary coverage, that's good enough evidence that none exists to justify deletion. We're not debating whether this page is useful, we're debating whether it's notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • No, I have not done substantial research - I just spent a minute with Google. Substantial research would be poring through piles of dusty magazines, none of which seem to be on Google. This would take several hours or days. Since you yourself say, I've read a lot in Dragon trying to explain it, I expect that I'd find something. But this is not necessary to support a merge which seems to be the consensus and so I'll do something useful instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
                        • Actually, I *DO* spend a lot of time going through dusty old Dragons and White Dwarfs and Dungeoneers and a score of other mags I have here. Still, in the interests of fairness if you find them (or even a couple)I will dig too. But I think this is better served as a topic within AC. Web Warlock (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Colonel Warden. And I'm not convinced that this is non-notable, and being a neologism isn't relevant to whether or not it should be deleted. Rray (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect into Editions of Dungeons & Dragons#Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition, I guess Armor class. My first thought was "THAC0? I didn't even know we had an article on THAC0."  :) It's a defunct game mechanic - should get a mention and a little discussion in an article, but not so sure it needs its own. BOZ (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with armor class. The concept itself is in fact notable, being a term of art in Dungeons and Dragons prior to the third edition and d20. As such, the term was widely used, not only in publications from TSR/Wizards/Hasbro, but also in the documentation of derivative works like the Gold Box series from SSI.

    In any case, this page should not be deleted while the fictional character deletion injunction remains in effect; looking at the arbitration page, it seems that the dispute there also covers roleplaying game topics as well as TV series topics. It seems to fall within the purview of that arbitration case as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment THAC0 isn't a fictional character. Further, game manuals wouldn't have devoted significant coverage to a single game mechanic like THAC0 - they may have given a sentence or two at most. Unless there's significant, non-trivial independent secondary coverage, the topic still fails WP:N. The same is likely true of Armour Class. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Trim, Merge and Redirect into armor class. 15 years ago this had notability, today it's notability only comes in from the fact that I think it was mentioned on Jeopardy or the Colbert Report. Web Warlock (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. Explaining a single term makes the article suitable for a dictionary - WP:DICT. Perhaps a merge as suggested earlier is a good route to take. Bardcom (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to an article about D&D game mechanics, which overall IS a significant topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete or merge As it stands, this is game-guide material. DGG (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Armor class per BOZ, as long as Gavin pledges not to nominate that article for deletion as well. Can't recall ever hearing or reading the term outside of game discussion or game materials. Addition of this material may improve the Armor class pagespace. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 25 February 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. —αlεx•mullεr 10:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Television commercial donut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references at all. Google search turns up nothing but wiki mirrors etc. Does not appear to be a notable or widely-used term. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • delete for above reasons. In the three years since creation, it is not a phrase that has reached notable use. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If it had references, then I imagine that one of those references would explain the concept better than this article does. This one includes a rather snobbish opinion that there are not many interesting local commercials because "local TV commercial producers, who generally are promoted from the ranks of blue collar TV production positions rather than being hired from advertising agencies" Whatsa matter, a blue-collar guy got the job you deserved? Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 22 February 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 Speedily deleted per db-author

