Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 27 April 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt When I See U

Stunt When I See U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

The song has only made a mixtape appearance; Even though it has one reference, it's not enough to confirm the

notability of this song; MISC note: no info confirmed of a new Bow Wow album Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa May

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both entertainers and for porn actors. - JulesN Talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not sure how someone could mix up the glamour model with the conservative MP other than through a spelling error. Ignoring the COI issues for the moment the article needs better verification of notability but, I'm thinking alot of people in Great Britain when they hear the name spoken think of this one as much as the politician. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per

WP:NOR. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Justifiable Insurrection

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

Entire essay is an original research and WP:SYN violation. None of the sources actually reference the word justifiable insurrection. Just as in last time, google searches tailored to the words do not turn up any references that support any of the content of the article. None of the issues from the last AFD have been resolved. After all of the original research is removed, there is no actual article remaining. From the original AFD nomination, which still is relevant: neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words. Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis.

Son of the Defender 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Configura Sverige

AfDs for this article:
View AfD
)

Blatant advertising. Only contributors are the article creator and anons. Been tagged for notability and references since January.

Raven in Orbit (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete for the reasons given in the nomination. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Virtual Aviation Community

AfDs for this article:
Global Virtual Aviation Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I nominate this article for deletion as follows:

  • Notability: Article fails to
    establish notability
    in that notability requires objective evidence. I have extensively researched the article and been unable to find any objective evidence establishing notability.
  • Verifiable sources:
    reliable sources
    in objective, independent media, there is a grave difficulty estabishing not only notability, but also an objective, netural, point of view.
  • Spam: The article is written in such a way that it sounds like
    wikipedia is not
    for more information.
  • The page was successfully nominated for deletion through the Proposed Deletion process, and was undeleted by the deleting administrator at a member request.
  • That member noted [3] that VATSIM and IVAO have pages, that member is reminded that just because
    something else similar exists on wikipedia, that does not automatically make it either suitable or not suitable for wikipedia. Therefore, as the essay notes, a deletion debate should avoid discussing arguements assoicated with this. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Look, man, we are trying to explain the reasoning. There are clear policies that have been enacted by wikipedia and we are here to uphold those policies. If you can bring independent, verfiable, secondary (or tertiary) sources into the article that assert the notability of the subject then no one is going to let it be deleted out of bias. That is literally all it takes. So once again, I'm going to suggest that you
    assume good faith and please look at things neutrally. I don't know how many times I can tell you that I'm not a member of VATSIM or IVAO. I've never owned a flight sim in my adult life (and only played A-10 Warthog on an old mac when I was young). I have NO personal reason to reject this article. My reasoning is clear and so is the reasoning of the other editors here. We have linked standing policies that prohibit this kind of article. We have shown what needs to happen to make the article acceptable. What more do we need to do? Remember we are all here volunterring our time to make wikipedia better. Sometimes that means saving articles (see my user page). Sometimes that means removing articles that don't meet the guidelines and policies set forth. We don't usually get a thrill from it. Trust me, I would rather see this article improved and not deleted than see it deleted and have the work go to waste. but my wish to make it better doesn't mean that we can just keep it despite the fact that it does not meet guidelines. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or collections of various items related to same. No cites - has been tagged with "This article does not cite any references or sources" since May 2007. Writtenonsand (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as to that litle matter of the lack of cites? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
t) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to start getting argumentative here, but per WP:Verifiability ("one of Wikipedia's core content policies"): "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Not "attributable", but "attributed". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DonorDirect

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

This was originally prodded, but the author removed it. This article has no sources to show notability. We have a few links to directory–style listings, but nothing of substance. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added in sources of partnerships with multiple organizations including microsoft. I believe microsoft has notablility and to be a partner takes notability. DonorDirect will also be speaking at Microsoft's World conference. This might not be extremely interesting to you but it does have notablility and sources to verify. Btrain3 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. Merging is not appropriate. A one sentence (or two) summary can be added to the assumed parent article for the school. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel (student magazine)

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

This article is an unreferenced summary of alleged controversies involving a high school magazine. There are no sources, just a claim of newspaper coverage on one occasion and another mention of an article in response to a major newspaper. The article is largely

o5 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African dance music

South African dance music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be somebody's essay about the subject

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fierz

Martin Fierz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
File:Martin3-BW.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable to meet

Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Looks more like a dilettante than a serious chess player or computer programmer. PatGallacher (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Unremarkable piece of fan freeware. Black Kite 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peart- Mission: The Camera Eye

Neil Peart- Mission: The Camera Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be just some game some guy wrote and put on the web.

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Delete per

WP:SNOW -Djsasso (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Why students may study abroad

Why students may study abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic; also appears to violate several aspects of

User:Globalecon/Global_Economics. Enigma message 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep as this could be encyclopedic under a different title. (Trends in students studying abroad, or some such thing). Seems to be verifiable, and on a notable topic. Also, violating
    essay into an article on that topic without a total rewrite with different/new sources. --Bfigura (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Avoda

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda (2nd nomination)

Went through one AfD where it was "relisted", whatever that means, with an apparent no consensus result. Went through a second nomination where it appears it was a copyright violation. Went through a PROD deletion where it was nominated for deletion for lack of reliable sources to prove notability. The PROD deletion was overturned following a request at

WP:DRV. Even the DRV nominator said, "I agree that the information in this article cannot be verified by an outside published source". There are no reliable sources anywhere that I can find that this is a notable camp. There are claims, and I will gladly withdraw this nomination if sources are forthcoming, that it's the oldest Jewish summer camp in New England, but without reliable sourcing, this has to be deleted. Corvus cornixtalk 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Delete. No reliable sources that it will even be made at the moment. Black Kite 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham (film)

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

Nottingham is a project first announced back in January 2007; production was delayed because of the writers' strike -- see my userfied version at

notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. It is already briefly listed at List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood. When production begins, the article can be revived. (Current article was proposed for deletion, but it was challenged.) Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete There is nothing available to confirm this is actually going to be made into a film.
    talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. The
    notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. Many factors, such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. It's already been delayed once; who's to say it won't be again. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 09:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt by Cobaltbluetony, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Menks

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

Non-notable as per

WP:BIO. Relationship does not confer notability. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. Article has been deleted eight times and the previous AfD's result was delete. --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD added - I was debating it before. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixto Nolasco

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

Article has been tagged for references, orphan status, notability and general cleanup since June 2006 and June 2007. It also has untagged but significant problems with neutrality. This is a BLP article (about a 36 year old photographer) with marginal notability and very little activity, and as such it will be generally difficult to maintain this article at a high standard unless/until the subject becomes more notable. We can include it at that time.

T 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete all - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Wright III

Tommy Wright III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
On the Run (Tommy Wright III album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Feel Me Before They Kill Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Genesis: Greatest Underground Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Behind Closed Doors: Da Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashes II Ashes, Dust II Dust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable rapper whose albums are on his own label. All claims of notability are unsourced. Fails

WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Falun Gong and live organ harvesting as POV fork. Not deleted outright to give people the opportunity to merge useable content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Harvesting of Organs from Falun Gong Prisoners

Harvesting of Organs from Falun Gong Prisoners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

I came across this while looking through some uncategorized articles. It's hopelessly and irrevocably mired in an anti-PRC, pro-Falun Gong POV mess. This article also contains original research and written like an essay or a political pamphlet. It it unfit for an encyclopedia and needs to be deleted. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Black Sun (Star Wars)

The result was Withdrawn as duplicate, non-admin closure by --Lenticel (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Black Sun (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Procedural. Prodded for the 2nd time. Concern was "Unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary for non-notable fictional element; single "reference" is to an unreliable source." Neutral on this. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn as duplicate. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prince Xizor (if there is consensus that another redirect target is preferable, please enact it - thanks). Black Kite 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Black Sun (Star Wars)

Black Sun (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable fictional organization. Sole reference is to in-universe unreliable source. Entirely plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep and move to the correct spelling. I'm using

Ramvriksh Benipuri. Sandstein (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ramavriksha Benipuri

