Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 3 November 5 >

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 keep. MBisanz talk 10:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka Dunin

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

Non notable wikipedian, COI interests but her lack of notability is what is compelling here . Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • She's notable per WP:GNG. A sufficient number of sources cover her in connection with the two cryptanalysis efforts for Kryptos and Cyrillic Projector, so it's not WP:BIO1E either. Some coverage was trivial like the one-quote mention in a CNN article, which I removed (because it just said she ran a web forum dedicated to one of the problems), but there's enough non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press: NYT, wired.com and some lesser newspapers. You'd expect that two significant efforts in cryptanalysis would be covered by some more specialized press, which would allow a higher quality article (on the two projects and her contribution), but the sources, although somewhat sensationalist, and perhaps not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic, are sufficient by Wikipedia standards. Her crypto exercises book (2 editions with slightly different titles) appears be held at some libraries, but not at academic ones, so it's fair to say that it targets amateur cryptographers. She's no Bruce Schneier, (compare with his applied crypto book), but it does add something to her notability. I don't have an opinion on her executive career in the game industry; it seems sourced mainly from primary sources, and frankly I think detracts from the readability of the article by cluttering it with various dry lists. YMMV. VG ☎ 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) This is a copy & paste of what I've previously posted on the article talk page on this issue.[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unquestionably meets GNG. I do not understand why this is being nominated for deletion rather than cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion after I cleaned it up today (thoroughly familiarizing myself with the content while doing so). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it weren't the fact that the person in question wasn't a high editcount admin, this would be a clear cut case of failure due to WP:BIO. However I can see that it's just going to be a personality vote unfortunately :-( Shot info (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Factual error - article was last concluded as "keep" in a well-attended July 2006 AFD. Elonka was a non-admin and neither her non-existant adminship nor her edit count played any part in that AFD. Rather than bad-faith assumption that any keep would be due to people taking a stance based on adminship of the user, it would be better to discuss the actual evidence as it relates to notability (or otherwise) and WP:BIO. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kryptos or a similar article on amateur cryprography, where Dunin's main claim to fame rests. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but a possibly comparable case is that of Alex Selby, who shared the million pound prize with Oliver Riordan for cracking the "insoluble" Eternity puzzle. He subsequently became a developer of Eternity II and is mentioned only in those articles; he has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Cambridge. I think press coverage for Selby and Riordan was quite extensive at the time (neither Selby nor Riordan are publicity seekers, unlike the creator of Eternity). Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references in article establish notability straightforwardly per WP:N. No reason to make a naval-gasing exception to the usual rule here. WilyD 14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No convincing rationale provided for deletion - notability satisfied on its face, as has been addressed in prior deletion discussions. Avruch T 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To me the Kryptos / Cyrillic projector are close enough to a single event. Otherwise a couple of puzzle books and working at a game company are far from notable. If not merge, examine James_Sanborn for a more suitable weight. In its current state the article is a vanity piece by someone with lots of friends on Wikipedia who will knee-jerk keep it.Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the article on James Sanborn is lacking in depth or detail is not an argument to cut another article down or merge or eliminate it. see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you're making a variant of that argument in that part of your statement. (By the way I know binary by heart too :) ) No comment at this time on whether keep, merge, or delete is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the "merge to article on XYZ because she's only famous in connection with that". Wikipedia ≠ Britannica. Britannica would probably cover Dunin in an article on those puzzles, and would likely combine them in a single article since they're both designed by the artist James Sanborn, which ironically has stub-level article in Wikipedia. This is a hypothetical discussion, since Britannica doesn't have an article on any of this stuff. It's unfortunate that people with Ph.D.'s that won million pound prizes are less covered in Wikipedia that Elonka Dunin is, but on the other hand people like Ashley Todd have an article in Wikipedia, and it's hard to imagine a less meritorious individual. Wikipedia doesn't judge the merits of most individuals for the purpose of including them; it only judges the amount of "paper trail" if you like. There are some exceptions like WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:MUSICBIO, but sufficient press coverage guarantees inclusion via WP:GNG. Like it or not, Dunin is involved in some endeavors that captured the public imagination, which in turn generated press coverage, which suffices for WP:GNG. Frankly for cryptography-related discussions none of the mainstream newspapers, or NPR, or even PBS NOVA are reliable sources. Some of the comments made local newspapers were downright hilarious, e.g. "She knew binary - the language of computers - by heart." But that's probably why those articles focused on the human aspect of these endeavors, e.g. the NYT article reads more like a movies script than math/science reporting; call it a dramatization if you will. But the bottom line is that she is covered in some detail, so WP:GNG is satisfied. VG ☎ 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry, disagree completely with nominator. Dunin is notable; her status on Wikipedia, or her edit count there have no relevance whatsoever in any discussion about her article. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disagree with nominator. Subject is definitely notable enough for inclusion per WP:N. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - probably not the most encyclopaedic subject, but there is some coverage in secondary sources, hence we should keep the article. Novidmarana (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently notable as an author by our normal standards. that subject is also active at Wikipedia should be irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, even though I !voted keep, she's not notable as an author: her book has practically no reviews (only two by customers on Amazon), and it is held two dozen U.S. public libraries, but not by academic ones. The white papers chapters she co-authored with other IGDA SIG memebers don't seem to have any notoriety (citations etc.) VG ☎ 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I and Elonka do not have issues I suggest you do indeed assume good faith. It appears our standards are deteriorating if so many people honestly believe this unnotable amateur cryptographer passes WP:N, shameful given that so many much more notable individuals (esp in the non-English speaking 3rd world, which is most of us) are not covered. The alleged sources are no proof whatsoever that this person is notable, and this indicates slipping standards. IMO the fact that she is a wikipeedia editor is clearly relevant and this afd is the proof of this, and I am not the first to pointy this out. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only evidence I see of our standards deteriorating is our continued addition of pop culture references where they do not belong. This one is just fine. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well she has about as much notability as an amateur pop star. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disconnect here is that (speaking for myself) the quantity and quality of RS's cited make up for any perceived lack of depth in coverage. I reviewed the cited sources and simply don't see a GNG issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 6 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew "Squirrel" Roberts

edit
AfDs for this article:
Andrew "Squirrel" Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A musician of very dubious notability. No sources provided, and I can't find any beyond his own website and a few Myspace hits. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Borders on being an A7 speedy candidate but as it kind of claims notability I've brought it here. ~ mazca t|c 23:45, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Media Group

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

See rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Phoenix (producer). Cirt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Evans

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

I declined to speedy this because this stub is one big claim to notability: multiple leading roles in a notable theathre company. I cleaned up the formatting, but none of my searches turned up anything about this person. Delete unless someone can find sources I can't. Mgm|(talk) 22:42, 4 November 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  16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mijail Lamas

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

Unencyclopedic NN subject as per WP:CREATIVE. Major contributor removed tags from article. Possible COI as its main contributions on Wikipedia are solely based on the subject even on the Spanish Wikipedia. Loukinho (talk) 22:20, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mark

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

Non notable musician fails WP:BAND no reliable sources and using notable acts that he is supposed to have appeared on stage with to confer notability BigDuncTalk 22:01, 4 November 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Susco

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

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:57, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle football league

edit
Bottle football league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Annoyingly this claims coverage on Fox News so it possibly asserts notability (although google fails to substantiate this). WP:OR per WP:MADEUP. Ros0709 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'reference' for the Fox news coverage is just a link to the Fox mainpage (I could do that and claim Fox coverage for invaders from Mars). I've already speedy deleted this once and I would do it again. speedy delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google "bottle football" and the school name turns up only this article [3]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NFT. I won't argue that the topic itself is a hoax, but the sources definitely look like they are. MuZemike (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to enter this discussion, but I feel I need to point out I see this in a lot of good-faith contributions. People who think they need links provide links to the main page of some related publication's website without actually providing necessary details. In this case it could have happened that they saw it on TV and ended up citing the website. Just sayin'. - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing to prove the bizarre assertion that Fox News, for some reason, would have featured a story on kids throwing a half-filled (and thus fair and balanced) water bottle back and forth. The school's website certainly doesn't mention either a visit from Fox News or the game itself [4]. Even if it turns out that it was mentioned on Fox, it's still not notable. Mandsford (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as ILIKEIT... it doesn't make the cut. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 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.  Sandstein  16:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraline

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

Second nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fraline for the old AFD discussion. Not notable as there does not seem to be any signifant coverage in secondary sources. Google news returns 30 hits for Fraline, all of them neither related to the project or press releases by the project. Searching local newspapers, i.e. Frankfurter Rundschau, Frankfurter Neue Presse and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung returns zero hits at the Frankfurter Allgemeine, Frankfurter Neue Presse and one hit at the Rundschau. But even the Rundschau mentions Fraline only in passing as the article is about the institutions in general and only mentions that Fraline is one of their projects, effectively one sentence only ("Besondere Unterstützung an der Hochschule erhalten zudem das Computer-Projekt Fraline, an dem auch die Frankfurter Schulen beteiligt sind, und eine Studie über Materialwissenschaften."). Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no secondary sources that establish notability, and I couldn't care less whether the last afd was a day or a year ago. Articles about non-notable subjects (and that sound more like an advertisement) should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and building an encyclopaedia is what we should be here for. Novidmarana (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC) User:Novidmarana is a sockpuppet of User:BlueSalo. For further details, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo[reply]
  • Comment Let's remember the earlier close was no-consensus. If it had been a keep, then this nomination would indeed be disruptive. But it wasn't, and it isn't. It was merely ill-judged. After a nonconsensus, unless something additional should be discovered, it is usually wise to wait a month or so before the next one, as this increases the likelihood of actually settling the matter one way or another. DGG (talk) 01:36, 6 November 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. StarM 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reign Supreme

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

Non-notable unreleased album. Well-referenced but not nothing shows notability—online CD stores, ASCAP, one of the group members' website. There is one review from a college newspaper, as far as that goes. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:22, 4 November 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 G12 by MacGyverMagic. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit
CityLink Telecommunications Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Significant copy of :- http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=52697 

Paste (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already tagged for speedy deletion. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 21:15, 4 November 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. There seems to be a fairly substantial consensus to keep this article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google platform

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

This article attempts to describe non-public information about the inner workings of a technology company. Although Google is obviously notable, internal information about the company's workings is not encyclopedic. Relevant information can be merged into the main Google article or a History of Google article, but as it stands this article does not meet WP:V or WP:NPOV.

  • The main problems can be summed up by the article's own introduction: This article describes the technological infrastructure behind Google's websites, as presented in the company's public announcements. As such, it has inherent WP:NPOV problems.
  • Because the article purports to describe internal knowledge about Google's operation, it cannot satisfy WP:V because that information cannot be verified by external sources. Many of the references are from Google's own public information, either first hand or second hand.
  • Those references which aren't directly or indirectly from Google are press reports describing Google building new facilities. While that can be verified, the lion's share of the information in these article cannot be. (Except, perhaps to say that large datacenters take a lot of power, which isn't unusual.)

While I love Google as much as the next guy, I don't believe that this article merits inclusion as it stands.JRP (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this article describes the operation of possibly the most important website in history. We have articles describing the internal operation of cars, microprocessors, chemical engineering plants, and so on. I think the article should be renamed to something like Google service delivery and rewritten a bit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cars, microprocessors, and engineering plants can (to a greater or lesser extent) be independently confirmed. A mechanic can look under the hood. Processors have been reimplemented by multiple, independent companies. Engineering plants similarly exist in many places from many companies and the process of designing one is well-known. However, this article is not on a cloned microprocessor or a common chemical engineering plant design but ONE specific platform for ONE specific company which has not been reimplemented, re-engineered, or independently evaluated. Without that, we can't possibly satisfy WP:V and we are at best left with trusting that their public communication is accurate or at worst dealing with press speculation. I'm not saying that there can't be an article, only that this article as it stands doesn't meet the bar for inclusion. JRP (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far as notability is concerned, I stand my ground. As to verifiability, I want the article to be sourced, as all articles should be. I like the example given below of North Korea's nuclear program. It is entirely acceptable for wikipedia to piece together information from what is publicly known, even though the subject is kept secret by the authority that owns that secret, and even though the information that is publicly known might be incomplete or just plain wrong. Google's shareholder reports should be accurate, since Google is bound morally and legally to report truthfully to its shareholders. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The inner workings of the most notable website is quite notable. The contents of this article definitely warrant inclusion in WP. The discussion of a possible rename should not be done here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are mis-using "notable" for a subjective evaluation of how important you consider something. Notability is not fame nor importance.

      And you haven't addressed at all the central challenge in the nomination, which is that Wikipedia editors piecing together the internal workings of a company by extrapolating what the company says in its public announcements, is a novel synthesis of sources, prohibited by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please counter that. (Hint: A brief search for books reveals that countering it will be relatively easy.) Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Even if we define notability by the existence of reliable secondary independent sources, Google could still be reasonably claimed to the most notable website.

