Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 9 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. Edit history is preserved should an interested editor wish to perform a merge of encyclopedic material. Shereth 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable tv episode. Article consists of nothing beyond an air date, and a plot summery providing no real world notability --T-rex 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (without prejudice) as a very brief article without context and as an article about a business with no showing of importance. This may be an important business worthy of an article. In case someone wants to re-start this, the sole text of the former article was: The company Storage Computer Corporation founded RAID 7. The entire subject is covered in more detail at Non-standard RAID levels. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete unsourced one liner about a company with a trademarked non-standard RAID product that doesn't seem to merit its own article - fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Although this site has supposedly been around since 1999, there is almost nothing in the way of independent sources to verify its notability, as per WP:RS standards. Most of the links in the reference section of the article circle back to the site itself. May also fail WP:WEB for similar reasons. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. I will go ahead and create a redirect to List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums and protect it until such time an article can be written that passes WP:CRYSTAL. Shereth 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 29 (U.S. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future album without a tracklisting ---T-rex 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It may. I'm not an admin so I am unable to see the former version --T-rex 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I am an admin and I can see the former version. The article was speedily deleted on 4 April 2008 (the admin giving CSD:A1 as the reason), speedily deleted on 14 April (CSD:A3), deleted on 24 May after the first AfD, then speedily deleted on 4 July (CSD:A3). It was recreated, and nominated for speedy deletion 37 minutes later by Truthanado. Speedy deletion was declined by Metropolitan90. He gives the reason this is reasonably expected to be the next numbered album in a long-running, successful series. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • After thinking about this I think I'm going to change my vote to Redirect to the main article until more information is available. Right now, there is no tracklisting or any other content available other than a release date. Maybe down the road once there's enough to make a decent article we can come back and make the article, but right now, the way it sits at the moment, there's just not enough. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Question If that's done, can there be a lock placed on the article so it's not constantly being re-created? --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
sure, why not... create a redirect, then indef full protect it until the time comes that a worthwhile article can be written... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe that the reasons for past speedy deletion ought not to prejudice this article's right to have its day at AfD. It is closer to the release date now, and the text of this article is different to the ones that have been speedied. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. All that I'm seeing on the "official site" is "NOW 29: November 4" with no further information. Can find no further substantive information. Fails WP:CRYSTAL at this time. Deor (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too soon, not enough info. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL though I'm not 100% sure what all the policies and guidelines for "upcoming" things are. If music is judged in a similar vein to movies and the album has started production than I suppose it would be a keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the exception to WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Given that there have been three numbered Now volumes in the U.S. series each year since 2001, two volumes have come out this year already, and the most recent one debuted at #2 on the Billboard 200 last month, I think it's safe to say that there will be a Now 29 this year and it will be notable. (In fact, all of the first 28 numbered volumes of the U.S. have hit the top 10 of the album chart.) I think it's acceptable to allow editors to write about the immediate next entry in this series, while not allowing articles about any future volumes after that. (In other words, they should have to wait for Now 29 to come out before starting Now That's What I Call Music! 30 (U.S. series).) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete What purpose does this article serve right now? Delete until some actual content is available to put in the article. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't delete Hey. I don't want this article being deleted. I don't care if it doesn't have a tracklist nor cover i want it to remain on wikipedia. We should get the tracklist/cover in september which is only 2 months away so please don't delete this even though it doesn't get released til november. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.146.54 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that the article can't be recreated, if content for it becomes available --T-rex 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Aw C'mon please don't delete I'm begging y'all I'm a big Now That's What I Call Music! fan for almost 6 years and i started my collection late 2002 and i have all 28 current volumes so i don't want the now 29 article being deleted. I'm looking forward to the cover and tracklist #1's etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.146.54 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

contested prod, no information given, made up word. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was "delete." --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable. Reads like an self-aggrandizing advertisement. External links read like self-written, self-aggrandizing diatribes with no real content or assertion of notability. Self-label doesn't help the notability search. This wikipedia page is little more than an advertisement, and a look at the history ("Ravagenrumble" + "64.191.211.54" are all but 9 edits, and of those 8, 4 are bots, 1 is PROD.) will strengthen that belief. "I must be famous; I have a page on Knowledge (XXG)!" ... or not. VengeancePrime (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Neologism and unverifiable (21 G-hits), Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary and not for things made-up yesterday. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

A non-notable organization, no references in the article and no independent coverage that I could find on the web. A plain google search returns only two hits, one of which is the Knowledge (XXG) article:. Fails WP:ORG. Note, when google-searching, that the acronym "NAMF" is also used by a number of other organizations. Nsk92 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Producing stuff by vanity press, and on youtube does not make this guy notable. Google shows little about this person besides Knowledge (XXG) pages. Reyk YO! 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested Prod. While i don't deny that the idea exists in the minds of many, the term itself hasn't reached the point of notability. The references which have been added are soley in articles discussing an unpassed law in a Single American State. They don't define the term, only use it, and while some might consider that to be an important or notable event, I couldn't care less, which draws me to the opinion that many may not consider it notable. Given the lack of any greater notability, as well as a lack of unified concept (it's not really important as a spoken concept, more a simple fact, perhaps deserving of a wiktionary entry) I support deletion.Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I object to the deletion of the article open format because there are formal definitions of open formats as well as notable references. The concept of open formats is well known in the software industry (google.com has more than 340.000 entries). Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge: Just because it is not well referenced does not mean it can't be. The merge with Free file format makes sense as they are the same thing. I have heard both terms used with more or less equal frequency. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is what I meant, although I see that some people think that this is not the most appropriate place to merge it. My view is that these are all highly related topics with subtle distinctions and we need to make sure it is documented in a way that explains it all clearly. I am not really sure whether it is better to have one article or a group of linked articles but the key point is that this subject is very important and needs to be kept in some form. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. The form is a minor issue here (one article might be better to avoid redundancy where the definitions overlap), but it is certainly a very important subject that needs to be documented and explained for the interested audience. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Commonly used term, decent quality article discussing it. Do not merge, since "Free file format" has a slightly different (but related) meaning, just provide relevant links between two articles. LotLE×talk 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a collection of Minor Definitions from software companies pushing forward particular agendas. If you believe this term is notable, not a dictionary definition and will hopefully soon provide notable references then i don't see the problem with a merge, especially considering Free File format is even less notable. I'd still like to see some Notable Sources though. Especially one with a definition outside the scope of a single company. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Google test" shows 340k hits, mostly apparently related to the same concept. It is not a term used only by one or a few companies, but a widespread term in computer technologies. Please see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+format%22. LotLE×talk 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really agree, the google test isn't appropriate as they are two words, very easy to bring together to mention numerous relating concepts, however, as i said, there is no notable definition of the term. I know it's mentioned alot on google, i've probably made a post on a forum in the past that appears in that list, but so what? My other points stand, it's still just a defintion possibly worthy of wiktionary, listing many unnotable definitions doesn't make an article and most importatnly, I already agreed to support a merge if you find some notable definitions. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be, i believe i mentioned supporting a possible merge a few times... my point is there is no single definition of this term. It's an idea, with three differnet articles, and this one does not have suitable notability as a term. On top of that, i don't support having a single article on open or closed file formats becasue it's such an insignificant thing, which can hardly support a definition of what makes it more unique than any other protocol. Why don't we have articles on open exectutable formats, that's a mixture of words i'm sure many people have used before to represent an completely ambiguous and specific concept. How about open network protocols, open hardware specifications, how about this isn't a large notable topic with a well deifned definition, deserving of even one article, never mind the three it has. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to create an article Open executable formats. Or maybe just Executable formats with a subsection. We do have Category:Executable file formats, but not a corresponding article. FWIW, I think this emphasizes why Open formats shouldn't be merged into Open standards, ELF is the latter, but sort of borderline on being the former. LotLE×talk 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
How would that be good? It's a terrible idea. It's not a notable concept, it's simply the obvious term to use for an idea you immediately placed bias upon. Not shockingly your immediate thought rested upon ELF, despite pretty much all Executable formats being "open". My point emphasizes why this is a miniscual, unencyclopedic psuedo-definition, and as the FSF loving bias here just reminds me, i'm wasting my time thinking any of you would read the policies. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}
Abusive language, quite apart from not convincing anybody, is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'd recommend you remove the inappropriate comments and watch your tone in the future. LotLE×talk 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What? I haven't used any abusive language. Way to prove you don't even read any position that questions your own, and will say anything to pretend i'm not following policy while you're completely ignoring it. Note that to claim i have used abusive language, I A) Have to have used abusive language, B) Have to have used abusive language and C)- Can't have not used abusive language. I'm afriad also that as i mentioned in my last post, i don't want to convince you anymore because you don't bother choosing based upon policies but your own bias. So grow up, it's the Internet, don't try a sitting on a high horse and politely asking me to remove inappropriate comment, especially on a site that logs all messages so anyone can see haven't made used any language that could be considered abusive. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm afraid I can quite understand what you are trying to point out. However, note that we also have these somewhat related articles: Open content, Free content, Open source hardware, Open design, Open system (computing), Open specifications etc. I see no reason why there shouldn't be one about open (file) formats. Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, those are all well documented names for concepts, and in those cases concepts with serious legal or cultural material behind the actual term, and relating it to a definition. We don't decide which "open ..." ideas are correct purely through our own speculation. I was simply trying to say, that while open format might be the most obvious term to use, it isn't well defined, and apart from Suns personal definition no one has provided sources, and i spent a long time looking and couldn't find anything substantial. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see the sense of the merge suggestion, but not all open standards are about open formats. Things like wire protocols and APIs are also subject to standards, without being "formats" in the usual sense. I think "open formats" deserves a summarization in "open standards", but then with a "see also" or {main|open formats}. LotLE×talk 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't fully agree with that as a Standard is the parent of a format... A Standard is the level of expected performance and acceptance where a format is the venue in which to achieve a standard. If you feel that there is enough material (I don't think WP:N is an issue here) to warrent it's own article, then by all means, but I think that "Open format" is mostly a term reserved for software and does not really warrent that much explaining INHO.--Pmedema (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article now gives several definitions with sources. There doesn't need to be a single definition for a concept or term to be notable--for example, there is no one definition of acid. --Itub (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Best name

I'm not going to change my "keep" vote, but it kind of occurs to me with WillOakland's comments that the name "Open file format" might be better than "Open format". I guess for now, I'll make a redirect page, but what do other editors think of the best base name. LotLE×talk 00:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This article does not meet the test of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) which clearly states: person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability.. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. In this case, A is Sarah Pratt, famous only for having been allegedly approached to be a plural wife by notable person B, Joseph Smith, Jr.. She was married to Orson Pratt, but this also does not grant notability for a standalone article. Sarah Pratt may or may not have had a sexual relationship with John C. Bennett, but again this does not qualify for a standalone article. Sarah Pratt has not received a notable award or honor, nor has been often nominated for them. Pratt has also not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Although it has been mentioned that Pratt was a founder of Utah's Anti Polygamy Society, there does not appear to be much historical data on the group, either in mainstream American, Utah or Mormon history. One source does not mention Pratt whatsoever as a creator of the group , and that same source documents that the group went national two years after the founding, and published for four years, though no mention of Pratt. Again, the information on both Pratt and group is so scarce, it does not appear to support a standalone article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Notable Mormon critic of plural marriage? Because this woman was interviewed on the subject in 1885, and has been mentioned in several books on the subject in the last twenty years, she is a notable critic? This person still does not satisfy the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for a standalone article. Anyone that looks into this matter can see that you re-created the article as a forum for your fringe views. A Sniper (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is sufficient treatment of her story in the historical literature to deem her notable. But care needs to be taken that the article becomes a biography, not a coatrack for diatribes for/against Mormonism though. The article as it currently stands says a lot about what Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett were accused of doing, but doesn't say much about Pratt's life, unlike the Van Wagoner source it's supposed to rely on. The lede is also distorted, giving first mention to the issue of Joseph Smith's polygamy even before saying who she was actually married to or what the major themes of her life were. I hope neutral outside parties will help keep an eye on this article for the sake of WP:NPOV. alanyst 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons I have mentioned above: a lack of any sort of notability other than her relationships to notable men, and a possible involvement in a short-lived, non-notable organization. A Sniper (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. The nomination is not consistent with Knowledge (XXG)'s basic criterion for notability. 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. It is not necessary to read or quote things further down the notability guideline page to conclude she is notable. Knowledge (XXG) "notablility" need not coincide with an editor's individual concept of notability. There is substantial coverage from high quality sources; there really isn't much else left to say. A glance at the references of this well referenced article shows a 30 page paper in an academic journal on her. And to contribute something, I mention this book, which seems to consider her one of 4 notable heroes of the 13 mavericks it covers.. This fellow did scarcely anything known or knowable. But we have an article on him because he's been the subject of scholarly research. If the rest of the world thinks someone or something is notable, we do too.John Z (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Glides past WP:N concerns. The existence of the article itself doesn't lend undue weight (imo) a view in any way that couldn't be corrected by editing. Content is verifiable. Seems ok to me. Protonk (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sarah Pratt was:
All these assertions are cited extensively to reliable sources and hyperlinks in her article. The claims by A Sniper—Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and perhaps more yet to come—are not backed up by any citations to verifiable facts and rather represent yet another attempt at Wikilawyering to delete or suppress verifiable facts based on reliable sources of this historical subject. See Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable web film series; fails WP:NF and WP:WEB. Probably a speedy candidate but already a contested prod. Ros0709 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is an episode guide for the same series:

Leet World Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguing the semantics between Arts criticism and Art criticism is kind of silly, and the authors may want to put some real consideration into merging the two articles together into something cohesive. Shereth 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Appears to be unreferenced original research. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Hello. I'm the page creator, so no surprise that I'm defending. Judging by my talk page Stifles problem with the article is that it's unreferenced. I find that a really hard criticism to address but NOT because I don't feel the article should stand but because the statements I've made in the article are so broad and uncontroversial that I really am at a loss as to where to begin to get references from (continues...)
    • (...)We know what the arts are. And we know what criticism is. I've merely brought those two things together and they are such that I dt know how to give a meaningful reference. Sure improve on those statements. But I don't see how you can delete an article (the subject of which is a supplement in many newspapers and a section in general interest magazines) because it is deemed wp:Original research as was suggested in the history of the article and a reason for deletion here. Does arts criticism not exist? Does it not have a history? Is it not a section in the book stores? Are there not notable critics we can mention? So please: don't delete. Expand and improve. If you have any suggestions as to how to reference it and develop it then I will follow them to make this article survive. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong deleteRedirect per Reyk. I'm embarrassed I missed the existing good article under slightly different spelling. This article is WP:OR essay. LotLE×talk 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Art criticism, which is an established and legitimate article. Reyk YO! 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that this article is discussing overall criticism of all arts (including music, architecture, etc), whereas Art criticism only discussed criticism of visual arts. The various types of "arts criticism" should be tied together in some way. I'm not sure whether this article is it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment- I think the Art criticism article should be expanded to include all the other sorts of art. Reyk YO! 23:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Knowledge (XXG) article titles should reflect common use of terms in the real world. In the real world, "art criticism" is used for visual arts and "arts criticism" is used for all arts. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment This page seems to confirm that the term "art criticism" isn't just restricted to the visual arts and so I think that the two terms are interchangeable. Reyk YO! 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment "Art criticism" is often used to mean visual arts only. Googling the term, most of the usages on the first page are visual-arts only. Presumably this is why art criticism has been written this way. Inevitably you'll also be able to find people using English differently, perhaps at places like Norwegian universities ;). An AfD seems a strange place to try to rescope an article that isn't even the one under discussion. You could try editing the article art criticism to include all arts and see whether that scope can find consensus. Once you do so, I'd be curious whether an article called "visual art criticism" has to be created, given that all other specific artform criticism movements have their own articles. Perhaps you'd be better off to rename art criticism to "visual art criticism" in the first place and skip the painful middle stages where a lot of people will disagree with you? But in the mean time, with the scopes currently given to each article, they are both notable and describe different scopes so should not be merged or redirected. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment - I am entirely happy to see some rejigging of article titles because it is certainly the case that the titles arts criticism v art criticism are bothersome/confusing. Whether my article name is changed or the extant one, I don't mind. However, as others have noted there is a distinction here. The art criticism article is about what most newspapers I have looked at refer to as visual art (painting, sculpture, things you see in a gallery). Whereas the arts is broader encompassing the spectrum of artistic endeavors (dance, film, architecture etc) which you often find at newspaper sites if you click on "arts and entertainment". --bodnotbod (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Have been Googling around, and there seems to be plenty of evidence to support the "Arts criticism" as the name for a notable social phenomenon. As a sample: The Future of Arts Criticism, Justin Davidson on arts criticism, Arts Criticism Wanes Nationally, Modern Arts Criticism (book). City University London has a Master of Arts course in "Arts Criticism", and I doubt its the only one. I've really only scratched the surface of the evidence of notability, it's a deep sea because this is a long-term, wide-spread, international phenomena with a commonly-used name. Did any of the Delete Redirect voters actually look for evidence of notability? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not opposed to redirecting to art criticism, but would like this AFD to run its course as a previous redirecting was reverted. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - why are you not opposed to a redirect when there is ample evidence that the two articles are about substantially different things? What makes 'redirect' a good option here? You might just as well redirect Washington DC to Washington County since, the effect of a redirect here is to redirect a broad article into a specific one. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a difference between Art criticism and Arts criticism, so there is scope for an article by this name—provided someone can come up with some reliable sources, that is. Look for sources that also talk about the history of arts criticism, and topics such as the rise of the internet as a carrier of cultural commentary should provide some meat for the article. Can I suggest to the closing admin that if the article is deleted that it is userfied in order for it to be worked on at the editor's own leisure? Alternatively, the editor could try incorporating the information as a subsection of The arts, until such time as it is large enough to be spun-off into its own article. There'd be space for his navbox there too. Steve 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs major expansion and work, some tweaks to the terminology and topics, and maybe a name change at some point, but it is no longer unreferenced and I believe there is now enough here for a reasonable stub article. Brevity in of itself should be no reason to delete. Thanks, Steve 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability - article had previous speedy attempt which author requested 'hang on' for a month ago - no improvement to notability problem since then Hunting dog (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 far as whether this should be merged elsewhere is, ultimately, an editorial decision, not a deletion debate. Shereth 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Archery Olympic Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article may not identify the subject. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an article I feel is missing. It is a subject the is often asked about in archery circles and with the Olymipcs coming up I felt it was important for laymen to understand. Suggestions for merging or editing are welcome... 22:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1440 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Not convincing in claim of notability. No secondary source references despite being tagged for some time. Google search is not encouraging. Some claims seem to be puffed up. Sure, they deal with notable hospitals but are they notable as an agency in themselves? Prod was removed a while back. DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Bear in mind that I did some cleanup on it back when I thought it might be savable. It was spammier before that. In my view it is the lack of any secondary refs that is the key problem. The claim can't be verified without it. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Despite a claim that, "Because its closure has broken so many traditions, it justifies notability in Knowledge (XXG)", I don't see any evidence that the existence or closure of this resort was in any way notable per WP:ORG. There's no evidence this was anything other than a regular campsite, it's sourced wholly to its own brochures and there don't appear to be reliable sources from which to expand it. TravellingCari 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tur'el (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.  Sandstein  17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Incomplete AfD nomination by User:LakeBoater; I'm not sure why it was nominated, but I can come up with some guesses as to why. Specifically, the article violates WP:NOR with regards to a probably non-notable group of people. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is not one keep argument based in policy, leaving only consensus to delete. Shereth 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Collar Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seem to be unnotable but for use in a game soundtrack. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article should not be deleted for they are an important band with a record label, a website, and 3 CDs. They are just as important as any other band on wikipedia. If you delete this article now you will be sorry when they become hits in the future.99.153.2.148 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article should not be deleted. Deleting it would be pointless. If the band has a track on a videogame then they must be important. Tony Hawk would just find some dumb garage band and slap one of their tracks on his new game. I think this article can really amount to something. You just have to give it a chance.T4k (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Now why would you delete this article? IF THEY'RE ON A VIDEO GAME THEY MUST BE IMPORTANT!!! I mean, there is an article on Bad Luck 13 Riot Extravaganza (who?) but you still want to delete good old BCS. Thats just crazy!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.2.148 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Dont delete this article!!! I even created a redirect from "blue collor special". Dont throw all my hard work away!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by T4k (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Can't find any evidence of notability, searched Google and Google News and only found self-published sites and gig listings. Fans of this band, if you want the article kept then please find articles about the band in newspapers, magazines etc and post links here to demonstrate notability. Will happily change my opinion if you can do so. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm Smelling a Sock Both the User:T4k and User:99.153.2.148 are new accounts, both inserted unsigned comments in addition to their own, and both used gibberish in edit summaries (see User:T4k edit summary for 17:13 9 July 2008 and compare with several User:99.153.2.148 edit summaries). For the most part, I'm indifferent to whether to delete this article, but I am not a fan of socks, whether of the clothing variety or the Knowledge (XXG) variety and their existence is enough to push me toward Delete. Eauhomme (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I really don't understand punishing users of Knowledge (XXG) by suggesting deletion of articles. Either the article meets Knowledge (XXG) standards or it doesn't. Apparent violations by its supporters should be dealt with separately. There are dangers in judging content by user actions, it makes the process much less impartial. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable source establishing notability.--Boffob (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete although being included on the game soundtrack gives them some notability perhaps I can't find any information from reliable 3rd party sources about the band (or even their inclusion on said soundtrack). References within the article are primary source and/or "undergoing maintenance". Nothing on GNews (even in the archives) and a huge number of stuff through standard G are lyrics sites, wiki mirrors, or places to illegally download music (so I'm pretty sure they fail RS). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this counts as an RS for the track being included in the game . DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to let others decide as I can't access that site from work. Could you add it to the article (just in case consensus is to keep it shoul dbe there). Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

CommentDear Jasynnash2 They do have a song on a soundtrack. It is on the soundtrack for Tony Hawk's Underground in the punk section. Sorry for the misunderstanding.T4k (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is a posting on gamespot, and while postings aren't generally reliable this one is from 2003 so unlikely to have been created in support of this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep You know I really think this band is notable. Theyre from Southern California and im from the midwest and Ive heard about them. Getting your name across the country is tough. This unsigned contribution was from 99.153.2.148 who already expressed an opinion above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • CommentLook guys I swear to god Im not part of this band and havent been hired to advertise for them. Im trying hard to find more info about them. Normally I would email them at these adresses

Rafe Johnny Joey Chris But I dont have an email adress. Their website is still underconstruction but when it gets finished im sure it will be a good source for info. T4k (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment We appreciate your hard work. The concern isn't that your page is spam or that the band doesn't exist, but that the band just isn't notable. I personally don't read the notability page to say that a song on a compilation or soundtrack makes a band inherently notable, which seems to be the disconnect. Also, a band's website itself probably isn't a reliable source in the sense that we're using it - we're asking for things like newspaper articles or reviews. It's possible that I'm wrong about the notability criterion, in which case the closing administrator will opt not to delete the article. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No third party sources, no releases on a major label or notable indie label, no chart presence. One track on a game soundrack is not enough on its own to meet WP:BAND. — Gwalla | Talk 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep I really think the article should be kept!!!!!! 24.208.45.11 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe we should turn the article into a stub99.153.2.148 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The only criteria I have seen for the article to be retained under WP:MUSIC is that they have performed music for a work of media that is notable (the video game Tony Hawk's Underground). However, that criterion continues (in brackets) But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. But they appear to have provided just one track out of 72 used in the game , and according to my counting were one of 70 bands providing the music, so I don't think it merits even a redirect. Should the band become famous, then a new article will doubtless be created, but Knowledge (XXG) isn't a crystal ball. Jll (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

KeepThe article should be kept67.53.251.154 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)— 67.53.251.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CommentThere are third party sources.Look in the refrences>99.149.118.183 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

QuestionPlease clarify which of the 4 references in the article you consider to be reliable 3rd party references which verify the groups notability. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: My sockpuppet sense is tingling. Several IPs have commented here in defense of the article with similar writing style and keyboard-gibberish edit summaries. — Gwalla | Talk 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

