Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 20 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus. I don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

David Davis for Freedom campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion and so AFD is not the correct process. Other aspects of the nomination are obviously flawed too since the article has copious citations of sources such as the BBC which demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably speedily. Whilst it might have been possible to merge this with the by-election article, I think it probably does have sufficient independent notability (based on third-party refs) to justify a separate article. DWaterson (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User's 9th edit (4 of them about this page) MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a remarkable episode in British political history which has garnered huge coverage. Of course the campaign is notable. Nick mallory (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue of it being notable in 6 months is not really relevant to this discussion. The question should be "is it notable now?" Problems with notability in the future should be resolved as they appear. The one-sided argument issue is a little more concerning though as there is a strong likelihood that this article may become a soap box if editors are not careful. If this discussion resolves to keep the article then Philip Stevens may wish to start a merge discussion on the article talk page in line with WP:MERGE. Road Wizard (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete "David Davis for Freedom" is the name of his website, but not of a notable campaign. As the anon above says, the phrase doesn't seem to appear in the cited refs (the sample I checked, anyway). Much of the content could probably be included in David Davis (British politician), but not in the by-election page where he is just one of the candidates, albeit the one who generated the election. PamD (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It can renamed if people seriously have a problem that the actual campaign name is not being fully referred to in the news. It can't be denied that a campaign exists, the sources aren't referring to any other actual campaign as far as I know. As for merging, I spun it out of David Davis, because as per the manual of style, the content is now big enough on it's own to warrant a split. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep based on the fact a subsequent merge discussion here has died out without any consensus to merge, let alone delete on the grounds given in this Afd nomination. I personally don't know why this was reopened rather than relisted, as the reasons given for listing at Drv were different from this arguably speedily closeable Afd nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment As there was no consensus for the merge and the deletion discussion was reopened after an early closure I don't think "speedy" is really an option here. Let it run for its 5 days and see what happens. Road Wizard (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't you think it is rather stupid to relist an Afd that questions notability, and suggests mergeing, after a merge suggestion fails? As far as I know, listing for Afd is not standard procedure after a failed merge, but I think you know this already. Like I said, the Drv nominator, and some of the voters here after relisting, are voting delete for different reasons than given in this Afd's nomination, hence it should have been re-nominated under those arguments. This Afd nomination is speedily closeable due to the invalid nomination and subsequent failed merge. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • What I think and what others think is not important. What matters is that a consensus was formed at review to reopen this discussion. Closing the discussion early again will not help resolve this situation as the issues need to be aired and a conclusion found. In reference to your point about the phrasing of the nomination, you may wish to read Knowledge:Guide to deletion, with particular attention to the section on discussion. Collecting varied viewpoints in a deletion discussion is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Commentators in deletion discussions often find different reasons to keep or delete an article beyond the case put forward by the nominator. Road Wizard (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Even the merge is looking doubtful simply because the sheer number of candidates has made the article, making a subarticle for an individual candidate look reasonable the same way Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a reasonable subarticle of United States presidential election, 2008. However, that analogy suggests a rename to something more neutral such as: David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 is in order. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per Caerwine. Road Wizard (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am withdrawing support for the rename proposal. The current arguments seem to be resolving to 3 main categories, keep, delete or merge. I see no need to confuse consensus with a 4th option that has gained little support. Road Wizard (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge Davis precipitated a parliamentary by-election by resigning, and this is his campaign platform. There is no evidence that it is anything but an election manifesto. Davis is merely using the campaign to turn the election into a pseudo-referendum, and that to me suggests that the article should be merged to his personal article, with some mention in the Haltemprice by-election article, whilst being in keeping with WP:UNDUE. I would lean towards delete, as WP is not a soapbox, nor is it the news. Coverage of a newsworthy event (the by-election) does not make the campaign particularly notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User's 2nd edit MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User's 5th edit (3 of them about this topic) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I would disagree with merge because this is the central point, if you like, of one of the biggest political events the country has seen for years. It will probably be the biggest until next election (although nothing is ever certain). There has been a vast amount of coverage nationwide and I will certainly remember this for years to come. Blood Red Sandman 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years'? I have to disagree with that assessment. In the past year alone, political events that have received more attention than David Davis' campaign include the nationalisation of Northern Rock, the London mayoral election, 2008 and the previous by-election in Crewe and Nantwich. 'It will probably be the biggest until the next election' is an argument based on attempting to predict the future, which Knowledge doesn't do, and 'I will remember this for years to come' is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. While I appreciate how much many people care about this subject, I just don't think it has proven to have long-term notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years' because it rebels in the face of the governmet. There has been much attention given to the lack of support the government has these days, and this is the main demonstration of that, if you like. 'I will remember this for years to come' is a direct response to people suggesting we will have forgotten about it in six months. That isn't a valid reason to delete, but \i don't see you picking them out for it, only taking my response to them out of context. Blood Red Sandman 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You have misunderstood the notability guideline. If something was notable at a specific point in time (and that cannot even be argued otherwise given the amount of sources), then it remains notable for all time. We do not subsequently merge/delete articles purely because time has passed and the event is percieved to have faded from the spotlight. As an aside, I don't realy know what you define 'little coverage', as the result was on every single mainstream TV and radio news bulletin I saw yesterday. A merge with the by-election would be a violation of giving undue weight and given the size of this article, would be counter to the manual of style. But the case for a merge has already died out as a no consensus, something which seems to have been overlooked in the reopening of this Afd. Nothing has changed since that very recent debate, so it realy is a moot point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
A few responses: firstly, I'm not convinced that the merge proposal really received enough attention to represent a fair judgement on the article, though that is obviously open to debate. In any case, consensus can change and a 'delete' or 'merge' conclusion to this discussion would supersede the earlier 'no consensus' conclusion in the merge discussion.
Secondly, on the 'notability is not temporary' issue - I take that differently to you do. As I understand it, it means that 'notability' means lasting importance, not brief interest, and an event that only receives attention from the media for a brief period before they move in is not in fact 'notable'. (From Knowledge:Notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.") In this case, this article would fail.
Finally, while I take back what I said above about this receiving little coverage, I don't think that's an argument to keep this article - the press coverage, as far as I can tell, was focused on the fact that there was a byelection and Davis' performance in it, as much as his personal campaign. The fact that there was plenty of media coverage when Davis first resigned, and when the results of the election were announced, but not so much in between, proves my point that it was the by-election that was really the notable topic here. If there had been no resignation and by-election, Davis' 'Freedom Campaign' would have received much less attention, and this article would probably not even exist; therefore, the latter should be considered a subtopic of the former rather than an event in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite saying 'finally' above, here's one more comment - I don't feel merging this content in with the main by-election article would constitute undue weight, as Davis' resignation and campaign on civil liberties is clearly the most important and significant aspect of this by-election, therefore deserves more weight than any of the other candidates (and the BBC, amongst others, covered it as such). There is precedent in having an article about a by-election which focuses heavily on one particular campaign: see Bermondsey by-election, 1983, which I believe is perfectly in keeping with the length and weight guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The merge propsal was initiated very recently, any moves to reopen/revisit based on consensus can change are clearly grounded in the fleeting interest basis, which as I said is irrelevant under the notability guideline. The merge proposal was on the talk page of a highly trafficked article, and still garnered no consensus. On notability, I think we just have a different interpretation of the bar of notability. This campaign is miles above being classed as a simple news blip not to be of note in its own right, this is seriously not even in doubt to me from my knowledge of wikipedia. And as I recently added, the campaign is not closed or finished going by Davis' statements. It arguably even pre-dated the by-election given the issues being debated. As for the bermondsey article, I would suggest that you may indeed be lacking in understanding of the manual of style, that article is frankly terrible. It has no lead section, and some very badly named, structured and worded sections. It took three scans of the article to figure out the story. Yes, it is about a single issue, but that issue is related to the by-election only. I realy can't even see under what title you would spin out the information that gives undue weight (presumably tatchel's leftist stance and homophobia against him). The article is biased towards Tatchel (you only find out Hughes actually won by looking at the Results table), but again you would still not justifiably double the length of tatchel's bio article to cover it that way either (although without looking, I would guess tatchel's article is much longer than Davis' bio). MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
PS the lack of coverage of the campaign inbetween the resignation and voting phases is down to in my opinon the lack of any labour candidate, or an obvious credible anti-Davis candidate, leading to the lack of any reportable 'debates'. However, the campaign was discussed for nearly half of an edition of BBC's Question Time during this time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all of this belongs on the by-election page, or nowhere. — ciphergoth 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for providing us with some of the sources, but do you wish to add a comment to go with them? Are you in favour of keep, delete, merge, or rename (or a fifth option not discussed yet)? As these seem to be similar sources to the ones referred to by MickMacNee and Terraxos above I don't see what new information they add to this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User's 2nd edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User's 6th edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It may be a little early to judge, but the website has not received an update since a press release about Davis's acceptance speech was uploaded on 11th July. There are no future events listed in the website's calendar and associated websites like twitter have seen even fewer updates. It looks increasingly likely that the campaign website and other materials related only to the by-election campaign. It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future, but the burden of proof lies on those claiming this is more than just a by-election campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not employ original research to conclude the status of the campaign. Davis' official statement made clear the campaign will continue. Notability does not change with time, please do not try to disrupively chnage the nature of content with false pretenses. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how does WP:OR apply to my comment? I have not presented unsourced information for inclusion in the article so I can't see the relevance of your point. I have presented a comment that the campaign websites appear inactive since the end of the by-election campaign as was suggested would happen by several editors after the article was created. I have also included a qualification at the start of the comment that "It may be a little early to judge..." I am sure other editors are mature enough to take the evidence I have presented in conjunction with the qualification to make their own minds up about the situation.
I would also like a full explanation about how I am being disruptive. Can you please provide links to the policies or guidelines that I have violated as I surely cannot see them. If I have not breached any policies then I would suggest that you reread WP:AGF and consider your comments carefully before you click the "Save page" button. Road Wizard (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine. If you didn't understand the first time, please provide sources that the campaign is over, per your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that the campaign is over. I hope this is substantial explanation of the concept. I will withdraw the accusation of disruption if needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please reread my comment. I have not stated anywhere that the campaign is over and in fact have made two explicit qualifications of my statement that it might not be over per "It may be a little early to judge..." and "It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future". What I have stated is that there has been no activity on the campaign website or associated websites since the day after the bi-election campaign. This is not original research. You can check the campaign website for yourself to see that what I have said is correct.
A clearer picture would be provided if we were discussing this a few months after the end of the by-election as then the activity or inactivity of the website would provide its own argument. However, as this deletion discussion may be closed at any moment the only option available is to present the facts as they stand at this moment in time. The website and supporting materials have not been updated since the day after the bi-election (this is a fact and not OR as can be verified by visiting the campaign website).
I know that you are eager to retain the article you created, but please do not misstate other people's comments. Road Wizard (talk) 16:12, 20 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 Wal-Mart brands. Not notable alone. Malinaccier (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ozark Trail (brand name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable private-label brand. Possible merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 some other organizational structure may be preferable in the future, but no to deletion at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