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

Notability. The article claims this man was a "prominent writer" but google returns less than 40 hist for him (mostly wiki mirrors) and Amazon, zero. The article is full of positive pov, as if written by an admirer. This may well be a hoax, since a search for one of his books returns only 2 ghits, the article itself and a mirror. Damiens.rf 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The name is also spelt Ramvriksh Benipuri, and there are more results when you search with that name. He's in the Indian Dictionary of National Biography and the Encyclopedia of Indian Literature. English-language sources are slim but there's enough for a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly move to the more common spelling. A DNB entry makes him a automatically notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to more "notable" spelling as per wiki naming conventions. Redirect the above spelling. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: If there's a more commons spelling for his name, for God's sake let's use it. Is there a problem with the spelling of his works as well? Also, if someone could add a References section to the article with some
    clean up the pov. I hope no offense is taken by the ignorance of this nomination, but you know something is wrong when the article for a great Indian writer comes up in a search for terms most commonly found on vanity articles about self-published writers. --Damiens.rf 12:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comments by the initiator of this page: Probably this link of a site of the
    Rambriksh Benipuri symbolising the theme "Linguistic Harmony of India." This also marks the 50th anniversary of "Hindi Diwas", adoption of Hindi as the official language of the Indian Union. The stamps are in the denomination of Rs.3/-." IMHO, this establishes the notability of this writer beyond any iota of doubt - no Government issues stamps on persons who are/ were not notable. I also take this opportunity to thank the nominator as by such exercise only we can evaluate and establish the credibility of Wikipedia. And, yes - many spellings may be circulating. --Bhadani (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
By the way,
Ramavriksha Benipuri. --Bhadani (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aajkaal

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

Non notable local newspaper. Although google search shows several ghits, maximum are blogs, forums etc. No significant coverage in reliable source. Fails

WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: But your claims are unsourced
unverifiable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps the article right now has unsourced claims, but that's a reason to place a citation needed tag inside NOT to delete it. There's a difference between unverified and unverifiable. This article certainly makes verifiable (or refutable, falsifiable) claims. What's needed here is the improvement of the article, not extremist delitionism. Interlingua 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have made good faith search for references, but not found. Article having unverifiable claim is a reason for deletion, the people want to keep this article should take the burden of finding references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the sourced claims are sufficient to establish notability even if the unsourced claims are removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you have
reliable sources to support your claim? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The article already cites a survey which puts the newspaper's readership at 33 lakh [13]. That's 3,300,000. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But it does not support the claim "leading Bengali newspapers in Kolkata". It depends on local population if the readership is really high while considering the local population? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Faaeteete

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

Fails

WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. The existence of an AMG page almost always points to notability; and there are enough additional sources now that I believe the band passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katagory V

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

Article was deleted on April 23 for failing

WP:Band. Subsequent speedy for recreation of deleted material was declined. The article is no different to the version that was speedy deleted. It fails to assert any notability. The band is signed to a minor label (not notable - article redirects to Lance King). None of their releases have pages (Present Day is linked to present day, as in today). Nouse4aname (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep - Agree with The Haunted Angel. Passes
    WP:HMM

It helps to read the articles discussion page first to know the articles intentions. There are a slew of bands and artists that fail

WP:HMM project as notable. Rsdtc (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

* I am also a little concerned that this posting [[14]] may constitute forum shopping...? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I saw this on the WP:METAL page and came to take a look and it seems like the band's definitely notable enough. They've played with a ton of notable acts and that in itself makes them pass notability requirements. As for there being no pages for their releases that's a small problem that can be solved quickly. Hell, I'll start those pages if no one else does. It only takes about ten minutes to start all of them. Seems to pass WP:BAND. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Thank you for offering to tackle the album pages, which is very much appreciated! However, I was able to finally get them online; I didn’t want to post them until I knew all information was accurate. Also, I was able to clean up the article a bit more. Hopefully it was not all in vain...Prog2112 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can see, I wouldn't call any of those above sources reliable or verifiable. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • can you please explaine why any of those would not be called reliable or verifiable? I should point out that WP:Music cites
    All Music Guide as a reliable or verifiable source, which has been noted on the articles refrence section. Prog2112 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Granted, AMG is reliable, but the others, which include websites such as hardrockhaven.net, metal-temple.com, metal-rules.com and metal-observer.com are hardly mainstream, reliable and verifiable media outlets, and thus coverage in only one such site (AMG) hardly constitutes "multiple non-trivial mention in...reliable sources". Nouse4aname (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be mainstream to be reliable. Just as obscure, heavy-going books are acceptable sources for history articles, decent ezines are acceptable sources for heavy metal articles. On top of that, Blabbermouth is definitely reliable. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete as G3 vandalism hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inishbfin, between northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland

Inishbfin, between northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a hoax article. There is no island as described. The whole thing is a work of fiction. GNUSMAS : TALK 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi Cobaltbluetony. Inishbofin exists. In fact, there are two of them:
    Inishbofin, Galway (7 miles out). This article however is about some fabricated "Inishbofin island" which is (allegedly) 38 miles off the coast, in international waters, owned by a person named Cole (no doubt the childish hoaxer) and the site of zoological research. In short. It's nonsense. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1.

talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mr Instability

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

Delete nn book by nn author. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rome News-Tribune

Rome News-Tribune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete is every small town paper inherently notable? I don't think so, and nothing indicates that this particular one passes

WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Appears to be a notable newspaper that's worthy of inclusion.

talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

AfDs for this article:
The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - nominated once previously three years ago, seems to have gotten a lot of "keep,

talk) 18:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janaki Bakhle

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

Contested prod. Academic with one book, which has been reviewed but doesn't meet the standards in

WP:HOTTIE, as I am resolutely doing. Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I put in the Zionism thing because Refero relato wanted to take the article down, and I thought that if I put up news articles the article would stay up. They really are trivial, and I would be happy to see them go. I am new here and I am puzzled. After Relato Refero tagged Janaki Bakhle I went and looked at what makes a professor notable. Whole bodies of work. original concepts htat are widely cited. stc. then I looked around wikipedia. Single episodes of Buffy the Vampire slayer have pages. Newly-published novels. Novelists with one novel out. Art-house movies. Really insignificant Hollywood movies get whole pages. Apparently every actor who has every appeared on screen and every player who has walked onto a major league field seems to have a page. But professors have this long list of qualifications. Obviously, I have a bit of an ax to grind. But hear me out. Professors write things that matter, even when those things appear exclusively in academic journals. It can be useful to watch the young up-and-comers. Useful for them to have pages so that when they pop into the news people can look them up. And hten there is the double standard. Professors are public figures. Why do one-game ball players get their own pages, and people like Bakhle who is doing work that people pay attention to do not? Can we talk about this?Butler stacks (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Butler stacks[reply]
    • Professors aren't necessarily public figures. Just taking a job that requires teaching and publication doesn't mean you have to put yourself before the world. One might really wonder if they are so important; their research is far more important in an encyclopedic sense than the people behind it. Furthermore, the basic rule is
      verifiability, with higher standards for people, to avoid libel and intrusions into libel. Most professors don't have much written about them. Ball players and movies do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
No. I mean the other 9+ very reliable sources within the article which prove its notability. Yahel Guhan 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review "independent" and "about the subject", please. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per lack of sources, lack of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leela Mishra

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

Delete unsourced short bio; actress in 200 movies (as an extra? did she star? no sources, as usual. Any normal bio details? no... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penryn college

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

Delete is this institution is notable, this is hardly a decent beginning of an article. Then, again, it may not be notable - just because you call yourself a college doesn't mean its a secondary educational instution - rather than an unaffiliated after-school test prep tutory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Oratory School Schola

London Oratory School Schola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, it is just a school choir and self-promoting WazzaMan (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TerriersFan. You need to read wikipedia's guidelines again. Find the sources yourself, then add it to wikipedia. Everything needs to be referenced. Keylock191 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC) keylock191[reply]


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

The result was Keep per PeaceNT's reference - passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance (band)

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

Minimally meets

WP:V to support the article. Pigman☿ 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

\

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 have noticed the calls for expanding this, but a look at the article indicates that it runs afoul of

WP:CSD#A1 on lack of context. The entire content is "*Joe Frank Radio Artist, Santa Monica, California", and when the article is in a condition like that it is misleading and not useful to anyone. If anyone wants to recreate this, please go right ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1993

List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this unsourced one-liner posing as an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is a view that 'key' parts of this article should be merged to

St. Joseph's Institution. If any editor wants to do this, I will be quite happy to restore this to user space to assist such a merge, but the article as it stands is too long and inappropriately written to just add to the school article and redirect. Bduke (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

St. Joseph's Institution National Police Cadet Corps

AfDs for this article:
St. Joseph's Institution National Police Cadet Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school/corps, no major notability established. No sources, citations... seicer | talk | contribs 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST Foliage

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

No major notability established outside of a reference in a magazine. seicer | talk | contribs 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Any editor may create a redirect. Sandstein (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Damicourt

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

Sole claim to notability is marrying

not inherited and the line is covered in his, she isn't notable enough for her own. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Only substantial contributions were by

talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Des Renford Aquatic Centre