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

Autobiographical vanity page for a filmmaker who has made only one 48 minute film featuring himself and a mannequin. IMDB has fewer than 5 votes for it, which means nobody watches this film. There are hundreds of thousands of such unwatched films in IMDB and neither they nor their directors warrant entries in Knowledge. Quatloo (talk) 10:35, 22 February 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 in favour of merging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dale Martin D'Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contest prod. No notability asserted beyond candidate in provincial election. No evidence of coverage by reliable third-party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election per standard practice for unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know we did that at the provincial level. There being no apparent objections, I withdraw my nom. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 22 February 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 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable semi professional cricket player. Ridernyc (talk) 08:31, 22 February 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 Non-notable program --Stephen 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Freshman Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:N. Most WP:RS point to its existence at best, but not actually indicating notability. In addition, using their own university newspaper for the majority of its citations is also questionable as of WP:RS. Talk page indicated and suggested that further notability and citations from outside sources be added, but no further action taken. WT:UNI indicated that this article would be AfDed. - Jameson L. Tai 08:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, we are not a directory of internal university programs. It would have to be shown that this one was considered notable by being studied or copied by other schools, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I think there's waaay to much information about the dormitories, it's a legitimate article about one university's program to lower the dropout and transfer rate of new students, through a combination of mentoring and special accomodations and rules for incoming freshmen. I think it would be preferable if this were merged into an article about the approaches made by universities and colleges to prevent freshman attrition. Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge info into main article on Georgia Tech, if it's not already there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Routine university program with no external RSs for notability. It would take something really special along these lines to be worth an article--or get much public notice outside the university. Putting Freshman in a separate dormitory has been routine in half the colleges in the US for a hundred years or more. Assigning them residence advisors is routine in essentially every college. DGG (talk) 06:39, 23 February 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 technical support --Stephen 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Created by the same user who created IYogi (which is blatent advertising). This article seems to be a cover-up to try to make iYogi look notable/important. Shootthedevgru (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus; default to keep - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This one's a little confusing. It does exist, it's a clothing store that somehow got involved in the music scene. Current article is probably a copyvio because it had been marked with a credit to the NY Times and reads more like a paper piece than an encyclopedia article. Google hits are a little confusing for me, a little over 1000 but I don't see anything really major. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This could be something, but I'm not sure which. There's Chris Brick, musician and serial boutique entrepreneur, there's the band Family of God, there's Smylonylon mix tapes, and there's Smylonylon the store. All seem marginal in their own ways, but there's no denying the store got a profile in the hometown paper. Hard to find anything else. The source is probably a COI rewrite of this zine article (obv. short of RS). --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Smylonylon was the first vintage store in the United States to sell (what is now called dead stock)from the 60's and 70's.Smylonylon was also the first in many areas.The compilation tapes made by Chris Brick and Alex Gloor reintroduced to the world artist such as Lee Hazelwood and Bridget Bardot as well as hundreds of others musicians from the world of Italio-disco and electro..Smylonylon influenced designers such as Miuccia Prada,Tom Ford,Anna Sui,Karl Lagerfeld ,Jean Paul Gaultier Betsey Johnson,Tommy Hilfiger,Ralph Lauren.They all personally shopped in the store and based many pieces in their collections on the items found in Smylonylon.Everyone from Lisa Marie Presley to Cloe Sevigny shopped in Smylonylon.All New York actors,models and musicians shopped In Smylonylon and her sister store Arkle and Sparkle(later named Center for the Dull).Tim Burton bought clothes for Austin Powers from Smylonylon.The theme song for the first Austin Powers film was taken from one of the Smlyonylon compilations.The list goes on and one and sadly is not very well documented on the internetl.There were several films made in Smylonylon and Arkle and Sparkle maybe someone out there could find them! Not many people like to give credit were credit is due and would like to pretend they made creative discoveries on their own when actually Smylonylon and Center for the Dull were two stores in New York in the 90's that influenced everyone and everything!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.224.137 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Things that are "sadly not very well documented" are pretty much not notable, by definition. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How small minded of you Dhartung-The store is well documented but not on the internet if you would care to read the comment more closely.Believe it or not (gasp)not everything of note is on the world wide web!Smylonylon