KeepI agree with T4k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.45.191 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete unsourced one-liner that's been tagged for months. While some may assert that articles claiming that so-and-so is one of the "best", "foremost", "greatest", "prettiest" etc. confers a claim of notability to defeat application of WP:CSD#A7, I tend to disagree; as these are mere opinions and who I think is the "best", etc., may not accord with what anyone else thinks - but if someone can find sources for this individual, go for it and if he's so notable, perhaps someone will find when and where he was born which are essentials to any encyclopedic biography of a person born in modern times.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a square in Stockholm, which no doubt has many squares, roads, alleyways, most of no encyclopedic notability - this one among them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - No evidence of notability. Jll (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn´t meet WP:BIO, google search for "Cllr. Niall Kelly" and for "Niall Kelly" Belfast, most of the links to a musician. Caiaffa (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you search for his full title: "Councillor Niall Kelly", you show up with two third party articles: The SDLP site here and a blog mentioning his election, as well as his entry in the SDLP Directory. However, the blog states Kelly is a friend of the author, so it can't really qualify as a notable mention in general. The only notable mention is on the website of the political party he belongs to, probably not enough. Scapler (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - A complete vanity article, the user created it is registered as Niallkelly007! Scapler (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - It could almost be a CSD. Ank329 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete- nn. Perfect Proposal 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators; the content is still available in the history to perform a merge. While the emulator may not be notable, it appears to be important, and it would be a shame to fully lose the content. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Multiple serious problems. This article fails to establish notability, lacks any reliable sources as all of the references point to original research and web forum postings, no reliable nor primary sources can be found on the web or in printed material, and literally half of the edits to this article have been made by the author himself (who goes by both Siloh and Randilyn.) Without reliable sources, this fails WP:COS. Strongly recommend delete or merge to List of NES emulators. The muramasa (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Merge to the list, but am not against full deletion either. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators. There it can include links to the Sourceforge site. MuZemike (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The project does not make a convincing case for notability and appears to be largely outdated and abandoned, meaning it doesn't stand to gain any notability either, and also being as such it's of minimal usefulness to readers. WP:SAL discourages the inclusion of non-notable items in a list article, hence I am reluctant to merge. That said, the current list needs some serious pruning. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not because I've been involved in the project, but because all of these emulator articles have been considered for deletion in the past, and we had a rather large war over it. Please, there's no need to do it again, we decided to keep all of the articles in the end anyway, and it was just a huge waste of time. Perhaps you need to brush up on your Knowledge (XXG) history before nominating articles for deletion. Also, did you check the homepage? The project was abandoned for a time in September, but it is no longer, and a completely new version is coming. Regards. Randilyn (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to quickly debunk most of your reasons for deletion.
Multiple serious problems. - I would not call any of them "serious", try a little less drama.
This article fails to establish notability - Please make a Google search before assuming such things. FakeNES is one of the oldest and most well known emulators in existence. Just because you don't know anything about emulation doesn't mean it isn't notable - it's just not notable in your book because you have no idea what you're talking about.
lacks any reliable sources as all of the references point to original research and web forum postings - I've been told by several Knowledge (XXG) editors that I was always doing a good job on the few occasions that I edited the article, and that it was fairly well-established.
no reliable nor primary sources can be found on the web or in printed material - You really didn't look, did you? I guess me or someone else is going to have to get a list of links for you. Knowledge (XXG) editors are lazy.
and literally half of the edits to this article have been made by the author himself (who goes by both Siloh and Randilyn.) Without reliable sources, this fails WP:COS. - Again, other editors that I have spoke to in the past disagree with you, and I stated on the Discussion page that my editors were only for technical purposes, to make sure the article was correct. These edits were kept unbiased and neutral, to-the-point and minimal. (I would also like to point out that Siloh and Randilyn are not the same person, it's just that alot of people have worked on the project and that it has had several primary authors. Please, know what you're talking about before making accusations.).
Sorry for any drama on my part friends. It is a bit disappointing, and frustrating that we have to go through this time and time again here on Knowledge (XXG), all because of some random editor who pops up and doesn't like an article. However, if the rest of you vote for delete or merge, I will agree with you. But I still wanted to take the time to debunk any false information that was being stated simply because someone didn't know what they were talking about. Randilyn (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Note - Hi, I appreciate your passion on this subject, but it has not addressed any concerns. First, it is the article authors' job to cite reliable sources to verify claims and to establish notability. This article has no references other than to the project's homepage and web forums. Please read WP:RS for what is considered acceptable, and provide any links if you can -- I was unable to find any myself. Second, as for "searching Google" to establish notability, please see WP:NUMBER. Even if we ignore that rule, this software has ~18,000 hits, whereas notable software such as VMware average ~34 million. Even if that were not the case, popularity does not establish notability. Third, I understand it may feel like targeting, but please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I realize there are hundreds of other non-notable emulator articles on Knowledge (XXG), and I'm doing my part to clean that up. I can assure you that it is not an enjoyable task. Also, I'm sorry for falsely identifying you as also being Siloh before. The muramasa (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete. Non-notable film. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources could be found. Article was prodded, but the prod was removed with no reason as to why the article should stay. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Alleged video game in development, possible WP:HOAX violation. The article is extremely vague in all particulars: the website is down but may be back, no known publishers, it's unclear what game portal may or may not host it, etc. No G-hits that seem to reference the game. "FPS Usa" is the purported developer, but the only company I can find by that name is a fire-prevention manufacturer. Created by a SPA with no other edits. Fails WP:V, WP:N.  RGTraynor  15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable "music entrepreneur," zero hits on Google Australia for his name plus that of the band he allegedly headlined (which itself doesn't seem to exist; neither of their names appear on the record label to which they're purportedly signed). Probable hoax article, created by a SPA with no other edits. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:HOAX.  RGTraynor  15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree - someone with a high-profile career like this one purports would be found on the internet. Most importantly, IMHO, if this article was not created by John Denison himself - where did he get his information? :p Addionne (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment also, the one site listed www.theage.com.au has no mention of John Denison in its search results or archive. Addionne (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Resolute 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete After extensive Google searches with many different combination of search strings including "John Denison" coupled with "music", "Australia", "AC/DC", "high school" and others, there is nothing that even indicates that this person exists. Also, Google searches of "ICU Artist Management" and "Smash International Touring" return only this article. Clearly a hoax. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, by the time everything else had proved vapor and mirrors, I didn't even bother to check out whether ICU or Smash existed; it'd had sucked out five minutes of my life already.  RGTraynor  21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Hoax article of a purported teen actor. The IMDB link in fact ports to a different actor, "Dylan Dye" nowhere appears on IMDB or in the cast lists of the movies given, and Google turns up nothing for this as a name other than this article and a Youtube page. His "official" website doesn't actually exist. Creator is a SPA with no other edits.  Ravenswing  14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. All Grown Up! Defender 15:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Greeves 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Susanne Cook-Greuter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional biography by Cookgsu (talk · contribs), likely the subject herself. Many assertions of notability, but no real references to coverage in reliable sources. A cursory Google search is inconclusive, providing links to reams of what reads like self-promotional content.  Sandstein  14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I did a Psycinfo search, which turned up 3 book chapters and 3 journal articles, all in low impact journals. Even regardless of self-promotion it definitely fails WP:PROF. justinfr (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • comment zero hits in ISI WoS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • delete I got 7 hits via PsychInfo (database: PsycINFO 1806 to July Week 2 2008). I'm not familiar with the robustness of this database's citation counts, but I found two of the seven publications had been cited (once each). I don't see any reliable sources demonstrating notable impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Her thesis, Postautonomous Ego Development (1999), (described in the bio as "a landmark study in the characteristics and assessment of highly developed and influential individuals and leaders.") has been cited 28 times according to Google Scholar. Her GS h-index is 6. Google news archive search returns 5 hits, which look oddly alike... Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Pete Hurd. Fails WP:PROF, based on the data available. Nsk92 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pete Hurd. The article states that she's listed as one of the leaders of the Integral movement, but that passage was added by.... the creator of this article here! Nice circular reasoning :-) --Crusio (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete In actuality, subject has 2 hits in the Web of Science database (searching on "Cook-Greuter"), however only one of them is a research article (the other shows her as the author of the preface of an obituary in the Journal of Adult Development. The research article has been cited only once. It is difficult to justify this entry under WP:PROF, which would seem to be the appropriate test, because the subject has evidently been active for over 25 years (see subject's commercial website, click on "SCG-Background"). Further observations paint an overall picture of non-notability: (1) with the exception of those mentioned above, the publications listed on her commercial website are not published in mainstream platforms (i.e. those covered by Web of Science, (2) book chapters, even a whole bunch of them, are generally not notable for scholars (again, the WP:PROF test) because they do not describe new results, (3) doctoral dissertations are not notable unless they open up fundamentally new avenues of research (which most, including hers, do not).Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, default to keep.  Sandstein  16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Extremely short unreferenced article about a dessert, likely fails WP:N and WP:PRODUCT. The only relevant google entries I found were of recipes. Samuel Tan 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep I believe date squares are a pretty common dessert, and I feel that this dessert-stub could be expanded with some research. It deserves a place on Knowledge (XXG) within the scope of WP Food and Drink. Addionne (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep The article just needs expanding, that's all. 188 news articles, 25,000 google hits, and as it is not a product provided by any particular company WP:PRODUCT doesn't really make sense. Plasticup /C 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5 minutes work and the article is well sourced, wikified, and copyedited. Plasticup /C 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Completely non-notable "game" completely failing in any sources, reliable or otherwise. Prod removed by article creator (a SPA without other edits) without comment. Knowledge (XXG) is not for games made up during traffic jams. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NFT.  RGTraynor  14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/WP:CRYSTAL --JForget 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is not put together well, it doesn't cite any references and there's no need for it yet because the album in question is in debate about release. Daz11R (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Maxim as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12). Housekeeping closure. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cellular learning automaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsalvageably incoherent Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete As above - Amog | 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination: We assume that, there exists a neighborhood function ¯N(u) mapping a cell u to the set of its neighbors, that is ¯N(u) = (u+ ¯x1, u+ ¯x2, . . . , u+ ¯x ¯m). I hope you aren't a lip reader: if you are, you just summoned an invisible evil spirit, and are probably possessed by now. Seriously, articles about mathematical theories ought to have some sort of English text explaining their significance and providing context for non-mathematicians. It's uncertain whether this is about a mathematical theory or attempting to describe some sort of robot, especially since all I really have to go on is the title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like advertisment for someones line of research.PB666  20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not enthusiastic about this article, but Google scholar finds 46 research articles on the subject. Most of them are from a single lab and are poorly cited, though, so this may not be enough to show notability. Additionally, as the nominator states, the article is very poorly written, enough so that I can't really tell what's different between this and any other kind of cellular automaton. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • comment, probably keep Hmmm. this one was cited 27 thousand times. I have no access to its contents, so I don't know if it was a one line reference, a chapter, or a paragraph, but 27 thousand researchers think the guy who wrote it wasn't a nut. Someone should notify the appropriate projects and see if we can make sense of this. My guess is that there is at least enough for a stub. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a book, probably mostly about something else, that happens to mention cellular learning automata somewhere within it. Or maybe that is even more peripherally connected; I searched for "cellular" within it in books.google.com and didn't get any hits I don't think you can judge from its citation count without actually reading it and determining how relevant to the article it actually is. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think google hasn't indexed it (the link on google goes to the publisher's page). Of course the citation count doesn't speak to the depth of the reference. What I am saying is that the book appears to be an important work in the field (and bills itself as a textbook). Textbooks don't tend to include new or dubious material, so at least (at the very least), the text string "Cellular learning automaton" exists in that volume. The snippet provided in the scholar search link seems to suggest that it isn't an accidental text string hit (i.e. cellular. Learning automaton...). Protonk (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A note on readability. Usually, a WP:FRINGE subject is written in a deliberately obtuse fashion in order to deter amateur users from making claims about it. BUT by the same token, most of the communication within professions appears cryptic to outsiders. We've blocked the (only) author indefinitely for removing the AfD template multiple times but I'm sure some other user who knows something about the subject can comment on this. If not, I'm not too choked up at the prospect of deleting it. If the primary editor is indefinitely blocked, I can't imagine the article will improve considerably (without lots of outside help). Protonk (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That looks like the web address of the principal author (doesn't mean we shouldn't speedy it, but just saying). Nuke it from orbit. Protonk (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD, reason given was that he has played for a pro team, however he has not played in a fully professional league, failing notability WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Bondz Ngala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we have the atricle for Bondz Ngala back now please seeing as he played yesterday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.176.7 (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Hoax article. Searches for his "Platinum-rated" album "Princes Keep It Real" turn up nothing relevant, and the same for "The David Early Show" which "ran for four years on BET". An article by the same author Princedavid46 (talk · contribs) about the album was deleted at AfD in May. Articles with this title have been speedied before; speedy on this version declined because of assertions of notability (platinum disc). Let's delete this now, then it can be G4'd (and maybe salted) if it comes back again. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete this page until you go to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princedavid46 (talk • contribs)