        But you're right about the rationale - I haven't dealt with the central argument posed by the nominator. I'll just counter by saying that any OR should be removed (and the rest of the article shouldn't be punished). We don't delete articles about notable subjects simply because they're currently full of OR. Looking at the reflist and a quick search reveal several sources (I haven't checked for reliability, though) explaining Google's technology. If there isn't enough public information then that's another issue. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • My argument is that there is insufficient verifiable public information to make this article currently and what public information there is is tainted because it only comes from the source itself. That's not a solid foundation for a Google article. Imagine if we had an article about the internals of Microsoft Windows that only sourced Microsoft technotes and press reports? That wouldn't be good. In the MS case, we can crack open the hood (and many have) with tools and see how things actually do work. In the Google case, their datacenters are literally under lock and key. They don't allow the press inside almost any of them. There is no way to independently verify any of the information presented. JRP (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find it hard to believe that any information about google's infrastructure can only be found in their own publications. Also, for simple facts, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources (we can report on a company's balance sheet using its financial statements without violating WP:NOR). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Different reporters have visited Google and talked to them. Usually these reporters' findings are published in reliable sources. In some cases, Google would not tell them everything they wished to know, but if that happens, we can note it in our summary. I'd change the second sentence of the article to This article describes what is publicly known about the technological infrastructure behind Google's websites. Large companies don't tend to be 100% transparent, so there is no reason to single out Google for special skepticism. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Findings published in reliable sources are only as good as their primary sources. (As folks following, for example, war reporting know.) In this case, as you acknowledge, all primary sources are the company itself. That's putting a lot of trust in them and makes those sources not be verifiable. There are verifiable sources in this article-- I cite the several press reports about their datacenters which can be independently confirmed-- but the largest portion of this is speculation and based on Google press information. Not a good basis for an article. JRP (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I question whether a statement like Findings published in reliable sources are only as good as their primary sources can be found among our policies. Do you mean that Wikipedia should not have articles about secretive companies or organizations? We *do* have an article on the North Korean nuclear program. I have added a mention of Randall Stross's 2008 book, Planet Google, to the article. If you find that the article still contains undue speculation, you should say more about that on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Here's another quote from the article: In a 2008 book, the reporter Randall Stross wrote: "..Google's executives have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep the company's hardware hidden from view. The facilities are not open to tours, not even to members of the press." He wrote this based on his own experience of visiting the company and interviewing staff members. If this is true, then this article cannot pass WP:V. JRP (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the quote I just added. I'm still waiting for you to nominate our article on North Korea's nuclear program for deletion :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! No, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction is a well-researched article which deals in large part with the speculation itself, rather than being the result of the speculation. (And the speculation is sourced, so at least that the source said blah is verifiable.) That and the spies in N. Korea leak to the press. :) JRP (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding WP:NPOV. You are confusing two things - one is that there is only one point of view in the article (Google's), and the other if each point of view is sourced. Having only one significant point of view doesn't contradict WP:NPOV in any way, and this point of view is sourced, so it's verifiable (for example, it's verifiable that Google says it uses BigTable, not that they really do). Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Synthesized essay on the inner working of Google? Unencylcopedic, inappropriate and not a concise "topic" - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If this is "non-public information" then why is this subject extensively and comprehensively discussed in John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson's Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, Third Edition? Am I one of the elite few who have access to this book? I find this AfD to be ridiculous. We should be going after Pokemon, not notable academic subjects such as this. Rilak (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability well established, nom is otherwise outright wrong. WilyD 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously my hint above wasn't strong enough. I've cited some of the books for you. The References and Further reading sections of the article speak for themselves. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 5 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Corker

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

Utterly non-notable solicitor. "Major claim to fame" is some mistake in his "on-line bio". So what. Camillus 20:45, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street kingz

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

Rap group that appears to have only gotten press due to its members' drug-dealing arrests. Notable neither as musicians nor as drug dealers. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I accept the consensus. Let's push the button. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:MUSICBIO - no multiple, non trivial WP:RS relating to the band, charted once at #88, not certified gold, no tour, albums not released on major label, musicians not notable individually, not prominent representative of a notable style, no music awards, haven't won a music competition, no performed music for notable film, not on a major radio network, not been the subject of a national TV or radio broadcast. Ergo, not notable as #88 is insignificant and all other criteria fail. IMO. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:20, 7 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Xiao-Min

edit
Feng Xiao-Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was clearly created by the non-notable subject themselves. (COI and CSD:A7) The COI Is obvious. It has lacked, at any time in it's life, any assertions to the notability of the subject. ~Pip 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:19, 4 November 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  16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne nightclubs of the 80s and 90s

edit
Melbourne nightclubs of the 80s and 90s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unmanageable list, no sources, probably listcruft. Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 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. Mr.Z-man 23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profit Point, Inc.

edit
Profit Point, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, persistently unreferenced, CoI, and reads like an ad. —SlamDiego←T 20:11, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Snow

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly seems below notability standards. There are no extensive sources which discuss (rather than merely name) the subject... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 4 November 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect rhyme

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

This article is the perfect example of a violation of WP:DICTDEF. The article does not go beyond defining what a "perfect rhyme" is, and the only references for the article are dictionary entries. I see no possibility for expanding the article past the dictionary definition that it is. It has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, but a proposed deletion attempt was previously overturned. -- Atamachat 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Atamachat 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the nominator said, it's just a dictionary definition without any potential for being expanded beyond that. Reyk YO! 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only because I think it can be expanded to show examples of usage, including poets who use it exclusively, or to contrast against other types of poetry and methods. You can get into usage in nursery rhymes, etc. It isn't just a single line def even now, and gives examples. When was it first used? How often is it used now? etc. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If that is the case then I'd be all for keeping the article. However, "showing examples of usage" isn't any more than a dictionary does. Showing poets who use it exclusively seems trivial, unless there's some notable reason why they do so (if it was a controversial thing to do, or spawned a genre of poetry, although an article on that genre might be more appropriate). As far as "other types of poetry and methods", my understanding is that this isn't a "type of poetry" at all, but rather just a type of rhyme. If we wanted to have an article comparing kinds of rhymes, there already is one. And yes, it isn't just a single line definition now, but neither are dictionary definitions. It's not that I'm opposed to the article if it can be expanded, I just don't think this subject can. -- Atamachat 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say move to Wiktionary, but it already has an article there... notably, the page's only sources are dictionaries themselves! Until there's significantly more to add on the subject (I can't claim that I'm an expert on the matter) I say delete, since I can't really find anything else of note to add. I don't really think that more examples is sufficient. However, if something else to add to the page came up, I'd be more than willing to switch. Firebat08 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sensing that what Pharmboy meant in describing being able to "show examples of usage" is to show why perfect rhyme is used by writers; the article already shows examples of how perfect rhyme works. As to why it is used, it's a rather frequent requirement for popular music, where an unlikely rhyme can be the lyrical equivalent of a sour note. There are plenty of sources that can be used to expand beyond a dictionary definition, including such usages as in songwriting [5]. The concept requires some more explanation, and I think that can be easily done from verifiable sources. Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for wording it better. I am better at visualisation than expression, obviously. There are other applications that can be explained here, and in the end I can see a very nice article. Early rap/hip hop used perfect rhyme more than modern, advertising jingles use it because it is easy to remember, etc. There are a lot of different directions you can go with this and be informative. But that is a matter of discussion within the article talk. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Like I said before, if there's SOMETHING of real substance that can expand this beyond a dictionary definition I'd be all for it. Is there a chance any of you can expand the article a bit to show any of this stuff, not that I'm doubting you but it's one thing to say an article that's been a dicdef for a year and a half can be expanded, and another to do it. I'd even be willing to help with the expansion if I knew what material there was to add. -- Atamachat 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can start by finding literary critics discussing why modern poets and popular song writers don't use perfect rhymes. Begin by reading chapter 4 of ISBN 9780793511815, and then go to look for some more sources yourself. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more a stub than a dicdef; patently absurd to suggest there's no possibility for expansion. WilyD 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Have you looked at the Wiktionary article for "perfect rhyme"?[6] It's almost indistinguishable from this article, or at least the way the article looked at the posting of this AfD. As it stands now, it is a dictionary definition, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. -- Atamachat 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes, this is long, but I have been doing some homework on the applicable policies, and would rather just spell it out one time. I think you may be reading the guidelines too narrowly, and misinterpreting the intent. Lets look at the actual policies at hand. At least two of us are confident that it can be expanded (even if we aren't the experts to do so). My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it. I don't question the faith of the nom in the least, it is just that others here may have more imagination when it comes to the potential for the article here. That it hasn't been expanded really isn't a strong argument to delete, via WP:NOEFFORT. If the consensus thinks there is no hope to ever expand, that still doesn't mean it fails WP:DICDEF automatically. DICDEF says a couple of important things that apply, including All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles. which I take to mean that if the article COULDN'T be expanded, then it should be merged into something else, and yes, single fact articles shouldn't be kept if they can't be expanded. I am arguing it can. Even so, DICDEF almost contradicts itself later when it says This does not mean that stubs that have no possibility for expansion should be copied to Wiktionary. They are still encyclopedia articles, not dictionary articles. so even if it WAS a single use, that doesn't automatically qualify it as a WP:DICDEF to be deleted or transwiki'ed (already there), and there may be circumstances where a short article with a single use is valid. It seems to boil down to two basic issue, and a YES to either one says we have to keep:
        1. Is there any possibility of expanding? (note, the standard is possibility, not probability)
        2. Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with the information, or without? (DICDEF exception and IAR)
        • With this in mind, I can't help but to think a keep is the only logical conclusion for both instances. It can be expanded and plenty of examples have been given. Even if it couldn't, it improves Wikipedia (WP:DICDEF and IAR exceptions). Even if there weren't examples, DICDEF doesn't say it *must* be deleted anyway, and allows for single use articles. No other issues were raised in this AFD. It is notable, it can be sourced, it is just a stub at this time, we have no deadline to fix it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - You stated, "My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it." If you read AfD again, notice that it is for discussion of whether an article should be deleted or not. Among the valid deletion criteria are articles not suitable for an encyclopedia, and it links the WP:NOT policy. On WP:NOT, you will see among the various examples WP:NOTDICDEF (it's almost the first example). This article appears to me (and others as you can see) to be a violation of the WP:NOT policy, and so it's very appropriate to bring to AfD to discuss whether it should be deleted or not. -- Atamachat 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Avoiding a circular argument I never doubted your sincerity or the good faith in nominating the article. My point is that now it has been made clear that there are several valid justifications to expand the article that you might not have thought of when you first brought it to AFD. I completely understand how this might not be obvious at first glance. It isn't about being wrong or right, it is about understanding that sometimes, a whole group of people come up good ideas and reasons that we might not have though of by ourselves. The purpose of the guidelines isn't to make it easy to delete articles, it is to offer guidance on what and how to keep them. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - That's good, and I'm convinced based on the arguments given that the article is justified in being kept. That's what the purpose of an AfD is, to come to a consensus and I believe now that the article can be expanded. I'm a bit surprised and dismayed about editors (not yourself) who have used this AfD as an opportunity to attack the DICDEF guideline and question my nomination of this article. -- Atamachat 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article cannot ever expand beyond its currect dictdef state. This article is unencyclopedic and already exists on wiktionary. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An immense amount of literature is available dealing with this and with other details of literary writing. There is more to say than the mere definition: there is the possibilities of not just examples of the use in different languages and different periods and of discussion of these examples; there is the discussion of it in the thousands of handbooks and didactic and critical works; there is the varying use of it in different periods and literatures and individual authors. I find it amazing that people should say of any subject at all that it cannot be expanded DGG (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Then why do we even have a WP:DICDEF guideline, or at least why does the guideline discuss unexpandable subjects? Saying that it's "amazing" that someone thinks a subject can't be expanded is a lack of imagination. I'll give you an example, "pinky fingernail". It's definitely a notable subject, almost everyone has one. Yet does it deserve its own article, is there enough to say about a "pinky fingernail" that's encyclopedic? Of course not. In any case, I don't think an AfD page is a place to debate the merits of a guideline, we're here to discuss the merits of this article. -- Atamachat 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears to be a traditional literary topic for which lots of sources could be found in academic literature. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably merge to Rhyme where most of the information already seems to be covered. If there is significant scope to expand the article (which from this discussion I think is debatable) then a separate article can be split off. Whilst I think the current article is not just a dictionary definition until there is additional information to present there is no need to send readers off to a separate article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 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 (G12) by Uncle G as a copy-and-paste of copyrighted material from a web page. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health impact fund

edit
Health impact fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 19:43, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity Manifest Destiny

edit
Humanity Manifest Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:OR and WP:V, among others. PROD removed (quite properly) by author, saying "Using my rights as Author I remove the PROD because this is a genuine proposal to make part of universal knowledge, I invite the comunity to keep developing this topic". Sorry, but developing original ideas is not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although I may regret it, the topic itself is actually notable. The idea that we can make treaties about how to colonize Mars (like we freaking "own" outerspace) is worthy of an article. The existing stub isn't it, and I am not sure if the title is the exact title it should have, but as it is, as a stub, the topic and current content is ok, just not sourced yet. I am hoping it doesn't turn into a big original research project, like some other articles (cough cough) but as it is today, I can't see why to delete. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • Please note: the talk page for the article shows the desire for a different direction. At this time, the article doesn't have that direction, hense why I have to keep. If this changes, then my !vote would. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before nominating, I did have a look for possible sources, but I could only find a few blogs in which the idea of Manifest Destiny was taken beyond the purely terrestrial. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 4 November 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 close. I reinstated the redirect and protected the page to stop recreation until the album exists. - Mgm|(talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus (album)

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little substantial media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prior AFD was aborted just an hour after take-off. Attempts to redirect to the artist's page have been reverted without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:34, 4 November 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 Hayden Panettiere. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Panettiere filmography

edit
Hayden Panettiere filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure why this page was created to begin with. The main Hayden Panettiere article has a filmography, which has now been updated with tabling and any omitted major appearances. After this page was created, with a tabled filmography, someone came in, tagged it for merger, and then removed the tabled filmography and pasted in the IMDB filmography, nearly as is. This page is redundant to material in the main article and its existence really is unnecessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:14, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Deanna

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

unsourced, although there is an assertion of notability, I am unable to verify it, as I cannot find coverage in reliable sources. —Snigbrook 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Google has nearly 2 million hits but as you say none of them seem to be from any reliable sources. Someone needs to re-write the article citing some independent sources otherwise it will have to be deleted. However i would argue against deletion straight away because of the abundense of material avaliable (although i can't be bothered to read through it all and pick out the important ones. ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 19:09, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Cruise

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

Contested PROD. Only reasons for notability seem to be inherited or an upcoming film which may or may not be successful. Let's wait for some documented notability please, and FWIW, this is an article about a minor. Rodhullandemu 18:51, 4 November 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 speedied. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Baldwin

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Unreferenced. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was already tagged for speedy. AFD is not necessary under these circumstances unless the speedy tag is disputed or the article is subsequently recreated after being speedied. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 November 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 G11 by Dlohcierekim. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haywards london

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

Written like an advertisement. Non-notable company. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:44, 4 November 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 "keep" arguments, which center on notability and general interest, mostly fail to address the WP:SYNTH issues that are raised in the nomination.  Sandstein  16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election

edit
AfDs for this article:
Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article and it's two sub articles are a synthesis of hand picked poll results from across the nation with various methods used to "prove" someone the winner. The concept of straw polls is notable, and the the effects that straw polls have had on the election is probably notable, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that groups a bunch of straw polls together like this. There is also some obvious WP:COATRACKing going on from supporters of various political candidates as evidenced from the references linked directly to campaign-related websites. Burzmali (talk) 17:38, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Earth Time

edit
Cooperative Earth Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a lot of original research to me. 8 GHits. DCEdwards1966 17:37, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a G

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

Non-notable, non-charting single with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:03, 4 November 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, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Spirits (2011 film)

edit
House of the Spirits (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a movie that MIGHT be released in 2010 or 2011 and MIGHT involve some notable actors (or might not). Violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:00, 4 November 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 13:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Wu

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

Non-notable martial artist, seems to have been created to back up Flying Rainbow Fan, contested WP:PROD the 'Offers private instruction' reads like an advert Nate1481 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.valleymartialarts.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=169_185&products_id=1364
  2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Tai-Chi-Single-Fan-Martial/dp/1889659169
  3. ^ http://www.martialartsmart.net/vidtaichidou.html
  4. ^ http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=84
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FutureSex/LoveSounds. MBisanz talk 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Me Up

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

Completely unsourced, no chart positions, no music video, no commentary. — Realist2 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still a notable song. Reliable resources can still be found. Does not fail WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? There are no sources given to prove that, very week argument. — Realist2 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:46, 4 November 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 Les Légions Noires. There is no sourced content to merge but anyone can use the history as they like. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Murder

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; band released two demos in the mid-90s and nothing else; no significant third party sources, which is unsurprising as members of the LLN refused to give interviews and the like. Basically unsalvageable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 4 November 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redskin rule