  • Unfortunately, if it's not available there is not much that can be done. We can't accept an article just because some anonymous yahoo says it's notable. And calling people "small-minded" will not help your glorious cause. JuJube (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not think this was a trial especially since some things considered note worthy on Wiki are much less documented than Smylonylon.If you would like me to gather more documentation than I shall,I didn't realize the responsibility was mine. Please do me the honor and delete Smylonylon if you would prefer that I not pursue this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.224.137 (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep On the basis of a full signed featured article in the NYT--its not a copy vio from there, as anyone could tell by looking at it via Google. (I reformatted the link as a reference to make it even easier). That's not my idea of an "anonymous yahoo". or "not very well documented". If there is that, there's almost certainly more. That kind of media notice amounts to notability. -- (btw, the article formats the name as "Smylonylon", not full capitals.) DGG (talk) 00:08, 24 February 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 - not English, fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 04:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shams Attar Ardabili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable references, unverified claims of notability. Shootthedevgru (talk) 07:11, 22 February 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 Non-notable, no sources --Stephen 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The 13th Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fan-produced video game sequel, still vaporware at this point. No reliable sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Jfire (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete this has been floating around literally for years now in the form of a teaser trailer and the occasional picture. It's apparently not very far along, the official site gives a "403 Forbidden" error (for me anyway) and all in all I'd be extremely surprised if it's ever actually completed. That's not the reason for deletion though. Fan-made games/mods are rarely notable, and there are no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, lack of RS coverage or proof that it even exists. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an interesting idea. If they were to not have any new information on their next update, I'd think about deleting it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 February 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 with Privacy Office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. --Moonriddengirl 13:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DHS Privacy Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be redundant to Privacy Office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps it could be deleted and redirected or merged and redirected into that article. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 06:19, 22 February 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 --Stephen 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Yet another Yu-Gi-Oh-related article, this one is about a certain kind of deck, which makes it original research. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 06:13, 22 February 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. --Stephen 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Biased fork masquerading as a well-sourced article, intent on either making the industry out to be the bogeyman that keeps the disease untreatable, or to make it sound like it isn't a disease at all! Weasel words throughout, very poor stuff. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:COATRACK article and novel synthesis of ideas too. This is simply anti-industry screed masquerading as an article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as nom. Alberon (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per the above. Merenta (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete obvious POV fork. Any useful material can be added to the appropriate article(s). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Note - This was earlier deleted by me, but on request of the nominator it has been restored. I presumed the creator was absent and would not contribute to the discussion, and therefore not provide any other reason for it to be kept (or deleted for that reason). Rudget. 18:34, 23 February 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 European Survey Research Association. It can be moved out again later if it becomes more notable. I suggest this meets both the weak keep and the weak delete opinions. I have done the merge. Bduke (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey Research Methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"aims to..." "will be..." no evidence of RS coverage and scant ghits from a selection of search terms (that one gets the most, with significant false positives from the organization) I see no evidence of notability for this journal. European Survey Research Association, which publishes it, has a page of questionable notability due to a lack of sources but it already says all it needs to about the journal so I don't see it worth a merge. Travellingcari (talk) 05:28, 22 February 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. Bduke (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Before there were MySpace and YouTube, there was Usenet. Different medium, but same number of fan sites and forums and lack of RS coverage. No evidence he passes WP:BIO. Travellingcari (talk) 05:17, 22 February 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 already speedy deleted. Bduke (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Townsend Stirling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Issue is verifiability of the sole claim to notability. Article claims it's sourced from Veterans Affairs but they appear to have no record of this man with or without the middle name. If that can't be verified then he fails WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 05:05, 22 February 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. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Ghits are primarily about companies using the software or EMC, not about PowerPath. I don't think this really belongs or would fit in EMC, but I don't think the software is notable on its own Travellingcari (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Article is written in a properly way. It explain what´s the funcionality of the software and it´s history. I find no reason for delete it, there is thousand of articles about software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.40.23 (talk) 11:40, 22 February 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. Would I have closed it a few hours earlier, I might have deleted it. — Edokter • Talk • 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Enough to avoid speedy but ghits don't assert any notability. CISCO is notable, he doesn't appear to be. Doesn't pass WP:BIO and Wiki is not a directory of CFOs Travellingcari (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have found and added more, enough to confirm to my satisfaction at least that this individual meets WP:BIO. He has been interviewed in industry magazines and (as noted above) singled out as a leader in his field. He was also put forth to do some 'splaining when Cisco ran into trouble in 2001 here. I've included that in the newly created "further reading" section. --Moonriddengirl 14:19, 1 March 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 A3 Tonywalton  12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The 200 Greatest Songs of the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Found this on the merge log, but the content to be merged was deleted due to a copyright violation, so I say just delete the thing. Adoniscik (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per A3: There's nothing here really except a restatement of the title and an external link... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagged for Speedy--Lenticel 09:52, 22 February 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 moral keep is disregarded and the merge opinion is unpersuasive. Sandstein (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody Else's Problem field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination First off let me say that me and Zaphod Beeblebrox are tight. We just had drinks last night with Eccentrica Galumbits (the triple breasted whore of Eroticon six) at Milliways. After my third Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, I said "Zaphod, have you seen this article, I mean, I love all of the books, really I do, but is there any reason for this article?" and he says "Well, I am the President of The Universe, and I can't see any reason for it, I mean its basically a plot element from the Hitchhikers Guide, and has no real-world commentary outside of that book". So I said "Yeah, but what about all of these other mentions outside of Hitchhikers" and he says "That's all original research baby! Look, other sci-fi books and TV shows have stuff like this in them all the time. There is no real connection. To connect the dots like that is original research. Other than that, there is nothing here. This should probably go to AFD." I said "Let me ask the Guide what it thinks about it". So I punched it in the Guide, and it said "Mostly harmless". That settles it. Call the Vogon Destructor fleet, this article needs to go to make space for a real article. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep There is real world commentary out there. And the links to cognitive dissonance and bystander effect are good. There's some scope for merger but that's a keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the Google News articles in that link are actually ABOUT the SEP field, they merely name-check it. They're trivial mentions. And the imagined links to all of the "other British science fiction" mentions are, as per nom, Original Research and unsourced synthesis. None of them use the same terminology or reference H2G2 in any way. The SEP field is a specific device in a specific book, and those items in Dr. Who are not it. Further, the Perception Filter of Dr. Who and Torchwood has coverage under List of Doctor Who items. There are literally hundreds of pieces of speculative fiction that involve a character appearing unseen by making people ignore him or her: vampires, werewolves, Sunnydale Syndrome, etc. This is one such example, but it does not have any independent coverage to make it worth having its own article. --Ig8887 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge — Jayron32, if you had truly had a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster last night, you wouldn't be able to form a coherent sentence by now. That aside, I do believe that there isn't sufficient outside commentary on this topic. What about if we merge Somebody Else's Problem field, Sunnydale Syndrome, Reality distortion field and Perception filter into one article, with appropriate redirects. I don't know what it should be called, but they should be in one article then this article could stand on its own. — Val42 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is you can't merge them into one article, because to connect the dots and say that they all represent the same thing is the definition of Novel synthesis. Yes, they all exist, but without some outside reference saying that they all are the same thing, its only YOU saying they all are the same thing, and thus merging them all would be drawing a connection where one does not exist in reliable sources. That's why deletion is teh best option. For the record, the rest of those should probably be deleted as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the same thing should be done to all of them, but I strongly think that the best solution is to merge them. — Val42 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I definitely oppose a Merge, for a few reasons. First of all, novel synthesis. Second of all, some of those articles are completely different animals; the article on reality distortion field describes a business/marketing term coined to describe Steve Jobs' charisma! It has only a tenuous relation to the fictional devices we're talking about here. Third, Sunnydale Syndrome and Perception Filter don't HAVE their own articles; they exist within broader topics. Pulling them out of those to create one giant stew of vaguely-connected perception-altering fictional devices is just a bad idea. And fourth, novel synthesis. Instead of correcting the problems with this article, it would introduce new, bigger problems to a new, bigger article. (I realize that's technically only three reasons, but the first one was so big, I felt it bore mentioning twice. Oh, wait, that's the wrong scifi comedy...)--Ig8887 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 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. —αlεx•mullεr 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Virtual Console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod. My prod rationale was "Hoax article: No evidence that this exists". The prod was removed (not by the article's creator) with an edit summary of "You may not know about it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist". I prodded the article not merely because I haven't heard of this, but because extensive Googling and blog searching came up with nothing. I still feel there is no evidence that this exists, and I believe that the mere premise of Microsoft offering "5.5 billions of ROMs" for free download for a new CD and cartridge-based system is absurd. The "Official website" doesn't exist, and there is absolutely no coverage for what would obviously be a massive announcement if real. I wish there was a speedy rationale for such blatant hoaxes. Dreaded Walrus 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