comment None of the "references" are Reliable sources. I have removed two sales sites, which do not even appear to sell this artist's records. Papa November (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per everyone else. Yet another autobiography.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (XXG) is not about presenting new information. It is an encyclopedia. Since this book has not received significant critical acclaim or review, it is premature for this article to promote it. Notability is not inherited. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger: Hollywood's Dark Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete non notable book no reliable sourced reviews found, and appears to be a print on demand title Mayalld (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD; I feel this subject fails WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:BIO. There is very little significant information available, none of which is independent of the subject. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – (a) it seems likely that we can establish that he is the Ambassador of Libya to Russia; (b) the Ambassador of Foo to Russia must be notable per se (WP:DIPLOMAT is very brief); given (a) and (b) non-controversial non-independent info can be used. (I would argue that the Ambassador of Foo to Bar is notable per se; there will surely be copious material published in Foo and Bar about this ambassador, not necessarily in English, not necessarily available to google.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree. Firstly, the burden of evidence lies on the editor contributing content. It moreover says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it". I can find no "reliable, third-party sources" that establish notability for this topic, either by the general criteria in WP:BIO or the specific criteria of WP:DIPLOMAT. I can't agree with a blanket acceptance of the notability of every ambassador article. I understand that there has been relatively recent discussion on the notability of ambassadors, but until such time that it is officially adopted into guidelines, I would consider it premature to assume this subject's notability. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The contributing editor has provided evidence that the guy is the ambassador to Russia, and doubtless assumed (quite reasonably, in my view, Russia being a G8 country) that he is therefore notable. Googling on '+Мустафа +ТАДЖУРИ' gives quite a few results, and no doubt the arabic equivalent (at which I cannot guess) would give some more. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I believe the subject is an ambassador to Russia, but I don't agree that alone is enough to establish notability. A Google search for his name in Cyrillic gives precisely one hit, while another search for his English name provides three non-Knowledge (XXG) hits. The one and only website that deals specifically with this him, here, is an autobiography styling itself as an interview. And going from that information, I again question his notability, this apparently having been his first diplomatic post, and his otherwise having been in the Lybian military. Searching LexisNexis, I found a single mention on a newswire from January 24, 2008 about a discussion with a Russian official. All this in mind, I genuinely do not believe this article passes WP:BIO or WP:DIPLOMAT, unless you can prove otherwise.—/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep in the interests of fighting systematic bias. The Diplomat magazine link which you provided is exactly one of those publications which I am going to be using to source a lot of info for ambassadors and missions to Russia, it is published by a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, so information contained therein is reliable and verifiable. To search for Russian and English names is one thing, but as Tajouri is Libyan, there is likely to be more information on him available in Arabic, and said information may not be found online. Additionally, to be a Colonel in the Libyan military and then a teacher at various military colleges in Libya, and then being posted as the ambassador to one of the most important posts in terms of Libya's foreign relations, Tajouri is likely to be more than notable. --Россавиа 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Further comment Additionally, if searching in Russian, please don't wrap in " as this means you are looking for that exact term, whereas, this search turns up plenty of results. --Россавиа 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It is a little disconcerting to see that the above google search includes my comment of a few hours ago. I agree with all your points and also those of Matt91486 below. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment First of all, I wouldn't call 33 hits "plenty". Secondly, of course there are more hits; "Мустафа" (Mustafa) is a common given name, while "Таджури"(Tajouri) is not an exclusive surname. With an unquoted string, the only requirement for a search is that the two terms appear in the same page, not in the same sentence or phrase. It's very likely that most of those additional hits your query string returns are completely unrelated to the subject. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think if this were the minister of an English-speaking country to Russia, this wouldn't even be nominated, in all likelihood. Especially considering some of the historical international problems between the (then) Soviet Union and Libya, I'd say this isn't a minor posting for the Libyan government. matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to People's Bureau of Libya in Moscow Ambassadors are not inherently notable. In many countries ambassadorships are given as political graft. When, however, the ambassador is also a notable person the embassy and news play this up. There's no such information coming out of Libya suggesting any other notability about this diplomat. However, Mendaliv's "feelings" aside, ambassadors in general belong in Knowledge (XXG), as international relations are covered extensively in the news. Some ambassadors should be in their missions, however, not in their own articles, this being one such case. --Blechnic (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - in interest of fighting systematic bias, and based on roundhouse's reasoning and his and others' search for (russian) refs. There's enough in the article for a small, but useful stub. Here's a pic of him which I didn't see on results listed above. Nothing to do with him, but I wonder which are the countries which don't grant ambassadorships as political graft. :-)John Z (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Although the band is made up of members from other bands with articles, there are no independent sources to demonstrate *this* band's notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

David_Risstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

Delete as per ] and also local government councillors do not have articles as per Glen Eira City Councillors deletion pages. --CatonB (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a valid reason - because he was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets notability standard - as someone with a career outside of politics we use the general WP:BIO rather than the usual politician one. In response to CatonB, I'm a bit bemused by the comment directly above as he voted Keep quite strongly at the AfD which he cites. Orderinchaos 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to have attracted a deal of coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just associated with his failed senate candidacy. Article doesn't currently reflect that well, but little argument for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Diane_Teasdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

Delete as per ] --CatonB (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 onus is on the nominator and those supporting a delete outcome to make a convincing case for deletion. This has not happened here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don Ed Hardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is advertising spam. Proxy User (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The key to his notability seems to be: "Hardy was the first Western tattoo artist to incorporate Japanese tattoo aesthetic and technique into his work." That, however, currently lacks verifiability. My own quick research suggests that's just false, and that Sailor Jerry should get that credit for introducing Japanese imagery into American tattooing. Hardy was a student of Jerry, but not the first. justinfr (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up, he is notable as a tattoo artist, but the merchandise stuff needs to be cut down and there needs to be cites for the claims of firstness, but he is a notable person. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.130.222 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this individual has a significant place in modern culture equivalent to, at least, Banksy or any one of a number of clothing/graphic designers, just based on the degree to which the designs have penetrated fashion. The honorary doctorate seems sufficient evidence of notability, and the merchandising aspect seems to me to be just as notable as Happy Bunny, Hello Kitty or a number of other memetic design statements. I agree that the emphasis on the merchandising is somewhat lopsided, but as a designer he's been successful for more than "fifteen minutes" and deserves an entry here. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jo_Bragg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

Delete as per ] --CatonB (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a valid reason - because he was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Larissa_Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

Delete as per ] --CatonB (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a valid reason - because she was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep (non-administrative closure). No consensus to delete as the subject is notable and reliable sources were found. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Minions_of_Mirth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Original prod for advertising was removed with notability fixes. Per WP:EL#ADV, Article is still an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elleachaudaucul (talk • contribs) 2008/07/08 21:26:39

  • Keep. Don't know what state the article was in at the time of nomination, but article includes several non-trivial sources, and is a well-known game, so I don't see a problem. If the article reads too much like an ad, then it can be revised accordingly. 23skidoo (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. You've argued that the article is an advert, can you argue that the article will continue to be an advert? It's genuinely worrying that we seem to be losing sight of the matter that this encyclopedia is under construction, with a deadline tentatively set at the time the sun explodes. --Kizor 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is certainly no consensus to delete. Bduke (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard_Di_Natale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

Delete as per ] --CatonB (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is your argument for keeping Richard Di Natale, then explain why David Southwick was deleted. Southwick is no different to Di Natale. I made the case for Southwick and I lost the case - I cannot see a reason based of Knowledge (XXG) policies stating otherwise CatonB (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was merely suggesting retaining the Di Natale article. I was not making any representation re Southwick. I'll leave it to consensus to decide the fate of the Di Natale article. Murtoa (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not say that you were making any representation to Southwick - just saying that since Di Natale is a failed candidate - his article will go through the same fate as Southwick end of story --CatonB (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you or I don't decide, so it's not end of story! I think there's notability to Di Natale beyond failed candidacy. Refer my comment below. Cheers Murtoa (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added some further content to the article. Di Natale has been quoted in reliable secondary sources several times in a capacity as health adviser or spokesperson (and on other issues) for The Greens, separate to his various candidacies for election. Murtoa (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is a valid reason - because he was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If there are reasons other than being a failed candidate to support notability, then the act of failed candidacy in itself does not rule out notability. I've attempted to demonstrate this from the additions to the article. I think this was what was being alluded to in quoting what about x. Murtoa (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Southwick is a well known entrepeneur whereas Di Natale is a well know doctor. Southwick and Di Natale both have notable achievements but in accordance to Knowledge (XXG) policies they are not valid as Biographies and therefore these two articles need to be deleted. Southwick has been deleted- so should Di Natale as a result of it. CatonB (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. In my view, Di Natale's public persona has extended beyond failed-candidate status, as evidenced by coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg. "The Age", Melbourne). Examination of the AfD debate on Southwick suggests that his entrepreneurship didn't appear to be similarly credentialled. Murtoa (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So did Southwick - he ran in Melbourne Ports - the first time where Jewish candidate ran against each other in a Federal election in 2004. This caused huge media in most newspapers such as the Age, Herald Sun, Jewish news, etc. In fact even made it to the 7.30 Report. Still that wasn't enough to be a biography in Knowledge (XXG). Same will apply to Di Natale. --CatonB (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that the merge arguments persuasively argue that some information here should be included in other articles but do not persuasively argue that this one should not continue to exist. Mangojuice 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Court of Flags Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The resort's only claim to notability is its novel construction type, something that is not unique to this facility (see Disney's Contemporary Resort or Disney's Polynesian Resort for examples). As to external resources, Google returns around 95 results regarding the resort, not necessarily reflecting much in the way of notability. csaribay (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Is there an architect in the house? While the building itself might not be notable (it's been torn down now), the "novel construction type" referred to is notable in architecture. For those who don't care to read the article, it used a technique where the rooms were prefabricated modular units that were hoisted into the building's frame. As the article points out, there were a lot of problems that came with that type of construction. Modular building and Modular home are articles that refer to stand-alone prefabs. I'd like to see this redirected and merged to an article about that concept in building, for which some references can be found. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There is nothing about this article that says it not notable and it meets WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY policies.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The references in the article demonstrate notability. The fact that the building has been demolished does not make it less notable. Notability does not expire. For another notable example of modular construction, please see Habitat 67. --Eastmain (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever. So far as I can tell, this former Ramada Inn was not any more notable than any other hotel in Orlando, Florida. I'll concede that it got mentioned in the "Orlando Business Journal" three times, and someone has a nostalgia site about it at in a website called "bigfloridacountry.com". The place rates a mention in an article about buildings of that type, however. Mandsford (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't doubt the truth or sourcing of the information presented in the article. However, I disagree that this establishment was or is notable for inclusion, where current policy suggests that a topic receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources as the bar to inclusion. I know that this isn't a substantive fact in and of itself, but a Google search for the resort suggests otherwise. The only mainstream coverage I have been able to find involves the resort's proposed renovation and subsequent closure, both by the Orlando Business Journal. I'm more in line with Mandsford's suggestion of merging this article with Modular building if need be, not keeping this article. csaribay (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I generally tend towards deletionism, but this hotel was a major player in the Orlando area in the 1970's, before Walt Disney World built dozens of new hotels on-site. Since its heydey was in the 1970's, there is little data available online, but this is not just another hotel, and even one of the references notes that it was "one of Orlando's original landmark resorts", which would imply that it is notable. Horologium (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Mandsford and csaribay.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that counts as vandalism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trade Union of Important but Unconsidered Cities Around the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Total hoax. Zero google hits aside from Knowledge (XXG). role 10:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete as non notable per WP:WEB, and WP:N Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Could not find any sources that establish notability. Many g-hits for "choike.org" were simply pages of the website in question. Also borders on reading like an advertisement. Samuel Tan 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, insufficient context, very little information in article. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This is basically a fan-made recording, as admitted in a previous revision, and therefore fails WP:MUSIC. Google suggests possible authorship but comprehensively fails to throw up any WP:RSs. tomasz. 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Likely non-notable. Could not find any sources that prove notability, and many of the g-hits were of namesakes. Two references given, one from IMDB, another a very short profile. Article itself does not give evidence for notability. Samuel Tan 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 although the article needs re-writing and contains some copyvio, it does assert notability (backed up by the source) by stating that he played football at international level, thereby passing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ambika Dutt Ranga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely non-notable. I could not find any sources that establish notability, and only 31 g-hits. Samuel Tan 08:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominator comment - Google hits is definitely not the standard against which an article should be judged for AFD deletion. The standard is here. But Google hits play a role when judging whether it is an article, I quote WP:DEL, "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", or an article "for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Unless the author supplies us with his own reliable sources, or one of us searches a library, the only sources we have are from Google; if eventually we can't find a reliable source anywhere (Google or otherwise), the article meets a reason for deletion. Just my two cents :) -Samuel Tan 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted. Possible copyvio, nobody wants to keep it. WilyD 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines. There are lot of governmental bonds and it is not specified what makes these bonds notable. This article has also some problems with copyvio (part of this article is copied from http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Centre-moots-SLR-status-for-oil-bonds/273391/ Beagel (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Delete - The article itself says it all, and I quote: "The word is normally passed via oral tradition amongst small atheist communities, and has yet to appear in popular media." In order for an article to be included on Knowledge (XXG), it must meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for notability, a very specific point being that an article must be noteworthy enough to be mentioned in reliable, legitimate third-party publication. It also must be verifiable per these sources. Scapler (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable enough yet.Alberon (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rose Nylund. I'll send the redirect there as well for the time being with a note linking to the real St. Olaf--feel free to change this target if there is consensus to do so. --jonny-mt 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

St. Olaf, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional community mentioned repeatedly by a character in The Golden Girls. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Article is a dup of The Assassination (Film) which is also nominated for deletion. It has been changed to a redirect. Ros0709 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD but a clear-cut failure to meet WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles"; the article itself states "if the script gets bought by a film company filming would begin in early June of 2009". Ros0709 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, anons discounted.  Sandstein  16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This consulting firm fails WP:CORP and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Spam? JBsupreme (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

On its face, this article appears to be somewhat notable, so I won't go as far as saying that this does not meet WP:MUSIC. Setting that aside however, there are some serious verifiability problems with this article such that it doesn't look good in front of WP:BLP and WP:V - the only source is a link back to a myspace page and I can't find anything better than that online. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is an orphaned perma-stub, and fails to meet WP:Product. Article should be deleted if third party sources cannot be found to establish notability. aBSuRDiST - ☺ - 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep? My brief searching found a handful of sources, including brief mentions in PC World and The Washington Post, though I'm not sure if it is enough. PC World, Washington Post, PCPerformancetools.com, and PCTechTalk. This software saved me when I accidentally fdisked the wrong drive several years back. Perhaps the company should have an article and the software should be mentioned there? swaq 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I think the links establish some notability, and it is always very hard for software to be considered notable and to be talked on other notable websites. And not that it should count but... it also saved a lot of my data, and i personally consider it one of the best data recovery software... I think it should have an article, being a stub does not mean it should be deleted... SF007 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course, I would never nominate an article to AfD only because it was a stub. However, per WP:Product, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself..." The company that makes this software (Runtime Software) does not have an article. Is the software notable while the company is not? Maybe so. Has an article just never been written about the company even though it is notable? -- aBSuRDiST - ☺ - 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to Runtime Software. Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Swaq. This particular product is apparently prominent enough to be presented in several overviews of data recovery software in such independent sources as the Washington Post. That's good enough for me. Unless Runtime has other notable products, I would prefer to keep this article as the main one: it is certainly possible for a barely notable or non-notable company to have a notable product and that seems to be the case here. Mangojuice 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pterodon.