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

This is pure original research about something not notable Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 4 November 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. Mr.Z-man 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Young (producer)

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

Not notable. Please don't confuse this with Christopher Young, who *is* notable when you are searching to verify. Young Films, his company was deleted via AFD two weeks ago, and is up for speedy now. was speedy deleted. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is notability secured? Through an IMBD external reference? Through BBC news pages? (seenews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7025599.stm) User:Rhianna84 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reply That is too complicated to put in one or two sentences. Here are the guidelines for notability and reliable sources and verification. The notability guideline has several sub guidelines, and one should apply. IMDB, blogs, user input sites, encyclopedias can not be use to verify. They can often be added as "informative" but they prove nothing because they are not authoritive and vetted. These are the same guidelines we are saying the article should be deleted under, so it would be helpful if you read and understand them, as they are the backbone of most AFD discussions. If you don't take the time to actually *read* the policies, you will never understand what the actual nomination is about. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequately sourced BLP of someone of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 20:36, 8 November 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 Want to buy some land in Bulgaria? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian properties

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

Vague title reflects vague nature of the article, which seems mostly for promotion. If there is precedent for this sort of article existing, that's fine with me, but it looks promotional and against policies, especially WP:NOT (as not directory, not advertising/promotion).  Frank  |  talk  14:50, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Punke

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

Non-notable biography of a lobbyist who works for a non-notable lobbying group that I had previously brought to AfD. I could not find any reliable source that more than trivially cover the subject. I also have an active AfD nomination of one of Punke's partners, Andrew Howell. Millbrooky (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on WTO and China and war room efforts merit inclusion. Notable Democratic trade lobbyist

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosk'va

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

Searches of Tver Oblast municipal structures at http://region.tver.ru/municipal-struct/p1.html can find no reference to this "town". Of course, Tver Oblast borders Moskva, so it is likely misinterpretation by editor. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:39, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human values

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

The article's main author reverted attempts by myself and another editor to redirect to a much better and more comprehensive article at Value (personal and cultural). I'm seeking a consensus for delete & redirect. Reasons: this article is biased and the references are almost useless. It fails WP:POV, WP:SOAP, WP:VER andy (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely a Keep!: Working on sources to comply: One good source I found, and I'm having people from this university to support me:

University Center for Human Values from Princeton University 304 Louis Marx Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-4798 --Tonymynd (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Great, work on it. Until then, this is the second time I have stated that you can not put "KEEP" on an intro line more than one time in a discussion. Please read WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD if you have any questions about this guideline that makes this clear. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for assuming good faith first, becasue that exacly my intention. Now starting to get it, ok, Yes I'm doing my home work to support the existance of this article. I just need time to gather all information. And know I have a better perspective on how to structure the article and pay atention to the WP guidelines.
  • Comment This needs a lot of clean-up and sure feels like a blog or soapbox of some sort. I suggest the newby editor be given the article as a userpage and encouraged to get more familiar with editing here. Creating articles is WP:bold; but messy and unneeded articles waste your time which seems a shame. If this, or a similar article, is to survive it needs to be clear about what it is, show a compatability with policies and other articles and also needs to be reader-friendly. This article I'm not quite sure what it's about or what I learned in the process - as the nom pointed out does it really add anything not in already existing articles? If so, what? -- Banjeboi 03:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt if userfying it will help and it may make things worse by encouraging this editor to think he's basically on the right track. He's not. He posts OR articles "in the name of Jesus" - he sees WP as a platform for his views. It's worth noting that of the three articles he's posted so far, two are in AfD and the other one is prodded.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

UBank

edit

The result was Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank. Article may be split when the subject itself attains notability as accepted by the community. JodyB talk 14:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blatant advertising, web refs are mostly self-references and paid ads. Nothing particularly encyclopaedic here. At most, it should redirect to National Australia Bank. Moondyne 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please share those sources Gnangarra 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument ... - as an Australian, UBank is obviously tied to closely to its parent, identification for example can be achieved simply if you are already a NAB client. ING Direct is a leader in branchless banking as innovating significantly in that area in Australia at least. The parent company, ING Group, already has a substantial article that deals with much more than branchless banking so I can't see a merger as being useful. Rabobank similarly seems and article that, apart from lacking references, is a substantial article but mainly covering its history. There is a discussion about deletion of RaboPlus. However, I note the article about the parent seems to contain nothing about this product line. As per comments at that AfD though I think merge and redirect appropriate in that case too.--Matilda talk 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the products you have listed are notable - you have not established how this product is notable. Please review the relevant guideline. --Matilda talk 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how is the Centurion card "notable" ? it's a product name of AMEX, nothing else. Wizzzzman (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PS: I understand that notability is hard to assess by users from outside Australia, so I'd ask those to be more specific in their judgments. Eg, how come it's "spam" if all facts are properly referenced ?? not possible in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 November 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. May not fail WP:CRYSTAL but no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC. Salted also StarM 02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iSouljaboytellem

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

    Previously deleted via AFD and other means under a variety of alternate spellings (e.g. ISouljaBoyTellEm (album)). Album has enough sources for confirmation (so speedy deletion was declined) but still does not pass WP:MUSIC#Albums due to a lack of substantial media coverage. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:03, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indonesian British

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

    Following the previous trainwreck mass-nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British, I've been trying to consider the huge number of unsourced human migration articles individually (it's not just the ones about Britain; other editors have created an equally huge number of articles about immigrants in Latin America). This one appears unsalvageable; I can't find any reliable sources which discuss the topic non-trivially. The BBC's Born Abroad section, covering near 50 countries which supply migrants to the UK, doesn't have a separate page for Indonesians. Also tried the usual combination of search terms on google, in both English and Indonesian, like:

    • Indonesian (s/students/migrants/immigrants/workers/migrant workers/community) in (London/the UK/the United Kingdom/Britain/England)
    • (Orang/Pelajar/Imigran/Masyarakat) Indonesia di (London/Kerajaan Inggris/UK/United Kingdom/Britain), BMI di (London/etc.)
    • Immigration from Indonesia to (London/etc.), imigrasi dari Indonesia ke (London/etc.)

    Furthermore, all the statements in this article which might represent a claim to notability appear to be false. Per the OECD table cited, the UK has only about 6,000 Indonesian-born foreigners living within its borders, not 20,000 as this article claims, and the Indonesians fleeing from Suharto mostly went to the Netherlands (the former colonial power), not the UK. And of course, the title is a neologism. cab (talk) 13:58, 4 November 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 (G4) by EncMstr. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scene (fashion)

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

    Prod removed without addressing the reason given for deletion. An unverified dictionary definition Closedmouth (talk) 13:49, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kotor (video game)

    edit
    Kotor (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability. No evidence to suggest it even exists. KOTOR also stands for Knights of the Old Republic, so good luck trying to find sources Closedmouth (talk) 13:30, 4 November 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gordano Messaging Suite

    edit
    Gordano Messaging Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested speedy, db-spam. I am listing it here in order to get some opinions and maybe give the author a chence to improve the content. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: This article appears not to be substantively different to the following articles - some of which have been present on Wikipedia for several years Kerio Scalix Zimbra in fact, the Gordano Messaging Suite contains fair less subjective language than these other examples. Either the Gordano Messaging Suite entry should stay, or these others should be deleted. In addition, the comment above about reviews being online trade publications is incorrect. PC Pro is a paper based end user consumer hardware and software magazine - published by Dennis Publishing Dob78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC). — Dob78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    That is generally a bad argument to make. See WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. VG ☎ 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll gladly look at those for deletion, as well. Thanks for letting us know. MuZemike (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you glad to delete others work? It seems that there are several wikipedia editors that enjoy deleting.Amosygal (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I merely used those three as an example, Wikipedia contains a list of Mail servers, which contains between 35 and 40 mail server software packages. Almost every one of these servers is a commercial application similar in function to the Gordano Messaging Suite. It may be a "bad argument" but it's surely valid? If nearly 40 other wikipedia entries exist for commercial mail server software applications, then why should the Gordano Messaging Suite entry be deleted? Dob78 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 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 obvious hoax. - filelakeshoe 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ončwe

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

    non-notable. Ioky98 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Seriously, cities/villages/hamlets of any size are always considered notable, by longstanding precedent. Nom is terrible, though. WilyD 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not always. Please mind civility in the AfD discussion. The rule of thumb seems to be that a town with a five-figure population is considered to be notable. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't. Every town of every size is always kept. American towns were all created by bot, every single one down to populations of <10. And please read WP:CIVIL before attenpting to enforce it. The nomination is horrible. Absolutely terrible. This is not a problematic statement under WP:CIVIL. WilyD 17:59, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Camp Onway

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

    Fails to meet notability for non-commercial organizations. —— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:19, 4 November 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 closing as keep, without prejudice to relisting. There is little point in having a debate when the article has significantly changed since the last one, and there is no evidence of anyone wishing to make a case for deletion. These procedural relistings are process-wonking time wasting. If anyone is actually wishing to make the case for deletion, they should feel free to relist, or (if that hypothetical person sees this close within a few hours) to re-open this debate. I've no objections to my close being revered if the closer is adding a delete opinion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley Todd mugging hoax

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Ashley Todd mugging hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Previous AFD ended in a speedy renaming. Concerns were raised at DRV that the speedy closure was too early. After reviewing that debate, I have decided to bring this back to AFD since I found the "too early for speedy close" argument persuasive. My way too quick recap of the arguments is that: 1) the argument for deletion remains that the article is basically a news story (WP:NOT#NEWS) over a minor crime which was briefly a media circus, but not of encyclopedic notability while 2) the argument for inclusion is that the attention and sheer volume of coverage this received makes this a notable event of wide interest. Although I am very interested in the US election, I have not formulated any opinion about this particular one, so I'm going neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep - Somewhat notable incident involving an otherwise non-notable individual, with consequences for the very notable US election campaign. I won't weep if it goes, but I think this event is of a high-enough profile and has wide enough consequences to be kept. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Event of encyclopedic value due to the well-documented attempts to politicize it. VG ☎ 12:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This topic meets our criteria for inclusion, as there has been significant coverage of it published in reliable sources. The article is netural, verified to reliable sources, contains no original research, is written in an encyclopaeidic manner and is of interest to our readers. It satisfies all of Wikipedia policies, contra the ubiquitous and fucking idiotic applications of NOTNEWS and NOTIMPORTANT. Threshold for inclusion: WP:GNG, and nothing else matters. the skomorokh 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close I voted delete on the previous debate, but this is a different article. Frankly, procedural relistings are pointless, if someone wants this deleted, then let them nominate it for deletion. This listing is a waste of time.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- any issues brought up in the previous request for deletion were resolved by the rename and subsequent work on the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brett Phillips

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

    fails WP:CREATIVE, lacks third party sources to establish notability. simply being a radio broadcaster is not sufficient. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:49, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yellowworld

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

    I’m nominating this article for deletion as it is not notable to the casual reader. It almost is written as a promotion of the site, and it has had no real update recently, save for the amount of people coming to the site, and how many moderators are overlooking the site.

    We don’t know anything else with the exception that it was briefly in the media; and even that is something that wasn't groundbreaking when it occurred. We don’t know anything about the racial makeup of the site, no other notability than what is given years ago.

    Wikipedia shouldn’t be a platform for personal forums to come and promote themselves. I have seen a few get deleted; of course, there are exceptions like “Ain’t it Cool News,” “Joblo.com,” and a host of others that are above the radar. Unfortunately, Yellowworld is not above the radar.

    It’s as if I had a forum that was briefly in the city newspaper, and I decided to put it on Wikipedia.--Joel Lindley (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment On the count, oops, my bad :) I still think this site falls short on the requirements for notability, though. Even if we disagree about the meaning of the term "incidental" in one particular source, I still think it would be a stretch to say that the site itself is the "subject" of any significant amount of coverage. RayAYang (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-The PC Magazine article (or link) gives a passing mention to the site, nothing that sets it apart from other forums on the internet; I don't think that "mention" would have been known if it wasn't posted here. Furthermore, I think it [the Yellowworld.org article] is riding on its campaign (a campaign not known to the casual individual, a campaign that did not generate much coverage). Technically, the site or campaign, wouldn't be known unless some casual individual stumbled on the Wiki article.--Joel Lindley (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No problem, allow me to explain.
    Let's use an example: Me. I am listed on IMDB (Internet Movie Database). I was in a project that involved some big name people; I was also in a short film that played at a prominent San Francisco Film Festival. So, should I create a page for myself with those reputable sources? (Sources: IMDB itself, links to films I've worked on, etc.). What matters is what you know now, correct? Furthermore, I can use the argument that because I am on IMDB, it sets me apart from the regular individual; I have some notability.--Joel Lindley (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Well, first off, you need to calm down. Second, according to your argument, if any random individual, or group is interviewed (by, let's say, a big newspaper) that gives them notability to be included in Wikipedia. And, I disagree with your stance on IMDB. They are well known in(and out) of the film business--even worldwide--as a source many people come to about films and the film business. Now, bringing in sources during the AfD discussion, in this case a passing mention (as it was not even an interview; and even one of the posters here had to dig through the internet to find it) shows that there are some pulling of strings.
    Now, another site--[[14]]--was also deleted after having an article on Wikipedia. They were actually listed in the non-fiction book, Asian Mystique by author Sherilyn Prasso for one of her studies. Now, are you saying that if they--the members--were interviewed by San Francisco Chronicle, they would have the notability to be included on Wikipedia? That does not make sense.
    Another example: [Kim], an actress who was in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Vol. 2 had her article deleted. Now, given the fact that she has credits on IMDB, and was in a prominent film, and even some additional credits....you would think that she has enough notability to be listed. However, according to your argument, if Miss Kim was interviewed by San Francisco Chronicle, or giving a passing mention in a magazine such as Wired or Entertainment Weekly, she would have enough notability.
    Moreover, again, according to your argument, if I was interviewed by New York Times, and given a passing mention in Ebony, Jet, or GQ, I would have enough notability to be included in Wikipedia.--Joel Lindley (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (reset indent) 61.18.170.166 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, actually, I do believe that multiple examples of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources are precisely what prove notability. WP:N: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive, which means that even a source which is not entirely about the subject of a Wikipedia article counts as "non-trivial coverage", as long as it is more than a passing mention in a laundry list or something similar. This article has that. "Notable to the casual reader" is not a coherent concept on AfD.
    Second, your attempts to argue by precedent of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: please give the actual links to the AfD debates in question. Also, keep in mind: Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too".
    The deletion outcome in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Kim rested on the fact that all the subject had done was appear briefly in a film, like you, and received no media attention HERSELF (as opposed to the film receiving media attention); this is a bog-standard example of notability not being inherited. And by long consensus around AfD, merely having your name mentioned in IMDb does nothing to prove notability, and only the screenwriting credits are considered reliable, because it is partly user-edited and they don't sufficiently check user submissions for factuality, so IMDb cannot be the basis for writing an article. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources. However, the website we're debating doesn't derive its notability from appearing in a film, so this argument is irrelevant.
    I can't find any deletion discussion for a site called ModelMinority.com (see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model), so it's hard to tell whether the arguments in that debate apply to this one as well. Was it discussed on someone's user talk page somewhere?
    And one last tip --- you don't need to put double brackets around external links, and you don't need to add a new level of indentation to each new paragraph in a single reply. (In your last reply, you started out with nine colons and ended up with something like thirteen; I took the liberty of fixing these issues). Cheers, 61.18.170.166 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 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 (non-admin close). There appears to be a consensus that the sources identified during the course of the discussion allay any notability concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr John Demartini

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

    fails WP:BIO. no real evidence he is an expert in the field Google news search reveals limited coverage. Seems self promotional, article created by someone who admits they're a publicist. [15] Michellecrisp (talk) 10:31, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of non-sciences ending in -logy

    edit
    List of non-sciences ending in -logy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Indiscriminate list. Deletion was discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sciences ending in -logy (which result was "delete") but by an oversight was not formally nominated at that time. Mangoe (talk) 10:13, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pangarap Ko Ang Ibigin Ka

    edit
    Pangarap Ko Ang Ibigin Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. The article is a probable hoax with no references and Google hits. The only hits are those for a song with the same title. bluemask (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, an active editor is notorious of creating hoax articles and edits such as these 1 2 in Pinoy Fear Factor. Starczamora (talk) 14:44, 4 November 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:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:FRINGE l'aquatique || talk 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind

    edit
    Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Talk page says the text is copied from http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com with permission. This may be original research. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge instinct (2nd nomination) this appears to be a one-man theory with very little independent support.