Des Renford Aquatic Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wow! It consists of an indoor *and* an outdoor pool. It also consists of zero notability with RS coverage limited to events at the aquatic centre. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep in the sense of "not delete". Whether merging or redirection is appropriate can be discussed on the talk pages. Sandstein (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Armstrong-Jones

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

Charles Armstong-Jones is not royal even though the incidence of his birth places him in

already has a page. Charles 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason (younger sister):

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
  • Merge and redirect to
    David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley as a plausible search term, but a person of insufficient notability to really warrant an article. As per previous discussions exactly where someone in the line of succession has to be to be notable for that alone is fairly vague, but I think this fellow is low enough, young enough and non-notable enough that a separate article serves little purpose. ~ mazca talk 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I am also leaning towards a merge, but we should note that there are some wider issues here. This issue has come up in deletion discussions before. Just how important do minor royals have to be to become inherently notable? I would draw the line at the grandchildren of a monarch, but it seems other would draw it lower. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Notability (people) for this sort of discussion. It shouldn't be had here since it has a broader scope than this article and has been hashed time and time again on these AfDs. Charles 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a line can be established generally at any particular generation or relationship to a sovereign. Notability means that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sometimes a son of a sovereign has not received such coverage, but the great-niece may have. Notability is not the same as "importance" or "closeness to a throne"; it is purely a matter of whether somebody has written about the topic, and therefore Wikipedia should summarize what has been written. I regret that in this discussion there has been virtually no mention of the published sources (although there are some). Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he won't be this high up the succession for ever. There are by my calculation 8 people under 30, all currently childless, higher than him in the succession, it's likely most of them will have kids before long. If the British monarchy survives in its present form then he will probably slip quite substantially down the succession in his lifetime, and he could easily slip significantly in the next few years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but at the moment these two kids are 14th and 15th in line to the throne; they are considered of enough note for their presence to be noted, at some length, in the London Telegraph article and probably also in some other national magazines that have not been referenced. The London Telegraph considered them notable. Charles deleted what he terms "cruft" and "fluff" from the article on Margarita Armstrong-Jones. The "cruft" and "fluff" was from the Daily Telegraph article, which is generally regarded as a serious newspaper. I continue to think that these people warrant their own separate short articles and would vote to keep them as they are rather than to merge them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally regarded" being operative. Everyone has their slip-ups. Charles 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that it's your opinion that this was a "slip-up." In my opinion, they covered an event that their readers found of interest and described relatives of the queen whom their readers wanted to know something about. That's "notability." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had intended to remain neutral in this debate, since I have no interest in this family whatsoever. However, I have now done a search on Factiva, the largest database of newspaper articles. A search for "Charles Armstrong-Jones" comes up with 26 hits; some of these are references to his father (who has the baptismal name Charles). In addition there are other hits if one searches for "Armstrong-Jones" and "Charles". Most of these hits are mere mentions-in-passing. However, in addition to the articles about his birth and baptism, there is at least one article which is specifically about the individual, "The royal page boy who said 'I won't' at his Uncle William's wedding" (April 29, 2001). To me, this individual is unimportant, and I think it ridiculous that a newspaper would devote articles to him. However, it is undeniable that he is repeatedly the subject of news coverage (whether earned or not). This makes him notable. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, Noel. Would saying "I won't" get anyone into an encyclopedia? He is not notable by any stretch of the word. I am not about to write an article on a friend of mine who has appeared in the New York Times, the Providence Journal, on CBS and on Dateline just because they were on those things because really it is not just that something is "there", its real importance has to be taken into account. Charles 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His relationship to the royal family and place in the line of succession makes him notable. Is he particularly important in and of himself as yet? No. But he is of some interest. I don't know if your pal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not, not knowing his name. Maybe he is. Coverage in national media actually is of some note, though he isn't the subject of this particular debate. Granted, I'm more of an "inclusionist" than you apparently are. If it's of interest to someone, I think it deserves an article, provided it's properly referenced. These articles were, for the most part. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting read:
WP:INTERESTING. Charles 10:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
As explained above, I take an inclusionist position. These kids are notable because of their position in the line of succession, because they're relatives of the queen, and because they have been written about in the national press. Both articles are referenced. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, no strong, policy based, reason for deletion given, consensus says keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beggar's Oil

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

non-notable album of an otherwise notable musician - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Does the same apply to other albums by this artist, or is this just a particularly unsuccessful one? In general I prefer to have separate articles for either all or none of a band's albums - removing this particular article while leaving the others in the chronology intact would be a little unproductive, in my opinion. ~ mazca talk 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Fundraiser. Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fund raiser

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

This page originally started with the phrase: "Fund raiser is defined in Italian as..." and went on to give a definition, in Italian. Though now in English and somewhat expanded, it is still no more than a dicdef with spurious "How to" advice and, as far as I can see, has no hope of developing into anything more than a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and redirect per Dhartung. Sandstein (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Pen

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

Just one of the seating sections of a Stadium. Also no refs.

talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (all). There is no consensus to delete these albums, there is also not much discussion regarding a merge, which may be appropriate. Merging is a non-afd, non-admin procedure that

anyone can do where appropriate without prior discussion. Prior discussion is recommended however for contentious or possibly controversial merges. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

In the Hills of California

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

non-notable album of an otherwise notable musician - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm curious why these albums do not fit the Wiki album project. Greg Brown is a very note-worthy folk musician and I believe his albums are just as noteworthy and any of the others that are on here. He has many notable ties to the folk music world and his career is well-followed. All his albums have high All-Music ratings and placing them in the Wiki album project gives others the chance to add to the album info without having to do the initial grunt-work of listing credits, songs, etc. Thanks. User:Airproofing

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohasse Country Club

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

RS coverage limited to events at the country club. No evidence this country club is in any way notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was

WP:OR, and also as a likely creation of a sock- or meatpuppet of a banned user. Sandstein (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion

Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks like pretty clear

original research, in that it appears to be making a very strong argument by weaving together sources and quotations that don't support this argument. I do not believe there is anything to be salvaged here; the premise makes no sense from the perspective of the mainstream physics community, and there's no evidence that the viewpoint is notable. SCZenz (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • SCZebz said:
"This looks like..."
"I do not believe there is anything..."
'COMMENT:'
A discussion cannot be supported by personal beliefs. Instead of, it must be supported by arguments, based on FACTS. And the FACTS disprove what you say, since the paradoxical feature of Heisenberg's criterion has been pointed out by Einstein, Karl Pooper, and others, as quoted bellow:
1- In a footnote in this paper Popper states that Heisenberg's instrumentalism is far from consistent, and that he has many anti-instrumentalist remarks to his credit, but that Heisenberg's view of quantum theory necessarily leads to an instrumentalist philosophy by neglecting falsification and stressing application.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KK8sZfg5fccJ:www.philsci.com/book5-3.htm+popper+einstein+heisenberg&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=br
2- Is the scientific method both faith and knowledge based?
Anyway... How do other scientific methods handle your question, "What is the colour, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?"
About the same way they handle determination of the isospin and isotope composition of an uffish thought!
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Mz0BhB65rJ4J:www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-59738.html+popper+isospin&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=br
3- On the Einstein's opinion on the Heisenberg's criterion that electron's trajectory does not exist within a chamber fog:
A theory that cannot be tested and validated by experiments is merely a hypothesis, not a theory. Is there a reverberation of 'positivism' here? Heisenberg(16) who had also been concerned about this issue in the past with respect to quantum mechanics, had described his views, which bear on the experimental verification of a theory, thus, "…I thought it was probably the idea of introducing only observable quantities….Einstein had pointed out to me that it is really dangerous to say that one should only speak about observable quantities. Every reasonable theory will, besides all things which one can immediately observe, also give the possibility of observing other things more indirectly."
16. Heisenberg, W., "Theory, Criticism, And Philosophy", in Unification of Fundamental Forces, 1988 Dirac Memorial Lecture, New York, 1990, pp. 98 - 100. (quoted in the article Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion )
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:oSZJVjXCHEwJ:www.chowk.com/articles/5048+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=br
4-Unification of Fundamental Forces by Abdus Salam, Cambridge, pp 143 8.95 Pounds/$14.95:
Heisenberg's is somewhat fuller of personal detail, explaining his interactions with Sommerfeld, Bohr, and others, and in particular bringing out the importance of Eistein's comment that one could not speak of observation in a theory-free manner. Both lecturers discuss the role of mathematics. Heisenberg takes the view that it can be a brake on progress in physics, a fault for which he criticises Pauli.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:gWfgF2LZ56YJ:www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817414.800-review-the-physicists-gift-of-the-gab-.html+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=br
5- Wikiquote (Albert Einstein):
Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed:
Objecting to the placing of observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's 1926 lecture at Berlin; related by Heisenberg, quoted in Unification of Fundamental Forces (1990) by Abdus Salam
ISBN 0521371406
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:3K1eMHrUYekJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22+einstein&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br
So, it is proved by AN EXTENSE SOURCE that the paradoxical feature of Heisenberg's criterion is notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.97.93.67 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Articles may be speedily deleted if they do not have a supported claim of notability. If you can find some places that have published on this topic, include them under sources. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Editing Talk it's also written:
I am YURI2008 YURI2000 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a friend of W.GUGLINSKI, banned out from Wikipedia
Three weeks ago W.GUGLINSKI asked me to edit three articles in here.
The articles have been deleted (speedy deletion) by alleging that W.GUGLINSKI has been banned.
However such argument makes no sense. Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and I have the right to edit an article.
If an article of mine is inadequate or not to Wikipedia rules, it must be decided in a regular process of discussion. But not in a speedy process, by alleging that W.GUGLINSKI was banned.
After all, I am the editor of the articles, and not W.GUGLINSKI.
Therefore the two arguments above are disqualified, as shown by Pontiff Greg Bard, and they cannot be taken in consideration YURI2000 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except he didn't SAY any of that. He said this: "Articles may be speedily deleted if they do not have a supported claim of notability. If you can find some places that have published on this topic, include them under sources. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) " There is no conceivable way you could interpret that to mean anyhting other than what is explicity said. And you have gone one further, by attributing your words as his. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two Delete above are disqualified, according to Pontiff Greg Bard, YURI2000 (talk)
  • Comment I doubt the various users posting about this will get the hint but here, in unambiguous terms, is why this article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Any debate from YURI2000 on this subject can come to my talk page. I'm not interested in explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else. As a matter of fact, i am not interested in entertaining any debate on the inherent validity or invalidity of the article. That is not a debate for wikipedia but for the scientific community in general. Here (as we are faced with a repost of past articles) are my comments from the last AFD's.

Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice.

Protonk (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protonk said: I'm not interested in explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else
COMMENT on Protonk words: ??????????????????
Why not? After all, everything gyrates about the following fundamental point regarding to the wikipedia rules: Is the subject of the article notable, or not?.
RESPONSE TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Well, since the subject was discussed by Einstein, Popper, Heisenberg, etc., and it is quoted in several books and in several websites, this is a proof that the subject is notable.
What is of interest is not the "explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else", BUT YES THE FACT THAT EINSTEIN AND OTHER ONES DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT , and not if their discussion is of the interest of the wiki members, or not. —Preceding
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
  • comment Wow, everyone is stemming on my statement. Listen, I'm not a physicist, so I am inclined to defer to any active members of the physics wikiproject. However, with that said, very often, the prevailing culture of a wikiproject (or academic department, etc) can miss the significance of things too. If there exist secondary sources that discuss this topic, which perhaps discuss a pro and/or con side, then it should stay --but you have to produce it. If there is only primary sources, then perhaps parts of it should be merged into some other article. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg, it's not necessary to be a physicist to understand the point under discussion. The question is: the subject of the article is notable, or not? It's not necessary to be a physicist to understand that the subject is notable, since it is quoted in several websites and several books, writen by Popper, Heisenber, Dirac, Salam, etc.
  • That's a total falsehood. Nowhere is the material in the article covered in books by Dirac et al unless you throw the net so broadly as to catch practically everything in QM. The SPECIFIC paradox Gulginski and this article refer to nor its resolution are mentioned by ANY of the sources quoted here or on the article page with the exception of Gulginski. The SPECIFIC scope of the article is not something that includes discussion noted in secondary sources. Show me where Karl Popper says that the supposed paradox formed from the repulsive force of neutrons can only be resolved by Gulginski's book? Show me where Dirac says the same, or Einstein. The burden of proof is on you. I can tell you that it isn't going to be hard to find Karl Popper's complaints about the physical sciences at the time. I can also tell you it isn't going to be ahrd to find Einstein's complaints about QM. But neither of those lend any credence to this article. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aspects of old material spun up with a novel and utterly non-notable analysis, precisely what the previously-mentioned-here
    reliable sources (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles that neither you nor your friends had anything to do with), it is going to be deleted. Citing Dirac and Heisenberg isn't going to get you anywhere as they're probably not publishing anymore, and Guglinski's papers are worthless as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. Or maybe you are Guglinski. Either way, I hope I've made this pretty clear. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • UNACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT, because:
1- What is under discussion is: whether the subject of the article is notable, or not.
2- The articles edited by W.GUGLINSKI some months ago have been deleted because they were not notable.
3- The subject of the present article is notable, and therefore it cannot be evaluated from the same criterion applied to old articles edited by W.GUGLINSKI in the past.
4- It's not important who is the author of the article, and who edited it. What is under discussion is: is the article notable or not?—
few or no other edits
outside this topic.
  • Delete only 2 ghits both of which are wikipedia. I can't find any reliable 3rd party sources. There is also the obvious COI, Meat/Sock thing. Additionally, is there a valid reason why it is nominated for Speedy & up for AfD? Shouldn't it be one or the other?Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I started the AfD before I was aware the issues it would cause, and the fact that Wikipedia had been through all of it before. As this has become apparent, some users have requested administrator intervention, both with the speedy request and a post on
    the administrator's noticeboard; this request seems sensible enough to me. (Does sensible still equal "valid" on Wikipedia? I haven't edited much lately.) -- SCZenz (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete -
    not what WP is about. The creator should privately publish this work elsewhere, and pay for it, just like real business people do, or submit it to a referreed journal, just like real scientists do. Wikipedia is a charity -- and it is not the place to make a would-be Nobel Prize winner any money. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those calling to delete have not adequately answered the arguments that this organization has received a little bit of coverage, something which matters according to the

WP:N guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access

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

I just don't see anything that shows this one as being notable. Giving it a chance at AFD instead of speedy in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kadet Remaja Sekolah Malaysia. As an individual unit of a national youth organization, this is not sufficiently notable. Redirecting it to the article on the national organization keeps the material in the history and allows someone to merge relevant material to the article on the national organization. The Scout people are doing this all the time. Bduke (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinar Bintang School Cadet Corps (SBKRS)

Sinar Bintang School Cadet Corps (SBKRS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Article on a school organization in Malaysia with extensive history but no references and no evidence of outside notability. --Finngall talk 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article on a local branch or a national youth organisation. We have had similar discussions in the past on Scout troops, Air Cadet units, etc, etc, etc, and consensus seems to be that unless there is something particularly and especially special about a single unit, it is not notable. Emeraude (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about an youth organisation that is similar to Malaysia Scout Organisation which also have an article about them in Wikipedia. If Malaysia Scout Movement can post an article here, i don't see any problem doing the same thing. This youth organisation is same important as Malaysia Scout Movement and its directly under the Government of Malaysia. This article enable students to know more about the organisation in this popular wikipedia. This is something educational and far more meaningful than articles about Movies and celebrities over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keropi88 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, this is not an article about a youth organisation. It is about a single branch of the youth orgnisation, Kadet Remaja Sekolah Malaysia, which may deserve an article but individual local chapters do not.Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - this is just not the way to do it since it would be a cut'n'paste. My proposal was to move the page and then stub it by stripping out most of the content. There is not a huge amount of usable prose but there is some. I still think we should do that - move the page over the newly created page.
    talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think and Grow Rich

Think and Grow Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think you looked at my link- that is a google news search, ie. a search of archives of newspapers, not just websites. If you click on it you can see the hundreds of mentions of this book in newspapers. Merkin's mum 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a plan actually- I'm not sure if we need both of these. Merkin's mum 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on merging. Both should be kept. Think and Grow Rich was by far Hill's best-selling book, but there were numerous others, nor was writing his only accomplishment. If all he did was write the book, I'd agree, but it isn't so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Think and Grow Rich. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised

Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Should be covered in Think and Grow Rich if it is Notable. Failed Prod. Main article also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think and Grow Rich Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep in light of the addition of some third party sources which establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inciclopedia

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

Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails

Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete by original/only editor's request. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MetaCarta

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

Non-notable company that has been speedy-deleted and recreated by original author. No independent media coverage apparent. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No independent media coverage?

Lets see...

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9901084-7.html
http://media.baliz-geospatial.com/fr/blogue/quels-sont-les-grands-titres-des-nouvelles-pres-de-chez-vous
http://www.visualbeta.es/3802/aplicaciones-web/metacarta-noticias-geolocalizadas/
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531211.php
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9901084-7.html?tag=blog.1


  • ^Ok, I agree with part about controversy - maybe it wasn't necessary. I'll add more outside sources of information about company eventually.
  • Hopefully it looks much better now...