Ptero-Engine II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am confused about the notability of this engine. A Yahoo! search turnened up few results that were third-party.  Marlith (Talk)  04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this character. Schuym1 (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Kept. Not one person is advocating deletion. WilyD 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Tagged as a web A7, but it doesn't seem clear to me, so I leave this up to AFD. Ryan Delaney 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Was this article previously nominated to AfD? If so, is there an archived debate? I removed the speedy tag so AfD would take its course. -- aBSuRDiST - ☺ - 06:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is not inherited. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spy Gear Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this series. Schuym1 (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested speedy under notability guidelines. Ryan Delaney 03:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


A google search for- conceit "on the rise" brings up 37,400 hits. All legitimate.

From Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guide:

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Here are two media references (one is the San Francisco Chronicle, which did a full page article on him).

1) Conceit interview: http://www.zeromag.com/articles/article_view.php?id=1049

2) Conceit SF Chronicle Newspaper interview:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/05/DDU3SJ8K4.DTL&type=printable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boac411 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." - Wiki guidelines.

3) Conceit press for winning Youtube.com's "On The Rise" contest: http://www.illestlyrics.com/Hip-HopNews/50_Cent_Names_Youtube_Competition_Winner-1/

Youtube.com featured him as part of the live New Years Eve BROADCAST. Youtube.com is a media network.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.251.204 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - that's probably good enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – I also added this interview on NPR. I agree that there is enough third-party sourcing here for WP:N notability. Paul Erik 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I expect the results of this discussion to be Keep, and I recognize that the citations are valid and attest to the individual's notability. I was responsible for speedying this article before any references were added. I just want to note that I find it very difficult to accept that a musician who has never released an album, as near as I can tell, let alone had it chart in the Billboard 100 or anywhere else, can be notable. He won a Youtube contest (not expert opinion, AFAIK) and he has released some mixtapes, and he has a recording contract. I recognize that this individual has possibly attained notability in a non-traditional way, but I don't see it as being in any traditional way. Just my two cents, and I won't quarrel with whatever the ultimate disposition of this article is. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's enough here for WP:N, although part of me agrees with A4T's comments above. sparkl!sm 07:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He has certainly obtained a measure of notability, however small. As this notability is almost certain to grow, and is held individually, and not solely per his association with Fitty, I think this article should be kept. S. Dean Jameson 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Being covered by news media is not a "non-traditional way" for an article topic to obtain notability. --Ryan Delaney 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the nominator I think there is ample coverage so this may be a WP:SNOW closure. JBsupreme (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Since this is the contributor's only article, I would have to assume that he/she is associated with the company and is using this page as advertisement. The language is definitely favorable towards the company, and the external links don't seem to qualify as objective references. This article may even fall under , {{db-spam}}, but notability is debatable, so Afd instead.

...at least it follows layout convention. vlad§inger 03:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedied as nonsense. Ryan Delaney 03:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Devin Taylor Altieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD "contested", but subject obviously falls under category which it was filed (CSD A7) - non notable person.

Delete ASAP. vlad§inger 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete G1, so tagged. I think the concern is with the A7 rationale; this is patent nonsense. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7 not to SNOW this, but its pretty obvious this needs to get deleted.--Finalnight (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as first tagged (A7). It names a real person and makes a coherent statement (eliminating G1 as a valid rationale) about that person, which does not establish notability outside the article creator's head (establishing A7). If we can understand what is being said, however pointless and silly it may be, it's not incoherent, and that is why G1 is not appropriate. Question: why is there even an AfD on this? Back when I used to use an account, the twitterings of neopubescent would-be romeos were speedy deleted within seconds. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although I was sore tempted to close this as a merge. Given the discussion below, I would wager that the eventual fate of this article will be to redirect/merge it somewhere, likely to Jump the shark. I would encourage some discussion on the talk page (as well as that of the target) to get some better consensus on the possibility of a merger. Shereth 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

New phrase coined from the new Indiana Jones movie. Despite the sources, this phrase doesn't meet the verifiability or notability guidelines. Of the provided sources, UrbanDictionary, a screenshot of an MSN page and the site pushing this phrase aren't reliable sources, the Entertainment Weekly link is a mere mention of the phrase, and the Newsweek and WJXT sources aren't substantial enough to explain the impact of the statement (the whole coverage of the phrase in both of them is "hey, this is a popular phrase on the internet" and not much else). Note that we've deleted articles on this phrase before at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nuke the fridge and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nuking the Fridge. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The second AfD ended in a speedy G4; an admin should look at the deleted versions, in case this is a recreation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, this falls under the guidelines of WP:NOTDICT as it doesn't establish the notability of the term.--Finalnight (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I looked through some of the sources before making a few edits in attempt to improve the article, and I felt comfortable with its foundation - particularly the Newsweek article and the wink-and-nod EW mention. Is this article impeccably sourced as is? No, and not all the sources in there qualify under RS. Is this article capable of being reliably sourced? I think it can be, based on the foundation that's already there. Townlake (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per the reasoning at the last two AfDs. This is still far from being notable --T-rex 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The first AfD was a proper snowball delete for no reliable sources; the second was a proper speedy delete for recreation of deleted material. I don't believe either rationale applies here. Townlake (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • At least read the discussions. I'm not arguing delete on the basis of the outcomes, but rather on the reasoning presented in the previous two afds --T-rex 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I clicked the EW link first and was going to vote delete, but the Newsweek article is all about the phrase. It's got enough information for an article. I think I would've voted delete for the last two AfDs seeing as the Newsweek article was released this week, but I think this one crosses over to keep. Vickser (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The phrase may have already jumped the shark, but it appears notable based on the reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Newsweek article qualifies as Significant coverage, Newsweek is a reliable source. The article in its current form doesn't fall under the guidelines of WP:NOTDICT since it isn't a "dictionary definition" nor an "usage guide", it includes encyclopedic content about the origins, relation to jump the shark, and usage in third party sites. Diego. If the article finally gets deleted, Merge its content into Jump the shark. (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've done a lot of editing of this article and in the process I've found that there are numerous media mentions besides just those mentioned. Examples include the Toronto Sun and the Wall Street Journal . Not to mention "nuke the fridge" (in quotes) currently has over 650,000 results when searched on Yahoo. If anything, this article should have "nuke/nukes/etc. + the fridge" redirecting toward it as well, as this will make it easier for those who come across the phrase elsewhere to find it here. --AndrewK (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)AndrewK
  • Merge to Potboiler. Note that there are innumerable phrases of this sort, including:
  • Past its sell-by date
  • Scraping the barrel
  • Played out
  • Overstayed its welcome
  • Long in the tooth
  • Too many trips to the well
    and lots of individual words such as tired, exhausted, uninspired, rehash, tentpole, etc. These are all dictionary material per WP:DICTIONARY and the encyclopedia should only have one article on the topic of creative exhaustion rather than one for each phrase. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but change title to what it was when deleted a few weeks ago as Nuke the fridge, so I can understand why the authors altered the title slightly to this. In the first AfD, nobody could cite any sources, and most of us, including me, said that it would ever catch on. I got my "eat crow" moment a couple of weeks later when "nuke the fridge" turned up as an article in Newsweek magazine. It's also reflective of the mindset of a lot of 20-somethings who have grown up in the CGI-era and who insist on realism in their Hollywood fantasies; perhaps it says something as well about people whose loyalty to anything is short-lived. However, in an age when all hit movies get sequels and when everyone with a computer can publish a film review, "nuke the fridge" is a natural counterpart to "jump the shark". Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jump the shark until it's clear that this phrase has actual legs. Powers 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary and does not exist to record the definition, etymology and usage of every word or phrase. Wiktionary does that - and frankly they do it far better than we do. Editors who want to work on those kinds of articles should be politely pointed to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Newsweek alone satisfies notability, but also EW, and I saw an article on it in a local newspaper here in Alberta ... it's got notability even if it doesn't have the staying power of Jump the shark. 23skidoo (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Except that the coverage from Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly are both trivial coverage. EW's a mere mention of the phrase, and Newsweek is just "Hey, lots of people are say this phrase this week!" Neither really establishes notability. However, does that Alberta newspaper go into more detail about it? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to jump the shark. DCEdwards 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - CNBC used the phrase and discussed its definition on their newscast entitiled "Have Media Stocks Nuked the Fridge" Check it out here: CNBC It also has a write up in various newspapers including the Toronto Sun, see here: Toronto Sun and gets over 1 million returns on google if you search for "nuke the fridge." Also if Jump the Shark can stay, then so should Nuke the Fridge. --Nukedthefridge (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)— Nukedthefridge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • That CNBC article doesn't "discuss" the phrase - it just uses it in the headline and then offers a short explanation of the phrase and it's origins. There isn't any coverage of it's impact there, or anything else to establish notability. And the fact that Jump the shark has an article does not justify a "Nuke the fridge" entry; "Nuke the fridge" has to be notable on it's own. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The CNBC article is an example of it being used by a significant source. It is proof that the phrase is not just in use by a bunch of Internet fanboys. It seems that you are opposed to this regardless of how notable it becomes. I don't see how something on almost a million web pages is not notable. --AndrewK (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Let's clarify something here. Notability has nothing to do with this decision. Lots of words are common and widely used. We don't have dictionary entries on them because Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. The only relevant question in this discussion is whether this entry has any potential to every expand past the definitions, etymology and usage notes. Rossami (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The fact that notability has nothing to do with the decision is key to note, since the original post that suggested this article be deleted is based on two things. One is notability, which we have just established is not a consideration here. The second is verifiability, which can be easily refuted by the fact that several reputable news sources have used the phrase.--AndrewK (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NEO. The fact that journalists are always seeking corny references isn't reason to have an article on the subject. If I have to hear another "no country for...." reference, I'll scream. I mean, any realistic source on nuked the fridge will say that it is an outgrowth from "jumped the couch" which grew out of "jump the shark". The concept of "something is outlandishly past its prime and we can point to the exact moment when it happened" is notable and this ought to either be merged to jump the shark or potboiler. also, indy 4 nuked the fridge with the appearance of CGI prairie dogs in the first few frames. Protonk (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jump the Shark. The article can essentially be summed up in a one-liner there, under "Similar phrases", without losing any encyclopedic content. Plus it would be nice to have something sourced in a "similar/trivia/in pop culture/etc" list, so we should take the opportunity while it's here. Orpheus (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. Or at least redirect to Jump the Shark. Jedibob5 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Another neologism du jour - just what Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jumping the Shark; long-term notability isn't assured, but sufficient to warrant a mention in context of JtS. --MASEM 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jumping the shark. Concept seems notable in its own right, but certainly adds historical continuity to the shark article. (WP:NOTDICT is being thrown around a lot these days, as if we're supposed to have some automatic, intuitive understanding that the article in question violates that policy. Even when something along the lines of a compelling link between the article and that policy is suggested, it is conveniently ignored that WP:NOTDICT favours expansion beyond the dictdef, and transwikification only if the article is an obvious dictdef. Here, merging would accomplish the expansion goal in a sense.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as verifiable and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism, it's way too new to know if it has enough staying power to be encyclopedic. Izuko (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are enough uses of this phrase by major publications to qualify it as notable. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, invented term. At best it deserves a mention on jumped the shark.--Him and a dog 12:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; if it ever enters wide usage, it will surely come back. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; neologism. The phrase is way too young to be notable enough for an encyclopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is an uninspired, imitative term that we can do without. -- Iterator12n 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

-Merge; The artical should be added as a subsection to Jumping the Shark.--Little Jimmy (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author concurs that article is premature as the subject has not received significant external coverage in reliable sources. WP:Crystal applies. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested speedy. I have no knowledge of the subject. Ryan Delaney 03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion is appropriate according to WP:WEB. There are no reliable external sources cited in the article. In time, "induction framework" may become notable, but the article should not be created until then. Sam (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for your observations. I respectfully disagree that the Induction Framework article qualifies for deletion as per WP:WEB. The article does not qualify by WP:WEB:Criteria 3, since the Induction software framework is independently distributed by Google Code at . The primary reference I used to write the article was the Induction project's official website. That said, this is my first article and I will be more than happy to edit the article to bring it up to Knowledge (XXG) standards.