    I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

    McWomble (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep or at least partial merge parts of Logic and the mind with psychology of reasoning. At least parts of this article could perhaps be profitably merged into our too brief stub on the psychology of reasoning. In fact, I might be tempted to prefer this title over "psychology of reasoning" for the content there, although perhaps logic and psychology might be the best title. The interface between formal logic and actual human reasoning processes is a vital philosophical subject, and our coverage seems scattershot. The historical account given here seems reasonably mainstream, accurate, and valuable to me.

      Neural modeling fields seems to rely much more strongly on Leonid Perlovsky's own thought, and frankly I found it much rougher going. Dr. Perlovsky does seem to be a respected academic, though, and there doesn't seem to be any commercial conflict of interest going on, so I say weak keep to that one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on NMF. Regardless of what happens with the Logic and the mind, I would like to make sure that the Neural modeling fields article can be kept. I have changed it by removing more controversial claims. Basically, this article is about the mathematics behind the dynamic logic theory, which is a machine learning technique, used by AI researchers, there are many publications, and it definitely deserves to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We need some references to "neural modeling fields" that aren't from Perlovsky. Also, the phrase is a neologism. This seems to be a multi-stage neural net, an idea that dates back to the 1960s, (see Perceptron) but by using nonstandard terminology, it's made to look like a new idea from Perlovsky.--John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will provide the references, give me till tomorrow don't have time today to work on this.Romanilin (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated the references to include several not by Perlovsky. This theory has been referred to by several names, which I added to introduction. In the book by Perlovsky (2001) where he describes the NMF, he calls it Modeling Fields Theory. Regardless, this is a valid NEW idea, that has been used by researchers, and it is NOT the same as multi-stage neural network. Romanilin (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we ought to have an explanation of how they differ - sourced, and preferably not from Perlovsky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been looking at the new references. Deming is associated with Perlovsky; they've co-authored papers, so he's not an independent source. I did find a thesis that referenced MLANS [16], but only to reject that approach. Perlovsky is also associated with Nichols Research, referenced in the "MDA Technologies" reference. [17]. After a few mergers and spinoffs, the company "Torch Concepts" emerged with the technology.[18] They were later involved with the JetBlue data mining privacy scandal.[19], but that seems to be unrelated to MLANS. I'm still not seeing anything by an unaffiliated third party. I did find a mention of MLANS and Torch Concepts [20], but it credits Prof. Keinosuke Fukunaga of Purdue University with the technology. At best, MLANS seems to deserve a minor mention in some article on neural nets or a related article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing, Torch does not say that Dr. Burdick came up with MLANS, it says he directed several projects for ARPA and NASA involving the application of MLANS. Now, the name and the idea for this theory do come from Perlovsky, there is not much we can do about it. I thought all we needed was proof that this is used by other researchers. I have been to conferences where people presented on this. True a lot of them are somehow associated with Perlovsky, but how can they not be, the theory is only 20 years old, Perlovsky is still doing active research.Romanilin (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What this subject really seems to deserve is a brief entry in Neural network#Learning algorithms. That's where the various algorithms for training neural nets are covered, and that's where Perlovsky's scheme fits into Wikipedia, if anywhere. It's being presented here as a standalone theory, with few ties to existing work and claims that it's a significant breakthrough, which makes it look WP:FRINGE. As Neural network puts it, "There are many algorithms for training neural networks; most of them can be viewed as a straightforward application of optimization theory and statistical estimation." --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT a neural network, this IS a stand alone theory. Could we PLEASE ask an opinion of somebody who IS in the field of Computational Intelligence? This is a model based framework, and neural networks are NOT model based systems. Neural networks consist of neurons (simple processing elements) and weights. NMF system consists of parameterized models, arbitrarily complex. Yes it can be visualized as a neural network but it is not. However, even if it were, not all neural networks are located in one article. For example, Adaptive resonance theory is a neural network architecture that has its own entry. And it is just a type of Neural network. Romanilin (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just thought that the article could use a good illustration, I will add it and hopefully clarify the structure and the difference from the neural network.Romanilin (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I want to make it clear that I am only arguing about the Neural modeling fields article. The other article Logic and the mind is more controversial and since many people object I am OK with deleting it and reworking it later in a different form or as part of another entry as suggested.Romanilin (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the references even says it's a neural network approach: "The main component of the approach is the maximum likelihood adaptive neural system (MLANS), which is a model-based neural network combining the adaptivity of a neural network with the a priori knowledge of signal models. "[21]. "Computational intelligence" is what used to be called "neural networks" or "connectionism". I don't use that stuff much, but I do have a MSCS degree from Stanford, once took "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" from McCarthy, hold some patents in the area, and ran a DARPA Grand Challenge team, so I'm reasonably familiar with the field. This stuff just isn't that novel. Model-based systems have been tried before, usually in the field of adaptive model-based control. Many, many schemes for tuning neural nets have been tried. It's hard to tell where this stuff fits, though, because of the nonstandard terminology, the lack of references to related work, and the general weirdness of the material. I'm thinking WP:FRINGE here. For an example of a similar fringe theory, see [22]. We need more on this subject written independently of Perlovsky. --John Nagle (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from the author It looks like there are two major objections. Here is my response again to both.

    1. "There is not enough support except from the author of the theory"

    A. Perlovsky himself is a respected scientist. He wrote a book, many book chapters, hundreds of publications. He received a McLucas Basic Research Award from the US Air Force: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071858

    B. NMF theory is described in his 2001 book. The book has good reviews, see Amazon web site.

    http://www.amazon.com/Neural-Networks-Intellect-Model-Based-Concepts/dp/0195111621/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225632930&sr=1-2

    C. He wrote several book chapters on NMF

    D. There are many publications that describe application of NMF. For example, this paper speaks of 20db (100 times) improvement of tracking in clutter. Ground moving target indication is a difficul problem and the improvement is simply huge. The paper is published in IEEE transactions on neural networks. http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/perlovsky-TNN06-L487-final2.pdf

    E. There are references on the internet to NMF as basis for grants, research proposals etc. For example:

    http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bneu.pdf

    http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/soc/research/ABC/

    http://spie.org/x648.xml?product_id=540989

    I think this is hard to claim that there is no link to existing work. If people who use NMF know Perlovsky and co-author with him, that is because the neural networks community is not very big and it is a young field. People working with similar technologies usually collaborate. True, there is no separate book not written by Perlovsky on NMF, but this cannot be a criteria for deleting the page, given all the other references. I also don't think that the NMF article is trying to artificially inflate the importance of NMF, it simply describes what it is mathematically/algorithmically and gives the phycological interpretation.


    2. "This is just a regular neural network disguised in different terminology"

    Yes the word "neural network" is in the refences. However in order to claim that this is nothing new, simple word search is not enough. With all respect to John Nagle, his main area does not seem to be in neural networks. Romanilin (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Q: Are you talking about Logic and the mind or Neural modeling fields? This page is for discussing the former. If we don't stick to that topic, it gets much harder for anyone else to follow the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A. This is only about Neural modeling fields. Somebody nominated both pages on this discussion, but at this point I am only talking about the second one.
    I have the same question, which of the two articles is this about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, McWomble (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Delete it merely because it's a fringe theory? There's a consensus to delete those??? I don't think that's what WP:FRINGE says: It says this:
    This guideline establishes which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how articles about them should approach their subjects.
    It says it's about which ones should be included. It's not about a guideline saying to delete them all. I think it's got to have something to do with notability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The requirements are, in a nutshell.
    • In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
    • Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
    This seems reasonable; we should have articles on Velikovsky or on the New Chronology or on John Cleves Symmes. But I don't see that either of these is satisfied here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many other than Velikovsky and his associates have written about Velikovsky's fringe theories, but few other than Perlovsky and his associates have written about Perlovsky's fringe theories. That's the notability distinction. --John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with John Nagle; I apologize for having been unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence that this theory is notable. All of the references are either to articles by the theory's originator or to historical writings -- none indicate that that the theory is considered notable by anyone other than Perlovsky. The whole article looks like OR, but if there's anything salvageable, it could be merged to the Leonid Perlovsky article. Klausness (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is NOT fringe. And not OR, the article Neural modeling fields is based on published work. Come on, this is getting ridiculous. Here is definition from wiki: "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or weakly confirmed". There is a book and many publications. Certainly Oxford monograph is sufficient to establish a mainstream. There are many publications in serious journals. US Air Force Basic Research Award is not given for fringe theories, International Neural Networks Society Gabor Award is not given for fringe theories. Look at Perlovsky web site. Not to mention that Computational intelligence is a young field of study, so what we are not going to put anything on the wiki until there is more than one book about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This article is fundamentally flawed and nothing could be done to make it okay. Statements like "Aristotle invented logic" where the ref is from Aristotle are deeply misleading. Does Perlovsky think Aristotle invented logic or does Aristotle think Aristotle invented logic? The article argues a point (rather feebly if you ask me) but that is not an encyclopedia entry's role. There is too much synthesis and original research here. And it couldn't be otherwise! xschm (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the relationship between the claim that Aristotle invented logic and Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind? This article gives a cursory (and wildly incomplete) history of theories of logic. But it doesn't relate them to the subject of the article. It seems like it aims to be an essay arguing that Perlovsky is the apotheosis of this grand tradition. It fails to make a convincing argument and such an argument has no place in an encyclopedia. If that argument exists elsewhere, it could be documented here, but it seems far from clear that is the case. xschm (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This appears to be a personal essay of the type described in WP:NOT. The contents are not *about* Perlovsky's theories and how they might have been received by reliable third parties, they *are* Perlovsky's theories. The map should not be the territory, but in this case it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xschm (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment he himself is notable, whether or not mainstream, on the basis of OUP publishing of one of his books. That does not make every one of his theories, or any of them, separately notable. One article is sufficient. most of the material here is unencyclopedic summary and argumentation, so I don't see how there's anything appropriate for merging. This is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. DGG (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly that. Well said. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We're not proposing to delete the Leonid Perlovsky article here, just the "spinoff articles". --John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think there's consensus for deleting Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind. That's just a badly written history of logic with a link to Perlovsky's stuff at the end. It's still not clear what to do about Neural modeling fields, which is more like a technical paper. If that's kept, it will need a major rewrite, which is going to be a tough job. Maybe trim it down to a brief note on what the subject is about, with a few links to papers, other work, and related neural net articles. --John Nagle (talk) 17:46, 22 November 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. MBisanz talk 09:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One year MBA in India

    edit
    One year MBA in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    My original PROD explanation was "A mere observation, doesn't indicate anything of note about one year MBAs in India. Also, is this intended to advertise the programs at the listed schools?" Now the user indicates that he basically intends for this article to be a guide or directory for people interested in looking for one-year MBA programs. I think Wikipedia is not a directory applies. Comments? —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete WP:NOTDIR was surely meant for this. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as an ad and excessive links in the title. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I created this article as it becomes a useful resource in understanding what is a one year MBA like in India and what are the current programs on offer. I have noted your concerns (excessive link, ad, etc) and will try to address them. Also, I would like somebody from India (no offence please) to comment on this. WikiOn ( t | c ) 10:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the issues raised so far involve Wikipedia's policies on notability or point of view, so I doubt it will matter whether anyone from India participates in this discussion. One of the chief (and culture-neutral) issues raised is that the article you are trying to create, as you described it to me, is a directory, and I referenced Wikipedia's guidelines on that for you in the article's talk page. You haven't addressed that particular issue.—Largo Plazo (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, plainly a directory; especially because the nom seems to think that Indians have more use for it than others, so it's even more obvious that it's not here simply to be a standard encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look the institutes offer admissions based on GMAT scores. So any person from anywhere in the world my be interested in a 1-year MBA program in India.
    • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. McWomble (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- per my statement above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Most reasons are covered above; WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE etc. Plus, individual institute articles list and detail different programs offered. A need for separate list does not make sense. Also LeaveSleaves talk15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification needed I see that people are unanimous in opinion about deletion of this article. However, people please let me know how come an article like List_of_institutes_and_colleges_in_British_Columbia is appropriate and not a directory. @Nichalp - what kind of attribution would suffice for one year MBA. Common people, help me out. This information has to be presented. Tell me what is the appropriate way to do so! Would changing the article name to List of Institutes offering one year MBA in India suffice WikiOn ( t | c ) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A word of advice: please stop insisting that the article "has to be presented". If indeed it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, then it doesn't "need" to be on Wikipedia, any more than it "needs" to be painted on the side of India's Parliament (and you'd be hard pressed to argue your case on grounds of necessity to the arresting police officer or to the judge).
      • As for changing the name of the article, you are making it more than a list, you are providing additional information—it isn't just a list. As lists goes, you've no doubt seen what WP:NOTDIR says about cross-purposing lists. You aren't creating a list of universities in India. You are talking about a much more constricted lists, of universities in India with one-year MBA programs. Imagine cross-multiplying that across all the different programs that universities might offer. That's where Wikipedia would cross the line into serving the purpose of a relational database. Also, consider this: the list is likely to be outdated in a year. Who will guarantee that it will be maintained indefinitely? Finally: would someone who needs information on one-year MBA programs in India not simply Google "one-year mba" india?—Largo Plazo (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would it be appropriate if I removed all the institute names and provide information on what is a 1 year MBA like in India and add another page that would list the institutes? Talking about outdated in a year - there are so many lists on wikipedia, do they get outdated, hence not built in the first place? WikiOn ( t | c ) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further details In India, there is a clear distinction between 2 year traditional MBA and 1 year MBA (which is available only recently). The course structure and mode of study are quite different. For example: Generally 2 year MBA intakes fresher or experienced graduates upto 2 years, whereas 1 year MBA requires experience from 2 to 5 years depending upon the program. 1 year MBA is fast-track and generally a specialization. 1 year MBA generally is for moving up the ladder in the same domain whereas 2 year MBA allows the flexibility to switch domains. But, 1 year MBA is somewhere in between Executive MBA and two year MBA. WikiOn ( t | c ) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to point out one more time, in an attempt to do nothing more than spare you the effort, that you are devoting a lot of energy to making arguments that don't address the issues that have been raised against the article. As for the differences between one-year and two-year business programs in India: if business programs are mentioned in a more general article or section on graduate or business education in India, you can explain those differences there in two or three sentences. A separate article isn't required for that purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delview Secondary School