*: If we make the bold assumption that video gaming started in 1960 with Spacewar, the existence of "5.5 billion ROMs" would mean that video games have been released at a phenomenal rate of 300,000 a day. That's simply ridiculous; it might be within an order of magnitude of true today if you count every Flash game, but it certainly hasn't been going on continuously since the 1960s.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article redirected to State University of New York at Binghamton Gnangarra 13:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

possible non-notable; article was written by organization as per references, so needs to be written NPOV if kept Wsanders (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete no third party references, not notable per WP:N... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 22 February 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

A large chunk of unreferenced junk and propaganda for a particular community. The sources are all biased and there is only one reference not specific to the Bhumihar community though. The long list of Famous Bhumihars is clear propaganda as it carries no references. Besides, most of them are non-notable personalities like local landlords. The article has been edited mostly by anonymous IPs and by a blocked user.Violates WP:NOT#OR,WP:NOT#SOAP,WP:NOT#DIR Ravichandar 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; most of these people don't seem to be notable in any way, and there are of course the NPOV issues. (By the way, my apologies to the nom; I thought that you were having trouble listing the AfD properly, since it kept coming up as a red link on the main AfD page.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment:The very first line of the article states that Bhumihar Brahmins also known as Bhumihars (भूमिहार) are an influential Hindu sub-caste. However, it is a highly contentious issue as to whether Bhumihars are considered Brahmin by all. From Google search results and discussions in social networking communities, I came to know that Bhumihars are self-proclaimed Brahmins and are not regarded as such by all. This being the case, it needs to be examined as to what proportion of the article is actually made of facts.I feel that the article is a strong candidate for deletion unless each and every point in the article is referenced with citations from "unbiased" sources. -Ravichandar 05:51, 22 February 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. KrakatoaKatie 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination only. AfD discussion transferred from Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Shaw History, with which it was originally bundled See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hans Albrecht III for an article on a man who appears to be the owner of Wettershaw Manor and a related AfD, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Shaw History. --Eastmain (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Hoax CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


As a community in Shaw we have gone door to door to have people submit a rebutle to the statements of Shaw and the community and of the Wetter family that lives here. I have been given the rare oportunity to visit and see his library and the family bible that was made about 1650-1700 with entires that go back about 300years before. Really cool book to see and I am thankful that he was kind enough to show me. We hope you get swamped with rebuttals over your malicious attacks 72.193.204.212 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — 72.193.204.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As for Wettershaw Manor not Being on the National Register of Historic Places dose not make it not a home of history. If someone would look ut up before calling everything a hoax, Its listed with the Boone county Historical scocity, and 4 othe small one i can find. Try and look at what is being done good not at what you have not heared off, but go out and read a book on the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.7.70 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — 4.245.7.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I feel the same about this site as well...Mr Brecwrewer I want to thank you for the amount of time you spent complaining about this information being put up in just one day, yet you have miraculously researched, pulled Genealogy records, church records, sensus records and read so many books and pulled the information down in the same amount of time and calling the family a hoax. To me you sound like a history HOAX, selfappointed EXPERT. I cannot believe one person to be an expert in Medieval history, European history, Renaissance history, Holy Roman Empire history, Swiss history, US history, Missrouri history, Boone County history etc. You must me a man of great importance to know so much in all these fields that most PhDs can claim to be in only one. One would think that leaving the page up for a time would have given time to have more references to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azsteve (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — Azsteve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


I would like to know how a 13 year old computer 'whiz' is capable of determining that Missouri history, manor homes over 200 years old, and family trees hoaxes! Considering the difficulty in tracing much of this information via the internet, how did you come by the information to deem this fake? It can take a trained geneologist and historian months and years to trace family history, history of homes. Yet it took hours for a few people to determine all this information is a hoax. I realize WP is an encyclopedia. But it is a community based one. If people are shot down when trying to contribute, how is the content to be exanded? Janetw2008 (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — Janetw2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking sockpuppets