If the consensus is unequivocally that the article is not notable I will humbly defer, but I would really like a better explanation as to why, since as I alluded previously (in the article's talk page) Knowledge (XXG) has over 100 such articles in for Induction-like projects. If this article is deleted what is a reasonable explanation for an arguable bias?

I routinely come to Knowledge (XXG) to peruse such categories for encyclopedic coverage on current projects. My most recent example is using Knowledge (XXG) to research lightweight markup languages. Based on the excellent Knowledge (XXG) article I choose the Textile markup language for a project. My point is that Knowledge (XXG) is a source for engineers researching the state-of-the-art. Giving open-source projects, such as Induction, the benefit of the notability doubt I sincerely think enhances Knowledge (XXG).

Bluecarbon (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bluecarbon. I don't think WP:WEB3 is relevant here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think anyone can set up a project at , so this seems to fall into the exception of "trivial distribution".
My understanding is that, wikipedia is not supposed to support a collection of all the latest open source projects. I don't think this falls within its aims. (Perhaps some other articles should also be deleted.) People arriving at a wikipedia article should be able to feel confident about its notability. If you disagree, you should try to argue your point at the discussion page of WP:WEB. Or you could start your own wiki for open source projects, if there is not one already. I expect that, sooner or later, induction-framework will get some positive press in a "reliable source", and then it might be appropriate to reinstate this article. Sam (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam. Your suggestion that the article be deleted until the Induction Framework gets more "positive press" is reasonable. I will not further contest the article's proposed deletion. Bluecarbon (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Wizardman 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Subject played one third of one inning in one game in the major league. Not notable beyond that simple fact. The fact that he relieved Joe Nuxhall is not significant. -- Mufka 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), notable enough. Ruslik (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

XF86Config (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of man pages. —Remember the dot 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep (1) The article is not a man page. It goes less into detail than a man page, and it goes beyond a man page in giving some historical background. (2) Please have a look at the version history. The article is now alive and well for more three years, more than 15 people have contributed, how many more may have read it and found it useful? -- Frau Holle (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A few configuration files are notable, and this is one of them IMO; there are books (or at least book sections) devoted to this file. However, it might be merged with xorg.conf, which is a very similar file. --Itub (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:IAR, WP:WHATEVER. Not speedy-able, but there is no content that meets the inclusion criteria. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Ostensibly a book written by a 14 year old. No WP:BOOK criteria met. Barely gets past A1 speedy deletion. Vianello (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Response. I've tried my best to sort it out, believe me. But there isn't anything that sticks. It's not any of the "no notability established" ones. It's not pure vandalism, or a hoax. It's not an attack page. It's not nonsense. It's not empty or contextless. So far as I can tell, it just plain doesn't meet any criteria. Five days is a long time for an article that doesn't belong here for five minutes, but procedure is procedure, unless an admin would like to just WP:SNOW this whole issue. - Vianello (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Response. No, unfortunately, it provides its context. It's some book the page creator (I assume) claims to have written or wants to write. That's as much context as plenty of legitimate stubs give. - Vianello (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
And it is nonsensical: "K.A.T. is a Special force team K.A.T. means killing at time the team leader is Dylan caver who plays an important caption". What the??--Finalnight (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 borderline notable BLP who requested deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tan Choh Tee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article produced conflict of interest, and disagreement to facts between parties Marcuslim (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Amateur ice hockey player who fails WP:ATHLETE and is not otherwise notable. Grsz 01:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails the criteria for WP:BIO. Claims to fame are weak at best; Berkus is associated with a few mildly notable artists and he started an obscure web hosting company a few years back. Other claims are unverified and the article in general lacks reliable, independent sources, and judging by a News Archives search, I doubt there are any. A Google search for the artist yields only 336 hits. Talk page indicates that the entry was possibly nominated for deletion before, but the discussion doesn't seem to have been archived. t b c ♣§♠ 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO. All but one of the sources are simply directory listings, which falls under trivial coverage (and not all of those are WP:RS. The one actual news article is the sort of piece you would expect from his home town newspaper on a "local celebrity" who isn't really. Does not meet the requirements for notable living person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • He vented on mine as well, including leaving me 3RR warnings and then running around attacking in on multiple talk pages. I called it what it was, retaliation. But I have removed the remark above, though civil, it is indeed irrelevant here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • PLEASE refrain from including your antagonistic perception of irrelevant events in AfD discussions. I'm really perplexed as to why an editor with your experience is engaging in such conduct. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to encourage everyone to keep it civil and remember to WP:AGF. Remember also that speedy deletion tags say on them that they can be removed by people who aren't the original author. . Anyway, to the issue at hand. I think there's Keep from me, although I'll confess to not being an expert in extreme sports. From what I can tell the AST Dew Tour is a big deal. I also went ahead and added an article from the Washington Post which discusses him briefly. Vickser (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Good to know on the AST Dew Tour. Not too familiar with extreme sports or skateboarding either, so wasn't sure if it fell under the "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport" clause. For the rest, I tried AGF for the first hour of this mess (which dealt with a whole different article). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I did AGF at first, but I tend to lose AGF when an editor chooses to do this kind of thing. We had a dispute over "his" article and he decided to come counter other stuff I do? Hard to AGF when he had nothing to do with this article at all, and not being an admin it is unlikely he was CSD patrolling. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult not to respond to these accusations. Firstly, I never refered to any article as mine as the quotation marks around "his" seem to indicate. Secondly, I did indeed check Collectonian's contributions today based upon that editor being in uncivil conflict with multiple other editors over unrelated issues at once (see and etc.) Discovering an inappropriate Speedy Delete tag I removed it and improved the article. Collectonian's choice to characterize that as "a childish and petty attempt at retaliation" and as "wikistalking" is a surprising one. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the amount of persistent coverage the subject has received (for reasons that your humble European servant probably won't ever understand) exceeds the level of coverage dedicated to the typical WP:BLP1E subject. There are no obvious WP:BLP problems that would mandate deletion. There are also no indications that the subject himself has requested the deletion of the article about him.  Sandstein  16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