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

    Article does not establish its' notability. Could not find any additional info [23]. Thank you for your time. MatthewYeager 09:40, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nils_Parker

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

    Vanity article of a non notable subject without reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 08:34, 4 November 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, unless it is truly important and necessary.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Erin_Tyler

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

    Part of a series of Rudius Media vanity pages about non notable people without reliable sources. E.g. Nils Parker and Philalawyer. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:37, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Philalawyer

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

    The subject is not notable and there are no reliable sources here, only a link to the subject's website. This article is related to other Rudius Media employee articles whose subjects are equally non notable, such as Nils Parker and Erin Tyler. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:31, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 09:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overseas

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

    Dictionary definition. I thought about trying to redeem this and make an article out of it, but couldn't see how to get it away from dicdef. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    G. V. Vijayagovindan

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

    Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not in India. Somewhat equivalent to the British term, a reader is equivalent to a lecturer in India. LeaveSleaves talk 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant a reader in India is the equivalent of an associate professor in the US, i.e. the rank below a full professor. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to my knowledge. Then again, the defining line is blur and sometimes university specific. I was trying to use that point to gauge the extent of the person's work in the area. LeaveSleaves talk 20:22, 5 November 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. What matters, ultimately, is that no reliable sources have been provided for the censorship issue.  Sandstein  16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cindy's Torment

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

    As stated in the article's Talk Page: This subject is not widely known, and any random article (or blog, for that matter) on the internet can be used for dicussion on internet censorship. Moreover, it is a personal point of view on whether or not the article is internet censorship. - Joel Lindley (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment-If the material was written in a clearer manner, especially for those not familar with the information in the article, maybe it can possibly be merged with the Usenet article; of course, if proper sources are listed, and it's applicable to the Usenet article. {I haven't checked myself, but I'm sure there is an article dedicated to Usenet}.--Joel Lindley (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete just because it happened on usenet doesn't mean it gets a pass on inclusion guidelines. The coverage is extremely trivial and not remotely notable. Its not wikipedia's job to cover things that no one else really cares to cover in any real amount of detail.--Crossmr (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Cindy's Torment was an epochal event in the early days of usenet, both in terms of revealing that it was technically possible to remove postings throughout the usenet, and in that for many years it was considered a sophomore rite of passage to request a re-posting of Cindy's Torment on alt.sex.bondage. The deleters seem to be doing so on the basis of ignorance of Usenet history. Which I think well deserves to be documented. Just because it happened on the internet, doesn't mean it automatically was culturally trivial. If someone really thinks that something that caused the non-inclusion of the alt hierarchy in many major educational institutions, is trivially notable, I will just have to respectfully disagree. (full disclosure, I am the creator of the article so it is perhaps not surprising I think recording this bit of internets early history is significant enough to merit a dictionary entry). -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Your little dig aside, the deletion was started on the fact that there is no coverage. No offense to your personal memory (which is not a reliable source unfortunately) there isn't anything indicating a greater notability of this event which is required for inclusion.If you want to prove notability go out and find some reliable sources which actually devoted some real coverage to this story.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepDelete. The story of the outcry could be much better written (exactly which bodies protested, where, and what were the arguments used?), but it's referenced and it's noteworthy. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      noteworthy requires proof, please demonstrate it. there is no evidence of any signficiant coverage yet. This is an AfD, simply claiming something as notable without proving it doesn't float here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell no organizations protested over censoring this story, just a few individuals. VG ☎ 09:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked both sources, and they don't support the claims of the article. Changed to "delete". --Alvestrand (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep or merge and redirect to Usenet in a "censorship" section. The article in Huston Chronicles touches on the story a few times, but it also has a lot of background on Usenet, and this isn't the only incident mentioned in that article. The same can be said about Prof. Shallit's talk (for a Computer Club, not a more serious venue). Big YMMV if this topic deserves an article of its own per WP:NOT#NEWS. VG ☎ 09:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm from my own living memory, that Cindy's Torment wasn't simply one of many cases of internet censorship. It was a real watershed event, a game changer, if you will. Previously to it, the widespread belief was that postings were impossible to censor, and many people were shocked to find out that censorship was actually, and not merely theoretically possible. Though of course re-postings of the text prooved John Gilmore's dictum that internet re-routes around censorship, treating it as damage. BTW, it is worth also noting that the list of internet topics that should be covered by a comprehensive USENET historiography, kept by Brad Templeton explicitly includes Cindy's Torment. I can't think of a better authority on what is notable about USENET than Brad. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably mean this list. 99% of the events there don't have a separate article in Wikipedia. I'm all for expanding Usenet#History, but a bullet in really long list, even if compiled by an authority on the subject, does not grant sufficient notability for a separate Wikipedia article. VG ☎ 10:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In a more selective narrative Templeton doesn't mention Cindy's story as the watershed you remember. VG ☎ 10:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "selective" is a serious understatement. If we only had articles on the impressionistic and personal reminisces in that particular narrative, our coverage of Usenet would be very poor indeed. I will offer as a datapoint for the unique status of Cindy's Torment in the legend of Usenet, that clause 34 of the Usenet purity test goes as follows: "34. Lose five points if you've ever posted a request for "Cindy's Torment"." [24] It is incidentally the only posting referred to by name in that purity text, which to me is some kind of indication of its unique historic position. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that requesting the reposting of "any" sex story is at clause 33. and only confers a penalty of one point. I would also add that personally I don't find the characterisation of Brad Templetons Usenet history topic list as "really long" as remotely accurate. Everyone if of course invited to make up their own mind in an informed fashion. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is so beyond meaningless its not even funny. I can't believe that is what you want to hang your hat on to establish the notability of this story. A user created purity where this item is one of hundreds of items. I must have missed that one over at WP:N. If this is the best you can do I hope the closing administrator properly weigh the evidence. The various ways you can establish notability for this are pretty well outlined, find something in there.--Crossmr (talk) 09:21, 7 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dann Read

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

    Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:58, 4 November 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. No consensus for either outright deletion or merging, that is. I suggest that the merger discussion be revived, on the article talk page, after the media spotlight has shifted elsewhere and the measure of the lasting significance of this event can be more easily taken.  Sandstein  16:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin

    edit
    The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    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. Zsero (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hangon: (copied from below; it was suggested that as nominator I should put this right under my initial nomination.) The stories coming out now about conflict within the McCain-Palin campaign staff, apparently including some conflict about this call, may make it more notable than it was before. These stories are just breaking, and it will be impossible to assess their importance for at least several days. It's probably still not notable for an article all of its own, but let's put the discussion on hold for a few days, to let this play out. -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the case for keeping the article was clear-cut from the first day, and is now well established here, but these references should finish it absolutely.[25][26][27][28] Mike Serfas (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a follow-up to Mike Serfas' useful citations, I would like to add one more in the post-election publications on top of those added above and below. Staff writer Sasha Nagy (Globe and Mail) lists the prank in her "Weekly Top 10" [29]. J Readings (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge It has been widely reported as showing weakness in the Palin campaign staff, to forward a prank call to the candidate, and a failure on Palin's part not to quickly realize that the fake accent and the subject matter of the call, such as discussion of the pornographic "Nailin' Pailin" video, showed that it was not really a call from Sarkozy. It could have its own article, or it could be included in the article on her 2008 campaign. Edison (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While that guideline certainly merits consideration, it is a guideline and not a policy. It's a guideline that should be allowed to bend to permit an article on this story, because, justifiably or otherwise, it has already got quite an extraordinary amount of coverage. Consider, among others: Times of Malta story, Times of India story, China Daily story, CTV (Canada) story, Reuters story at Yahoo, Bloomberg story at Yahoo, Fox News story, UPI story, Perth Now story, AFP story at iafrica.com, BBC story, Guardian, story, Welt Online story, edited transcript of the conversation, at the Guardian. Note that these include the most respected of news sources, and that most, perhaps all, are medium-sized articles, not just briefly-noteds. Probably this little caper has no great historical significance (and of course the same could be said for a huge percentage of the content of en:WP); however, Palin is frequently discussed as a likely future President of the US, and whether as a Prez or as a Veep may very well meet [the real] Sarkozy, a meeting that would undoubtedly bring up mentions by columnists of the previous pseudo-encounter, which in turn would impel en:WP's readers to look up just what it was that transpired. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) tinkered with 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS I don't intend to keep adding more to the list, but since the NYT is sometimes said to be the newspaper of [US] record, here you go. And before anyone dismisses this as a partisan non-story only whipped up by liberals and foreigners, here you have the AP story as reproduced by the Washington Times, which recently came out in open editorial support of McCain/Palin. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter how many newspapers reported it, they're all part of one "short burst of news reports about a single event". This is an "odd-spot" sort of story, good for a chuckle, but of no lasting interest. In other words, precisely what that clause is meant to exclude. -- Zsero (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's very likely that you are right. Certainly it's hard to believe that this will ever be more than a footnote to a history of the campaign, of Canadian radio, or of anything else. But we can't yet be certain that it will be of no lasting interest; we'll only know this later. ¶ An obvious answer to this would be: "So let's wait and see whether an intrinsically silly story such as this is of lasting interest, and IFF it is, then give the green light to writing it up." However, it has already been written up. Granted that nothing (or almost nothing) is ever really deleted from en:WP (it's merely made invisible) and thus that if first "deleted" this story can later be resuscitated, deletion-then-resuscitation is laborious. If you are right, and this little story turns out to have no lasting interest, the article can later be deleted: letting it survive now needn't imply that it should survive forever. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge This event is pretty well covered in the article Masked_Avengers. No need to duplicate coverage in seperate article. Dman727 (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I realize that this probably fails WP:NOTNEWS, but this event is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Public image and reception of Sarah Palin. It fails NOT#NEWS, but can live there per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to have been created as a separate article because it was removed from Parodies of Sarah Palin on the grounds that it wasn't a parody. It definitely doesn't require its own independent article, as it obviously fails WP:NOTNEWS — but does WP:NCC apply here too? You betcha! It did get wide enough WP:RS/WP:V media coverage that it's perfectly valid content somewhere. Merge to either Parodies of Sarah Palin, where it was located originally, or to public image and reception of Sarah Palin per Jclemens if the fact that it isn't strictly speaking a parody of her — never mind that the first paragraph of the parody article includes "satire" in its description, and this certainly falls under that rubric — is convincing to people. But it's not a plain delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fact check: I don't blame anyone for not having noticed this, but actually this material, or something close to it, started out at Sarah Palin. See this discussion thread, in which some people peremptorily declare that it's non-notable or trivial, others say that it is worth a note but is done in undeserved detail, and others again justify its inclusion. Zsero (the nominator of this AfD) was a vocal contributor. Thinking that the material was worthwhile, and kind of parody-related, I tossed it into Parodies of Sarah Palin. (Zsero later removed it on the grounds that it wasn't a parody.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Masked Avengers, where their other pranks are referenced. This is a significant moment in their career, but not necessarily in Palin's. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. It appears that some of the commenters here may support keeping this article possibly as a way to score political points against Sarah Palin. If so, that would violate WP:NPOV by placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on this event, besides being an example of Wikipedia:Recentism. I note, by way of comparison, that nobody ever created an article titled The Masked Avengers' prank on Jacques Chirac, even though there were sources for that from at least four continents: Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm puzzled to see a vote (that isn't a vote) in one direction justified by suspicions about the motivation of some of the votes (that aren't votes) in the other direction. As for "recentism", you are of course very right. However, it's only one factor. Healthily or unhealthily, the anglophone masses are (or until very recently were) obsessed with Palin. They were never more than mildly interested in Chirac -- after all, he's from somewhere called "France"; is that the one to the left of Germany or the one to the right? -- except perhaps when Britain's Best Loved Tabloid called him (and illustrated him as) a ver or when he had the temerity to disagree with the democratically-elected Leader of the Free World about putting a contract on Iraq. Anyway, the conversation would have been in "French", that obscure language that loses elections for pantywaist pinkos like John Kerry. But really, if the conversation with Chirac was of such a wide interest as you claim, do feel very free to write more about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Masked Avengers. It made international news, but it's not big enough or really that significant to be in Palin's article. Qwerty (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Masked Avengers per WP:NOT#NEWS. This will only be remembered (if at all) in the context of the Masked Avengers. – sgeureka t•c 12:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on a merge to "Masked Avengers" There's certainly some merit to this suggestion. However, I see two drawbacks. First, there's already a fair amount of arguably noteworthy commentary on the prank call and its reception, and what (if anything) this tells the world about Palin; it's not unlikely that there will be more commentary, or metacommentary (how sad it is that newspapers dwell on this trivia, how good it is that the voters ignore this trivia, etc). Granted that such talk would be peripheral to Palin, about whom there's plenty to say that's more important, some of this would be a lot more about Palin than about the "Avengers". Secondly, even without summaries of commentary (let alone metacommentary), there's already quite a bit more to say about this prank than about the others; perhaps people would want to cut it down to size not only in order to avoid verbosity and trivia (both admirable motives) but also in order to avoid overweighing the "Avengers" article (unfortunate). -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notability easily demonstrated. Multiple suggested merge targets make merging a difficult proposition, because of the need to co-ordinate all these bits. To effectively present in an encyclopaedic fashion, an independent article seems to be the best bet. WilyD 13:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Masked Avengers, where the event is already covered. That article is pretty short, and this event, while it had some mainstream media coverage, is not that outstanding compared to other pranks conducted by the Avengers. VG ☎ 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cmt - It is actually more notable because who got pranked than who did the pranking. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same can be said about all the other interview pranks they've done. I have no objection to mentioning the prank in some article about Sarah Palin, and linking it from there, but most of the details about this prank probably do not belong in an article about Palin per WP:UNDUE. VG ☎ 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. And this is not even remotely news.SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reality/argumentation check. Er, hello? First, if this were not even remotely news, then how should WP:NOT#NEWS be applied? Secondly, if this is not even remotely news, then how might one explain the coverage (laboriously listed above) by AFP, AP, Bloomberg, Reuter, and (if you take it seriously) UPI? (And those are just the agencies.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge somewhere per Bearcat, or Keep per WilyD & Hoary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Public image and reception of Sarah Palin or Keep. This is more notable for the subject being Palin, than it is for the radio program that did it. When merged it should remain its own section as the details as to how it was conducted, and the results are also notable. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I do not believe that it is appropriate for an AfD discussion to mandate a merge of this article - it clearly has sufficient sourced content to stand on its own, the target of a merge is uncertain, and a merge would face strong resistance (i.e. immediate reversion) at the target article from many of the same people calling for this deletion. It probably should be merged, but that is a discussion for the article talk page.
    Several people have suggested that NOT#NEWS applies here and at other Palin articles, but let us look at the scripture: "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." We are not covering a wedding announcement here, but a top story in newspapers from literally six continents. The policy also says that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but we are not trying to 'emphasize' breaking news, only to slip two sentences (in my version) past an unrelenting campaign of immediate reversions and deletions. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second—Did you just say that you're intentionally trying to use this article to evade consensus elsewhere? Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus, but several editors are making their quota of reversions. Besides, your link to WP:Forum shopping describes a policy against using multiple methods of arbitration, not addition of content to different articles. There is reason to believe that even if information is viewed as peripheral to Sarah Palin that it may be viewed as germane to any of these other articles. Mike Serfas (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right, that was an inapt citation. Point I was trying to make is that if it does belong somewhere, fight for it to go there, rather than just sticking it somewhere it doesn't fit well just because there's no opposition to it. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify? As far as I can see, the relevent longstanding consensus is WP:N, and attempts to delete that are end runs around that through blatant misapplication of WP:NEWS (no reading of WP:NEWS could seriously justify deletion here). Or do you read something else? WilyD 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While there's obviously not much reason for the main article on Sarah Palin herself to contain this much detail on a radio prank, it seems fairly clear to quite a few people that the only real reason that it's also getting removed from articles where it does quite reasonably belong, such as Parodies of Sarah Palin or Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, is a partisan attempt to protect Palin from possible public embarrassment, based on a misreading of WP:NEWS which forgets that WP:NNC too. I have to agree with WilyD on this one; it's not forum shopping so much as an attempt to counter some people's seeming determination to bury any mention of this prank from appearing anywhere in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it belongs in Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, which is my belief, then the right thing to do is insert it there--which you will have my help in doing if needed--rather than seeking to put a 1E article together. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, merging isn't really an AfD outcome anyhow, but ... several "plausible" merge targets have been suggested, which suggests that a seperate article is needed to present the thing coherently. "1E" articles are perfectly ordinary. In the extreme cases it gets perfectly silly - but this article is what you're supposed to do in single events involving peopel; you're supposed to write an article about the event, rather than distort the person's bio to fit it - further that both Palin and the Radio Jockeys are notable and should be linked to this event (which is also notable per WP:N) suggests this is the most sensible way to organise content to present it intelligibly to the reader. WilyD 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Masked Avengers. Not worth its own article, nor a mention in Palin's. GlassCobra 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and try to keep a sense of proportion. If the stupid woman fell for a prank then it's notable whether she gets elected or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There's nothing stupid about falling for such a prank. Note that Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Jacques Chirac, none of them stupid, all fell for the same prank. What do you think you would do if you got a call like that? That's why it's not notable or remarkable in any way, no matter how many newspapers reported it for a bit of a chuckle. -- Zsero (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If I got a call like that, I'd immediately recognize the name Johnny Halliday and it wouldn't progress much further. But Palin's brain was probably dealing with more and bigger issues than mine would be, so I don't rush to call her underinformed or inattentive, let alone stupid. Can we please agree, however, that our own beliefs (if we have them) that she was underinformed or inattentive (let alone stupid) -- or that her staff was inattentive or whatever -- are beside the point in this AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This has no place in the AfD. Take it to talk, please? Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That was my main point; sorry if it was obscured by the other stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Now that the election's over, can anybody say with a straight face and a sober mind that this is an item of enduring historical notability? I thought not. Stick a paragraph reference to it inside The Masked Avengers, and have done. RayAYang (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To your question: Perhaps it depends on what you mean by notability. Real, substantial notability? No of course not, but (quite aside from the opulent article on the "Paylin" porn film), I give you Socks (cat) and Buddy (dog). Now that the election's over, the 5 November Guardian article by Oliver Burkeman "Momentous, spine-tingling, absurd: an election like never before" puts the election campaign into finishing-line perspective, puts Palin into perspective within it, and puts this little event into that perspective for Palin. This article is very opinionated and unflattering about Palin and no doubt many readers here would passionately disagree with any and all of it. But whatever you think of Burkeman's take, there you have it: one journalist's wrap of the whole months-long, multimillion dollar affair that doesn't even mention John Edwards yet takes the trouble to laugh away this phone call. Yes it's insignificant, but it's memorably insignificant. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not temporary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        First it has to be notable, and that hasn't been established. If it's not reported again then it was never notable, no matter how many papers reported it the first time. -- Zsero (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Zsero's comment strikes me as a fundamentally flawed argument for this AfD. On the one hand, we're being asked to delete it because it's not notable enough. When multiple articles are proffered to demonstrate notability, the all-too-predictable rebuttal becomes "temporary notability" has only been established. At this point, the entire line of "deletion" argumentation needs to be disregarded immediately by the closing admin because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I think it is fair to state that those requesting deletion on the basis of "temporary notability" cannot possibly see into the future to make that judgment. Personally, I think the original nominator for deletion was too quick to file the paperwork for this AfD. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You've got that exactly backwards. AFDs don't have to prove non-notability, articles have to prove that they are notable, and a single burst of newspaper reports, immediately after the event, is not enough to do that. Because we have no crystal ball, we can't know whether it will ever be reported again, which might make it notable. Nor is there any reason to think that it will be. Therefore notability has not been established, and it should be deleted. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. Notability requires proof of significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. In addition to the sources already listed in the article, a simple review of LexisNexis generated coverage indicates both the significance of such coverage and the multiple sources reinforcing them. (NB: At this point, I don't think it will be necessary for me to list the dozens of titles dedicated to this subject in English alone). That said, to counter-argue, as Zsero has done, that the coverage is temporary requires good timing. This AfD was poorly thought-out, in my opinion. Had the nominator waited several weeks or months in order to demonstrate in good faith that it was a flash-in-the-pan, one could make a compelling argument. Right now, the argument is tenuous at best based on a crystal ball and apparently the number of keep and merge votes underscores that point quite clearly. J Readings (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sheesh. it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. A short burst of news reports is all we've had so far, so how has notability been established? It is up to you to establish notability, not up to me to establish lack thereof. -- Zsero (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do I really need to list for you, Zsero, all of the articles in the reliable mainstream media on this subject as generated by LexisNexis and Factiva? It's a waste of my time, yours and everyone else's. On top of that, you keep avoiding the main point: the timing of this AfD was poorly thought-out. You cannot deny this point when you bring up temporal qualifiers like "short burst of news reports" to an event that cannot be shown in good faith to be a flash-in-the-pan yet. It is reasonable to assume that journalists will continue to write about Sarah Palin, as she is a notable figure, and this particular subject in connection with her, as they touch on her alleged gaffes, blunders, misstatements and other parodies adding to its already clear demonstration of notability through multiple reliable mainstream sources offering significant coverage. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter how many articles were written on it, because they were all part of that one burst of reportage immediately after it happened, and WP:NOBJ says explicitly that that does not establish notability. So what, in your opinion, does establish the notability of this prank? Of course Palin is a notable subject, and will continue to be in the news for years to come; but what crystal ball tells you that this incident will ever again achieve significant coverage? How much coverage do their other pranks get, after the initial reports, other than to be listed every time they get a new victim? -- Zsero (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And yet, Zsero is the one who reverted to maintain a description that Ivanna Trump is in a relationship with the owner of the New York Observer and is converting to Judaism.[30] Mike Serfas (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And your point is? A person's relationship status and religion are certainly notable aspects of their biographies, and a religious conversion is especially notable. Why would anyone want to omit it? -- Zsero (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an interesting comment and I've been thinking it over for some hours. I'd never previously heard of Ivanka Trump. I read that she joined forces with Dynamic Diamond Corp. [...] to design and introduce a line of jewelry at the brand's first flagship retail store called 'Ivanka Trump' on Madison Avenue. If she designed the jewelry, I'd expect the article to say this; since it doesn't quite say this, I start to guess that she doesn't design the jewelry; if she's not designing the jewelry, I don't know what she's doing. (Furthermore, I don't know how the brand's first flagship retail store called 'Ivanka Trump' differs from "a store called 'Ivanka Trump'"; and it's unclear whether the "line" has been introduced, and if it hasn't been then when it will be.) All in all Trump's notability is a mystery to me, but I see that the NYT has run an article on her, and I note that her father is famous and that, for all the pieties about meritocracy, the US craves a royalty -- so all in all I wouldn't start an AfD on her. ¶ That said, I can't see any reason why her relationships or religious beliefs, or changes thereof, would be of any concern. Picasso's relationships had a direct effect on his paintings, Chagall's religion had a direct effect on his; but how should such things impact the work of a jewelry designer/quasi-designer/non-designer? Demographically, Judaism is a pretty normal religion in the US: if by contrast she were converting to, say, Vodoun or Mithraism or the Church of the Subgenius this would be remarkable. And being in a relationship with is curiously vague, even when the context makes it clear that it's a romantic relationship. The only way an interest in all of this makes sense to me is when I put it in quasi-royal dynastic perspective: the British "house of Windsor" is a high-spending soap opera (far outlasting the workaday Mrs Dale's Diary) and I suppose the Trumps are too, their personal looks, peccadilloes and dramas being what keep them slebs. ¶ But maybe this is just me. For you, this kind of thing is "notable" or "especially notable". De gustibus..... -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We have already had "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event"; we've had Burkeman's article, which isn't a news report. I intended to look for further examples of retrospective commentary but was unable to do so, as even limiting google hits to the last 24 hours lets in too many news pages that are slightly older but that have updated ads (not to mention blogospherical ramblings and forum gibberish). Still, all those "updated" substantive pages served to remind me that the shortness of this burst of news reports is here counterbalanced by the extent of that burst: here in Pretoria News, here in Chicago Tribune, here in the New Zealand Herald, and so forth: all of which are articles of substantial length. ¶ As for the forum gibberish, it's full of unexpected, er, insights. One "poprox" observes: "This interview just shows that no one really gives a damn about Canada." -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Oneevent does not apply to people of international level significance. It applies to exclude local beauty pageant winners that got in 2 or more local papers, insignificant people being accused of curious crimes, and odd human interest coincidences. If people interpret it for things like this, its time we rewrote it. DGG (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. I agree with you. J Readings (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I support this call for a rewrite. Specifically, I request an "affirmative defense" - that under this policy a news event for which a contributor documents reliable sources on three or more continents shall not be considered for deletion. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- per above rationales. Obvious notability.JJJ999 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets the notability requirements as outlined in the guidelines. LexisNexis and Factiva generate literally dozens of articles in English alone (not to mention foreign languages) from reliable mainstream sources discussing at length the substance of the prank, thus highlighting the significant coverage for this notable figure. The AfD was filed prematurely, especially when articles continue to be written on the subject of the prank and its connection to other alleged Sarah Palin gaffes, blunders, misstatements, etc. I also agree with DGG that the "Not News" policy was designed to avoid doing harm to less-than-notable figures known for just one event, thereby immortalizing that small event forever on the internet. It does not (and probably never will) apply to well-known public figures and if multiple users mistakenly start to read it as saying something else, the policy most likely will be re-written to avoid any future misunderstandings. J Readings (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Some may believe that this particular prank is notable for what it says about they perceive as the lack of sophistication on Palin's part, or something like that. But the Masked Avengers article doesn't mention that any of the other celebrities they have pranked in the past caught on before being told of the prank. So is Palin less sophisticated than the others, or is she just one in a line of prank victims, all of whom were successfully duped? If the latter, that would tend to mitigate against having a separate article for this incident. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hangon: The stories coming out now about conflict within the McCain-Palin campaign staff, apparently including some conflict about this call, may make it more notable than it was before. These stories are just breaking, and it will be impossible to assess their importance for at least several days. It's probably still not notable for an article all of its own, but let's put the discussion on hold for a few days, to let this play out. -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dude, the election's over. Any assertion that the notability of this one event is going to increase now that Palin is an also-ran is pretty hard to swallow. Jclemens (talk)
        • Jclemens, you better start swallowing because journalists keep publishing articles on it after the election. In fact, here is an interesting one: The San Antonio Express-News just published an article after the election by Jennifer Lloyd entitled "Our 10 favorite election moments" (p. 19) in which this particular prank on Palin is ranked No. 1 appears at the top of their list. J Readings (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's what I think you're referring to (though of course dead-trees and web versions need not be the same). This little kerfuffle does indeed come at the top of the list, but -- Ahem! -- it's not ranked number 1 it's a bit misleading to say that it's ranked number one; instead, the list is in reverse chronological order, so it comes first merely because it's the newest. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC) ..... reworded 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • A fair niggle. I wrote it too quickly. I'll reword the above comment for the sake of precision, but it changes little. It's still considered one of the their 10 favorite moments and considered -- as Lloyd thinks -- part of what "defined the election cycle." I won't be surprised if other newspapers publish further stories on this issue. J Readings (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's another post-election opinion. The Blade (newspaper) published in Toledo, Ohio, provides business, financial and related news as well as regional news. It's formerly known as The Blade (KRTBN). In any case, they published an article the day after the election calling the Masked Avengers' prank on Palin "unforgettable." Or to be more precise, in case anyone wants to know, staff writer Kirk Baird considers the prank part of the "unforgettables" of the 2008 campaign. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may be right, Zsero. As the nominator, you may wish to duplicate this comment of yours, or write something similar, immediately under the nomination. (Incidentally, I'm puzzled by the widely quoted {example} term knowledgeability; I wonder if this was just a slip of the tongue or instead is to knowledge what truthiness is to truth.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the state of being knowledgeable. Knowledge is something one possesses more or less of; if one possesses much knowledge, one is knowledgeable, and others might remark on ones knowledgeability. Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and WordNet all list it. -- Zsero (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Many thanks for so ably knowledgabilitizing me, Zsero! I really must take the trouble to look words up in a dictionary from time to time. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This prank is notable for showing Palin's naviete. The pranksters have said all their other prank victims figured out it's a prank, except for Britney Spears (and Palin). They actually said it was "frightening" that she never suspected it's a prank. [31] For someone who could have been a heartbeat away from the U.S. presidency, such naivete is truly frightening. When you read the actually transcript, you can see amazing insights into her, such as when the prankster is joking about killing being so much fun. [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.210.229 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that in Palin's case, the standard trope was one elderly heartbeat away from the Presidency. But you are (and perhaps I am) editorializing here: the question is not the significance that you or I ascribe to the call (although this might determine whether or not we choose to bother to add to the article or to not-vote on it here); it's instead (in part) the significance ascribed to it by others to whose opinions we, uh, ascribe significance. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 9 November 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. MBisanz talk 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Mylasa