809 in poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only one death...and that's it. The template is 92% of the content of the page. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete all "years in poetry", not sure any year in poetry is notable. --neon white talk 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep Any year is notable if notable things happened in it. Its a useful way of organizing material. that said, for stretches of years where the events are far between in a given field, a larger degree of aggregation would be a reasonable editorial decision. DGG (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - ina greement with DGG, and note that wikipedia's coverage of literature from that era is likely to be very incomplete, so there may be possibilities for additional information -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't really do any harm, if we're going to have any "year in poetry" articles there's no reason not to have this one; and if we're not going to have any - well, that's a discussion for another place. --Stormie (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improved.--Kubigula (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales Public School (Barrie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school that fails to cite sources. Delete GreenJoe 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Not notable without sources, and as it is WP:NOTDICDEF. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Other than a very brief mention in "Scientology Fiction" in The Washington Post, could not find significant discussion of this article's topic in secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources. Also, WP:NOTDICDEF. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Guns N' Roses' unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable, unsourced, listing of bootlegs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable marketing term, likely created to promote a magazine by the same name. Despite several requests on the talk page, no references have been provided to show that this is a notable topic on its own. Almost all edits have been done by anonymous IP's with little or no edits outside of this page, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. As discussions on the talk page have stalled, I present this to the community for discussion. BradV 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Check out: http://www.amazon.com/Streetwear-Insiders-Guide-Steven-Vogel/dp/0811860361 Streetwear is NOT the same as HipHop fashion Also check out trade exhibitions such as http://www.breadandbutter.com and http://www.margin.tv to get a grip on what streetwear's about. These are streetwear exhibitions where hiphop fashion plays a very small part. Urban hiphop fashion may dominate streetwear in the USA but this is not the case across the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.166.167 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep. "Likely", "Possible" are weak points against already presented NUMEROUS REFERENCES for Notability of the article on the article and talk pages. The STREETWEAR is the term used to define very particular style of clothing made by dozens of independent and big name brands. The discussion on the talk page has been stalled because Proposer of AFD has coped out from the discussion. Community should reject The Proposer's Personal POV on the issue as inept understanding of the subject.Imprevu (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per wp:nn The article does not have multiple reliable sources, it has links to PR snippets. This subject, if notable, would be covered by independent news outlets. As it is the article seems to be helping clothing manufactures to define a market segment and attract attention to product lines. The supposed popularity of this subject does not make it notable and clearly the links provided are more about getting early adopters to act than about neutral coverage of a topic. The "NUMEROUS REFERENCES for Notability " Imprevu mentioned are not links to reliable sites but to industry trade magazines and amazon.com. Faradayplank (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean trade magazines? "Mass Appeal" is sold at newsstands (trade magazine?)... It covers variety of subjects, including "Streetwear". Industry doesn't define a market segment, but cater to existing market grown upon need of a particular lifestyle (and noticeable) of population segment... Why don't you ask skateboarders, fixed-gear bikers etc. what style of clothing they wear... Streetwear... Amazon.com link provides info about book covering that subject... Haven't you noticed that? And now... let me prove that Im not an elephant...Imprevu (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "not an elephant"? With regards to trade magazines ( see trade journal ), the magazine ref you provided isn't one (my mistake). Still to meet wp:n the references provided are not sufficient. Please, since you seem to care, go find more reliable third party links to provide the basis for notability. If this is so obviously a notable subject, as you contend, it shouldn't be hard to find them. In fact with 1,600,000 ghits and 660,000 ghits you shouldn't have a problem getting 3 more. like this one from 1994 and this which I would add to the article if I knew they were relevant but I'll leave that to you. It's all part of making Knowledge a great encyclopedia. Best of luck :) Faradayplank (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You have found more than 2 millions hits on Google(!) Isn't that constitute a Notability? Mass Appeal Magazine, Complex Magazine, Vapors Magazine, Faders Magazine, Vice Magazine, UBR Magazine.... Search for "Streetwear" on their sites - you'll see a lot of articles... I rest my case...Imprevu (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
No, they do not constitute notability. See WP:GHITS. They only show the potential for improving the article through reliable third party references Faradayplank (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Good... Half a dozen of non-trade third party magazine-references have been established wp:n. Read them, enjoy it... Anything else I can do for your thirst for Streetwear knowledge?Imprevu (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article does not fulfill the requirements for a musician/ensemble. He is signed to a major label, but has (as of yet) no releases on that label. Ironholds 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Robbins is an artist signed by Universal Motown and in fact exists on the Universal Motown page in wikipedia. So i would strongly press that he is notable.

universal motown page on wikipedia itself puts him under "Notable artists under the Universal Motown/Universal Republic Group".

This is from the WP:MUSIC guidelines: "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.". I suggest you follow this link . Somewhere in the "J's" are "Jimmy Robbins of Too Sorry for Apologies- Step One. Obviously notable enough for Radio Disney

iTunes also has him on there, another media source

Jimmy almost has 5 million plays and he has 79,000 friends on myspace. He actually has two songs on radio disney, 'Step One' is just the more popular one. He has a Street Team page, and many fansites dedicated to him. He has also gone on tour with noteable artists like The Scene Aesthetic and he is working with the very famous producer Bryan Todd

here are two more articles that we found on jimmy robbins

Alternative Press Magazine featured Jimmy in it as well, back when he was still TSFA. Isn't a spot in a major music magazine considered "notable" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabszx (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

see WP:NOTINHERITED. →AzaToth 16:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what being inherited has to do with Jimmy Robbins. His popularity was not inherited; his previous band name was Too Sorry For Apologies. His name simply changed. It wasn't a previous project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.139.133 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The songs have to be on rotation, not on a request list as the Radio Disney songs are. Myspace popularity is not considered a notability requirement or even source, and yes, he has an iTunes artist selection, but considering his record label signed a deal with iTunes to make every song in their catalogue available that isn't really suprising. Lastly, as I explained on the talk page, being signed to a major record label does not make an artist notable; two or more releases on said label is required. Ironholds 11:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


The artist has had music in rotation at Radio Disney. Currently his music has not charted but according to Mediabase and BDS he is getting 4 spins a week. Furthermore, his Radio Disney interview was broadcast throughout the RD network in July of 2007 as part of their incubator program. His website feature was added to supplement his radio feature. Additionally, you mention that the artist needs two or more releases on said label to be considered notable. Would you like me to list the plethora of artists on Knowledge that are currently supporting only one release? --Adamlarue (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, add away. You'll find those that have will have fulfilled the notability criteria in other ways. Ironholds 22:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He was one of the youngest performers on warped tour when he was with Ashwin. And as said before he was featured in AP magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabszx (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The article has been the subject of COI concerns for some time. I've looked for multiple references to satisfy the general requirements of WP:BIO, but can't find anything non-trivial. The artist's website lists private and corporate collections, but none that can be verified, and no museum collections that might satisfy the specific requirements of WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Artfacts.net, usually a reliable and comprehensive source, only lists dealers . Ananny is a working artist, but fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion in the encylopedia. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Teapotgeorge (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above... please see talk page of article re: Terry Ananny Canadian UNICEF Artist which states that Terry Ananny is a Canadian artist with notable collections such as Ottawa Senators Hockey Club, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Ottawa General Hospital - Riverside Campus, CTV Television Corporation, Global Television, Canada House (Canadian Embassy in Brussels, Belgium) and Canadian Medical Association. Her work has illustrated the cover of Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2000 Annual Report Cover Her work has been selected by UNICEF for greeting cards in the years 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004 (three cards), 2006, 2007, 2008 and just recently selected for UNICEF's Christmas in Canada 2009 greeting card collection. Her work has appeared on Canada Save the Children cards in 1999, Children's Wish Foundation cards work selected 2006, 2007 and 2008, Mount Sinai Hospital card work selected 2007 and Canadian Greetings card work selected 2006, 2007 and 2008. Her work was chosen by the Quebec Ministry of Education for their 2008 video "Art Speaks", which was distributed throughout the English school board in Quebec. Cornerstone 52 Foundation - Cards Helping Kids has selected Ananny's work to appear on greeting cards in 2006 and 2007. Large corporations have also selected Ananny's work to appear on corporate greeting cards; Amway 2004, Reynolds Mirth Richards and Farmers 2005, Blake, Cassels and Graydon 2007. Her work has appeared on the CD cover "Chantons Noel" 2005 (CPM Distribution). Her work has been collected by Jean Charest, Quebec Liberal Party Residence, Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Terry Ananny is listed in the following government libraries: Artists in Canada - National Gallery of Canada Art Gallery of Ontario Musee d'art Contemporain de Montreal . Ananny has also attained notability through having over one thousand paintings in corporate and private collections world wide... User:Jane Rushmore June 23, 2008
  • Keep Article lists several exhibitions, which is one of the criteria defined in WP:CREATIVE Livitup (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It says "significant exhibitions", which none of these seem to be. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above...Jane Rushmore (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Ananny's works were shown at the International ArtExpo in New York, N.Y. in 2003. Ananny has continuously shown her work in prestigious commercial art galleries in Canada and the U.S. from 1993 to present day Exhibitions. Ananny exhbited her work at Canada House Gallery in Banff, AB from 2004 - 2008 the same gallery that Norval Morrisseau one of Canada's most renowned painters exhibted at in 2000 and 2001. In 1999, Ananny had a solo exhibition at the Ottawa Corel Centre - Air Canada Club, home to the Ottawa Senators NHL Hockey Team. This exhibition presented over 30 original works and large six foot hockey sculptures Magazin'Art.
  • Keep- reliable sources are cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The only non-trivial source is the Magazin'Art article from the artist's website. WP:CREATIVE asks for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources support the existence of a working artist/greetings card designer, but not notability.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment There are infact several non-trivial sources cited; the artist's works were chosen to illustrate the annual report cover of Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2000 Annual Report Cover; it is interesing to note that Canadian Health Services Research Foundation found Ananny's work notable enough to be selected for this important presentation. Ananny's works have been selected in 2008 by the Quebec Ministry of Education to appear in the copyright video "Art Speaks" which was distributed throughout the Quebec English school board. The nature of Knowledge would suggest that this "encyclopedia" is privy to an inexhaustible sourcing of information to prove notability, when infact it is not. Knowledge is only able to prove "sources" when they are hyperlinked in an already existing internet article. Wikipedian's will never be able to "prove" copyrighted reliable sources exist for this reason. Ananny's works grace the walls of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Ottawa. Again, it is intersting to note that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. considered Ananny's work to be noteable enough to purchase her works. How is this notable "reality" to be proved? Can this reality be hyperlinked to an existing article in Knowledge? I think not and never will be. The wonderful thing about Knowledge is that it does not have to rely on dusty periodicals which present "historical facts" centuries later. Knowledge can be more than that, it can report facts like the newspaper - in real time! Perhaps Wikipedian's need to address the way they are limiting their viewers exposure to the "real" world.Jane Rushmore (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but with a serious edit down of the long lists of exhibitions, collections etc. The objection of some editors appears based on snobbery because Terry Ananny is a commercial illustrator / artists who produces rather twee pictures. As her work IS widely published there is no good reason to exclude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.197 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Media-net-works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'd be wary here. There might be POV issues due to the fact that the original creator works for one of the partners in the project. Three paragraphs look like they were heavily reworded straight from the media-net-works.de website - and have NO wikilinks in them. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephen Arnold Music, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Biography, no independent sources, written like an ad, questionable notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But Stephen Arnold Music already exists, and the additional biographical information in Stephen Arnold is totally unsourced. Delete if not rewritten completely. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to Rewrite

  • RE: Sources – The article is sourced to multiple trade articles (Mulitchannel News, Post and SCREEN Magazine) written about Mr. Arnold, supporting the info about what he does for a living AND at the same time, what makes him notable. What else in the article do you need sourced?
  • RE: Birth date/age/nationality – How is this really relevant? This info would not make the page any more interesting. He’s just a middle-aged Caucasian male and it does state that he is from Indiana in the copy.
  • RE: Written like an advert – Its not. There is nothing in there that is an opinion nor that sways your opinion. It’s pretty cut and dry. Look at other pages and compare. I see MANY bio pages with no sources and that are poorly written. Just because it was written by a professional, and not someone off the street, the language should not be dumbed down.
  • RE: Stephen Arnold Music does exist as a page. However this is the company of Stephen Arnold and not about the man himself e.g., Donald Trump Organization is different to Donald Trump the man (and yes, both these seperate pages exist).No need to delete. Regards, Timesrunningout (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources - most of the citations are about the company, not the person. Besides, the online sources have the character of press releases or "business listings" (not independent, critical reporting), for example none of them seems to mention competitors, and all the information seems to come from the company itself, so they fail Knowledge:COMPANY#Primary_criterion. And you have cited online sources in a misleading way (the source doesn't say that Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that ... "stick in a viewer's brain like chewing gum", it merely quotes Mr. Arnold saying that they try to create such sounds). Which makes one wonder if the offline sources are quoted accurately.
  • RE: Birth date/age/nationality - the exact birth date might not be essential, but an article about a person which doesn't even indicate from what part of the world he comes from and from what generation (is he 25 or 85?) is lacking fundamental information. In contrast, the humorous personal trivia in the (completely unsourced) "Personal Life" section are not relevant to the reader of an encyclopedia. This again raises the question why there should be a separate article besides Stephen Arnold Music.
  • advert - as Mr. Arnold's publicist, you are quite obviously more familiar with the writing style of marketing texts than with the neutral, factual tone expected in an encyclopedia. To just quote one example from your text:
Dedicated to providing the highest quality music productions, easy and efficient access to syndicated production music libraries and superior customer service, Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference
This is full of what is called peacock terms in Knowledge. "successful" does mean what precisely? "Dedicated" is a typical advertising term (what does it really mean? that the goal of providing the product is more important to the company than making money?). "Superior" is an opinion that competitors might not agree with, so it violates WP:NPOV. Writing for and about your employer, you should really have read Knowledge:Conflict of interest.
Look at other pages and compare - Knowledge is always a work in progress and there are certainly other articles which have quality issues and should be deleted. You are welcome to help out by pointing out some of them. But this is not a valid argument to justify violations of Knowledge policies, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, so revert if I am not, but I think this needs to be relisted for more discussion since only 2 have commented.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Finalnight (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stephen Arnold Music. What the company does is certainly notable, and its article could usefully be expanded (though preferably not by its own PR); but Mr Arnold's notability is what his company does, and this article has major problems:
  • conflict of interest - the author is Mr Arnold's publicist;
  • promotional tone and peacock terms: "Dedicated to providing quality... easy and efficient access... superior customer service... well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference" - none of those words backed up by the reference cited for them;
  • The sources quoted are mostly about the company and what it does, not for the personal part of the article, which as HaeB notes is oddly incomplete and trivia-like.
In short, I agree 100% with HaeB's remarks above, but I think the solution is to redirect to the company article, so that anyone searching the name will find that. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This article has been speedied once, but I'll bring it here for discussion. Article is mostly advertising, and sources lead to a business directory listing and a self-nominated award. TN‑X-Man 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Was originally a prod, which was contested. Non-notabler footballer - hasn't payed in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