*Keep, Keep I want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC) striking sockpuppets
  • Delete. Not a hoax, but insufficient evidence of notability from WP:reliable source coverage. The article is a spammy-toned brochure for a possibly historic home-turned-B&B. From a source cited, a man name Wetter found a 200-year-old home, restored it, substantially modified it, and superimposed his name and background on the place. Could have been NRHP listed, but documentation and historic preservation not done. Locally interesting project, but WP:NN. Worth a sentence or two in the article for its town. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete unsourced, very probable COI, Gnangarra 13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable corporation. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. unsourced and notability per WP:CORP unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have heard of their brushless motors for R/C models, they are popular and well known. Could be a WP:COI problem with the user name though, remarkably similar to the company in question. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been using Aveox motors for ages and as Nibus227 mentioned they are a well known and respected brand. I can also say that as of late they seem to be moving into higher markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcftw (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable subject. Article does not even assert notability. Dgf32 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep They are obviously a reputable and notable company, selling products worldwide (Aveox motors are available in the UK), there are also hints of high profile aerospace component use. The article however needs expanding with research, independent references and an independent editor without turning it into an advert. It is purely a matter of proving notability. If that does not happen within a certain time frame then delete, there must be a process for this? Nimbus227 (talk) 00:48, 29 February 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod, removed by author an editor. Fails WP:PORNBIO. — HelloAnnyong 02:28, 22 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This topic seems spurious and not notable, and reads like an advertisement. Hojimachong 02:10, 22 February 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. Carioca (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Melvin Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not seeing notability here. Most of it reads like a vanity puff piece, possibly a COI judging by the creator's name. The only claim of importance is being co-founder of Campusbug.com, which doesn't look like nearly enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:09, 22 February 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 nom-withdrawn. Chetblong 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Article does not appear to assert notability other that the "one of the best full-backs in Ireland" statement, which is not sourced. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:30, 22 February 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 – fails WP:BIO. No prejudice against recreation when/if reliable secondary sources are available. KrakatoaKatie 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

A bit-actress with no significant coverage outside of the Xena-fandom, and even then not enough to be considered as having a "cult following". Does not meet WP:BIO's first requirement of being the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 22 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hans Albrecht III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a self-promotion by a living person. No internet presence aside from Knowledge, and I haven't been able to find any of the references except the one with an ISBN that's only in four US libraries, meaning no practical verifiable sources so far as I can tell. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking up things on this family and I have to say I can find alot, not on just this sit but many others, the names have been spelled in Differant ways but its the same family. There is lots wee cant find on the web like church records and and in books we cant find. I think we should KEEP IT UP, i like the history of the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.7.70 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — 4.245.7.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking sockpuppet.

*Mr Brecwrewer I want to thank you for the amount of time you spent complaining about this information being put up in just one day, yet you have miraculously researched, pulled Genealogy records, church records, sensus records and read so many books and pulled the information down in the same amount of time and calling the family a hoax. To me you sound like a history HOAX, selfappointed EXPERT. I cannot believe one person to be an expert in Medieval history, European history, Renaissance history, Holy Roman Empire history, Swiss history, US history, Missrouri history, Boone County history etc. You must me a man of great importance to know so much in all these fields that most PhDs can claim to be in only one. One would think that leaving the page up for a time would have given time to have more references to be added. Azsteve (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — Azsteve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking sockpuppet.


*I am fascinated by the number of people wanting to delete one man's name, biography, historic house, his entire family history (which many of you have commented some of the geneology is historically accurate). It's claimed to be not notable. However, I discover that Britany Spears IS notable?? This man is not asking for money, not patting himself on the back. HE did not put up the information. He is not selling anything. I am beginning to question the community and donation aspect of WP. Is character assasination is part of the community of WP?Janetw2008 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC) striking sockpuppet— Janetw2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep, Keep I want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. You are the HOAX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) sockpuppet struck