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

    Like the previously deleted Battle of Pedasa, this battle appears to not have happened. It gets a whopping total of 5 GHits, all of which are related to the Wikipedia article and not to the actual battle. No references appear to be forthcoming, other than an extremely brief mention in a book in Google Books. It should just be deleted. JuJube (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • To clarify, this article was not by the now-blocked Ariobarza (talk · contribs). Although he's been working on it, most of the work appears to have been done by Secthayrabe (talk · contribs), who also created Battle of Pedasa. Unfortunately we seem to have a systemic problem with our articles on ancient Persian history - there is a group of editors who are persistently filling up Wikipedia with original research and misused sources. I think it would be useful to have a proper review of these articles and editors and work out what to do with them; I'll put something together and post a link for anyone who wants to participate. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, the problem does seem to go wider than just the one editor. I wasn't trying to blame them for starting every bad article here! But they do seem to have been involved in a lot of them at one point or other ... --Nickhh (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wasn't my intention - I was merely taking the opportunity to raise the point that there is a wider problem that might need to be looked at once this AFD is done and dealt with (on its own merits). --Nickhh (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No currently published edition of Herotodus is in the sources list. How is anyone to know that Herotodus uses 3 pages on it? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm leaning towards keep, but I'd like to see someone on the delete side clearly explain why this article is felt to be a hoax (with reference to the known facts, not the editors). Everyking (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here is the sources, and more sources will be presented,[33] Herodotus talks about it in 3 pages, 355-358. Therefore this should conclude the AFD. thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
      • I'm more than amenable to changing my mind about this, but producing a limited preview book from google and stating that the AfD should thus end isn't a good or even an okay argument. Anyway, here's a better online copy of The Histories, since it is a full rather than limited preview. Unless the two translations vary greatly, little of what is in our article is supported by the text you've presented. I'd also be interested to see what modern scholarship has to say about the battle or the campaign in general. Herodotus is a good start, but we can't base articles off of him alone without some modern context. AniMate 02:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why don't you try Google Books, last time I checked there was more than a hundred results on the books about this battle, of course its mentioned by modern scholarship. Or you can ask a real historian. Plus different translations would not change the fact that the battle happened or not, and their would be only 1% difference between translations. I don't think translating ancient greek is that hard that each translation differs greatly anyway, so it has nothing to do with translations. BUT it has to do with editors who can not except things easily and need to waist other peoples times, and do not research for themselves. Thats the real issue here.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
    • Reply: All the links being supplied above don't come up with anything for me about this supposed event. I did my own search on the Web, Books and Scholar for "Battle of Mylasa" and got no hits at all for that phrase (other than to the WP article). This is not of course definitive, but it tends towards the conclusion - not that this is a "hoax" as such - but that there are no external reliable sources for the fact that an event like this took place, at least under this name. This is of course open to being proven wrong - but Ariobarza, you will have to come up with specific sources and relevant details. If it is coming from an off-line source (often of course far better than online sourcing) please explain exactly which source, and supply the supporting text. I will also repeat the point that you give the impression of having decided yourself that this thing happened, and then started on the work of simply google searching for some evidence, however tenuous, to back it up. Even if you can drag up one or two clearer hints that this may have happened, it is doubtful that it deserves a whole page to itself, based on a mix of osbcure and unclear references and speculation by WP editors. I'm sorry, but that's just the way this place works. --Nickhh (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Thanks for the friendly comment Nickhh, but I copy pasted this from this p. 317-318, [The Histories] , and this is what it says;


    (Thus the Cyprians having been free for one year were again reduced to servitude But Daurises who had married a daughter of Darius and Hymees and Otanes and other Persian generals who also had married daughters of Darius having pursued those of the lonians who had attacked Sardis and having driven them to their ships when they had conquered them in battle next divided the cities among themselves and proceeded to plunder them Daurises directing his march toward the cities on the Hellespont took Dardanus he also took Abydos Percote Lampsacus and Paesus these he took each in one day But as he was advancing from Paesus against Parium news was brought him that the Carians having conspired with the lonians had revolted from the Persians Therefore turning back from the Hellespont he led his army against Caria Somehow news of this was brought to the Carians before Daurises arrived The Carians having heard of it assembled at what are called the White Columns on the river Marsyas which flowing from the territory of Idrias falls into the |Maeander| (by the city of |Mylasa|) When the Carians were assembled on this spot several other propositions were made of which the best appeared to be that of Pixodarus son of Mausolus a Cyndian who had married the daughter of Syennesis King of the Cicilians His opinion was that the Carians having crossed the Maeander and having the river in their rear should so engage in order that the Carians not being able to retreat and being compelled to remain on their ground might be made even braver than they naturally were This opinion however did not prevail but that the Maeander should rather be in the rear of the Persians than of themselves to the end that if the Persians should be put to flight and worsted in the engagement they might have no retreat and fall into the river Afterward the Persians having come up and crossed the Maeander the Carians thereupon came to an engagement with the Persians on the banks of the river |Marsyas| and they fought an obstinate battle and for a long time but at last were overpowered by numbers Of the Persians there fell about two thousand and of the Carians ten thousand Such of them as escaped from thence were shut up in Labranda in a large precinct and sacred grove of plane trees dedicated to Jupiter Stratius The Carians are the only people we know who offer sacrifices to Jupiter Stratius They then being shut up in this place consulted on the means of safety whether they would fare better by surrendering themselves to the Persians or by abandoning Asia altogether While they were deliberating about this the Milesians and their allies came to their assistance upon this the Carians gave up what they were before deliberating about and prepared to renew the war and they engaged with the Persians when they came up and having fought were more signally beaten than before though in the whole many fell the Milesians suffered most [Now for Battle of Pedasa] The Carians however afterward recovered this wound and renewed the contest For hearing that the Persians designed to invade their cities they placed an ambuscade on the way to Pedasus into which the Persians falling by night were cut to pieces both they and their generals Daurises Amorges and Sisamaces and with them perished Myrses son of Gyges The leader of this ambuscade was Heraclides son of Ibanolis a Mylassian Thus these Persians were destroyed)

    And this is not enough for a battle article? Even Herodotus' text contains an unorganized Background, Battle, Aftermath, and more, and all I have to do is find a million other secondary sources, and yah. ALSO it is because of this fellow I wrongly named it Mylasa, I THINK we need to change the title to Battle of the Marsyas, this is why Battle of the Maeander, he calls it this, and says it's in 497 BC PLEASE click on this and read it fully, warning it may cause you a heart attack, its shocking to the eyes, thats it. Heres the big one, Battle of the Marsyas, it was along this river AND do a googlebook search for Battle of the Marsyas, you will be suprised. Here is an 1989 source, look for the word Marsyas and there is too much to put here, like 720 different sources, average dates between 1900's and 2000's. THE END.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

    THIS is not a source I will include for the article, because it is a snippet preview, but it at least proves the [validity] of the new title, which is for exact [verification] of the NEW title that is to be given to Battle of Mylasa, which the new title is Battle of the Marsyas, here it is, Battle of the Marsyas, crystal clearity. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

    Well done, you appear to have found details of a battle, with a name, which has at least one proper source. However it is an entirely different battle (this should have been easy to spot, because it appears to be a land battle in a different place with different combatants, rather than a "joint naval attack" etc as described in the old "Mylasa" info, now retained under this new name). Sorry, this article should still be deleted. Feel free to start from scratch with a new article about the different battle. Do you really just make this all up as you go along? --Nickhh (talk) 14:39, 7 November 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 deleted by me. The article cannot survive AfD, and is at least a test, if not a hoax/vandalism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chicken Run 2

    edit
    Chicken Run 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Prod removed without any evidence being offered. Pure speculation. Sgroupace (talk) 04:44, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Max's Hit and Run

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Max's Hit and Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Single non-notable storyline on the TV show EastEnders, adequately covered in the article for the protagonist Max Branning. Article is wholly in-universe & was prod'd & 2nd'd for deletion but contested. Obscure article title means it has no value as a search term, so redirection to either Max Branning or EastEnders would serve no purpose. Frickative 04:34, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Security Check

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

    Non-notable unofficial mixtape —Kww(talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment At what point do you intent to do a {{subst:afd1}} on the actual page you are trying to delete? Since that is the first step to listing an AFD, I was confused that I didn't see it... I also have to comment that this article uses a USER page on Wikipedia as its sole source, which you have to admit, is pretty funny. And it is unrelated to the article. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have previewed it and forgotten to save it. All done now.—Kww(talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:52, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concord-Painesville, Ohio

    edit
    Concord-Painesville, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is a single-sentence description of a proposed merger of several localities in Lake County, Ohio (near Cleveland), giving no sources except a single local citizens' group website; the website is so small that several aspects mentioned on its front page aren't yet online. Definitely not notable, and there's no article to which this (quite an unlikely target) should be redirected. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 09:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lex Miller

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

    This stub consists only of a reference to one letter written to Martin Luther King, Jr. by Mr. Miller. Lex Miller does not even come close to meeting WP:Notability. A Google search brings up only one relevant result for "Lex Miller" and only only one apparent relevant result for this particular "Alexander Miller". A WP article for someone who merely happened to write MLK a letter is wholly unnecessary. Kenosis (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I'm inclined to reverse my nomination preference in light of the additional information presented here. Though not a "major" figure, he now appears to me to meet WP:NOTE. Thanks for the information about him, folks. Obviously a merge with redirect would be appropriate. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ... Updated addendum: This begins to make sense in light of the comments provided here. Following Crusio, Metropolitan90 and others who've submitted comments below, maybe redirect and merge both existing articles to Alexander Miller (theologian), with a disabig page for "Alexander Miller", of which there are several. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:17, 5 November 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 WP:CSD#G7 (sole author requests deletion). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag Admiral (United States Navy)

    edit
    Flag Admiral (United States Navy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Although I was the one who write this article, it appears the source for this was nothing more than a forged military document and this rank was pretty much "made up". explain what happened, my original knowledge of this rank came from photocopies out of Nimit'z record which were provided to me by another WWII historian who I knew in college. Hence, I wrote the article and cited Nimit'z record as a source. Nimitz's record has since become public at NPRC and, after reviewing it myself just recently, I could find nothing in there about this rank. Upon contacting my original fellow historian, he admited to me that he had made those documents on his computer using cut and pasted scans out of Nimitz's record with doctored references to a rank called Flag Admiral which he first heard about in Star Trek. He said he had done so as a joke becuase he thought a six star rank in the U.S. Navy would have "been neat". Thus, this page should be deleted since there simply was no such rank as this in the US Navy. OberRanks (talk) 03:15, 4 November 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 anything encyclopedic to Jeopardy!, and then delete. There is a huge amount of information here, and little of it is sourced to reliable sources. Further amounts appear to be original research - "In the later years of the NBC version, players used magic markers to write with; in previous years, they may have used grease pencils or even black crayons". However, a summary of the important parts of the game show's set design could easily be compressed into a single paragraph in the parent article. This is not a "cruft" issue - it is an encyclopedic one. Furthermore, the article contains no less than 48 non-free images - if the article were to remain, the vast majority of these would clearly have to be removed. From a purely encyclopedic and free use point of view, I can see no other end to this AfD than Merge (a small subset of the information) to the parent article (which could do with a severe trimming itself). I have redirected to the parent article for the time being; after a suitable time for encyclopedic information to be transferred, I will delete the original. Please do not transfer any fair-use images to the parent article other than those that could be justified in that article under WP:NFCC.Black Kite 15:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeopardy! set evolution