100 Players Who Shook The Kop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list created by a poll, and therefore not an objective list of statistics. That makes this the intellectual property of the football club, and therefore a copyright violation. I discussed this at Knowledge:Media copyright questions and was pointed to , which specifically discusses such content, and which says any list whose selection is based primarily on editorial opinion (rather than say statistics or geography) is considered to have that minimal spark of creativity necessary for copyright Corvus cornixtalk 21:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 was close to calling this one no consensus, but in spite of some arguments that the delete !votes were unfounded in policy, the same holds true for many of the arguments for keeping, which seem to be based on claims that it is useful or citing the WP:ITSCRUFT essay. In the end there were no answers to the concerns that this list did not pass key guidelines and policies such as WP:V and WP:LIST. As there are no major objections to userfication of the material, I will make it available upon request. Shereth 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list-cruft. ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


I would like to see more reasoned argument for deletion than "Non-notable list-cruft". This list will compile information that users would otherwise have to dredge through multiple articles for. The fact that there is only one entry in the table now points to the article's stub status, not any lack of notability. Currently only a couple of the university pages have listings of fictional alumni. Those alumni can be rolled into this article and it can be expanded to contain information that is not currently available elsewhere on Knowledge, providing an article with worthwhile and convenient information for the reader.

I think that this is a case of: 

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy 
spelled out in What Knowledge is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to 
human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain 
why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.

and I hope that I have successfully rebutted the claim that this article is not related to human knowledge. --John (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I sort of like this list. I can think of a lot of fictional characters which should be added, if I had the time. Didn't Inspector Morse go to Oxford? (Can we include Jimmy Carter and Robert Redford as fictional alumni too? Oh dear, my bad.) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - no content --T-rex 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not "no content"... stub content. Just because one user does not have access to all information needed (or time needed) to write the article does not mean that the article does not have merit. That is why we have the "stub" designation so that we can get others to help flesh out the article. I'm not sure why some people seem to be ready to throw out an article without even thinking about it. There is *lots* of content out there for this article. The content is about notable characters and notable schools and notable authors and notable sources. Anyone interested in finding this information now has a bear of a time doing so, if they even can. That means this article needs to be *written*, not deleted. Unless someone has something more convincing that a two or four word unsubstantiated conclusion, perhaps it would be best if they gave their response more thought before posting it. --John (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • At the time I made that comment the article had only one eighth of the very minimal content it currently has. Still the topic is not notable, and even after being nominated for deletion, nobody has made a serious attempt at giving the article a reasonable start. Despite the above (unsigned) comment this is still also "Non-notable list-cruft" and as such should be deleted.--T-rex 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • At present, this list is biased to the USA. My concern is that if it is given a global viewpoint, it will be very long. For example, some research on all the links in University of Oxford in popular culture, would add hundreds of people to this list. University of Cambridge#Cambridge University in literature and popular culture would add a whole lot more. That is just two universities. I am yet to be convinced that this list is a sensible project, so delete for now. --Bduke (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You may have a point. This list may be such a solid topic that it may have to have some lists broken out because they are too large for the main article... just like most of the other healthy list articles that are currently in Knowledge. Why that makes it worthy of a "delete for now" is not clear. --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - this strikes me as synthesis that strays into the realm of Original Research. Yes, you can source every character and their school, but the topic itself was invented for the sake of the entry. "The content is about notable characters and notable schools and notable authors and notable sources"- this is true. The authour has taken the knowledge of many of these otherwise unrelated notable topics, found a common thread, and made that thread the topic for an article. Hence, Original Research. Rejectwater (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So... let me make sure I understand this. If the information exists--in print even--but has never been synthesized into an article before, the the article should be deleted because it constitutes original research? What you are saying is that unless the article is a copy of some other preexisting article, it is too original for Knowledge. I think that you are making a rather extreme interpretation of the text when it comes to the originality rules. Taking material that is there already--especially if it is already on Knowledge itself--and making it more easily found and read is *far* from original research. How this rates a "strong delete" based on this reasoning certainly isn't clear. --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What you have described is, in fact, original research. The information exists, in print, as part of information from separate topics, and you have synthesized it and turned it into a new topic. A+B=C=>Original Research. See my recent comments below for further detail on this. Rejectwater (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sources listed on the page are other Knowledge entries. Rejectwater (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, they are. You've just refuted your own argument that this is too original. The idea for the page may be original, but the information was already present in Knowledge, and was ready to be synthesized. Hopefully others will know sources other than Knowledge, and add to the content here, presuming it is not deleted due to the quick succession of overly impulsive "delete" votes. --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Knowledge is not a reliable source. The nominator proposed this article for deletion as "non-notable". Lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources is proof of said status. See my recent comments below for more detail on this. Rejectwater (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete / Userfy The idea isn't bad, but this article is nowhere near ready for prime time in its current state. Townlake (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Um... when did it become a requirement for an article to be absolutely complete and "ready for prime time" in order to avoid deletion? If this was the criterion for deletion, we could save a ton of time by simply deleting every stub article in the system now. How does this justify a vote of "Strong Delete" rather than a vote of "Improve the Article?" --John (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC): (Edited 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

This is getting ridiculous. Every vote for deletion here is more based on personal taste than on reading the rules for adding material to Knowledge. Even the one that sites a valid reason (original research) pointedly ignores the commenter's own observation that it is simply bringing together information that was already on Knowledge. The only arguments I see for deletion so far amount to:

  • I don't like this material. I think it's cruft, and don't think it belongs (obviously unsubstantiated opinion, and moot to this discussion)
  • This article is a stub, and I think we should delete stubs because they aren't complete yet (ridiculous and should have been better thought out before being suggested)
  • Pulling together information that already exists into a new article is "original research," and as such the article should be deleted because it has never been written before. (Again, ridiculous. If this was true, no new articles could ever be added to Knowledge)
  • This article will have so much notable material--just from what is already on Knowledge--that it will be too large. (This is really a reason to argue *for* the list, and for the breaking off of sub-lists if it gets too big--as occurs regularly here)

For goodness sake people, please think about what your argument really means before you cast your vote. Read Knowledge:Lists, Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, Knowledge:Don't worry about performance, Knowledge:Summary style, Knowledge:No original research, and (most importantly) Knowledge:Deletion policy--and understand them--before deciding that your particular issue supports deletion of the article.

One critical thing to remember when voting (quoted from Knowledge:Deletion policy#Editing): 

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.

This article is already in compliance with this by virtue of having been tagged with {{stub}} and {{expand list}}; therefore, arguments that it is too incomplete do not contribute to this discussion, but ignore points already addressed.

  • Comment WP:CIVIL. Townlake (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I apologize if my comments above seem uncivil. It was not my intent to insult the authors so much as to put an end to ill considered votes to eliminate a valid article. If someone can provide an unbiased and appropriate (as per Knowledge rules, not as per opinion) reason why this article is not valid, then I would like to hear it, but I was getting frustrated with responses that voted "Delete" without citing a valid reason to delete the article rather than simply improve it. -- John (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I second that Userfy is appropriate for this article. Rejectwater (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:NOTE. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Please provide links to reliable third-party sources that discuss this topic in order to demonstrate that it is notable. Knowledge is not a reliable third party source. Note that the discussion is not whether Iron Man, Chuck, and/or Stanford are notable. The discussion is whether the topic of the article, Fictional Alumni of Real Universities, is notable. Also, WP:NOR. ""Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material." In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (i.e., the discussion of this topic in reliable third party sources), I stand by my contention that the authour has taken knowledge of a variety of different notable topics, found a common thread among them, and turned that thread into a Knowledge entry that is itself original research and not notable. Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I dunno about the OR argument, seems to me something could be cobbled together there. Character development in fiction often involves inclusion of details that will either resonate or purposefully not resonate with the reader... using real universities as background elements would have some interplay with that. This issue can probably be addressed; what I don't think can be addressed is the fact the criteria for inclusion in this list are so undefined, it may well include any fictional character anywhere in the world who even went to one day of university. (The list table also includes irrelevant trivia right now in the last column, further confusing the list's purpose; and in fact the article currently contains multiple lists.) Userfication for improvement and eventual re-introduction as a workable, editable list simply seems the best course of action at this point - I think this COULD work, but right now it fails LIST. Townlake (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:NOR: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is a classic example of synthesizing information into original research. You take Tony Stark who went to MIT (A), then you take Chuck who went to Stanford (B), and you realize that there are any number of fictional characters whose back story includes attending a real university (C). Once again, WP:NOR: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." Where is the third party source that discusses this topic? Find one reliable third party source that discusses the topic of Fictional Alumni of Real Universities as an independent topic and you will prove this is not OR. Rejectwater (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:NOT. I would further contend that this article falls under the category of Knowledge is not a directory under the heading of both Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Rejectwater (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


John (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC):