'KEEP KEEP KEEP' You may be able to pull pages from WP, but you can't erase history. You can't erase a family name, heritage, family tree. Before you judge, do your research. If it's a hoax, how is there a family castle in Switzerland? A church? How is there so much other stuff written on this family that is NOT on WP? There are lots of other pages on WP that are not referenced. Are you going to pull them all down?Rehabnurse (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC) sockpuppet struck.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Now it's possible his publishing company might be notable, but there's little evidence (lots of false positives) that he passes WP:BIO. The two books were published by his own companies and nothing to back up the best seller claims that I could find, or independent reviews to see if the books are. Neither of his companies have articles here with which to merge this. Ascension Press had one but it appears to have been deleted as nn and it doesn't appear Catholic Exchange ever had one. Travellingcari (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:04, 22 February 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. — Scientizzle 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musical artist. Only references available appear to be one interview with questionable reliability. Other source appears to be a brief mention in Inland Empire magazine. I couldn't locate any other sources for article. Article had been tagged as unreferenced since July 2006 prior to my addition of these two sources. Otherwise nothing else to establish notability. Not enough material to write a reliable article. Optigan13 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:04, 22 February 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Uncertain how notable the claims of notability are (see talk-page for some claims and material that aren't in actual article yet). DMacks (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for sure : The parsing would be International IT jobs (which is easily noticeable if one would visit the site that is :)). A job searching candidate can have access to jobs all across the world under one job portal, thus multiplying his chances of finding the right job oppurtunity and likewise recruiters, whose companies' headquarters are spread worldwide are able to make sure that their job availabilities are being seen by people all over, a unique concept like this which overcomes continent, state or country barrier should definitely be mentioned, highlighted and continued. --59.184.132.8 (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) comment added by Angel1983ns (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 February 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 History of Shaw while keeping Shaw, Missouri. It's doubtful anyone will look for the area under the former phrase. Any verifiable history of the area should go into the new article. KrakatoaKatie 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Reads like an ad for the book, with nothing to add on the history of the area aside from mention of a bypass. Related AfD at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Shaw History. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I want to say sarry for any of this, All we did was want to put up history of an area with lots of history. We had the idea as a group to put up a history of Shaw and Two-mile. We spend are time And money on the Cemetarys them self. I sit on the History Bord and as do 4 others and we all came up with the idea to help save some histoy. Yes it was done all at the same time we all got together and did . I am sorry that no one can find fact on this site but we do have a small town with lots of history. We asled Mr Wetter if we could put somethin up on his house and he said, I am sorry that I or any of us tryed to tell of our History, Sorry Mr. Wetter you have done alot for our town and history, forgive us for trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaw1873 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Shaw1873 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete While real towns are notable, there's no evidence this place exists and strong implications that it does not. Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Again, yes, exists, not very big. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Shaw is registered in GNIS, shows up on Google maps, and so on. The article needed some work, and still needs references regarding the history of Shaw. I rewrote it as a place article to reflect the fact that the place is substantiated. I tagged the history section as unreferenced. It no longer reads like an ad, so the the criteria for nomination no longer applies. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a signpost placed by the illustrious state of Missouri for the town of Shaw. I personally refer to it as "The Booming Metropolis of Shaw" second only to "The Booming Metropolis of Murray" (Missouri) which is just up the road from it 'a piece'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123jake (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) — 123jake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep, Keep

I want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. You are an A no# 1 hoax to not let history stay up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY OUTSIDE OF COLUMBIA, MO CALLED SHAW. IF YOU WANT PROOF GOTO TRIPADVISOR.COM AND LOOK UP COLUMBIA, MO AND YOU CAN'T MISS SHAW JUST NORTH OF I-70 OUTSIDE OF COLUMBIA, MO. OR FOR PROOF OF OUR COMMUNITY LOOK UP MISSOURI 4-H NEAR COLUMBIA, MO AND LOOK UP THE MAP SECTION AND YOU WILL SEE SHAW, AGAIN CAN'T MISS IT. THIS 4 H GROUP IS THE ONE THE KIDS AT TWO MILE PRAIRIE ELE SCHOOL GO TO! THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST AREAS SETTLED IN MISSOURI! AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. WETTER FOR ALL OF THE WORK HE HAS DONE AND ALL THE TIME HE HAS DONATED TO PRESEREVE TH HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND REMOVE THIS WEBSITE BUT YOU CAN'T REMOVE THE COMMUNITY PRIDE I FEEL! I LOVE SHAW!****************