By the usual measures of size (over 50 employees, over $5m in receipts) MetaCarta is somewhere in the top 100,000 US firms, perhaps not notable in and of itself, but quite sizeable for high tech. More importantly, MetaCarta has been singled out for innovation on several occasions, e.g. as a Red Herring Top 100 innovator (2005) and as one of KMWorld's 100 Companies that Matter (2007). I'd be happy to add links but I'm not sure it's right for me to edit the page (the info is available from the company website). The controversy mentioned earlier may not matter much now, but was very real at the time. Another aspect of the company that may be more worth mentioning is its support for FOSS, in particular the OpenLayers library. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My calendar is one year off. The awards were 2004, http://www.redherring.com/Home/11067 and 2006 http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=15156&PageNum=2 , sorry. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor toward notability is that industry analysts from the major research and advisory firms (Gartner, Forrester, Seybold, IDG, etc) now consider the company notable enough to cover it.

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

  • So, all in all - I think that its entirely unfair that this whole article was deleted for a second time due to a particular editor lack of knowledge about the company.

Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a "moron", refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Looking at SitnikovI's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with advertising. As always I try to

WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I can hardly see where you're trying to
    WP:AGF
    , sorry.
  • Say what you will, but pretty much its all "Whatever you'll say, will be used against you..." principle.


I looked at the corporate notability guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP, and I think the criteria listed there are easily met. The company is regularly written about in business publications such as the Boston Business Journal and Forbes.com, in trade publications such as SearchEngineJournal, Directions Magazine, AllPointsBlog, and IEEEE Computer, and is regularly covered by analysts (IDG, Forrester, Gartner etc.) The company web page at http://www.metacarta.com/news-and-events-in-the-news.htm documents over a hundred and fifty such writeups, and less than half of these are occasioned by press releases by the company itself. The rest is self-standing, clearly meeting the WP:CORP guidelines -- this is particularly clear for the awards. Add to the print material a rather sizeable web footprint (Google has over 81,000 hits, and only a small fraction of these are at the company website) and it seems the company passes the notability criteria easily. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable company. ➪HiDrNick! 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete It's pretty borderline. The company appears notable, but what worries me are the SPA's posting here and the very likely COI in building this website. I'm prepared to go either way. IF the SPA issue gets worse or there are some sockpuppet problems, then I'll switch to strong delete and file a checkuser and put something up on ANI. I presume MetaCartaEmployee is already on the list to get a name change for violation of naming policy, right? Protonk (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not interested in personal attacks or anything of that nature and this whole thing with bickering is idiotic, for a lack of a better word, as it have nothing to do with this debate.

I find Forbes 500 comment insulting, still - "teddy bear stuff" or not, advertising or not, right or wrong - yes, it wasn't personal, but it was meant to provoke me anyway and maybe I shouldn't have used the word "moron", but there you go. —Preceding

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]


  • I'm curious - do you guys argue in the same way about career criminals and how many people they murdered and whether they are notable or not because they killed 4 people, and not 14? I know - it may sound like a terrible analogy, but I'm just wondering if this whole issue have to do with my personal interest in this - I'm not going to get anything out of writing article about MetaCarta (except for personal satisfaction) and I'm not going to be rich/famous when (or if) it will be published.
  • Well, if this is not personal, then why would Madcoverboy would bring up the whole story with deleted comment(s)? And why would someone bring those comments up again once I deleted them, because I wanted to avoid personal conflict with editors (well, that's "vandalism", apparently)? Isn't that an odd thing too?

No, this isn't a personal thing - I'm sorry, I'm the only one who see it that way, of course. And thank you for educating me on the matters of Wikipedia and how it existed along with all the policies/guidelines before I started this article and, of course, tried to destroy it all in the process - now I'm feeling so enlightened, its just amazing. Live and learn, as they say. Would I make it easier for you if I'll just delete an article right now? Would you breathe a sigh of relief, perhaps?

He's been blanking the page repeatedly. I'll be
bold and speedy delete the page per author's request. Useight (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, at least someone around here have some decency in not trying to turn this into an idiotic spectacle, even though it took me such a long time to prove that this have nothing to do with vandalism.

Bye now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SitnikovI (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page per G7, single author who requests deletion or blanked the page. Feel free to contact me if you feel this was done in error. Useight (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to follow the suggestions presented by

Final Fantasy (series) for the time being--feel free to change it in the future if a more appropriate target is found. --jonny-mt 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Final Fantasy cast members

AfDs for this article:
List of Final Fantasy cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unorganized list of names. The notable information is already present in other, relevant articles (as shown by the out-of-date merge tags), so this article is redundant and unnecessary. Kariteh (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Not really notable, and redundant with other articles that would be a more suitable place for this information. Randomran (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famelix

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

No real indication of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.

ScarianCall me Pat! 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

2012 Kansas State Wildcats football team

2012 Kansas State Wildcats football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

violation of

WP:CRYSTAL - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JITOA

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

Looks likely to qualify for A7- group speedy, and I did so twice. But something was nagging in my brain on this one that I might be missing something, so I'm giving it an AFD chance instead. But beyond a nagging doubt, I really don't see why this group would be notable given what is presented on the article. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio.

talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Madden & Finucane

Madden & Finucane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

A7 deleted a couple of times, I've decided to give this a chance at AFD this time. I just do not see this rising to the necessary level of notability. Even the "Bloody Sunday" case mentioned does not IMHO give notability to the law firm involved, even if the case itself is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Black Mask (comics)

Bibliography of Black Mask (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Multiple reasons. Nearly a working definition of a random collection of information or listcruft, this page is simply a list when a supervillain has appeared in comic books. It has been tagged for lack of citations since September 2006 with extremely little editorial interest since. The publisher of this comic book character is capable of providing published bibliographies of its copyrighted characters if it wishes to, Wikipedia is not the place for primary source lists with no practical context.

There are other bibliographies similar to this one. Based on the outcome of this AfD I'll list several of them in a later group AfD nomination. Markeer 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11.

talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Zija

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

This article should be deleted because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion at

WP:CORP. Also, as written, this article is mere PR marketing fluff. Article contributors have been involved in linkspamming, indicating that this article may exist as a marketing tool. Deli nk (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Belin

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

This article was previously proposed (not by me) as a db-bio speedy deletion, but the speedy was declined by stating that the article does assert the importance of the subject. I suppose that hinges on whether "was the Republican nominee for [C]ongress" constitutes an assertion of notability. It is my contention that it does not -- or, more relevantly, that even if it does constitute an assertion of notability, it is not sufficient to establish that notability. Powers T 13:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain SNES: The Gamemasta

Captain SNES: The Gamemasta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deprodded, Unable to bring up any news sources for this webcomic. Google search [40] yields under 5000 hits. Article has been tagged with notability and references concerns for 7 months.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DefCom Australia

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

Unnotable "loyalty program" which is in essence nothing more than an employee benefits scheme Murtoa (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Matilda talk 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but, as the person who established this page, you'd expect me to say that!) Several days ago I bought some items at a local auto parts supplier. After the bill had been rung up, I presented my credit card with the DefCom logo on it. The sales assistant said, "If you'd only told me about this before I rang off the sale, I could have given you 5% off." My 'bad'. I lost the benefit, which I should have known about if I'd looked up the brochure. I'm a "believer" (even if I didn't use it that time.) For me, it's notable! - Peter Ellis - Talk 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It might be a great scheme for defence personnel, but I'm still to be convinced that this confers notability. Ultimately, it is simply an employee benefit. Is the employee discount available to 165,000 Coles Group employees in Australia notable? Or similar sized benefit programs for public servants? I can't see that simply owing to it being within the military that this confers greater notability. The strongest argument appears to be that the US has one, so a smaller Australian version must be similarly notable. Would that mean that a similar scheme for, say, Fijian military would also warrant an article? Murtoa (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that a similar scheme for the Fijian or any other military would warrant an article or perhaps there could be an article on benefits for the military if a sensible article could be made without reverting to original research. The employee discount available to Coles Employees could form part of the article on the Coles Group (along with the now defunct shareholders' scheme which was very significant in shaping the ownership of the company and it subsequent management fortunes (aha it is mentioned in the article but not its shaping of the ownership of the company). I am unaware of any benefit scheme for public servants that was established as a condition of employment (as opposed to union membership) ... The question to me is whether wikipedia is better off with or without this information - I believe this information adds to the sum of knowledge - there is an issue about the disparate benefits between different military organisations, particularly when they serve alongside each other. I note in passing that Australians had access to the NAAFI during WW2.--Matilda talk 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the risk of continuing to be a minority voice of dissension, I still can't see how this scheme is any more notable than benefit schemes in non-military environments. Social clubs of typical large Australian organisations offer discounts and other benefits to their employees but these arrangements are not inherently notable. The fact that defence force personnel have a similar benefit in my view doesn't advance Wikipedia one iota. Murtoa (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Matilda. Five Years 11:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyright infringement. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Voorsanger