Link for block of text is here. Sorry to edit someone else's comments, but we need to be able to read the entired afd page. If you think this is out of line, revert or change it, but I feel that the block of text doesn't help. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No worries, I was considering doing that myself, but was unsure as to the protocol for changing what has been said in a discussion--at least by that much. This is the first time I've been involved in this process, and I hadn't read the guidelines for how to use this page until I had already responded. Thanks for your help cleaning up. --John (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's totally cool. I appreciate your passion. Have you checked out some possible secondary sources on these things from the library (granted, you'll need a good ILL system to do so). Marvel and DC both have had numerous secondary compilations produced which may cover the issue at hand (though not explicitly). Check out some omnibus Marvel or DC histories to see if they don't cover this sort of thing in any way. Sources may exist for this. Just because people !vote to delete doesn't mean that the article/list is hopeless. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I am sounding frustrated here, but I have begun to feel like you are trying to justify your initial vote by "quoting scripture for your own purposes," and without keeping an open mind that your initial opinion may have been in error. Please... PLEASE... read the entire policy or guideline that applies before jumping to the conclusion that it supports deletion of the article. --John (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment John, the way in which you're block-responding to notes here could be perceived as tendentious editing. I assume you mean well, but it is very difficult to engage in a conversation given the length and inconsistent formatting of your comments. Townlake (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry Townlake. That is not intentional. I'm new to this, but I'll try to keep it more succinct in the future and follow the bulleting guideline for responses. I simply find that so often the rules cited are being taken out of context, and want to ensure that the context is brought back into the discussion. It is getting frustrating to have people use one sentence out of a paragraph to justify a delete vote when the next or previous sentence explicitly contradicts their point. I am also afraid that this discussion may be getting artificial stress put on it by someone who makes a hobby of Cruftcruft (i.e., Rejectwater, who explicitly claims an interest in that and in prolonging deletion discussions). I don't really have the time to be spending defending this, and while I feel that it is an article worth keeping, people with more time and less diligence (in reading the rules) seem likely to get it killed. At this point, I'm about ready to just let them do it and just bag the whole idea of expanding Knowledge. If it's this easy for someone to hijack my time and throw out my work then I'm not going to bother. --John (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lists of notable things in a fashion that is useful for t he reader are appropriate for the encyclopedia. Its a good way or organising material. i think that's what John wanted to say. I agree with him it's time that people stopped nominating article like these. The basic policy that lists are acceptable is quite well accepted. If one wants to change it, try the village Pump, but I think it wil be treated there too as a throughly -rejected proposal. DGG (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As has been said before, this is OR. The points about which primary sources apply aren't germane. We are obviously not trying to use WP to promote Iron Man (or other fictional alums), so it might be appropriate to use primary sources to augment an article such as this. Likewise the discussion shouldn't hinge on whether or not wikipedia is a reliable source. The issue is not the reliability of the information or its truthfulness but the independence. furthermore we are NOT making a WP:SYN argument. It is not being asserted that a new viewpoint is being stitched together from originally disparate sources. The question is simple. Is the creation of a list like this original research in the sense that it generates a novel conclusion, concatenation or piece of information? The answer is yes. The letter and intent of the WP:OR policy (or guideline, or pillar, w/e) is to prevent wikipedia from being a place of first publication. In the case of lists or compilations where no substantive creative or transformative effort exists, WP:OR allows them. So a list of countries in the UN (even if it were not available as a whole in a secondary source) would be acceptable while a list of the wealthiest families in history would not be acceptable. The lists LOOK the same, but the former requires no more effort from an editor than to ensure completeness and accuracy while the latter requires research and judgment. A list of fictional characters who matriculated from real universities would fall into the latter column. In order to populate this list (absent a secondary source), an editor would have to dig through primary sources and validate the information herself. That is PRACTICALLY the definition of research. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (edit conflict), while I certainly think this is a good faith effort, I believe this list does fail some of the guidelines already pointed out above. It is not a topic that in and of itself has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, failing WP:N and WP:V. As per WP:LISTS, "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Knowledge's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." While some of the characters may be notable (and most of them are not), the topic as a whole is not a notable one. There is no extensive reliable, significant coverage discussing the actual topic of "fictional alumni from real universities." I also must agree that with its current name and context, the list does not have enough focus. Notice in the "Characters to be added to the table," three of the items listed are focused lists or topics around that single university, rather than every university. Many university articles do not include this information, as it is generally considered to be trivia/trivial, rather than a notable aspect. The topic itself could also be considered an incorrect one, as most fictional works are set in fictional versions of the universities, based on the real world university, particularly those where the school may be featured in the series itself. All that said, if the list is kept, please fix the name to follow Knowledge naming conventions (i.e. it should be List of fictional alumni of real universities. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Jut for grins, a source: The American College in Fiction Protonk (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe the topic of the essay is the subject of the way colleges and college professors are portrayed in fiction, i.e. the use of colleges as a subject in fiction. As such it would not be relative to this discussion. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another one: PRINGLE DAVID Imaginary People: A Who’s Who of Modern Fictional Characters (1987) Protonk (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The subject matter here is fictional characters. While what university each attended may be mentioned in a discussion of that character it is not the focus of the work. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's not dismiss it out of hand. If a work like this has even a category for each fictional character with their alma matter on their, that is justification enough for this list to exist, some day. I'm not saying the existence of this book (which I have no idea if it has such a category) means that the page can't be deleted on face (I'm still weak delete), but it means that the topic could easily be recreated from any work which has a list of characters including their education. Protonk (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Less presitigous, but more to the point: Famous TV Characters Who Went to College Protonk (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From Forbes: Thurston Howell III Protonk (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks Protonk. At the least, you seem to have addressed the issue of notability, since those sources seem likely to have covered the concept of universities attributed to fictional characters. My main problem is that I didn't really have the time to own this list in the first place. I only started it because I had seen the lack of it several times while trying to look up the attributed alma mater for a given character (even when I remembered seeing it in print/on screen, it was not always mentioned in the articles). I had been hoping that I could start the stub and then let the community flesh it out, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I've already spent more time trying to save it than I could comfortably pull away from my studies, so I am going to have to bow out at this point and hope that someone with a better grasp on this process (perhaps yourself) can save the list. I've made every point that I could and cited text verbatim from the policies and guidelines as to why this article belongs, and those points and citations have been brushed aside based on what seems to be a traditional interpretation of what the rules mean (one that ignores the actual text of them, sadly). You and others who understand the traditional interpretations, and what people want to see to meet them may have better luck. May good fortune follow you. --John (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't have the time or the inclination to own this list either. What I CAN suggest is that you have the closing admin move it to your userspace. That way you can hang on to it until you feel it is up to snuff (and the edit history gets maintained). As I understand it, there isn't a time limit on user sub-pages (I might be wrong) like there is on the sandbox. And don't presume too much blindness of editors unwilling to see things your way. If you hang around articles for deletion long enough you will see that there is no shortage of people butting heads over exact text versus interpretation. My hope is that you will see that most of the editors who disagreed with you did so in good faith. Recognizing this doesn't mean that you have to admit that you were wrong, just that their position may be legitimate. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just one Parthian shot based on your last link... Lara Croft. =) --John (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The content of my user page is intended to be humorous and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. At no point have I ever referred to any work as "cruft" and my intention is that I never will, and furthermore I have never created any list of any kind, nor proposed any for deletion. The purpose of the discussion here is to serve the best interest of Knowledge. Rejectwater (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll delete the offending passage as a sign of good faith. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Still fails notability. No coverage of the topic in reliable third party sources. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - John has brought up an interesting point. Maybe this can work as a category like Category:People by educational institution or Category:Fictional characters by occupation? Category:Fictional characters by educational institution? As much as I don't like the idea as it's own article, I have no problem with it as a separate category. It brings up the problem of fictional vs. real educational institutions, perhaps. Rejectwater (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think categorizations befits this topic very well. Perhaps I'm not thinking about this intelligently enough but I see each alumnus having a category tag for each school and each school has a category page. That means that for fictional characters we would have to have a 'shadow' category for every school they attend. Maybe that is in line with what we would want to do, but I think we might be better off userifying this and checking some of the possible source material for some secondary coverage (not just the ones I linked, those were mostly sources for the fictional characters themselves). 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and keep since there are no BLP concerns over the article. The main question in this debate has been whether the awards Mr. Leslie-Carter has won are a sufficient basis for notability, and with no consensus that they're not sufficient, and with a reasonable case being made for either side, this article stays. As noted, improvements to the article are desirable, at present there are no categories listed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rob Leslie-Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article reads like a CV while the subject seems to be not notable. →Christian.И 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have made minor edits to this entry including adding some 'notability references' up front for clarity. I believe these demonstrate compliance with the notability guidelines as show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are also some broader (non work) biographical references in some of the referenced interviews, which would be interesting later additions.Claire Saxby
  • Delete. The only real claim to notability is the 2003 Manager of the Year award. Good but not enough in the absence of other independent coverage. The other references are mostly to the Arup website (non-independent coverage) and one to the alumni newsletter. The plain google search results lisyted are not impressive (only 68 ghits) and there is only one hit in GoogleScholar. Nothing in GoogleNews. In my opinion fails WP:BIO and certainly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Gee tough crowd! The award is from the largest independent professional body of its kind in Europe, with over 16,500 individual and 450 corporate members throughout the UK and abroad. Wrt the Arup references, fair point but the first two ( and ) are independent magazine articles that are just scanned as pdfs on the arup site (i.e. they are reliable and independent). Of particular note is that both references have very good depth i.e. they are multi-page articles specifically about the subject. I agree with the subject fails WP:PROF but it ticks all the boxes for WP:BIO.Claire Saxby
  • Delete. Knowledge is not for CVs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Again fair point (and yes sorry about the double vote), but the notability is work related so it tends to be a bit CVish. Like I said above, there are also some broader (non work) biographical references in some of the referenced interviews, which would be interesting later additions. Looks like I'm struggling to convince though.Claire Saxby
  • Keep needs rewriting in the correct format, but the awards are sufficient for notability. I started the rewrite by removing the duplicatelist of references at the start. DGG (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. I don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