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stephen 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

no sources, does not meet WP:ATHLETE. a version of the article from 2005 by the same author (It was immediately speedied I have undeleted for this discussion) makes me suspect that the article is a hoax Jon513 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 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 – fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Minor actress w/ no significant roles that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 22 February 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. Fails WP:WEB. KrakatoaKatie 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails notability guidelines for inclusion of websites, particularly in comparison to the other sites listed at List_of_social_software#Social_bookmarking (a couple thousand google hits w/ seemingly only press/blog releases for "Xerpi") versus millions w/ actual independent reviews on the others, like digg, stumbleupon, etc. slakr 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete, as a hoax --Stephen 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Google doesn't seem to give any references to either Benito Papasón or Benito Papazón that are not wikiclones or refer to this page. The archive on La Jornada (which is used as a reference) doesn't give any result either. In The Spanish Wiki this article was removed as a hoax and explains it's a pun. Also I recall having seen this article earlier named Benito Papazón. Apparently it been deleted but I find no discussion, what happened?. Unless anyone can give proof Papasón existed I say we should delete this page.

Oh, and someone who speaks Italian please also inform the Italian Wiki so they can remove their article on Papasón as well. Mixcoatl (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    • If it helps you, the following happened to Benito Papazón: It was tagged by User:SatyrTN with: {{db-reason|es:Benito Papazón was speedily deleted. Evidently, "Benito Carmelo Papazón" is a play on words to mean "Ven y tócamelo , Papazón", which translates roughly to "Come and play with my d***, big daddy". See my talk page for verification.}} It was subsequently speedied under CSD G3. Punkmorten (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and rename, taking information from es:Baile de los cuarenta y uno? Aille (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, per above reasoning.JJJ999 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Along with Biggus Dickus, Hugh Jass, Heywood Jablome, and all the other nonsense. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I originally written the article in 2005. Recently I was rechecking the original source "Diccionario Biografico y de Historia de Mexico" in the library and noticed I had misspelled the name in my notes originally as Papazon rather than Papasón. When I tried to correct the WP article I found it had been deleted, so I recreated it using the correct spelling. Now that it has been corrected it should stay. I realize the name sounds like a joke name, which is what captured my eye in the first place. The article by Monsivais was used as a secondary source for information about the "Dance of the 41". Just because you cannot find something in Google, it does not mean that there are no reference materials out there that contain information. Pretzelogic2 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment is it possible that your source, the "Diccionario Biografico y de Historia de Mexico" created that entry to catch copyviolators unawares? Mapmakers routinely add a non-existent small town to every map to that end. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess there's no way to tell. The book is from 1964, and it is really quite humorless and dry, with lots of little biographies of some even more arcane and obscure people, so I don't think the author would be as clever. Pretzelogic2 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It'd be interesting to see a scan of the article from the Diccionario although (copyright) we probably couldn't use it in the article or (WP:NOR) to provide an example of a Nihilartikel. But rewording & renaming the article so that it's about the incident and not the alleged host would take about 3 mins; translating the salient points from the es-wiki article a bit (but not much) longer. As for leaving this title as a redirect: I don't know. First, I want to see his Diccionario entry for myself. Aille (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I really doubt this is a so-called nihilartikel. I'd be happy to make a photocopy of the original article and then scan it and post it when I next go home, where I can access the book. Until then, it seems like this article is being deleted solely because there's no reference of it on Google and its an unusual name. I think as long as it is sourced, and the source made clear, then it fine. Pretzelogic2 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be a hoax, per most of the above. We could rewrite the article under a different name. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 09:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: Y'all, this is a hoax. Did you read the above? The administrators on es.wikipedia laughed when they were asked. And none of the sources, none of the names, none of it adds up to be even remotely true. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dance of the Forty-One created from w/es article. Aille (talk) 16:45, 26 February 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.

    ↑