As much as people would like to keep beating this guy up, he fails WP:N by way of WP:BLP1E. The only thing this non-notable private citizen ever did that can even be considered vaguely notable was try to catch a ball. The aftermath of abuse that people heaped on him afterwards, making him out to be a scapegoat for the Cubs basically losing the game, does not make the subject notable beyond that One Event. Article is a BLP nightmare as well, and is impossible to conform to WP:NPOV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge any appropriate information into the Cubs history, where it probably already is anyway. I agree that continually beating up on this guy, who did nothing wrong, is wrong and might get us into legal trouble someday. Baseball Bugs 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What about Michael Wilbon who even in 2008 advocates in front of millions of viewers the "Bartman Beatdown" be performed? Bartman juuuust might start there before suing an encyclopedia where he has no legal argument anyway. Paranoia isn't helpful. --Rividian (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are 140 recent Google news hits for "Steve Bartman" + Cubs . When someone is still getting that many media mentions five years after the incident that made him famous, I think it's fair to ignore WP:BLP1E keep this information. I certainly do agree that Bartman got a bum rap, but he is still a major part of American baseball folklore, and we should include him in Knowledge (XXG). Later tonight, I'll take a stab at cleaning up the article, and I'll add more quotes from people who spoke in his defense. (There are plenty of quotes like that, which should alleviate concerns about POV. And if we stick to the indisputable facts, we don't need to worry about legal trouble.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've started working on the article, but I'm not finished yet. I don't really see anything libelous, but the article could still use some better sourcing, so I'll try to get going on that tomorrow. Zagalejo^^^ 06:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I was unaware of the incident and hearing a reference to it, looked it up and found it on Wiki, one of my most prefered sources of information on the internet, and particularly for information about baseball. This was a famous incidence with considerable signifigance, and should not be ignored as if it never happened. The article as I read it on 7/8/2008 seems fair and balanced. It should not be merged as Mr. Bartman is notorious in his own right, and the incident took on a significant life of it's own. The indicent is not just incidental to some other topic, whether the reaction of the majority public was fair or not. TD —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBrooklyn (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a notorious fan that changed the outcome for a very important game. POV issues can be resolved with a clean up.--t b c ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • From reading the article and having not ever heard about the incident before, it came across to me he may or may not have changed the outcome of the game--indication that the article is fair and balanced--which is all the more reason to keep it, whether Bartman changed the outcome or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBrooklyn (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It depends on who you're talking to. ;) Anyhow, changing the result of the game is generally the reason why so many fans hate him and why he's so famous, regardless if the claim true or not.--t b c ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and retitle as Steve Bartman incident or similar. It doesn't attempt to be a biography, nor do I find it "beating up" on him other than relaying reports of abuse (mainly in the media). It's somewhat unprecedented in MLB history and sparked a legal row among other things. If it must be merged, then 2003_Chicago_Cubs_season#Game_6 is the appropriate target, in which case the sentence there is inadequate; it should have its own paragraph. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at current title - this guy is clearly notable. He is often referenced whenever any non-player interferes with a ball in play. For instance, during the 2007 Holiday Bowl, when an assistant coach stepped onto the field of play. Renaming the article to "Steve Bartman incident" or similar would be a pointless exercise in political correctness. People will be more likely to look for information on "Steve Bartman" than any other title and we should keep the information at the most straight-forward location. Johntex\ 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or rename he is a clear-cut version of WP:BLP1E. The incident is notable, though it should be titled "Steve Bartman incident" or included on the Cubs season page for 2003. He as a person though, is not worthy of his own article. Blackngold29 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly Rename per above. - Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't agree with the notability claim as the incident, and, soon afterwards, the person, became part of public discourse and which was documented in multiple reliable sources (some of which were cited in the article). Also, the BLP issue seems like engaging in a hypothetical, as the article in its current state does not raise any concerns to my eyes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into 2003 Chicago Cubs season. The incident is notable. Bartman is just a name attached to it. Doesn't belong as a separate biography. Resolute 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of biographical information on Bartman that isn't included in the article. When all is said and done, there will be too much to merge. Zagalejo^^^ 03:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll take that back, somewhat. There's not as much biographical information about him as I thought there was. But there's still enough information about the event as a whole to make a merge unnecessary. All we'd have to do is change the title. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't the biographical information belong at all? Pretty much all of it is very positive, talking about how he was a good student and a good Little League coach. It will provide a more well-rounded view of the guy. See , for example. Zagalejo^^^ 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - yes you could get technical on the one event thing, but that would simply be renaming the article, not deleting it. The fact is that this information deserves to be somewhere --T-rex 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the person is famous enough for Knowledge (XXG). Expand the Biography section if references are available. Current title is the best one for the article. U$er (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reason the autobiographical stuff shouldn't be merged is because it's of absolutely no consequence to anything. Bartman tried to catch a foul ball. The fact that the media and bitter sports fans keep using his name as a "goat" doesn't make him notable. I can't see how this could be any more clearly a BLP1E issue. Most of my BLP concerns in this article have to do with the biographical information. For example, giving his hometown. All this does is tell people where he lives so they can continue to send him hate mail! WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason to keep this as an article by itself and many of the keeps above don't seem to indicate why this person is notable outside of the One Event. Is the event notable? Sure, I can see that. But Bartman himself is just some guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that he's a little league coach, was a good student, likes to drink lattes in the morning, etc. isn't notable. I could easily see the relevant information about the EVENT being merged to the relevant Cubs article. But Bartman himself is thoroughly non-notable outside of his One Event. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No one's given an "I like it" argument, so don't pull that out. He is notable for one event, I'll give you that, but there's a lot to say about that one event. It has a firmly established place in baseball culture, especially Cubs culture. You can rename the page Steve Bartman incident or something like that, but there is more than enough information to justify an independent article.
  • And people are going to need more than his hometown to send hatemail. It's not like we're not going to list his address and phone number. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous argument by Nobody of Consequence. This article has nothing to do with sending the subject hate mail. People will continue to be mad at him, or feel sorry for him, or whatever, irregardless of whether his name is at the top of his own article or embedded into an article by a different name. Unless you favor censoring his name as well? Even then, Knowledge (XXG) is not the only media source in the world - deleting Bartman's article would not restore his reputation. U$er (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it ridiculous? Yes, focus on one comment I made while ignoring everything else I've said. And yes, naming his hometown does create privacy concerns. Anyone with half a brain can now go look the guy up and stalk him. He's not a celebrity, he's just some regular joe. And, may I add, has anyone actually READ BLP1E? Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge (XXG) article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. 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. So there's another problem, WP:UNDUE. A redirect or a merge would be the best course of action. One event, no matter how much coverage it received by ESPN playing videos of it doesn't warrant a separate article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Your argument is ridiculous becuase you think you are talking about a low-profile individual. There is nothing low-profile about him. He is famous/infamous, and your wishful thinking doesn't change that. As for BLP1E, our policies are not created in a vacuum, they are meant to be a written manifestation of how we are actually working. If the policies are out of whack with an article that has already been validated by being kept in a nearly unanimous AFD (as this article has) then you are either reading the policy incorecctly, or else the wording of the policy needs be changed. U$er (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Your logic here is "creative", to say the least... perhaps backwards and convoluted are better terms. Articles don't dictate policy, policy dictates articles. There's no wishful thinking on my part: what high-profile events has this "regular joe" Bartman participated in since that one event? All of his coverage has nothing to do with anything he's done since then, rather it has to do with the media latching onto 2 seconds they see as scandalworthy and Cubs fans looking for another scapegoat as to why they haven't won a Series in 100 years. Give me a break. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not unalterably opposed to that, but the article needs to be pared down significantly and most of the biographical information about Bartman himself needs to be deleted if that's the path we take. Otherwise, it's just a Bartman biography with a different title. For example, where he lives doesn't matter in an article focusing on the Bartman incident. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The article never says where he currently lives; it just says where he grew up. But I do think some biographical information is beneficial, since it helps paint him as a kind, productive person, rather than some random schlub. Zagalejo^^^ 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "I can't see how this could be any more clearly a BLP1E issue". I agree. "Cover the event, not the person". Seems like the discussion shouldn't be about deletion, but merge vs. renaming. I'm very much in favor of the latter, since there's too much coverage of the event itself to have it merged to the Cubs article. dfg (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename - Although living in Chicago exposes me to more coverage of this than usual, the incident's been covered by local, national, and international reputable, third-party sources, and the article reflects that. But the article should be renamed (per Dhartung) because there is a miniscule amount of biographical info in the article and it's what he did that's notable, not the man. Whether he's at fault for anything is totally irrelevant to the AfD discussion. dfg (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect relevant information about the incident into 2003 Chicago Cubs season#Game 6. This poor guy is a Cubs footnote, and is not notable outside of this incident. -- aBSuRDiST - ☺ - 06:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable for a single event, so merge to an article about that event instead as per policy. JBsupreme (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He is part of baseball lore. Every time the Chicago Cubs go into the playoffs, ESPN will be playing video of his blunder. He's going to be notable until the Cubs win the World Series, and he's very notable here.OrangeMarlin 07:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey! We don't need no stinkin' Marlins here! :) Baseball Bugs 07:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you casting aspersions that I might be supporting Keeping of this article because the Marlins won the game and subsequently the World Series. How dare you. I'm insulted. I'm filing an AN/I right now. Probably an RfC too. I'm so famous with ArbCom right now, maybe I'll do that too. GO MARLINS. Oops. I digress.  :) OrangeMarlin 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and here's why: Yes, he's notable. Yes, he's a part of baseball lore. Yes, he's gotten lots of news and coverage. But the trump card is this: He's a living person, and the articles must confide to the rules about living people. I have a friend who worked with him in Chicago--he has had to move multiple times, has received many, many death threats, and has to indure countless acts of public ridicule and scorn. Although it is a noteworthy subject, I think in this case it is something Knowledge (XXG) should avoid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's look at that--none have had continuing death threats like our poor Steve has, none have had to sell their homes, none have trouble getting jobs, and Bill Clinton has the Secret Service to protect him. They're not ordinary people. Our subject here is an ordinary person with ordinary means and is in a truly extraordinary circumstance because he happened to be sitting in a chair at a game and grabbed a ball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Paulmcdonald said "...none have had continuing death threats like our poor Steve has..." - of course Bill Clinton has received death threats. Many famous people have received death threats, that is absolutely no reason to delete their articles. Johntex\ 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • By saying "Strong delete", you are suggesting that you wouldn't support a retitling, or even a merge. Is that correct? Look, I feel sorry for the guy, but we have to set some boundaries for these sympathy deletions. Bartman's name is indelibly etched into the minds of baseball fans and Chicagoans. The damage is already done; we can't pretend that he never existed.
  • I'm in the process of adding references to the article. Afterwards, we can consider protecting it, to prevent vandalism. But to wipe out his name entirely would be the most extreme application of BLP I've ever seen. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm I'd be okay with mentioning the incident in the world series or game article, but without his name. It did happen, and the incident is notable. But to say the "damage is already done" shows an ignorance of the continued damage that this poor guy encounters still today. Did you miss the part about "multiple death threats" ? Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "It's not like we give his address or phone number" ??? I'd say you don't know what the guy goes through just trying to buy groceries. Knowledge (XXG) has always chosen to behave responsibly. That statement reflects a lack of responsibility. This is a topic from which Knowledge (XXG) should just walk away.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're trying to paint me as this ogre, but I'm still not convinced how a Knowledge (XXG) article is going to affect Bartman's life. Bartman's name is always going to come up in Google searches in connection to this incident. He entered the public consciousness, and has stayed there for five years. It's better that the first Google hit be a neutral, well-researched article than some mean-spirited fan site. Zagalejo^^^ 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Paul, this is a poor line of reasoning. Because people do bad things or make mistakes and receive scorn and worse for them does not mean they shouldn't be covered by the encyclopedia. Furthermore, Knowledge (XXG) has not always chosen to behave responsibly (think Essjay) and the Bartman incident is not purely tabloid material. The article has references to the BBC, ESPN, and several major Chicago newspapers. dfg (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - a part of baseball lore. All U.S. baseball fans know who he is. Kingturtle (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment "All" U.S. baseball fans?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename: This isn't a biographic article. The article is mostly about the incident and the name should reflect that. DCEdwards 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment People who are arguing for dis-inclusion based on BLP1E should think about Thích Quảng Đức. In contrast to that article, here we have scant biographical info on Bartman, nor should we. I see more editors arguing in favor of a rename to cover the event and not the man himself. Edit: Don't we circumvent concerns about violations of WP:BLP if the article is renamed to the event and therefore is no longer a biography article? Seems like the simplest solution. dfg (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As noted above, some mention of the event itself, which I don't argue the notability of, should appear. I'm just not entirely convinced it deserves its own article: I think a merge would be best. Retitling the existing article and paring out the non-notable and irrelevant biographical information about Bartman may work okay too. For a situation that has some similarities to the Bartman situation, see Brian Peppers. While the notability of the meme surrounding him could be established by a number of reliable sources, the article was deleted because he wasn't particularly notable except for the fact that he looks unusual and had his photo posted online by the police. He never did anything before and has never done anything since, yet people still talk about him. Having an article about him was extremely problematic and caused all kinds of pain for the subject and his family. On that note, Bartman is reviled by Cubs fans and as mentioned up above, will probably be hated until the Cubs finally win the Series. We do him a disservice by helping perpetuate this. Any article or section of an article about the event should discuss the event only, and not elements of Bartman's life itself. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with your last statement. I do disagree about the comparison to Peppers, though, because as I understand it, he's a meme that continues to be discussed today among private individuals and, uh, interent denizens, whereas Bartman continues to be discussed today by reliable sources. A Google news search confirms (for what that's worth) this. dfg (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Changed the course of a National League Championship Series. From that standpoint he is clearly notable enough for an article, and there is enough biographical information to satisfy me. If the page's information is true, why are we getting worked up about the possibilty of a libel suit? Moving this without mentioning his name won't do anything to shield him because baseball fans already know his name. Improve the referencing, but do not delete this. Giants2008 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you want a valid comparison article, take a look at Jeffrey Maier. He's only notable for one event, so why is he not included in this discussion? Giants2008 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Bartman didn't change the course of anything. THIS is exactly why we should not have a biographical article on Bartman, because people continue to insist that he "cost the Cubs", and an article about him that basically insinuates that he did perpetuates this complete and utter bullshit. A single out does not make a series and everyone conveniently forgets that the Cubs had to lose the next game, not to mention play like bums the rest of that game, to get beaten. When I played football, my coach called people who blamed their losing on the Steve Bartman's of the world "crybabies". The Marlins beat the Cubs cleanly, and would have beaten them whether Bartman tried to catch a foul ball or not. I'm pretty sure Alou himself was even quoted as saying he wouldn't have made the play anyway. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Bartman didn't deserve the abuse he got. But regardless of whether he changed the course of the series, he is still an iconic figure in baseball lore. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
NoC, whether or not Bartman did or didn't change the course of anything is completely irrelevant to whether his name (not biography) belongs in Knowledge (XXG). The event occurred, it was documented by reliable sources, therefore it's encyclopedic. People arguing that even his name should be redacted from WP are not putting forth any solid arguments. dfg (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable for a single event only in the most stubbornly literal interpretation of the clause which would also preclude people like Lee Harvey Oswald. Bartman's one event has spawned massive discussion and is basically a part of baseball folklore now. He's more important to baseball than a lot of people who've actually played a few MLB games. If someone wants to tastefully migrate this article to being more about the "bartman curse", incident, or what have you, and retitle it, fine. But that doesn't require AFD. --Rividian (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Except Lee Harvey Oswald is dead, so the policies of biographies of living people wouldn't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bartman s WP:N as a part of baseball history. He had an important 15 minutes of fame for which he is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalejo and Dhartung and perhaps rename to "Steve Bartman incident." Just this last week I asked an acquaintance, "What is the name of that guy who is the most hated man to Chicago baseball fans" and he instantly named this person. That is a high degree of fame, and there are many reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of that instant when he reached for a baseball and perhaps changed history. Google news search shows 1400 results for "steve bartman" and baseball . The coverage is international, and has continued over the years since the incident; see Sporting News 2007 which called him "perhaps the most despised man on the planet." For international coverage, see The Independent, London and BBC News which says the Cubs hopes of winning their first World Series since 1908 receded when he made a grab for the ball. He certainly did not do anything beyond what any other fan might have done: attempt to catch the ball, but the Cubs' 3-0 lead turned to an 8-3 loss afterward. Before his action, the Cubs were five outs from going to the World Series for the first time since 1908 1945. The article should note he is a Cubs fan and is a decent and likeable person, per the Washington Post. Edison (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Request Just please follow W:BLP. That's all I ask.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • BLP says for "we should generally avoid having an article on them" and "a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" for one-event people. Generally and unlikely don't mean "never". Bartman is a very rare case, an exception. So we can follow BLP and still not delete this article. Besides being a part of folklore, he's still in the news quite a bit 4 years later , 138 mentions in the past month. He's a pretty clear case where there's an exception to the "one event" rule, which BLP allows for. --Rividian (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Steve Bartman incident" or some such, if you must keep a separate article. It's the incident that's notable by wiki standards, not the guy. The guy's name would redirect to the incident. Your precedent for this is the long debate over "Eve Carson" vs. Murder of Eve Carson. Baseball Bugs 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP Are you kidding me? He's natable, and Wiki needs this article. Tiptopper (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP Ridiculous to be even having a discussion about this subject. Of course he's notable. To not have a Steve Bartman article in Knowledge (XXG) would raise questions about its own relevance.MrShamrock (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No policy says that this must be deleted. As said above, BLP1E leaves room for exceptions. By the way, did you ever see the second question I left on your talk page? Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, may not be speedy but surely is snow. Band currently at DRV and deletion not likely to be overturned either. TravellingCari 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Harvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I removed a speedy tag from this since those don't cover albums, but felt AfD was appropriate for this non-notable album by a band whose article was speedied because it didn't meet WP:MUSIC. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

the guy who deleted the main artist page locked the talk page! not cool. this article should not be deleted. alot of people have this album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It's been tried a few times in the past three months, and no one can come up with a good way to make it work. If you want to get it started, head over to WT:CSD and make a suggestion, but first I suggest you look at some of the previous ones in the logs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Page was prodded (by me) and deleted. DRV restored it, but I still think it isn't a notable corporation. No improvements were made to the article since it was restored. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This article hasn't seen an iota of expansion since creation several years ago. It's been tagged with a USA-centric template for as long as I can recall. Regardless of the fact that the page seems largely unchanged, it is mostly a dicdef without sources. I don't see it ever being expanded beyond a dicdef, either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't see how this could reasonably be expanded. However tagging it as biased in favour of the US seems unfair. It is rather a US-topic. -Rushyo (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Muntuwandi. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards keep. References can be found. Someone just has to take the time to look for them. I believe that the topic also will pass muster with a little work. However, the article as it presently stands does indeed stink. With a little TLC, however, this article has great potential. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A good bit more than a dicdef, and from what I've found on the Internet (unfortunately, not reliable sources), certainly has the potential to expand. --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep every time a new mall is proposed this is a frequent topic of discussion in the newspaper; the article tells a bit about the history of it too. JJL (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has the potential to be a great article -- way more that a dictionary definition. It is sad that it has been so neglected, but that's not usually a good reason to delete. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Easy to support or expand, though the latter's not a real reason to delete. 600+ google book hits for "anchor store" and 600+ for ""anchor tenant". Plenty of books on property management, real estate development, architecture, building codes etc. e.g. , , , among others. This book on regional shopping centers has "anchor tenant" in the title. John Z (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Potential to be expanded beyond a dicdef. Needs a clean up, though. --t b c ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There must be a way o expand upon thsi article. This is a very common term, and carries with it a great deal more than a dicdef (such as impact on malls, etc.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Out of interest, you say this is a common term so i was wondering if you have any sources that could be used. Seddσn 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Just saw the sources above. Change to keep. Seddσn 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I would have to oppose a merge. Although the term is usually used in the context of shopping malls, it is also used in terms of shopping districts, areas and streets. It is broader than its application to malls. And I believe it has been established above that this is more than just a dictionary definition. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Rividian. The concept in inextricably linked with that of the shopping mall (and yes, it's certainly a worldwide concept, though the term "Anchor tenant" is used in many countries such as here (New Zealand) and Australia). It's beyoind the size of a dictdef, but only marginally - it would almost certainly make more sense as part of the article on malls in general. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it relates solely to shopping malls. See comment above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G11. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Science of Getting Rich Revisited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically a long advertisement for a book; it appears that the creator of the article is the author of the book. Verges on speedyable (as a blatant advertisement or a non-notable book), but I thought it would be prudent to bring it here given the creator's history. OhNoitsJamie 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation of http://www.israelemb.org/bios/Jeremy_Issacharoff.html. (No consensus about the notability issue).  Sandstein  16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a poorly referenced biography, and it may violate the autobiography guideline based on evidence at Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff. I have not actually read the article in full, but given the valid COI concerns it needs to be determined whether Knowledge (XXG) should have this article. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ehhhhh... not logic - constatation of fact -- Y not? 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, let me look up "constatation". Knew I shoulda been prepared with a dictionary. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was 'delete as non notable, with no more than trivial coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable local news source, the article is full of red links, and although there is an online source, the print version doesn't even exist yet. Corvus cornixtalk 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Fictional area in Star Trek rpg spin-off Star Fleet Universe. I argue that while SFU is most definitely notable, an area within it is not. See also some related AfDs:

Plrk (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and probably merge with other locations in the fiction. That's such an obvious solution that I keep getting amazed both at the people who want to keep these as separate articles, and the people who want to remove them entirely. More compromises=less contention and work at Afd=more time for writing and improving articles. If GRC wants to compromise, surely we should encourage him. DGG (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Fictional area in Star Trek rpg spin-off Star Fleet Universe. I argue that while SFU is most definitely notable, an area within it is not. See also some related AfDs:

Plrk (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, as per tags on the artilce is entirely lacks any secondary sources and contains either quite a lot of OR or extrapolation from a source which is not cited. Additionally other than the fact it is an area within a PC game is fails to establish how it is notable beyond the parent article. BigHairRef | Talk 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That's no problem as in a mass AFD - it'd done in one place - here. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

06:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. — Maggot 09:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rape of the A*P*E* (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD objected to (see talk page) so removed on objector's behalf. The book itself may or may not be notable but this article is unreferenced and, as an analytical review, is entirely original research. Therefore it either needs a complete rewrite or, failing that, should redirect to the author article Alan Sherman, where it is mentioned. Ros0709 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I think I'm on shaky ground here, but here's my 2 cents. This is a very new user (apparently) who has made an honest attempt to contribute to wikipedia. I agree totally with what Ros0709 says above, but since this isn't obvious spam, self promotion, etc. maybe some "kid gloves" treatment (i.e., cutting a little slack) is warranted? I put a lengthy message to the author (I think - wasn't signed in the discussion for the page but seems to be the original contributor - see Talk:The Rape of the A*P*E*) with all sorts of suggestions. For the record, this is an extremely notable work (or was when it was written) that got a lot of coverage, reviews, and analysis (still gets some). I think, if left up, it might accrue some TLC (e.g., from me - just not now). Like I said, 2 cents. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Google News has some results but most are behind the pay screen. I can get copies off of proquest of the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LATimes ones to flesh out and source the article, but am not particularly willing to go through all of them if people don't think it's going to be a keep. That said, I did already pull up the LATimes A wheeze over sex and it mentions that he did "a two-week national tour of radio talk shows" on which he met with "five or six interviewers a day." We don't have great sourcing for the 1970s, but the combination of scores of radio shows featuring him and his book combined with reviews in big national papers like NYTimes, LATimes and the Chicago Tribune makes me think it's notable. Vickser (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And if it effects anyone's vote, the LATimes Wheeze article was on page A1. I wasn't alive in 1973, but I know that today at least front page book reviews are extremely rare. Vickser (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't feel strongly about it and, as such, the effort deserves the benefit of the doubt. - Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think this is a notability does not expire situation --T-rex 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nomination struck. The article has been rewritten and referenced. Ros0709 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of multiple reliable sources. Shereth 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Not (yet) that notable a company. Biruitorul 18:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not familiar experienced enough with notability to give this an up-or-down vote, but to help make a decision on this, I'll point out that TV Newser uses Disqus for its comments. That's a major, notable blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishyfred (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Don't know for sure, but probably fails WP:WEB. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The coverage is non-trivial: The entire article is about this subject. Also it is a reliable source. On the other hand, it is one reliable source, and I haven't found any other sourcing. But then again, it may be out there. We have one source that fully passes WP:RS, as it is an independent publication with editorial control. With that, it is certainly verifiable. Notability is a bit more concerning, but I do believe taht it grazes by. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; one non-trivial source, but in a highly specific publication, and most importantly only one. We really need multiple sources to comfortably be able to cover this. This may be possible, but I didn't find any more and neither did Martijn... and I feel uncomfortable with the example set by articles on products that don't clearly show their notability, I think it encourages more spam. Mangojuice 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The neighborhoods (or "subdivisions") described in the article are simply not known as districts. The description and definition of "districts" in this article is totally inaccurate. Such a list has no value as an article. HkCaGu (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It can be done, but to maintain accuracy, pretty much all of the textual description has to be deleted, and the remaining list of subdivisions is so incomplete that it's useless and un-encyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
And I can guarantee it can't be. Guam's divisions are called municipalities (official), villages (colloquial) or cities (post office), and smaller "neighborhoods" are called subdivisions (zoning and planning). Electionwise, there are precincts, which are surname alphabetical ranges within a village, and the only "districts" are school board districts (four on Guam, each composed of several villages) and the at-large (whole island) district for Congressional delegate and the federal court. Therefore the article title is wrong, and the contents incomplete and meaningless. HkCaGu (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

No particular notability; interestingly, written in the same resume-like tone by the author of Amory Lovins and Andrew Wolk, which have similar POV issues. Biruitorul 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the principal author. In support of the proposition that Michael Potts is a notable person, I have added links to two independent sources: a Rocky Mountain News interview with Potts, and an Aspen Times interview, both of which note his role as CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a POV issue, I would suggest that this could be repaired in the normal course of editing, rather than through deleting the article.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete unless notability can be proven aside from the three sources already given. The three sources listed on the article's page are certainly independent secondary sources that are probably reliable, but Michael Potts is not the subject of the articles; the subject of the articles is the change in CEO of the company. For example, the "4 Questions" webpage focusses on the CEO change and has only three paragraphs about Michael Potts, two of which are his own words about the CEO change. In my opinion the article thus fails the basic criteria of WP:N. --Samuel Tan (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Retracted weak delete because article's author alerted me that he has supplied a new source here in response to the pending deletion. I can't access the new source's contents because I don't have a Goliath account right now, but perhaps someone with the account could log in to check if it helps the article's notability.-Samuel Tan 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is the google news search I ran that returns one hit, which is . Your archive search does indeed return more, I didn't know there was a difference between a google news archive search and a plain old google news search, now I do. Thanks. I'm still standing by my original opinion however. I am not at all opposed to the idea of merging this Bio into Rocky Mountain Institute Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Principal author: Added link to Denver Post interview with Michael Potts, who speaks about his personal and business philosophies.Jhutson64 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - nearly all the media coverage is about the institute, and not the person. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. The sources are reliable, and I do believe that they constitute to significant coverage, even if the coverage is in relation to the institute. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we have a pretty complete picture of the sourcing available now, and I think it doesn't constitute enough to produce an article. From what I can see, the only facts published in reliable sources about him concern his becoming CEO of the RMI. There are also interviews with him, but interviews make for terrible sources, because they merely quote the person's words and do not imply that those statements have been checked for accuracy. The fact that he was interviewed in the Denver Post, I think, does contribute to arguments for Potts being notable. But notable or not, we need to be able to write a biography about him and we just aren't. Mangojuice 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice, does not have enough to warrant a biographical article at this time. RFerreira (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:N per WP:BIO. Only assertions of notability are 1) author of one book with an unknown press, 2) failed bid for U.S. House seat, and 3) controversy arising from position on Iraq war; article seems like a vanity page. No evidence that book is important. Failed election on third-party ticket does not establish notability. No third-party coverage of his "controversial" position, or evidence that anyone even noticed. RJC 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice the COI- there is a notable wikipedian tag on the talk page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing in the article is an actual achievement of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't share this person's politics, but he has actually begun an exploratory committee for governor, and *has* received coverage in a real newspaper. . That should actually confer some notability on him, although clearly he isn't a political superstar yet. - Nhprman 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There's also these , but I'll otherwise keep out of this --Faustus37 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the last of those counts as independent media coverage, seeing as it was written by Startin himself. And WP:POLITICIAN is explicit that candidacy does not suffice for notability; this would seem to speak more heavily against someone whose campaign has not yet officially begun, but is instead still in the stages of an exploratory committee. RJC 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • While I understand the notability guideline's concern, note that it also says at WP:N that notability is "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is something many people forget when rigidly applying these essays to articles, and I think in this case, given that he's been a candidate before, will be again, and is getting news coverage (though obviously not the New York Times, which wouldn't cover a race for governor anyway) that this is one of those "exceptions" times we should use some common sense in applying the notability standard. The fact that he's been given a platform in a local paper to write an article isn't a downside, either, IMO. It actually goes to his notability as a past/future candidate. - Nhprman 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Not to wikilawyer, but WP:BIO is a guideline, not an essay. Nor are guidelines to be ignored in the name of "common sense" and the possibility of "exceptions": other mere "guidelines" include WP:COI, WP:NOHOAXES, WP:NONSENSE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:ETIQ, WP:POINT, and WP:GAME. The difference between a guideline and a policy involves the number of exceptions that might be imagined and the procedures for changing it (see Knowledge (XXG):Policies and Guidelines). So far from being an exception that has somehow slipped through the cracks of Knowledge (XXG) policy and guideline so as to technically fail them while nonetheless being notable, this is a textbook case of non-notability. Lyndon La Rouche can be a perennial candidate and still be notable: W. Lane Startin cannot. RJC 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
          • The quote about common sense and exceptions wasn't original to me. I quoted it from WP:BIO (the first line of the second paragraph.) Guidelines are NOT Policies, and frankly, shouldn't be quoted here on AfD's as if from a law book or from Scripture, as if it somehow "settles" issues. Guidelines are to be used with common sense and yes, with exceptions when warranted. The very link you quoted on policies and guidelines states: "Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules." (my bolding.) Many users here are eager to rigidly enforce guidelines with far more rigor than ever intended. Throwing a bunch of guidelines up against the wall is a rather lawyerly tactic for self-professed non-wikilawyer. Suffice it to say it's absurd to say this is nonsense, to accuse the creator of gaming the system is not WP:AGF nor is it proper etiquette, it's hardly making a "point" and is clearly not a hoax, since this is a real person who has garnered real, realiable media coverage. The accusation of COI is unproven, though it was alleged. In the end, is the candidate "notable"? It's not a slam dunk, I admit. But then again, notability doesn't mean nationally/internationally known, nor is it fame or "notoriety" nor "published a lot on the Internet," which are criteria sometimes applied by Wikipedians, unjustifiably, IMO. - Nhprman 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry if you took those to be accusations: I meant them as examples. My point was that no one would say, "but, WP:HOAX is just a guideline, and so we shouldn't feel bound to apply it rigorously" (we delete a lot of pages on April 1, making no exception for how funny they are). The same goes for WP:ETIQ, WP:GAME, and the other guidelines I mentioned. The rationale for considering something to be an exception to the guideline should not repudiate the guideline: there should still be something left to apply in ordinary cases, otherwise you're not even taking it as generally good advice. WP:POLITICIAN reflects a consensus that people whose only claim to fame is political candidacy are not notable. Startin is precisely the sort of person this guideline was intended to cover. If you want candidates to be notable, try to get the consensus changed. RJC 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
              • The language in the WP:BIO guideline (and elsewhere) urging "common sense and the occassional exception" was put into the guideline by consensus. But when I read (in effect) "Violates WP:BIO. End of discussion" that's a WikiFundamentalism that quotes the guidelines as if they are scripture, not a discussion. Mr. Startin is, IMO, just above the cutoff for notability. He's known in Idaho (former pres. of the state's Young Democrats and on the Idaho State Democratic Committee) and in Nevada, as a candidate and a published author of a biography of a native Nevadan. He's received coverage in real newspapers and has indeed been a candidate from a minor, but well-known, party (The Green Party isn't of his own invention) and is known as a candidate and political figure in two states. "National notoriety" isn't demanded here, though I suspect it's being used as a de facto criteria. - Nhprman 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per various comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Snow delete. TravellingCari 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian M. Nelson, Esq. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Resume for non-notable living person Madcoverboy (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