David Davis for Freedom campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion and so AFD is not the correct process. Other aspects of the nomination are obviously flawed too since the article has copious citations of sources such as the BBC which demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably speedily. Whilst it might have been possible to merge this with the by-election article, I think it probably does have sufficient independent notability (based on third-party refs) to justify a separate article. DWaterson (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User's 9th edit (4 of them about this page) MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a remarkable episode in British political history which has garnered huge coverage. Of course the campaign is notable. Nick mallory (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue of it being notable in 6 months is not really relevant to this discussion. The question should be "is it notable now?" Problems with notability in the future should be resolved as they appear. The one-sided argument issue is a little more concerning though as there is a strong likelihood that this article may become a soap box if editors are not careful. If this discussion resolves to keep the article then Philip Stevens may wish to start a merge discussion on the article talk page in line with WP:MERGE. Road Wizard (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete "David Davis for Freedom" is the name of his website, but not of a notable campaign. As the anon above says, the phrase doesn't seem to appear in the cited refs (the sample I checked, anyway). Much of the content could probably be included in David Davis (British politician), but not in the by-election page where he is just one of the candidates, albeit the one who generated the election. PamD (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It can renamed if people seriously have a problem that the actual campaign name is not being fully referred to in the news. It can't be denied that a campaign exists, the sources aren't referring to any other actual campaign as far as I know. As for merging, I spun it out of David Davis, because as per the manual of style, the content is now big enough on it's own to warrant a split. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep based on the fact a subsequent merge discussion here has died out without any consensus to merge, let alone delete on the grounds given in this Afd nomination. I personally don't know why this was reopened rather than relisted, as the reasons given for listing at Drv were different from this arguably speedily closeable Afd nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment As there was no consensus for the merge and the deletion discussion was reopened after an early closure I don't think "speedy" is really an option here. Let it run for its 5 days and see what happens. Road Wizard (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't you think it is rather stupid to relist an Afd that questions notability, and suggests mergeing, after a merge suggestion fails? As far as I know, listing for Afd is not standard procedure after a failed merge, but I think you know this already. Like I said, the Drv nominator, and some of the voters here after relisting, are voting delete for different reasons than given in this Afd's nomination, hence it should have been re-nominated under those arguments. This Afd nomination is speedily closeable due to the invalid nomination and subsequent failed merge. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • What I think and what others think is not important. What matters is that a consensus was formed at review to reopen this discussion. Closing the discussion early again will not help resolve this situation as the issues need to be aired and a conclusion found. In reference to your point about the phrasing of the nomination, you may wish to read Knowledge:Guide to deletion, with particular attention to the section on discussion. Collecting varied viewpoints in a deletion discussion is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Commentators in deletion discussions often find different reasons to keep or delete an article beyond the case put forward by the nominator. Road Wizard (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Even the merge is looking doubtful simply because the sheer number of candidates has made the article, making a subarticle for an individual candidate look reasonable the same way Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a reasonable subarticle of United States presidential election, 2008. However, that analogy suggests a rename to something more neutral such as: David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 is in order. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per Caerwine. Road Wizard (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am withdrawing support for the rename proposal. The current arguments seem to be resolving to 3 main categories, keep, delete or merge. I see no need to confuse consensus with a 4th option that has gained little support. Road Wizard (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge Davis precipitated a parliamentary by-election by resigning, and this is his campaign platform. There is no evidence that it is anything but an election manifesto. Davis is merely using the campaign to turn the election into a pseudo-referendum, and that to me suggests that the article should be merged to his personal article, with some mention in the Haltemprice by-election article, whilst being in keeping with WP:UNDUE. I would lean towards delete, as WP is not a soapbox, nor is it the news. Coverage of a newsworthy event (the by-election) does not make the campaign particularly notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User's 2nd edit MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User's 5th edit (3 of them about this topic) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I would disagree with merge because this is the central point, if you like, of one of the biggest political events the country has seen for years. It will probably be the biggest until next election (although nothing is ever certain). There has been a vast amount of coverage nationwide and I will certainly remember this for years to come. Blood Red Sandman 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years'? I have to disagree with that assessment. In the past year alone, political events that have received more attention than David Davis' campaign include the nationalisation of Northern Rock, the London mayoral election, 2008 and the previous by-election in Crewe and Nantwich. 'It will probably be the biggest until the next election' is an argument based on attempting to predict the future, which Knowledge doesn't do, and 'I will remember this for years to come' is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. While I appreciate how much many people care about this subject, I just don't think it has proven to have long-term notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years' because it rebels in the face of the governmet. There has been much attention given to the lack of support the government has these days, and this is the main demonstration of that, if you like. 'I will remember this for years to come' is a direct response to people suggesting we will have forgotten about it in six months. That isn't a valid reason to delete, but \i don't see you picking them out for it, only taking my response to them out of context. Blood Red Sandman 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You have misunderstood the notability guideline. If something was notable at a specific point in time (and that cannot even be argued otherwise given the amount of sources), then it remains notable for all time. We do not subsequently merge/delete articles purely because time has passed and the event is percieved to have faded from the spotlight. As an aside, I don't realy know what you define 'little coverage', as the result was on every single mainstream TV and radio news bulletin I saw yesterday. A merge with the by-election would be a violation of giving undue weight and given the size of this article, would be counter to the manual of style. But the case for a merge has already died out as a no consensus, something which seems to have been overlooked in the reopening of this Afd. Nothing has changed since that very recent debate, so it realy is a moot point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
A few responses: firstly, I'm not convinced that the merge proposal really received enough attention to represent a fair judgement on the article, though that is obviously open to debate. In any case, consensus can change and a 'delete' or 'merge' conclusion to this discussion would supersede the earlier 'no consensus' conclusion in the merge discussion.
Secondly, on the 'notability is not temporary' issue - I take that differently to you do. As I understand it, it means that 'notability' means lasting importance, not brief interest, and an event that only receives attention from the media for a brief period before they move in is not in fact 'notable'. (From Knowledge:Notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.") In this case, this article would fail.
Finally, while I take back what I said above about this receiving little coverage, I don't think that's an argument to keep this article - the press coverage, as far as I can tell, was focused on the fact that there was a byelection and Davis' performance in it, as much as his personal campaign. The fact that there was plenty of media coverage when Davis first resigned, and when the results of the election were announced, but not so much in between, proves my point that it was the by-election that was really the notable topic here. If there had been no resignation and by-election, Davis' 'Freedom Campaign' would have received much less attention, and this article would probably not even exist; therefore, the latter should be considered a subtopic of the former rather than an event in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite saying 'finally' above, here's one more comment - I don't feel merging this content in with the main by-election article would constitute undue weight, as Davis' resignation and campaign on civil liberties is clearly the most important and significant aspect of this by-election, therefore deserves more weight than any of the other candidates (and the BBC, amongst others, covered it as such). There is precedent in having an article about a by-election which focuses heavily on one particular campaign: see Bermondsey by-election, 1983, which I believe is perfectly in keeping with the length and weight guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The merge propsal was initiated very recently, any moves to reopen/revisit based on consensus can change are clearly grounded in the fleeting interest basis, which as I said is irrelevant under the notability guideline. The merge proposal was on the talk page of a highly trafficked article, and still garnered no consensus. On notability, I think we just have a different interpretation of the bar of notability. This campaign is miles above being classed as a simple news blip not to be of note in its own right, this is seriously not even in doubt to me from my knowledge of wikipedia. And as I recently added, the campaign is not closed or finished going by Davis' statements. It arguably even pre-dated the by-election given the issues being debated. As for the bermondsey article, I would suggest that you may indeed be lacking in understanding of the manual of style, that article is frankly terrible. It has no lead section, and some very badly named, structured and worded sections. It took three scans of the article to figure out the story. Yes, it is about a single issue, but that issue is related to the by-election only. I realy can't even see under what title you would spin out the information that gives undue weight (presumably tatchel's leftist stance and homophobia against him). The article is biased towards Tatchel (you only find out Hughes actually won by looking at the Results table), but again you would still not justifiably double the length of tatchel's bio article to cover it that way either (although without looking, I would guess tatchel's article is much longer than Davis' bio). MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
PS the lack of coverage of the campaign inbetween the resignation and voting phases is down to in my opinon the lack of any labour candidate, or an obvious credible anti-Davis candidate, leading to the lack of any reportable 'debates'. However, the campaign was discussed for nearly half of an edition of BBC's Question Time during this time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all of this belongs on the by-election page, or nowhere. — ciphergoth 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for providing us with some of the sources, but do you wish to add a comment to go with them? Are you in favour of keep, delete, merge, or rename (or a fifth option not discussed yet)? As these seem to be similar sources to the ones referred to by MickMacNee and Terraxos above I don't see what new information they add to this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User's 2nd edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User's 6th edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It may be a little early to judge, but the website has not received an update since a press release about Davis's acceptance speech was uploaded on 11th July. There are no future events listed in the website's calendar and associated websites like twitter have seen even fewer updates. It looks increasingly likely that the campaign website and other materials related only to the by-election campaign. It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future, but the burden of proof lies on those claiming this is more than just a by-election campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not employ original research to conclude the status of the campaign. Davis' official statement made clear the campaign will continue. Notability does not change with time, please do not try to disrupively chnage the nature of content with false pretenses. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how does WP:OR apply to my comment? I have not presented unsourced information for inclusion in the article so I can't see the relevance of your point. I have presented a comment that the campaign websites appear inactive since the end of the by-election campaign as was suggested would happen by several editors after the article was created. I have also included a qualification at the start of the comment that "It may be a little early to judge..." I am sure other editors are mature enough to take the evidence I have presented in conjunction with the qualification to make their own minds up about the situation.
I would also like a full explanation about how I am being disruptive. Can you please provide links to the policies or guidelines that I have violated as I surely cannot see them. If I have not breached any policies then I would suggest that you reread WP:AGF and consider your comments carefully before you click the "Save page" button. Road Wizard (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine. If you didn't understand the first time, please provide sources that the campaign is over, per your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that the campaign is over. I hope this is substantial explanation of the concept. I will withdraw the accusation of disruption if needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please reread my comment. I have not stated anywhere that the campaign is over and in fact have made two explicit qualifications of my statement that it might not be over per "It may be a little early to judge..." and "It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future". What I have stated is that there has been no activity on the campaign website or associated websites since the day after the bi-election campaign. This is not original research. You can check the campaign website for yourself to see that what I have said is correct.
A clearer picture would be provided if we were discussing this a few months after the end of the by-election as then the activity or inactivity of the website would provide its own argument. However, as this deletion discussion may be closed at any moment the only option available is to present the facts as they stand at this moment in time. The website and supporting materials have not been updated since the day after the bi-election (this is a fact and not OR as can be verified by visiting the campaign website).
I know that you are eager to retain the article you created, but please do not misstate other people's comments. Road Wizard (talk) 16:12, 20 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. Wizardman 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

James Dickens (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local politician. Unsourced since 2006, I can't find any references. Hut 8.5 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete He's a former city council member and possibly a former mayor, which would be fine under WP:POLITICIAN. But regardless, he has to meet the primary notability criterion. He doesn't. --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs sources, but a note: the subject need only meet one notability guideline in order to be considered notable. WP:Politician exists in order to create a standard of inclusion for what is a high visibility profession. See WP:PROF for another good example of a notability guideline designed around the profession. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Notwithstanding the comment above, if it doesn't have sources, it has to go. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources added but No Opinion on notability; I don't live in the USA and I don't know how significant being a "member of the city council of Irving, Texas" for 8 years is. However I have used the magic of news.google.com to rustle up sources for his initial election, and his electoral defeat. --Stormie (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Zero Emissions Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable event that hasn't occurred yet, with no reliable sources listed. Article is a combination of original research and advertising. TN‑X-Man 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Soxred 93 04:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shonen Jump Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable championship. If they have several a month, just how important can they be? Corvus cornixtalk 20:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

-It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable:
Metal-archives.com
Metaluniverse.net
Metrolyrics.com
Mastersland.com
and others.
-Has released two or more albums on a major label:
Twilight Legend
Curse Of The Angeleye
both on CD-Maximum, Russian major label.
-Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable:
Andrey Ischenko played in Catharsis.
-Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city:
It is a first and a most commonly mentioned band, playing Russian power metal.Ironguardian (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. None of those four websites are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". Two are metal fansites, one is a lyrics site, the last one appears to be some sort of blog with just a track listing. No mention of Ischenko at Catharsis's page at all. The claim to be "representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" is a valid keep reason, but it would need sources that say that, which aren't there at the moment. tomasz. 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I can also mention russian websites like , which say Shadow Host is a "representative of a notable style or of the Rusian scene", but would you understand it in Russian? What about Andrey Ischenko, he is mentioned on the Catharsis's albums pages:

Imago_(Catharsis_album)
Imago_(Имаго)
Prizrachnyj Svet
Krylya (album)
Verni_Im_Nebo Ironguardian (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

It's a research paper, as it says in one of the early paras. Full of POV and OR Ged UK (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per WP:NOR. Theone00 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - As said above, pretty clear cut original research. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete, original research paper. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Could even be speedied, IMO. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Newsworthy and tragic story but of little encyclopedic value. No sources to indicate notability beyond the current event. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's not a memorial, it's a biography. It will continue to expand and look more like a biography as details of her life, murder and the impact it's had on people's awareness of psychology surface. An article is also needed for the client who killed her.--IdLoveOne (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The problem is that Faughey herself was not a notable biographical subject in the way that concept is defined in Knowledge. See WP:BIO. IMO, the crime was notable, but not the victim nor the perpetrator. I have expanded the article because I believe that the crime is notable and the article is worth keeping, but I think it should be moved, as indicated below. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Nakon 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mott (live oak) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no room for any growth and is a non-notable neologism and it should therefore be deleted because wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topic is not notable for inclusion in wikipedia even though it is verifiable is does not meet WP:N it is WP:NEOLOGISM and possibly WP:OR in addition to this it violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, transwiki to wiktionary and delete. Myheartinchile (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: see thats the thing it's not a word for tree growth its George Bush's word for a tree growth, also as you said it is a word not a concept such as an "orchard" or "victory garden" which are notable and deserving of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish Radio London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not yet up and running radio channel, sounds like blatant advertising to me. Bear in mind that this is my first AfD, so if I've gotten something wrong, don't bite me! Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It will be a radio station, so it is noteworthy. Afterall, we do have pages for upcoming TV stations and events. Needs a lot of effort, though, to survive as a page. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You have a good point. If more details are put on this page, I'll withdraw my nomination. But unless this page gets expanded, I'm still voting delete. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 08:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Nuts