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

Barely-notable, but with no sources for (what would be) the notability claims. A game programmer that worked for some big and small companies with varied degrees of success. Not an influential person, IMHO. A previous PROD was denied on the basis that sources should be added. Damiens.rf 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3 vandalism, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starvin' Marvin Trips to South Park

AfDs for this article:
Starvin' Marvin Trips to South Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. No Google hits, South Park episodes are usually announced less than a week before airing, no episodes will air before autumn. 96T (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7.

talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Rebelscum.com

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

No citations to reliable sources, no claim of significant third-party coverage. Does not pass

WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Young

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

This bassist may be non-notable due him being in a famous band but there is nothing more to say about him beyond what is already written in the main article so he does not deserve his own article and I doubt there ever will be. Munci (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slo Ball Placement

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

Unencyclopedic, limited to local scope, "onesource" - and that one scope basically says "No more Slo Ball Placement", so that source created the beginning and end of this topic, hence

WP:ONEEVENT - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Cup (football)

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

I understand that this is the second nomination, but the first addressed the existence or otherwise of the competition. My concern is over notability. Virtually no third party sources. Personally, I can't see that this meets the notability rules. Which is unfortunate, but true. Traditional unionist (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely only one of those references is a reliable one?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is reliable but not independent, given that it is the club's own website. The Times link is to a page where readers submit answers to other readers' questions, so I'm not sure if that should be considered reliable. The others look a bit more questionable...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chehelsotoon, Qazvin

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

No assertion of notability THobern 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete per consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen MacLoughlin

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

Local Councillor, lost at last general election, fails

WP:BIO, not a notable person. First AfD was closed because it was not listed correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

That was me, was in a hurry and never got round to re-posting after the initial malformed nom. Local councillor not notable for any other reason apart from failing to get elected at the general election- I believe there is a precedent that failed GE candidates are not notable for that reason. Delete per nom. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's not just a councillor - he is Leader of the town Council, which makes him the top elected bod in Bournemouth politics. (Incidentally, the statement: "failed GE candidates are not notable" is false. It would be correct to say that claiming notability solely on the grounds of having lost an election is unacceptable, but there are plenty of failed candidates who are notable in other ways.) Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that's what I said "...failed GE candidates are not notable for that reason". Possibly badly phrased however. The top elected official in Bournemouth politics is the MP, and council leader is not a position directly elected by the people (at least I don't think it is, correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt even if the majority of people within Bournemouth would recognise this man or put a name to his face, and our notabilty standards are quite a lot higher than "he's big in Bournemouth" anyway. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - it was the way you phrased it that caught me out. Bournemouth's MP is not, of course, a Bournemouth official involved in Bournemouth politics - he is involved in national politics. Council leaders are not as you say, directly elected, but then neither is the prime minister! I suspect that the majority of people in Bournemouth may not know his name, but they will certainly know his position. The key thing here is this: if the top councillor in this English town is not notable, then neither is the equivalent in any other town in England, Britain or the world. That may actually be the case, but I'm not saying it!Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Touche re the Prime Minister not being directly elected...but I think the numbers of voters involved in national election (10s of millions) versus that for a local council ward election (a few thousand if not a few hundred) is significant. yes, I think that is the precedent, as you say. The leader of e.g. the city-wide council for a major conurbation (London, New York, Paris, Cairo, New Delhi, etc.) may be notable, because of the budgets, numbers and prestige involved. I believe as a general rule of thumb those quite this far down the scale aren't. Unless he is a national figure (he isn't, or at least no-one has yet proffered any evidence that he is) then I think his article should, and will, go.
Bournemouh locals may well know his position, and it would therefore be a good idea to create Local Council Leader or similar, as a generic article (or expand the relevant section of an existing one). That doesn't mean he has to have an article. I know that the captain of my local village Sunday cricket team exists- I don't know his name though, and I'd be mighty surprised to see an article on him show up here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on the numbers, but a council leader is not "just a councillor".Emeraude (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even being leader of a council still makes him just a councillor, there is no extra weight because he leads the council, and in fact he could be voted out of office by the other councillors in his group at any time. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed...for the benefit of potential non-UK contributors, "council leader" is not a position that carries a great deal of weight, prestige or additional responsibility, and he could indeed be gotten rid of at any time. It's not a directly elected nor full-time position and really he's hardly more notable than an ordinary councillor...who are not in themselves notable at all. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! It carries a great deal of weight, prestige and additional responsibility. A large number of council leaders are well known outside of their areas (e.g. David Blunkett was well-known as the leader of Sheffield council long before he became and MP). None of this has any bearing, though, on the present subject. Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, and no, it doesn't. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete due to lack of reliable sources to

relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Joseph Arand

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

Non-notable, search for information on subject reveals no information, cannot find any references to support the given information ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live class

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

Live class is a "general term" that is unsearchable for obvious reasons. The article is pure OR,

synthesizing bits from a number of other distance and in person class issues. There is a merge proposal but this wouldn't add anything to distance education and is not a likely search term to be worthy of a re-direct. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amante P. Marinas Sr.

Amante P. Marinas Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability. This article is just a resume. Damiens.rf 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green-storming

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

Advertisement for a non-notable book with 4 google hits. Damiens.rf 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, website does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the

relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

InterMat

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

I propose that this article be deleted, as it appears to be about a non-notable wrestling website. There are no reliable sources listed and any claims of notability appear to relate to associated people, not the website itself. If some sources could be listed, it would be a good start towards making this a good article. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is a notable website, I don't think it should have it's own article. RC-0722 247.5/1 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Because a population is uneducated on a particular sport does not mean you should just strike it from the annals of Wikipedia. This site has been a news resource for college, high school and Olympic wrestling for over 13 years. That's longer than Wikipedia has been on the net.
    • Also, I had this page "vandalized" by a rival web site. Had I not showed up and made the fix, would it have shown up in the recent changes? How much more content do I have to add to basically validate this page?

Oduwildman (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The web site does NOT rely on the Association. In fact, the media web site gets 10-15 times the traffic the association site does. You're telling me that a 13-year media web site (Which was independent prior to 2004) and has its news running on ESPN and the USA Today isn't worthy of a listing. I'm sorry I don't quite "grasp" your wikipedia relevance, but this site is relevant to thousands and thousands of people. I'm trying to keep building the listing to please you wiki people who obviously know ZERO about wrestling. Instead of being a pain in the butt, how about some tips on what else you people would want to see. Google InterMat Oduwildman (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out keep, you only get one "vote".
talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Alright guys, have your fun. If that's how it's set up, that's how it's set up. Oduwildman (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the 309

Like the 309 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability. not a single, not enough info. LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and yes, I am the creator of the page). This was one of my very first articles on Wikipedia and I can see how it is not very relevant. I believe we should still mention in Cash's main article or the page for
. . .talk) 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to

Otterathome (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List of The Amanda Show episodes

List of The Amanda Show episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no references Llamabr (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no convincing reason given to delete. While I don't think the show was particularly popular, it was a prime-time show that ran for 3 years on a major cable network and I see no reason not to have a list of episodes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Dragonfly

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

Wikipedia is

not a crystal ball. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 11:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe you wanna delete this Opera Dragonfly entry, BUT, this product is sure to be released. This product is documented by Opera developpers on several official blog. This entry will be created again, as soon as it will be released in the forthcoming days. (3 days from now on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.209.241 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus. This title, however, will be redirected as a [slightly] plausible search term for the parent. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sangamon's Principle

Sangamon's Principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete. Does not meet the notability requirement for fiction-related articles. In addition, includes much more information not directly related to either the subject of the article or the fictional work from which it is derived. Goes on to cite an irrelevant example of the principle not occurring in another of the author's works. This subject merits no more than a one-line mention in the Zodiac page. Juansmith (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Won a local competition - there's nothing else. Black Kite 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tejas Kumar

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

This appears to be little more than self-promotion. Sources seem to be little more than the person's own website and some local newspapers, etc. It is therefore in violation of the following notability guideline: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track access controller

Track access controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This article describes a role or job level at a specific company (London Underground). It is unsourced, and does not seem verifiable in this detail. As long as this company-internal role is unknown to the wider public (which the few Google hits do not seem to indicate), the topic fails