Its a Radio station!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.248.103 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Consists entirely of idle speculation and would need a full rewrite in the event of the game being actually announced or published, at any rate.  Sandstein  17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Diablo 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is full of speculation and rumors. Speedy tag removed by an IP with no reasoning given. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for a future game release and Blizzard Entertainment buying a domain does not qualify for an article. TN‑X-Man 19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Wait a few days - Normally I'd say delete, but the possibility of the game's announcement within days makes this a special circumstance. There's some substantial evidence amongst the rumours (although that this point they are merely rumours) that Diablo 3 may be announced the next 100-odd hours. If it is announced, then its rather inconvienent if the article has been deleted just a few days beforehand. Wait until after the convention to close this AfD. If Diablo 3 doesn't emerge and it is nothing but rumours, then delete it and salt the earth. However, if it is announced, the industry's media will probably be all over it so plenty of third-party coverage will come along, and its generally helpful to already have the article ready and waiting for improvement. Just wait for the WWI to be over. -- Sabre (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You know, I had to look this up... but Sabre's right. The rumor mill is spinning out of control, and there's an announcement around the corner. We may as well wait. Otherwise, delete as per WP:CRYSTAL: wikipedia is not a place for speculation. Randomran (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Even if Blizzard do announce it, they're only going to announce it is going to exist. They're not going to give enough reliable information to justify a full article. -Rushyo (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
True, the article is awful at the moment, but an official announcement this weekend would no doubt provide a variety of reliable sources, from which we could construct a good article. Patience, my friend. JMalky (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect without deleting history to Diablo II for now. If the rumours are revealed to be true this weekend, a redirect can be quickly reverted and a well-sourced article can be built around it. Let Wikinews report the anticipation and buildup of an announcement, but this isn't the place to try and second-guess Blizzard. If the rumours turn out to be false, the redirect can be left as-is. Gazimoff Read 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delay decision until after Blizzard Worldwide Invitational I agree with Stormie. It's only a few days away, and an announcement seems very likely. At any rate, the page certainly shouldn't be salted.JMalky (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just looked into this in a little more depth. Seems the mysterious artwork at Blizzard.com is likely just a teaser for their convention. But I'd still recommend holding back on deleting this article, on the offchance. JMalky (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete nothing indicating the notability of this surname - WP is not the Spanish phone book. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this sub-caste is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns of Pharaoh and Cleopatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of trivial game guide information on the Pharaoh and Cleopatra games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as per consensus. I suspect Giulietta Masina would be pleased. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Juliet of the Spirits (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed redirect of non-notable single, scheduled for release "in 2008". Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete apart from trying to figure out what is an environmental journal, this is best handled by categories - note, there's only one entry here anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Your claim that this is indiscriminate is false; it clearly selects for environmental. Also, look at WP:CLN.
  • Keep I meant to put this in my userspace; sorry. I've copied it over. On second thought, we may as well keep this and work on it. it's fine by me to delete it. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. We have these list is many fields, and they've always been supported here. We dont delete articles because they are incomplete. There's no trouble finding criteria, such as the JCR classification. DGG (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I meant to title this "List of environmental health journals", which would be a subgroup of the "list of environmental journals". I think both ultimately belong. Note that DGG's point is valid -- we don't delete articles because they are incomplete.
  • Comment Clearly there are a lot of lists related to environmental publications. It might be best to create an article called "List of environmental publications" -- from there we can point to the scholarly journals (this article), the less formal magazines (list of environmental periodicals), and some of the other lists. This article should probably be renamed to "List of scholarly environmental journals"; however, that would be a very broad list. I would even say that list of environmental websites falls under the "publication" umbrella, even if it's an unorthodox type of publication. Thoughts? ImpIn | (t - c) 03:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Agree. The best approach would be a List of environmental journals and List of environmental magazines and then List of environmental periodicals would be deleted and any miscellaneous ones placed in List of environmental publications. The latter would also point to all the other related lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted the "list of environmental websites" was deleted but was recreated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia Nunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep - I've added several additional citations. Notability seems to be established. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable youtube performer with only one self-released CD to her name. I almost changed my mind when I saw the claim that she opened for Ben Folds, but that was at one event, not a tour, and it wasn't really an "opening" for the group, but several local performers. Corvus cornixtalk 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It was in America, not the UK (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina). And no one did claim she supported the whole Ben Folds tour; however, the multiple dates in different states do signify more than the original poster implied. --Sqrnookle (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete She hasn't won any awards or had her songs in the American top 40. Article may have been created by a fan of hers. The 'Bushman' reference is a stub here which does not establish her notability. Artene50 (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - true, the article may need a little work, but her popularity does seem to be increasingly on the rise so reliable sources are more and more likely to become available soon. --Sqrnookle (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sack as Dhartung suggested. The term 'sacked' is almost as ambiguous as the term 'sack'. The etymological discussion in the present article is interesting, but wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for discussion of etymology. I see nothing worth saving in the original article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Knowledge is not a dictionary. Possible candidate to be moved over to Wiktionary, or maybe just needs to get zapped. I leave it up to the community on this one, thus nominating it for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Another political candidate, this time for the California State Assembly. PROD removed by author, saying "Masry is notable because of history making run, coverage by media, and upcoming book published by a university press." Per WP:BIO#Politicians, being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability; and nor does having written a not-yet-published book. If elected, she will qualify for an article, but until then I don't think being "the first Saudi American to run for political office" is enough. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Good points. I agree that her political run doesn't qualify her for notability. I think she fits the requirements for the exception though ("such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") I think she has received significant coverage (named ABC's Person of the Week, covered in New York Times, AP, NPR, etc.). Being the first Saudi American to run for office isn't the biggest accomplishment obviously, but I think her news coverage and the book show that a lot of independent sources think it's significant enough to be covered. Hood4546 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If agreed (or if not) any tips on what would need to be done to fit requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hood4546 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Here's a link to the ABC reference that can be added. and looks like there's more out there. She may not meet the specific politician criteria, but looks like there's enough to meet the general, covered in multiple secondary sources, criteria.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band. If having gotten an album review is some claim to have met WP:BAND, then we might just as well scrap WP:BAND. This article has been listed for speedy deletion and for PROD, and has deletion has been rejected. See the article's Talk page. This is not a notable band, and just claiming that their album has been reviewed doesn't explain how they meet notability requirements. And album reviews do not provide the sort of information that an article about a band can be created, in general. Corvus cornixtalk 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete nn art appreciation group, article sourced only to the group's own site. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article on a band, Prior AFD was closed as Keep but was overturned at Deletion Review - Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 11 - where discussion decided the article should be relisted to get more participation. I have no opinion. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete since there is nothing to merge an stuff we better get rid off, then recreate as a redirect and protect to avoid having to go through this again. New arguments for lifting the protection and recreating the article (in the unlikely event that this does become independently notable) can always be made at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Low importance within the Rugrats. Internet popularity is debatable IMO. Personally I think this page should be redirected to List of Rugrats characters. However, i'd also be happy for this page to be deleted. The main reason i'm nominating it for this 3rd AfD is because another user wants Drew to have his own article, and I dont believe he should. AGU! Defender (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It says that he is not notable for his role in RugRats,but that he is very notable per his Internet popularity. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: How is the stuff about the Barney Bunch "vandalism"? ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The group's purpose to slander cartoon and children's characters. That can be considered vandalism. It's very unlikely anyone searching for Drew Pickles is going to care that some bored Internet group makes him say 'shocking and naughty' things using speech software. Also, keep in mind the policy WP:RBI; we don't acknowledge people that give characters secondary infamy they don't deserve by having them spout horrible toilet humor. Nate • (chatter) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested redirect of non-notable, forthcoming single. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - As it shows that it has the infomation in what a single of the album Seventh Tree has tracklistings, cover art, Music Video infomation it has been confirmed as a single by Alison Goldfrapp herself I'd understand if the artical had one sentance saying "This is the fourtcomming single by Goldfrapp" but it dosen't it is longer than some of the single articals, it is well wourth keeping. - C1F (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

A page of non-notable trivia. This is evidenced by the fact the article is built solely by bullet points and lacks a proper intro Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Non notable tours. I think Roll the Bones Tour to Snakes & Arrows Tour are notable, so I am not nominating them. Notability is not asserted (nor reliably asserted, as the source "Rush: The Complete Tourbooks" is just a tour listing). Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Fly by Night Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caress of Steel Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2112 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All the World's a Stage Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Farewell to Kings Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Archives Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hemispheres Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Permanent Waves Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moving Pictures Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Exit...Stage Left Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Signals Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grace Under Pressure Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Power Windows Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hold Your Fire Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presto Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. Wisdom89 (T / ) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Finishing incomplete nom for User:92.232.121.101. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep:I have no clue why this was nominated but it should not have been. Well sourced, well known person. Passes WP:BIO. All the article needs is a cleanup. Rgoodermote  19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The first article referenced is little more than a list of every woman Prince ever slept with, the others are blurbs about the divorce filing with the appropriate "we want to stay friends" quotes. Relationship does not confer notability. She should be a blurb in the list of his wives/girlfriends on his page. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Can easily be worked into the main Prince article. There's no need for a stub article on her, she is not of any notability except for once being in a relationship with Prince. The fact that she is a CEO is not relevant to Knowledge, there are thousands of CEOs without their own articles. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The third web link is hardly more than a stub. Notability is not established by this reference. Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Two seconds of Google News searching yields , which is just the tip of the iceberg. If this article does not develop more than a stub we can merge to Prince, but this topic is incontestably notable in its own right. Delete !votes that fail to address the potential, not just current state of the article do not carry any weight. Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As all those in favour of deleting have said above, merging is an option. She just does not warrant her own article. ALL of the information in the article is available in the Prince article. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Cleanup; the only question we address here is whether the subject matter is appropriate for an article, or to put it another way, whether it is possible to write an article on this topic which meets our five pillars. The proper forum for discussing a potential merge is the articles talkpage, and in this case a quick Google News search will show that there is plenty of information on this subject out there to expand the article such that it would not be appropriate to merge. Finally, merging and deleting are mutually contradictory, as to merge the content into the Prince article and then delete this article would violate the terms of the GDFL. Thus, all merge !votes are keep !votes. Hope this clears up the confusion for you, Skomorokh 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I realise this is Articles for Deletion, seeing as I nominated it for deletion in the first place, but thanks for the clarification. Suggesting ad nauseum that this person triggers hits on Google News does not mean they deserve their own Knowledge article. A search of my own name on Google News triggers three charity events I took part in where I raised a fairly large amount of money. You do not however see me campaigning for my own Knowledge article using this twisted logic. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. Your first link is trivial - merely confirming that Manuela Testolini exists. It is important that a topic be verifiable for Knowledge - however, by consensus we have gone beyond mere verifiability to the position that a person has to be "notable" to have a stand alone article. We have, by consensus, gone through a process whereby we can agree a person's "notability". A situation that often arises is that a person is in the news for one event, or for being associated in some way with a notable person. We have talked through this multiple times and by consensus agreed that a person who is notable for one event (such as marrying a notable person) and for whom reliable sources mention mainly in the context of that event (in this case marrying Prince), that that person would be mentioned in the context of that event (or person) in the notable event or person's article. I gave a link to the guideline on this: WP:BIO1E. I also gave a link to the related Knowledge:Bio#Invalid_criteria. It's worth reading those and seeing how they directly apply here. This is a text-book example of how those guidelines work. Your links support the guidelines in that the first link is trivial, giving no explanation of notability, while the second two show her as Prince's wife. It is ironic that the third one is pitched at the idea that her and Jo Wood are trying to be recognised for themselves rather than for being the wives of famous people - yet the article wouldn't be written if they were not the wives of famous people! If you have a link that demonstrates or explains Manuela Testolini's notability other than being the wife of Prince, and were able to use that to build an article on Manuela Testolini to show how notable she is, then you can do that at any time. In the meantime it is more appropriate to redirect her name to the section in the Prince article in which it is mentioned that he married and divorced her. That, after all, is the sum total of her notability at this point. I hope that is clear. If you wish to have further explanation on how we decide notability please get in touch with me on my talk page. Regards SilkTork * 09:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

While there are claims of meeting WP:Notability in the article, gsearch is only coming up with passing mentions at best. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. John254 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article about a security company. Cites several sources, but they don't really discuss the company itself -- they are mostly quotes of company officers, or mentions that the company has security people in this or that country. I don't think the subject has been shown to be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep a notable company, very much a leader in its field of operation. Multiple coverage in reliable third party sources Google news archives, Google books and Google scholar. RMHED (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep When I started reading this article, I wondered if it was going to turn into an advertising puff for some company. But the more I read, and the more links I followed up from it, the more convinced I became that this company is involved in some pretty unique work. It's obviously much more than simply "a security company" - this company advises governments. And to say that they have people in "this or that country" is a serious down-playing of their work, when in fact they've been involved in Iraq and other similarly controversial and dangerous locations of major interest. The next thing I checked was the history page and it seems quite a healthy number of editors have contributed, so it didn't look like it was an article which was simply put together by one person with a vested interest. This company might not be "famous" to the average person in the street but it is obviously one of the behind-the-scenes players in high-level situations of note in the world. I would contend that makes it notable. I would definitely concede that the citations and references could do with wikifying, but would be happy to take on that job. As a result of reading the article, I got very interested in this company, and would relish the chance to do some research to improve it. (So call me weird, but I like to know what's really going on in the world!) Austin46 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO. This article is written by Lucy Cortez, Cary's administrative assistant. It's completely written like a resume and has been deleted twice, once by A7 and the 2nd by PROD. There are no reliable sources, and any of the few Google News or Web hits are press releases or mentions of him as a contact for his company. Jauerback/dude. 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And the article has a COI and is the sort of self-promotional vandalism we do not tolerate on Knowledge. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above that the user is likely to recreate the page and it should be salted Doc StrangeLogbook 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
    Scott J. Bleakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Probable non notable as only known because he is CEO of company that seems non notable but i am not sure so I am filing an AfD Anonymous101 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 17:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    An article about a word, which seems to exist primarily to tell people to use "correct grammar". Knowledge is not a dictionary nor a usage guide. Ptcamn (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, it's a WP:DICDEF, and possibly a personal bugbear of the author (although I know how he feels... if one more person at a shop asks me to enter my "PIN Number" when I'm paying by Debit Card, I think I shall scream!) -- JediLofty Talk 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Disgree with the proposal it is actually cultural usage which has some issues beyond the summary above.

    Disgree with the current process - this xfd should be clearly placed at both the Knowledge Project Indonesia and Knowledge Project Malaysia noticeboards - failure to do so will makes this xfd a classic notice in a closed filing cabinet at the bottom of the stairs behind a door marked do not feed the leopard - there is not sign that the proposer or the other editor to comment here has either any knowledge of the subject or the subject area - if they do so my apologies - at least make sure that the issue goes to :http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and :http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Malaysia - to make this proposal one which the relevant projects could actually see what is going on here SatuSuro 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment' Bahasa language should not exist - it is tautologous and a misuse of the words from both languages potentially makes wikipedia look like a blog like scrapbook not an online encylopedia - if the delete goes ahead - some consideration will have to be made for the re-naming of the absurdly named Bahasa language disambiguation page - and a new RS V and N compliant article that deals with common misunderstandings and usages of the words and their context that moves beyond the issues raised by the Afd nominater and supporters - the article might be removed but the issue remains SatuSuro 04:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete -as per above. Why is there an article about one word in a foreign language in English Knowledge? Davidelit (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Very reluctant delete - as much as it annoys me when the smugly ignorant refer to Indonesian as "Bahasa" (which this page explains), there's not much in wikipedia policy that appears to support this page's existence. My heart says "keep", head says "delete" - i can't be seen on wikipedia to have my emotions win over my reason. --Merbabu (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Cardiff Canoe Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable local club, with no references or assertion of notability. Lone external link is club's own site. Hellno2 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I have no opposition to this article being short or a stub. But the lack of references and assertion of notability (as stated above) and the fact that it is a local private organization representing just one city motivated me to propose it for deletion. Hellno2 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy deleted as blatant advertising. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Her Words Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence given that this defunct band meets WP:MUSIC criteria in the very-MySpacey article, and the article is written like advertising copy; but the band does have some independent-source coverage in . Edge case? The Anome (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Update: User:Denielstrange, who created the article, added an blatant advert to the article in a recent edit (see this diff). Curiously enough, they did this after the article was already labeled with {{afd}} and {{advert}} tags. This is now clearly blatant advertising, and thus eligible for speedy deletion. See also the pre-blanking version of their talk page: -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Update 2: The article, and its dependent articles Load My Revolver, Baby and I Will Not Die Her Hero, were speedy deleted, and immediately re-created by their creator, I've re-deleted them, and salted against re-creation. I've left a note on the article creator's talk page letting them know about the deletion review process. -- The Anome (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MediaWiki.  Sandstein  17:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Not really notable for an encyclopedia IMO. No reliable sources to back up his notability. D.M.N. (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, as non-notable. If he didn't work for the Wikimedia Foundation his article would have been deleted when it was first nominated.-- JediLofty Talk 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep: What crap. Major authors of important software are all covered here, as they should be. Knowledge is at its best when it does exactly what a paper encyclopedia can't: exponentially increase both the depth of traditionally encyclopedic subjects and the breadth of what can be covered. I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to cover anyone who is well-accomplished in their field--even if we can't point to lots of press coverage or other "notability" criteria. Note that the notability criterion is not a policy, just a guideline, and frankly, I think it's a bad one. Brion may not be RMS or Guido (or even the initial author of Mediawiki, since that's me), but he has contributed most of the presently-running code, and is the primary maintainer, of one of the most important software projects on the web (and if you want press coverage on that, note that Information Week magazine listed it in their top ten pieces of web software of all time--though the article only mentions me, not Brion). That easily merits him an article in my book. --LDC (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep as the apparently most active contributor to one of the most influential pieces of software ever. Passes verifiability as well. I also find LDC's reasoning compelling. Antandrus (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Can you make an argument without using peacock words? Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nomination is withdrawn. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Very sad, but not enough evidence. Plus, non-notable. Narutolovehinata5 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    I see no reason to delete it at all.

    • For a start, the event is quite well known in India, and a whole book was written on the subject by Ajay Singh Yadav (which is among the references).
    • It is notable because wolves killing people is a rare event, therefore any event involving such attacks is certainly worth notice.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People should take a closer look at WP:LISTS. If there are Dutch comedians worthy of an article, if Dutch comedy is a notable topic, then a list is in general perfectly acceptable. It is not the same as a category, since it can include redlinks, and can include more info than a category. I'll move it to a better capitalization as well. Fram (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Humour may be subjective, but notability appears to be lacking here. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    I would have to disagree as these comedians are starting promising international carreers, or already made notable appearences in UK and USA. For example, Raoul Heertje is well known in the international comedy scene, Hans Teeuwen has made a succesfull international start in London and will be performing in the Edinburgh festival with Micha Wertheim. As they all speak English fluently I think they can be expected to make notable contributions to the international comedy scene. Evazwaving (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008

    • Keep. A perfectly good subject for a list. I also don't see why it should be limited only to those who perform in English. -- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article is named "List of Dutch Comedians", but then goes on to say that it is "a list of Dutch comedians who perform in English more or less regularly". In either case I think it would be better served by a category than a list. -- JediLofty Talk 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    See Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigational templates and Knowledge:Lists#Purposes of lists. Lists have a function at Knowledge. I've heard the desire for them to be obliterated in favor of categories for the last three years, but it's not happening--T. Anthony (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    By this logic there should be no List of British comedians either as there is no British comedians article. Granted we have no article for Dutch comedy, but that doesn't mean such an article is impossible or non-notable.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. To make a list somehow different from a category, the list must include text beyond a link to an article. The category serves the same purpose and is in fact more useful. Corvus cornixtalk 20:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Question Would someone be kind enough to explain to me the difference between a list and a category? I would be delighted to make 'Dutch Comedians' a category if necessary. Evazwaving (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    There is a category. The positive difference between a list is it allows for annotation and red-links. Compare List of HIV-positive people to Category:HIV-positive people or List of Portuguese monarchs to Category:Portuguese monarchs. The negative difference is it can become too long to download easily and some people just think they're bad.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Close, without prejudice, by nominator. See discussion. Dweller (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    I speedied this article in April, before userfying by request. Since then, user has added a couple of sources. It's been in userspace long enough, really, so I've moved it back into mainspace and AfDd it. Sure it's fancrufty, but do the notability claims stand up - are there multiple non trivial references in RS? Dweller (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, as the article makes no attempt to assert the notability of the subject, and is bereft of sources. -- JediLofty Talk 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete based solely on current content. Suggest user copy/paste into a word processor and brings it up to snuff (notability, verifiably, and NPOV) before bringing back in main or user space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Procedural keep. I'm not really comfortable with the way this was handled, although to the nom's credit s/he's been quite transparent. On the merits this article is a delete, however, it seems that the author understood that it wasn't ready for mainspace. For the nom to move the article into mainspace and Afd it emphasizes the current (inadequate) state of the article, when really the emphasis should be on whether it has remained userfied for too long. That argument should be rasied at MfD, not here, and in my experience they are reasonably tolerant of articles being worked on, even slowly, it userspace. Xymmax So let it be done 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Lol, and there I was thinking I was being kind by not speedying it again ;-) The user's had two months to work on it, but perhaps you're right and I should have left it in userspace and MfDd it. I'm happy to speedy close this AfD, move the article and then MfD if you like? --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Suits me. Two months is a long time, but there are plenty of articles I've been "planning to get to" for longer than that. Kudos for being so responsive :+) Xymmax So let it be done 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    OK. I see no need to call another admin to close this - I'll do it myself. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Disputed prod. No evidence of passing our notability criteria for musicians. Dweller (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete, Nakon 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed prod. Club plays in "senior ranks of London hurling" according to their website. Not professional team, although clearly a well organised amateur set-up. Dweller (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, as non-notable. -- JediLofty Talk 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. The reference in the article says, "Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club are one of Britain's most successful and currently the only one in the country to field at all grades (from U10s to seniors)." That sounds pretty notable to me. And hurling is an amateur sport in Britain, so the fact that it is not a professional club shouldn't count against it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Baseball is also a non professional sport in Britain. Does that mean that my local baseball club is notable? --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Croydon Pirates, London Mets, etc.. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    If it's one of Britain's most successful clubs then yes, why not? The generally accepted notability criterion for English football clubs goes down several levels below the top amateur level, so we should apply equivalent standards for other sports. With your insistence on professionalism being the standard for notability (in your prod and this nomination) I think you're confusing notability standards for individual players with those for clubs. Individual players are usually accepted as notable only if they have played in a professional league, but clubs are generally accepted at lower levels. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    You could be right... check my contribs to see what kind of a day I'm having. The statement "one of Britain's most successful and currently the only one in the country to field at all grades (from U10s to seniors)" is fine and dandy, but the claim (one of the reasons I didn't speedy the article) is unsourced and troublesome - at the level they apparently play in, claiming that they're one of the most successful clubs in Britain is difficult to justify. And being the only one to have all age levels is wonderful, but hardly a notability claim. If I establish a tiddlywinks team that beats all comers in my village, winning every competition we enter for five years, I could similarly claim we're the most successful ever. At any rate, none of this matters, except to prevent a speedy (done). I'll be perfectly happy for the article to remain here, no matter how successful or unsuccessful they are, if the article can pass WP:V. Which currently it doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    The statement is sourced - it comes from the reference in the article. We don't require our sources to themselves have references to sources - that way you could go on ad infinitum having sources for sources for sources for sources for... Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ever get the feeling you're not on top form? I'm taking myself off-wiki right now. Apologies for sub-par contributions. Will return refreshed in a few days, lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - the article in its current state makes no assertion of notability at all. Sure there's some stuff in the reference (two paras in the might Edgware Times which looks like an advert for the club to me) which refers to some of the individual members of the club and some success at U16 level but there's nothing in the article. Moreover, the article is simply a list of honours, most of which are trivial. Even the senior honours aren't explained, nor linked to. Until there's something worth salvaging, the article should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was } Speedy Delete G1 - Patent Nonsense. Not to mention hoax. Resolute 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Google search brings up a grand total of nothing. Not an AFL legend as far as I can see Ged UK (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation (G4) by Craigy144. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    This article about a non-notable film was Deleted in a 19 June AfD and is now back, one day later. Unfortunately, the article still fails to explain notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4 - still does not show references. --Triwbe (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    No indication of notability of the author or the idea. Article created by the originator if the idea. Only reference is to a website of his, which solicits paid subscriptions. Art Carlson (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Biography restored for wider discussion after deletion review because of some assertion of importance. Nevertheless there are currently no independent sources. Tikiwont (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment - Allis Ph.D. thesis was "Searching for Solutions in Games and Artificial Intelligence", which is quoted by other scientific article 42 times, according to CiteSeer. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep Complies with WP:Academic #5. "Proof-Number Search" by Allis LV, Vandermeulen M, Vandenherik HJ (Artificial Intelligence, Vol:66 Issue:1 Pp:91-124, Published: March 1994) has been cited 27 times according to Web of Science, which is quite high for these kinds of things. You get quite a few more hits when searching by "Allis LV" / "LV Allis" than you do under his full name. The guy does seem to have originated at least one significant concept and is widely cited. Debate 木 13:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Further to which, part of the problem here appears to be that the article is simply titled Victor Allis, completely leaving off his first name, which is guaranteed to make a search for sources kind-of difficult. Debate 木 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Acceptable to BOLDLY move it to Louis Victor Allis? And carry on the AfD discussion? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think moving at this stage is just going to throw a bunch of things out, so I'd leave until until after the AFD. People reading the AFD, from now on anyhow, will hopefully read the debate to date before commenting. Debate 木 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak delete Although just one paper with 27 citations, is is well under the notability threshold, there is also a book,"Herik, J. v. d., & Allis, V. (1992). ed. Heuristic programming in artificial intelligence 3: the third computer Olympiad. New York: Ellis Horwood." and a few other articles. It is possible t he work is significant, but i can't really tell.
    • Keep as a big figure in game solving. He was the first to solve gomoku (besides solving several other games again independently). His thesis is highly referenced. I also oppose moving the page, as "Victor Allis" is the most commonly used. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep since it's pretty notable to solve connect four. -- Barce (Talk) 4:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. I'd heard of him in the context of computer solution of games prior to seeing this AfD, which doesn't mean much but I think is more than zero. According to Google scholar, his Ph.D. thesis has picked up over 100 citations (would be respectable for a research paper in this area, and unremarkable for a survey paper, but quite high for a thesis) and his proof-number search paper is also well cited (80 citations; I believe Google scholar more than Web of Science's 27 cites listed above, because Web of Science doesn't index conferences which are where much CS research is published). But this is all still quite a bit less than most kept academic AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Seems borderline notable as an academic, but solving connect-4 and gomoku add just enough additional notability for my taste to merit a keep. HermanHiddema (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was keep. John254 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    There is no content, and the page appears to exist solely to advertise/promote the company. Olana North (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    2nd nomination, first nomination occurred over two years ago, and the article still doesn't even begin to meet current encyclopedic standards. No sources and no indication of notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion per CSD A7. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    No links that i can find (admittedly I dont speak finnish) No content on the page other than the comedians name/birth and death dates. Official website link is down, rendering that information source closed. Ironholds 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soxred 93 06:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Hindi word definition. WP is not a dictionary Triwbe (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Buffalo Sports Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable phantom "curse." Local interest only, if that, unreferenced by anything other than weblogs. Only 37 Google hits and none reliable, being a plethora of blogs, forum posts, Youtube videos and Wiki mirrors. Finally, a heap of WP:OR and WP:SYN violations. For example, it's proof of the Buffalo curse that the Los Angeles Clippers, which started in Buffalo, hasn't been a very good team, or that the Buffalo Sabres - like, come to that, twelve other of the current NHL teams - haven't yet won a Stanley Cup. (Except, of course, the minor league baseball and hockey teams and the pro lacrosse team that have won championships don't count because, well, they don't, is all.)  Ravenswing  04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Just being devil's advocate here. But the article isn't about the fact that the city is cursed, but about the the idea or notion that there is a curse. Two very different things and those sources would actually back that up. -Djsasso (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, neither of the sources are blogposts. Go ahead and look at them --T-rex 22:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was deleted per the chorus of unanimous disapproval below, and WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    Stereotypes of Indigenous Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I was tempted to speedy delete this as an attack page, but thought that perhaps some others could see some merit in a well sourced, neutral article. However, I can't see that an article on this topic can be anything less than disparaging. Mattinbgn\ 04:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Unsourced, resume style bio, spam style article of an apparently non-notable attorney. MBisanz 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Administrative Organizations in Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unencyclopedic directory style list. No sources or commentary. MBisanz 04:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources provided, so let's get writing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Appears to fail WP:CORP; no significant independent coverage of this games company. Previously nominated for WP:CSD#A7, though denied because there is an assertion of notability (unsourced). Most sources on the web appear to be press releases, game update notifications, or self-published. May largely violate WP:NOR. --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, unless properly referenced to prove notability - there is no proof that this company is one of the leading developers in the European serious games industry as there are no references. -- JediLofty Talk 09:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep but Source - Company had one of it's products researched by Utrect University here(pdf), Dutch article from Dag.nl on the serious games concept mentioning VSTEP here, Dutch Ministry of Economics report into the company and it's products here(pdf), CTO quote here, publishing deal and more company info here. I think more source could easily be found in Dutch (particularly CTO interviews of Pjotr Van Schothorst), but that's not a language I can speak, I'm afraid. Hope this helps, Gazimoff Read 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep for obvious notability, as stated above, as long as editors don't choose to ignore it.
    More non-existing independant coverage: , , .
    Another question, how can a developer of a game that is considered notable, not be notable?
    Apologies to open-minded editors for my tone, but I get extremely annoyed by delete-happy editors who close their eyes for what is shown, and still keep going on about a lack of sources. GameLegend (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Then, please, be bold and improve the article as requested by the other contributors to this AfD. I'd gladly withdraw my request if you could include those sources that you show. Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I have already stated on the talk page where half of these sources could be found.
    But how do you implement just a source talking about the company? The only thing that a newspaper article could really reference is that the company makes serious games, but does that need referenced? (note: this is not about the reference for statements such as leading serious games developer and award-winning; this whole ordeal is about notability).
    I don't know if I have the time this weekend, but at least up till now, I did not have the time to go and figure that out. That's why I provided the information. GameLegend (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