WP:N. Tagged with {{notability}} since June 07; PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep I strongly object to articles being put up for deletion WITHOUT prior discussion on the talk page. The only sin this article has committed is that it has failed to add any references. At the very least the content should be merged ... which again should have been discussed on the talk page.Olana North (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I suspect that sources could be found to write a decent article on the subject, a lot of the current content is very poor indeed. The sins go well beyond a simple lack of sources: there's a great deal of unattributed opinion, much of which seems designed to puff up the importance of the job. "The post of Track Access Controller is highly sought after...", "If you are ever stranded in the morning due to "overrunning of engineering work" you can be sure that a Track Access Controller somewhere is working hard to get the problem resolved for you", "Between them they have a wealth and breadth of knowledge that is the envy of other London Underground departments" and numerous other examples. Merging this sort of material is a bad idea... if it is kept it would need to be severely pruned if not cleaned up quickly. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [Comment] OK, so some of the wording is poor, granted, it is unlinked and barely categorised, but the 'main' sin remains the lack of sources. A little rewording could easily change this from unsourced POV to unsourced content (:o)): "T~ A~ C~ positions attract large numbers of applicants", "A T~A~C~ is responsible for managing engineering over-runs and minimising consequent delays.", "a T~A~C~ requires a knowledge of the entire Underground network", etc. However much pruning might be required, merging is greatly preferable to deleting, and the unpruned version gives other editors greater scope for filling in the detail appropriately. EdJogg (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the article twice, cleaned up what I could, and I still can't tell exactly what a Track access controller is. There were major
    WP:PEACOCK issues and I fixed some of them. It reads like a recruitment posting, not an encyclopedia article. If reliable sources can be found, this article can be recreated later, but as is, if I were to paraphrase the article, i would only be able to come up with "they work with the London Underground safety stuff, they much be really really really really really really really good." -Verdatum (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not tfl.gov.uk.
    talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Slash and Merge The text looks like a copyvio of a job posting, but the bare facts are mergeable with LU if true though. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but give it a decent wikify and copyedit. --AlisonW (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrape clean and start anew. We have a grand slam here - an orphaned, deadend, unreferenced article that, despite all the work performed on it since the opening of the AfD, still reads like a magazine article or the beginning of an editorial/opinion article. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this is surely a subject worth having an article about, although perhaps this article is not it right now. I'd like to see it improved, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing so, but the peacock wording seems largely gone...let's give it a chance.  Frank  |  talk  11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Travellingcari. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ZsinjTalk 05:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive acculturation

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

Original research. Failed prod - removed as first edit of user:Krowder . Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as non-notable fringe theory and probably original research. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GEM unification theory

GEM unification theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Parochial,

talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please read Wikpedia policy on WP:Notability before stating your opinion here: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Mere publication is not sufficient. And please sign your posts (simply insert four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~), so that we can keep track of who is saying what, especially in a discussion like this. Art Carlson (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See talk (there is more behind the person Brandenburg). —Preceding
    few or no other edits outside this topic. <-- Moved by Protonk (talk) in order to thread the comment properly so it doesn't come above the nomination. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete My concerns are less with the validity of the theory and more with notability and balance. Even a massively failed theory such as
    phlogiston can be notable for encyclopedic purposes, due to their significance in the scientific debate. Also, this article is not about Brandenburg the physicist, its about GEM the theory. Statements like 'B is a great guy and entertaining lecturer' or 'B is a crackpot' are completely irrelevant. No, the crux of the matter in my opinion is that this theory has received very little attention in journals - it's hard to find any material by anyone other than one man (doesn't matter who that one man is, just the fact that it's only one man). Also, the article doesn't show much critical comment, which I believe is mandatory for a non-mainstream theory. I couldn't find any critical comment on the web for the simple reason that hardly anyone is talking about it, other than a couple adherents. If this theory starts receiving more notice from the scientific community, positive or negative, I might change my mind. As it stands at present, though, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (I listed the few references I could find on the talk page. I only found a couple more references, which weren't significant.) Plvekamp (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Look up what "notable" means in Wikipedia:
WP:N. --Art Carlson (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Biophys, how does a theory being "about" something notable automatically make it notable? And do you believe that any theory which has a few papers by one author is automatically suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. The article has been substantially improved and eight references were added during the AfD. Well done. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quest (gaming)

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

Complete patent

original research. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year - AfD is not for general cleanup issues, but this article has serious verifiability problems. Chardish (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Stong Keep, per Someone. This is an EXTREMELY notable aspact of gaming. Clean up if nessesary --Armanalp (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You see original research, I just see a lack of references. This is a pretty notable topic. The article is in bad shape. But hopefully someone can at least begin to do the hard work of referencing this notable and important concept. Randomran (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's original research or unverified claims that potentially has too broad a scope unless proper sourcing is inforced. Potentially, anything you do in any game can be considered a quest. It can also be considered a goal, objective, mission, task, etc. The names for categories of quests appear to be a listing of unestablished
    neologisms. It would be very cool if a reliable source took it upon themselves to synthesize together all the information about the abstract concept of the quest in the realm of video games, but until I am shown evidence of it, I doubt such an effort exists. (Anyone wishing to find such a resource, I'd guess the best place to look would be textbooks on game design). -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment It's a thin line between original research and verifiable content that just hasn't been referenced yet. I don't think you can find much in this article that seems particularly controversial, biased, or untrue. The problem is the references. That doesn't really justify deletion. Not yet, anyway. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the material can be referenced, and mind you it has been tagged for cleanup and references since February 2007; over 14 months ago then I will happily withdraw my motion. I hope that all those who have !voted to keep have the same open mind. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has now been cleaned up, with OR removed and citations added. I'm working on adding further information to add more depth to the article, but I think your immediate concerns have been addressed and I'd ask you to reassess your decision in this light. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 08:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept of a quest is central to many games. Some of the article is probably original research, but there are some references given. I do think the article needs improvement in terms of references, but at this point, it doesn not merit deletion. Andareed (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm in the middle of sourcing some MMO gameplay articles and have a fair few reliabe, third party sources that could be used to demonstrate points in this article. These sources are mainly reviews, previews and so on where gameplay elements are critically discussed. If it would be of benefit, I'll move on to giving this article a spring clean after I'm done with the others, but I can provide some relevant sourcing in the meantime. Hope this helps. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why are so many people !voting keep on the basis of "notability" when notability isn't the reason this is being proposed for deletion? This article has serious problems; address the problems instead of using a straw man. - Chardish (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am cleaning up the article currently, adding further sourcing from strategy guides and review articles in order to assure editors unfamiliar with the terminology that these are commonly used terms and concepts in a wide variety of computer games, although I think the tabletop RPG community will probably see some parallels as well. Please feel free to review the work as it progreses. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Someoneanother.
    talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Gazimoff's recent additions, which do address the concerns of OR. --Izno (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The one remaining area of OR/Synthesis was actually the lead sentence and I've added a ref that seems to nail that one. I fully understand the nomination but the improvements made during the AFD (always a good outcome to an AFD) are sufficient. BlueValour (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is a valid topic for a list, all members of the list are now references. Davewild (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anglo-Indians

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

Completely unreferenced racial biology-based list. Rejected prod. Includes unreferenced assertions about the ethnicity of

living people. John (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I have to strongly disagree regarding sourcing concerns. Out of the first eleven, only three don't have clear, obvious sources pop up either on their articles or with a simple gsearch; I didn't even have to go into my subscription databases for these. And no, this isn't
    OTHERSTUFF. I'm not saying it should be kept because there are similar articles in existence. While that's certainly true, my point is that this would put a hole in our table of contents system covering people by their nationality/race. It doesn't seem particularly fair to cover some nationalities/races and not others; ipso facto, they're inherently equal. In fact, it seems quite the opposite. There's no issues of notability or verifiability with most of the contents. While you may not see the benefit in keeping is, I don't see the benefit in not keeping; it does no harm to BLP subjects (those whom sources can not be found for should be removed from the list and accompanying category, just like any other article), serves as a part of the navigational system and as a human-readable equivalent of the Anglo-Indian category, coalescing subjects based on their nationality/race. In short, this is an ideal LIST. Celarnor Talk to me 06:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I guess we'll just have to part ways, then. There are some print sources, too, judging by the local library's index; ("Under the Shadow of Man-Eaters: The Life and Legend of Jim Corbett of Kumaon", who apparently went on a hunting trip in India, has a chapter on what he terms the "Anglo-Indian exodus", in which he dedicates a few sentences to that particular subject's ethnicity). Celarnor Talk to me 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mehtab-ud-din

Mehtab-ud-din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google throws up nothing of note[43]. Non-notable journeyman journalist who showed up here to write an article about himself, violating