    "Weak Keep Their games are known (Ship Simulator), but article needs more work. Keeping the page rests on the article being improved dramatically. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep The article clearly needs work, there are some bold statements that need referencing. As others have said above keeping the page relies on it being dramatically improved. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Non notable politician, does not meet WP:BIO for politicians. The one reference used to support the article is not independent of the subject. Knowledge is not the place for a campaign pitch. Mattinbgn\ 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Have since added content and references and attempted to improve NPOV. Murtoa (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Doesn't entirely apply by the way - with the exception of Brisbane, most Australian city councils bearing the name of a large city govern a very small number of people and area, but have strategic importance because they contain most or all of the central business district. Leichhardt, Randwick, Woollahra and Marrickville are all inner suburbs with entirely separate councils. So it's not by any means citywide or metropolitan. Orderinchaos 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ryan Murphy (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable politician, does not meet WP:BIO for politicians. No evidence of notability outside his political candidature has been provided. Given that the creating editor is User:Liberal lytton there is an inherent conflict of interest. Mattinbgn\ 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was Delete speedily. No assertion of notability. TravellingCari 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    quick google search brings up nothing. could be a7-bio although I sugges waiting a few days to see if the author shows anything that can bring this up to WP:BIO standards. Katanada (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. While Monty Python witticisms are not really valid arguments for deletion per se, brothers and sisters, their underlying point is well taken: for all we know, this could have been a committee consisting of one person. Not the faintest hint of notability, in other words, and the "keep" opinions do not address this. The slightly ridiculous name does not help either in establishing that this was a serious organisation (judged by the standards of such organisations, of course).  Sandstein  20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    "Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Being Portuguese, I was curious about this article. However, I was unable to confirm notability for this organization Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment The previous AfD ended in no consensus, and I hate to say the Delete arguments in the last round were somewhat stronger than the Keep arguments. It is hard to verify notability in either English or Portuguese. I wish more people would chime in here. Thanks! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - discussion in the last deletion debate showed that the information is verifiable, and that there should be more to say about the group, although unfortunately it's not yet in the article, probably because there are a lack of references on the web. I suspect that someone with access to the Portuguese press of the time could add much more. Notability standards for political parties are rather a grey area at present; if an upcoming proposal for this is accepted, it will be easier to get consistency on this. Warofdreams talk 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:N. Barely passes WP:V, if at all. Nsk92 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


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

    The result was speedy close - pure vandalism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    This article is a "copy/paste" from Fushigi Yūgi Eikoden. There is no CSD for this that I know of although it is definitely CSD. Let me know if there is such a category for speedy that I could used to nominate next time. Thanks Katanada (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete the articles on Crehan, Ellsworth and Wylie as there seems to be no real objections to that. The remainder will be closed as no consensus at this time, as there was some potential for notability being discussed. Because of the relative lack of discussion here, I have no objections to the immediate renomination of the remainder (as individual nominations) but will leave that up to the discretion of interested editors. Shereth 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, BLP may not apply). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Knowledge. I should also add that I contributed to the article in the past. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am also nominating the following related pages (some of which I actually created) for the same reasons:

    Ricardo Lizarraga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    A. B. Cursey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Floyd Eiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Robert V. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    John Toolen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    J. E. Browning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Thomas Kronschnable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    James Crehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    James Ellsworth (LAPD officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    James Wylie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Comment It might be better to split these into individual noms. James Ellsworth looks like an easy delete, but Randal Simmons might be considered to have some notability due to being the first LAPD SWAT member to die in the line of duty. It might be too hard to blanket judge this many articles, each with unique circumstances. Resolute 03:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    SWAT is just one division of LAPD. Does this mean that cops who died in other LAPD divisions, such as traffic, K9 or Air Support are notable enough for an article? WP:ONEEVENT still applies, IMO. He may be notable in so far as local news coverage, but hey, this is Los Angeles, and Jamie-Lynn Spears giving birth was the top news story here today! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Serving as a policeman is a noble calling, and they gave their lives in the line of duty. But the most nearly notable, Simmons, has only one splash of news coverage from around the time of the killing. Fails notability per WP:NOT#NEWS and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. The other articles are mirrors of an "officer down" website. Not every soldier killed in a war, not every ironworker killed making a skyscraper or bridge, not every farmer killed when the tractor turns over, is inherently notable. Knowledge reflects what has been noted by reliable and independent sources via substantial multiple coverage. Further, being newsworthy, for one news cycle, is not the same as being encyclopedic, an enduring part of knowledge. Eikipedia is not a memorial, and these are mirrors of a memorial site. Edison (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Crehan, Ellsworth and Wylie; Keep remainder. Murders of police officers are notable enough for articles; officers who die in traffic accidents are no more notable than anyone else who dies in a traffic accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Are you saying that any police officer killed in the line of duty by shooting is inherently notable, even without multiple reliable and independent sources showing that the coverage is more than mere one time news coverage, but an equally non-publicized policeman death in a car wreck isn't notable? Is there a guideline stating that? You might wish to try and add that to the notability criteria at WP:N and see how far it gets. Why would a policemen who is shot be more inherently notable than a soldier shot or blown up in a war, or an aviator shot down or a sailor killed in a war? Seems very point of view to make the life of a policeman more precious or his death more notable than the other cases. Edison (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment. Nowhere did I say it was a guideline - it's my opinion, as is usual on AfDs. Police officers who are shot are usually murdered, and yes, stranger murders are generally notable. Any stranger murder, not just that of a police officer. War deaths and accidental deaths are not the same thing at all - they usually receive much less coverage unless the circumstances are exceptional. Not POV, just fact. I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the murder of a police officer will be national front page news and will remain newsworthy until the killer has been caught and convicted; if that's not the case in the US, well, maybe Americans have become a little too blasé about murder! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Close this nomination and Reapply separately for each case. It's impossible to give a blanket decision because it is possible for one or more of these people to be more notable than others. 23skidoo (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Of course, dying to protect our safety is noble and notable indeed, but we must not let this cloud our decision. Had Simmons not die, would he be notable? I do not think so. I have argued that we need to delete pages because of notability by death. This case is no different. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Eastern Massachusetts Roller Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This subject is not notable Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Tourist brochure entry about a non-notable beach. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's an article about the region called Canasvieiras. This article is about a beach with that name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Incorrect - the first line of the Portuguese article translates as: "Canasvieiras is a neighborhood and a beach located in the north of the island of Santa Catarina..." There is a note at the top of it saying something like "For the region in Bahia, click on Canavieiras." Orderinchaos 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    I've had a basic go at it myself just now, but others should not feel constrained by my efforts - my knowledge of Portuguese is sadly limited to Google Translate. Orderinchaos 12:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ron Link (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Entertainer is not notable (tagged since April 2008) Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Keep- I don't particularly care about this person but I do think he is notable. I just added a few references showing that he has been featured multiple times in notable television and stage performances. He has been the subject of multiple independent sources. The article should be re-written though to sound more encyclopedic.Nrswanson (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Also the Nashuatec Musical Award is a pretty big deal in the Netherlands as it is that country's equivalent to the Grammy Awards.Nrswanson (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep, provided the article is more throughly sourced - I've tagged three statements that really need verification. -- JediLofty Talk 09:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I've got some problems with this 'sources', The homepage of the employee and the hompage of the art work (musical) of the employee are not secondary sources (but this is not the place to discuss sources). I'll say that Link is maybe notable if there is a newspaper or any other secondary source. You're right, Nrswanson, concerning the notability guidelines for performer, Link might be notable if sourced. Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wizardman 17:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Clear Creek (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This seems to be kind of like atlas or travel guide information... not encyclopedic information...Please check WP:NOTTRAVEL I need a second opinion. Thanks! Katanada (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    After further investigation, it appears that West Clear Creek and the Clear Creek that flows into the Grand Canyon are separate streams. There is also an East Clear Creek (apparently different from both), about which we have an article at Clear Creek (East). I recommend stubbifying that article and moving it to East Clear Creek (Arizona) in accord with my recommendation above. Deor (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    It looks as though User:Scottbulloch created several articles on Arizona lakes and streams yesterday, using the same basic format. (See the new-article entries in his contributions.) I don't care for the lists myself, but any sort of rewriting that is done to one should probably be done to all. Deor (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I moved the information from this entry to West Clear Creek Wilderness. I (along with 2 other people) am an employee of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. We are trying to add useful information and hoping that others will expand on this. We will be making many similar pages, so any help in making these entries more consistent with Knowledge standards would be appreciated. Deletion of this article is okay.Scottbulloch (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Since a new article has been created, at a more appropriate title, by the only substantive editor of this one, I agree that this article should now be deleted. Deor (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Appears to fail WP:PRODUCT and/or WP:WEB; little/no information available in secondary sources. No secondary sources mentioned in article. Article itself says they're only just starting a closed beta, may violate WP:CRYSTAL since it isn't a finished product yet.

    Originally nom'd for CSD under G11, but declined. --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Squirrel's Heath Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable school, fails WP:V. Current consensus holds that absent unusual circumstances, primary schools are not notable. Only TWO hits on Google UK, one being this article.  RGTraynor  00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable neologism seemingly referenced only in a Scots' writer's autobiography that seems to have zero currency; only three hits on the UK Google for the term, one referring to this autobiography. Fails WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V.  RGTraynor  00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    *Delete. While it would certainly be notable if it could be appropriately sourced, it apparently can't be. —Angr 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. faithless () 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Probable hoax article claiming that non-notable 17-year-old is the next Robert Kennedy, a Greek parliamentary candidate, a chemical researcher and a "well established sportsman." CSD template deleted out by anon IP with no comment. A whopping 14 G-hits, consisting of this article and various Myspace- and Facebook-clones. No references tendered, fails WP:BIO going away.  Ravenswing  00:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was nomination withdrawn due to article being redirected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    Problems with lack of sourcing - for example naming individual warlords, and neutrality - being biased towards the Courts Union. PhilKnight (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    (edit conflict with artene... people simultaneously having the same thought is generally a sign that it's a good one...:) * Keep Though I completely agree with the arguments presented above by editors above (wp:npov, wp:or, wp:undue), those are reasons to edit, not delete, per WP:SOFIXIT. I've moved it to List of warlords in the Somali Civil War On second thought, it's wp:redundant with Factions in the Somali Civil War, which also lists them with better organisation; my vote is then Redirect ¨¨ victor falk 10:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


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

    ↑