WP:V, WP:Single-purpose account, etc., etc., etc. This thing should've been speedied, but we can do it here with the same result. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Following no comment at all to delete, the nominator withdrew the nomination on the basis of the consensus formed, that achieving 2 blue ribbons is notable. Proposals to merge can be discussed at the article's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brumfield Elementary School

Brumfield Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

No assertion of notability; totally unreferenced. Given that elementary schools are as a rule of thumb non-notable, this means it probably isn't. If we keep this it should be moved to the page for the appropriate school district. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn. Two blue ribbons is sufficiently notable. That said, this might be better merged into the article on its school district if the only major detail available about the school is the two blue ribbons. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No,
WP:N must still be met. Both the proposal WP:SCHOOLS and consensus (neither of which is binding in any way) that elementary schools be merged and redirected to their districts. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it needn't. So-called "notability" is substantially undefined, meaningless, and totally irrelevant. Removing information is NEVER a good idea. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Saying must be met is a little too strong. WP:N is a helpful guideline for interpreting
Wikipedia content policies. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Kurt's opinions, to which he is entitled, are not shared by a large majority of Wikipedia users.
talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL. Black Kite 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Birds And The Bee Sides

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

    WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources/citations. —ScouterSig 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Okay, I am adding a link to the band's official site, will that be enough to keep it?RoryS89 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]


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


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

    The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Black Kite 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Nashville Tennis EP

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

      WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources/citations. —ScouterSig 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      I am adding a link to the band's official site.RoryS89 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Journey's End (song)

      Journey's End (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
      )

      This article has been tagged for notability concerns since last September. It appears to be about a piano piece, but contains no information about the composer of the song or any reason why it would be considered noteworthy. I suspect that it may be this piano piece by "BAUMGARTNE", which may be

      WP:MUSIC#Songs recommends that most articles for songs be turned into redirects to an appropriate artist or composer, but since this article doesn't indicate who that composer is we can't tell what the target of a redirect should be. And since there's clearly nobody interested in expanding the article into something useful, I'm nominating the page for deletion (a first for me). Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]


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

      The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to Keep. A merge may or may not be suitable, but that is for the talkpages of the relevant articles at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Kir Kanos

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

      This is just in-universe plot summary from the

      Crimson Empire comic series. More appropriate for Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 have read the argument from Eastmain which is not unreasonable, but it does not refute the fact that the list is at present an incomplete and unannotated list of bluelinked articles, duplicating a category exactly (apart from being incomplete). Since the consensus appears to be to delete this article, I cannot let that argument overrule it. Note that recreating an article which addresses the concerns given in this AFD will not run afoul of

      WP:CSD#G4 on recreations, and if anyone wants the content as a basis for further work just ping me or another admin and it will be provided to you in some form. (If you request it from another admin, just point them to this AFD.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      List of railway stations managed by Southern

      List of railway stations managed by Southern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested

      WP:PROD. This list is not particulary informative, and the topic would be better served by a category. Now that we have Category:Railway stations served by Southern, which performs a very similar, although not identical role, this would appear to have been achieved and therefore this page can go. (That the list is incomplete is not a reason for deletion in itself: it would be a straightforward but dull task to complete it.) RFBailey (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      • Delete. The list of railway stations served by Southern will include all of those that it manages. This list id therefore redundant. Duplication adds to the workload of the project and leads to them being out of synch with each other. Furthermore, lists need to be compliant with
        WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Categories are preferred to lists. Olana North (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Well, I figured I'd just go ahead and create the category and add everything on the list to it. This resulted in someone leaving me a note on my talk page suggesting that I stop doing what I was doing and discuss it on
        WT:RAIL. Klausness (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Aurofinian School, The

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

      A literary movement whose only evidence of existence is in Wiki mirrors. I don't think so. Most prominent author of the movement known only by a screen name. Doubly so. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Literary scenes that don't have books written about them are not scenes, and scenes happen because a number of the participants become famous. In this case, no references and no fame = hoax. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Boldly redirected to Supergrass Is 10. This was a case of duplicate articles with the same content. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Supergrass is 10

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

      There is another article with the same name except the title has a capital I for the Is part of the title TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Jeff Benjamin

      Is the author of Juvenile Injustice The Chicago Story ;Published in 2003, the book is based on the murder of Ryan Harris. "The 1998 case captured national headlines as the two boys became the youngest children in the nation ever formally accused of murder". Ryan Harris an 11-year-old African American girl was brutally raped and murdered on the south side of Chicago in the summer of 1998. Two young boys seven and eight were held and charged with her murder, making them the youngest accused murders in the history of the United States. The book gathered national attention and quickly became a source for researchers in that genre.The Ryan Harris murder and the story subsequently changed the Laws governing the detention of minors in 2004. Mr. Benjamin is also an official candidate for the City Of Miami Mayoral Elections November 2013. Jeff Benjamin is also television analyst, who has appeared on Court TV, MSNBC ,CBS and a variety of local networks. Jeff Benjamin was born on the Caribbean Island of Trinidad. His mother was a Grenadian citizen who migrated to the United States in the early sixties. His father's family are Russian Jews who migrated to the United States in the early 1900's. Mr. Benjamin also possesses a P.H.D in Neuro EEG and recently finished writing; Love & Cholera a book based on the Haitian Earthquake in 2010 Juvenile injustice : the Chicago story / by Jeff Benjamin. Is available at most Public Libraries http://www.chipublib.org/search/details/cn/1974610?branch=93 Author: Benjamin, Jeff. Publisher: Bloomington, IN : 1stBooks Library, c2004. ISBN: 1414021860 (acid-free paper) : Description: vi, 349 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Subject: Murder Illinois Chicago. Homicide Illinois Chicago. Murder victims Illinois Chicago. Trials (Murder) Illinois Chicago. Trial transcripts Illinois Chicago. Notes: "Based on the true story."--Back of jacket.

      More information on this candidate can be found at:

      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jeff-Benjamin-For-Mayor-City-Of-Miami/140607496034643?ref=stream www.jeffbenjaminformayor.com

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

      The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Thomas Salisbury (married Frances Webb)

      Thomas Salisbury (married Frances Webb) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Thomas Salisbury seems unnotable in his own right. Evident by the title, the only thing he is notable for is marrying Frances Webb. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions could not take his status as "Obie Yadgar" into account, for which Novickas has added references. Would probably have yielded a "keep" consensus after a relisting. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Obelit Yadgar

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

      Writer who has paid to have books printed through notorious vanity press AuthorHouse. Both titles completely fail

      WP:BK. Google throws up nothing of consequence, significance, notability, or even general interest. Qworty (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Comment has books, are any of the books notable? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
      talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      No, they aren't. They're "published" by a vanity press, which by definition will publish virtually anything for a small fee. See vanity press, and specifically AuthorHouse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete --JForget 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Affinity Technique

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

      A group problem solving technique. No references to help us judge its notability. Difficult to judge from a Google search for "affinity technique" because many of the hits relate to affinity chromatography. Also written as an how-to guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I disagree the top book seems to be fully in keeping with the article. ::Fundamentals of Total Quality Management: Process Analysis and Improvement - Page 139 by Jens J. Dahlgaard, Kai Kristensen, Ghopal K. Khanji - Business & Economics - 2005 - 372 pages
      'One of the exercises that the groups did was to use the affinity technique (after
      proper introduction to the technique) to define and group elements that ...'
      talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]


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

      The result was a tie between "merge" and "delete", so technically no consensus to delete. As there's consensus that this should not currently be a separate article, I'm merging the first section only to

      WP:V, anyone may then delete the merged content from TheForce.Net if no sources are provided. Sandstein (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Star Wars Technical Commentaries

      AfDs for this article:
      Star Wars Technical Commentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
      )

      No discernible progress to substantiate claims or establish notability since last AfD. One suggested merge destination --

      WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Well, there's plenty of good information on WP that is not referenced. If there's indeed nothing useful to merge, why not make it into a redirect?--Berig (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Within an article on a notable topic, it is possible to use self-published material. It should not be done for superlative or comparative claims, but there's no reason this can't be mentioned in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 provided news source from Newsnet10 doesn't establish notability for the subject, and the news source from accessmylibrary doesn't appear to contain anything either. The lack of proven notability, plus the consensus determined from this discussion has lead me to close this as delete. Malinaccier (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      ConQuest SAC

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

      Non-notable convention, no claims of notability, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornixtalk 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:NOT#NEWS Udonknome (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      In order to combat false argumentation on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the source is good or not, the response by Udonknome is completely irrelevant. User:Krator (t c) 10:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_28&oldid=1081102733"