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Jeopardy! set evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Horribly indiscriminate in nature, too many fairuse images. There is very little here that in my opinion could be merged. The set is just a very minor part of the show, and this is a high level of trivia suitable only for diehard game show fans. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Delete Although I agree that the article's trivia is so extreme as to be weird, it is referenced. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the sources are either trivial in nature or the Sony message boards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for calling that to my attention. The secondary sources are only used to establish side points. The information on the evolution of the set is only sourced by fan discussion boards, etc. I changed my vote to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - seriously trivial. Also fails WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:TRIVIA. Greg Jones II 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It has sources, but when it comes down to it, it's just many different ways to say 'Jeopardy has three desks, a host's lectern, and a gameboard'. This would be more useful and appropriate on a Jeopardy! wiki. Nate • (chatter) 05:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not a Jeopardy! wiki, we don't need to cover every minutia of the show. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Jeopardy!, perhaps transwiki to TV.com or something 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Most of the sources are not reliable. Minor things like the removal of the curtain could be covered in the main article (after a redirect) if not already there. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nominator does not cite policy/guideline justification for deletion. Main article subject passes notability with flying colors; this spin-off article needs to be permitted to stand because it presents important information about the history of the show that would clutter up the main article, such as, for example, the locations of its production--information that is well-sourced, contrary to some of the (inaccurate) remarks above. The nominator is correct that there is little here that could be merged. This article's raison d'etre is that the Jeopardy! article has the perennial problem of ballooning and the best way to handle the problem was with a reasonably tidy family of articles. This is how many extensive topics are dealt with on Wikipedia. The rationale "high level of trivia suitable only for [insert topic here] fans" is not valid because it is not applicable across the range of cultural-historical topics. There are numerous articles on obscure Civil War topics, for example--myriad generals, battles, and so forth--but I think most here would agree it would be inappropriate to put these topics up for AfD citing a basis that they contain a "high level of trivia suitable only for Civil War buffs". Information should not be removed from Wikipedia on the basis of value judgments of editors who do not understand the significance of the information--if such were the case, most scientific and mathematical topics would be deleted as trivia. "Who needs all this science and math cruft? Nobody cares!" The absurdity of the starting point needs to be addressed when presenting this sort of argument. ETA: It's inappropriate that some of the delete votes above cite fictional/nonexistent guidelines as deletion rationale. This doesn't help the process.Robert K S (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While there appear to be a lot of WP:WHOCARES arguments, there really is no reason for the production value of a show to have its own article.IRK!Leave me a note or two 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete definetely fails WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:TRIVIA, go to a Jeopardy! wiki. I hate to say this also, but this is pure cruft. --Numyht (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is "Delete"? per nom. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Please do NOT delete this article nominated for deletion. It can be useful for further info when needed.--70.240.249.205 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Chris[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD is now 5 days old and may be maturing toward closure in another few days. Lest a closing admin form an opinion on the basis of voting numbers alone, it may be worthwhile to provide general refutation of the delete rationales provided thus far. (1) The nominator's first rationale was that the article was "horribly indiscriminate in nature". Before exploring the meaning of this phrase, let it be stated unequivocally that article is not horribly indiscriminate in nature, as it contains information related only to the article subject and as described in the article lead, and does not contain tangential information. I hope I am making the right assumption in guessing that the nominator here refers to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e., that truth and verifiability are insufficient indicia for encyclopedia inclusion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE says little more than that included material must be notable, and that it should not, in general, consist of frequently asked questions, plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics, news reports. This article contains none of these lists. Other delete votes have invoked WP:TRIVIA as a rationale but with an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning WP:TRIVIA, which disesteems "creating lists of miscellaneous facts", something this article is not and does not contain. (Rather, it "provide[s] a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions".) No delete vote has yet made an agument on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY of the subject matter of the Jeopardy! set but such an argument would be met with the explanation that the article is spun-off of the larger main article, which is of undisputed notability, and that this article's sources, contrary to what is said above, include books, articles, press releases, web resources, and microfilms. The subject has been noted--only the degree or extent of its notability can be debated. (2) The nominator's second stated rationale is that the article contains "too many fairuse images". The article does not contain too many fair use images; it contains the minimum number of images to adequately illustrate the subject and the descriptions in the text. As well, this complaint, were it true, is not a deletion rationale, but rather, a rationale to remove or propose the removal of those images deemed unnecessary. The nominator has not said which images he believes nonessential. Each image has been carefully chosen to show some especial aspect of the Jeopardy! set and its change from set to set; the images fall into the category of "film and television screen shots... for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" (WP:NFC) and no argument as to their improper inclusion has ever been raised in the article's talk space to date. But this is for a different discussion, not a deletion discussion. "Too many images"--fair use or not--does not speak to includability in the encyclopedia. (3) Other delete (and keep) arguments speak to usefulness, appropriateness, or audience. These are subjective value judgments and none have provided objective evidence, criteria, or AfD case history. They amount to mere pleading, unsupported by showing of facts or policy. Robert K S (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I reverted my close per DHowell's comment on my talk. My original close is now provided as my reason for delete, with a smidge of expansion. Consensus is that this material does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. It's not a likely search term so I don't think a re-direct is a valid or necessary option. While making the case that the deletes don't cite policy, keep also fails to do so and cite the policies this meets. Suggest a mention in the main article of sourced non-trivial information. StarM 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There is reliable source material available in addition to what is cited in the article. Prisoner of Trebekistan: A Decade in Jeopardy! and Television Game Show Hosts: Biographies of 32 Stars both contain detailed descriptions of the Jeopardy! set and changes made to it. This is enough reliable source coverage to make the set of Jeopardy notable and thus worthy of a separate article. Any defects in this article can thus be cured through regular editing, and therefore, per policy, it should not be deleted. DHowell (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete overly trivial aspect of the game show. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as overly trivial indiscriminate information which is almost entirely unsourced. (The ratio of footnotes to statements in this article is very low.) Allow a transwiki to the Gameshows Wikia if they want it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - fairly straightforward - sourced, notable. No real argument for deletion presented beyond personal distaste, which is uncompelling. Dial-up internet users and whatnot force spinning out of large content sections into smaller articles - merging is impossible. Info cannot be honestly claimed as indiscriminate (it's highly discriminate) nor trivia (it's coherent and organised). Leaves only Keep as a plausible option. WilyD 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:IINFO.--Boffob (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are we still seeing delete votes with this rationale which has already been shown to be inapplicable? This article is not a list of frequently asked questions, plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics, news reports, or similar. Robert K S (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because people can vote for whatever reasons they want, not what someone has deemed applicable. INFO is not strictly limited to those items. StarM 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If IINFO doesn't speak to the class/category of indiscriminate information that a delete voter believes the article content falls under, is it not a valid rationale to cite the guideline without further explanation as to why the guideline fits the case. Sure, editors can "vote" with whatever rationales they choose, but justified arguments ought to carry more weight with a closing admin: the closing admin should be able to justify the close by pointing to guidelines, particularly when it comes to closing an article that has had such a long life and edit history, has had a previous AfD, and has 15 cited sources. Robert K S (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And simple existence does not mean it's notable. INFO speaks to notability, not existence. A previous AfD does not guarantee a keep here. I already closed it once but reverted thanks to a polite request. Closing admin judges consensus, not what an involved editor deems applicable. StarM 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Judgment of consensus must take into account validity of rationales, not mere number of votes, and especially not votes that cite fictional/bogus policies (as some do, above--see the redlinks). I and others have addressed the notability issue in this thread and there hasn't been any response in subsequent delete votes--only trite repetitions. How many delete votes come from editors who devalue the article subject matter, directed here by AfD list pages, submitting token votes rather than investigating the cited sources? A delete rationale actually aimed at achieving consensus would be persuasive that the article is non-notable or does not deserve its own article for the size control reason. I will add the additional sources referred to by the editor whom you respected enough to re-open this AfD, but if you intend on closing the nomination again, I would hope you would offer the explanation that has not yet been offered by any delete voters, addressing the points I have made. IINFO simply doesn't apply here. The article is about an existing world location and how it has changed--not tangential trivia like "References to the Jeopardy! set in pop culture". If you want an example article that comes much closer to failing IINFO, take a look at something like List_of_Star_Wars_planets_(E-G), which offers sparsely-sourced, fictional details about fictional places. By contrast, this article covers a topic of historical-cultural-technological value about real places, people, and objects. It is a place seen daily on television by millions of Americans for multiple generations. Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not going to close it, I've now voted and that would be inappropriate. There are issues in delete votes which have not yet been resolved and I have not seen how notability of the set has been proven. And that's said as a Jeopardy fan. The show is wonderful and notable, that doesn't mean the set is. Please also see other shit exists, which doesn't mean it or this should. If it survives AfD, it's because the closing admin will see consensus in doing so. I personally disagree which is my right as an editor. Oh and there's nothing wrong with deletion lits, they're an acceptable part of the project to drawn attention from both sides to get further consensus. Non-involved editors who learn about the AfD that way are actually neutral as opposed to those who think they OWN it. Nothing wrong with either side, but it's hard to be impartial when you've worked on it. I've always said clearly, I won't !vote delete on museums, I'm biased, so I don't close them. When I closed it it was due to consensus but I was willing to re-open due to a polite request. More flies with honey, you know? StarM 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please don't misunderstand my invocation of "other shit", which was not to say, "That is allowed, but this isn't?"--rather, I was trying to draw a contrast between what I see as a valid application of IINFO and an invalid one. Robert K S (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: apparently some people need more precision. Yes, it exists and is verifiable. That doesn't make it any less of an essay on indiscriminate trivia. Various set changes over time aren't particularly historically notable in the long run. As mentioned by others, it's an unlikely search term, and it rivals the Jeopardy! article in size. For one very specific aspect of the show, that's a clear sign of bloating with indiscriminate info.--Boffob (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll Take 'Unencyclopedic, Badly Referenced, Trivia Clogged Articles Deserving Deletion for $200,' Please WP:IINFO woes, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – Simply because the content of the article may be somewhat verifiable, it doesn't make this article any less trivial. In order for the set of Jeopardy! to be considered notable, the article needs to establish the historical importance of this in a broader context than simply Jeopardy!—for example how this might have changed the field of game shows, television and/or American culture. Just for clarification, I would also like to notice that the notability guideline only establishes "a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion [of substantive coverage in reliable sources], it is not suitable for inclusion". —Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've collaborated with Robert K S on this article in the past, and we had this issue come up before. This sort of bureaucracy is exactly why many new people get discouraged from editing an encyclopedia - by fearing that their new additions will get deleted for reasons this article are up again. Instead of striving to be a "run-of-the-mill" encyclopedia, why doesn't TPTB at Wikipedia pull their collective heads out of their asses and stop with the AfD nonsense? And maybe strive to be something different. Or here's a better idea - a DARING - NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA WITH INFO NOT SEEN ELSEWHERE!!! (WOW, what a concept!!) The content of this article exists NOWHERE ELSE on the internet in the depth that it is covered here. NOWHERE. Not even Jeopardy!'s own website (in fact, they removed and stopped the practice of showing their own evolution on the Jeopardy! website in 1997). Just because it is a rarely used search term, it does not automatically warrant an AfD tag, or likewise just because someone deems it "useful information." Hey, lemme ask this. What if a kid in high school is doing a report on Jeopardy!'s history and the show's evolution is a required topic (including the evolution of its set and theme music)? Where, pray tell, would one be able to find information as detailed and as thorough as this article? NO FAN SITE ON THE INTERNET covers this information IN THIS DEPTH. The assertions that this article are mere cruft are nonsense and aren't warranted. Today's Final Jeopardy! Category is this: "Keep This Article". Stop the bullshit already, this article shouldn't have ever been reconsidered for an AfD! Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentApologies if that came off as being uncivil (as it was not meant to be), but let's be real here. After it passed the first AfD nomination, it should never have been brought up again. The consensus then agreed to it being up, and I find it rather saddening that TPTB at Wikipedia (as well as the overzealous editor(s) who flagged this for a 2nd AfD) insist on these draconian rules that prohibit good-natured articles such as this from being in existence. Wikipedia needs to 1.) stop being so damn uptight, and 2.) needs to be open to newer ideas (including articles like this).Srosenow 98 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found two more books which cover the subject of the game show in great detail: The Jeopardy! Book: The Answers, the Questions, the Facts, and the Stories of the Greatest Game Show in History and This Is Jeopardy: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show. While I haven't yet looked at the contents of these books (they are not available for preview in Google Books), I'd bet it is quite likely that there is more information to be found about the game show's changing sets here. This is one of the most popular game shows on the planet, with plenty of reliable source material available for many aspects of the show if one bothers to look. The opinion that detailed information about a "very minor part of the show" is "trivial" or "indiscriminate" is just that: an opinion, based on no more than a gut feeling. We can, and we ought to be able to, cover in detail such aspects of certain topics when there are reliable sources available which cover in detail such aspects of those subjects. Don't forget also, that what we can find on the Internet is not the totality of reliable source material available: I'd bet that every time the set of Jeopardy changed, there was a magazine (like TV Guide) or a newspaper that covered it somewhere. DHowell (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
    • CommentThe problem with those two books is that they do not provide NEARLY as much detail as this article does, and both are are poorly illustrated. The Jeopardy! Book has only a small selection of black and white photos (including one decent one showing the backside of the original gameboard from ca. Season Three, in addition to a fairly decent one of the entire set under natural lighting. All the photos are of low resolution and the book doesn't cover nearly as much detail as this article does. This Is Jeopardy! is also poorly illustrated, only showing cropped photos of each set (with the exception of the 1991-1997 set), and doesn't go into detail when each set was used, nor the minute changes made to each set during its tenure on the show. Another book I also have, "Inside Jeopardy!" by former show staffer Harry Eisenberg, has NO illustrations WHATSOEVER and doesn't even cover the fact that Jeopardy! taped a second pilot (instead only mentions that a pilot was taped using the card-pulling-set from the Fleming era). I stand firm in my ground that this article deserves to stay. It survived one AfD and went for over a year and a half before overzealousness struck. I think it's one of the finer articles I've been a part of (having recently added the photos of its second season).Srosenow 98 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wikipedia is not a repository for things not found elsewhere, a book being in poor condition is not a reason to have an article. Also, a keep at AfD doesn't mean "keep forever" it means, "keep now". Consensus can and often does change. StarM 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Does anyone ever believe in thinking outside the box anymore? Apparently, I guess not. The draconian rule that "Wikipedia isn't a repository for things not found elsewhere" is, IMNSHO, a rule that should be thrown out. If it can't be found elsewhere, then where in the hell is anyone going to find it, period?! Srosenow 98 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems that while any one book might not cover the subject in as much detail as this article, if information is collected from all available books and sources, that should provide the level of detail that is appropriate for this article. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines requires that any single source cover a topic to the same or greater detail than our own article. One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is that by allowing editors to collect information from a variety of soruces, we can create a comprehensive article that covers a subject in a level of detail not found elsewhere in any single source. Srosenow 98, one thing you can do to help save this article, since you apparently have those books, is to add specific citations to the article for any information that you do find in those books. Right now, none of the five books mentioned so far in this AfD are being cited in this article. For example, the facts about the first Trebek pilot that you found in Inisde Jeopardy! can be cited here. DHowell (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentI doubt that would have any effect, despite me coming up with the necessary citations (the aforementioned lack thereof in the books mentioned above should be more than supplanted by the screenshots illustrating the visual changes to the sets). Srosenow 98 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm concerned about statements in the article such as "Instead of a 3-inch border surrounding 30 19" TV monitors, the new gameboard consisted of 30 25-inch TV screens encased in a half-inch frame." It would be difficult to measure the borders and the screens just by looking at a photograph of the gameboard without getting into original research. Presumably whoever wrote that sentence got the information from somewhere, but I have no idea where it came from. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exactly. The kind of detail found in this article presumably must have come from some source, because it seems too detailed to have been original research (unless it came directly from one of the set designers or something). It is unfortunate that the original editor didn't cite the source. I managed to track down the original edit to the Jeopardy! article which added this particular information [35], but unfortunately it was added by an anonymous IP address back in 2005, and that IP hasn't been seen since 2006. It would be really nice to find the real source for this info. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Although I was a new Wikipedia editor (had yet to register at that time), that edit sourced in 2005 came from none other than yours truly. The dimensions of the computer monitors were available to me due to the fact that my high school managed to purchase three of those game board monitors when they retired that set for the purpose of using them in a TV News class. Two of them were the chroma key monitors on our weather forecasts, and one of them was an in-studio monitor directly in front of the set. I can even tell you what slot on the gameboard they came from. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vision forum

    edit
    Vision forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • reconsider the author has taken in the criticism and made changes accordingly. please reconsider deletion.prallman Talk

    This article, which was just speedily deleted as a copyvio, has been recreated with slightly different wording. Even if the copyvio issue has been resolved, however, this seems like self-promotional advertising, doesn't it? Biruitorul Talk 03:03, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammad Shafiq Hamdam

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

    Possibly a speedy A7, but there were some claims of importance in the first draft (which I removed per WP:V and WP:NPOV policy). Original editor contested a prod but otherwise hasn't responded to the WP:V concerns. Very few ghits, but perhaps there are some Persian language sources? Marasmusine (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I was going to close this as an essentially 9 day PROD but seeing as the PROD was removed I'd like to give it more time for discussion. That said, no evidence of notability. The utter lack of English sources doesn't inspire confidence that he's notable, but I wonder whether there are alternate spellings. StarM 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No claim of notability in the article, no external evidence thereof. Bongomatic 05:45, 8 November 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. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lake Zurich Middle School South

    edit
    Lake Zurich Middle School South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable middle school. No school district article to redirect to. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:37, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of best-selling Greek artists

    edit
    List of best-selling Greek artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A former editor of this page myself, I have come realized that it fails most wikipedia guidelines. The sourced numbers currently present are often attempted to be updated without a new source being provided, while a majority of the entries have no sources at all. It is near impossible to find a source for the remaining entries; I believe most are calculated by counting certifications. I'm tired of babysitting numbers that I cannot verify. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where I asked for cleanup? I am trying to delete this article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to source all of the information at all? If it is, then deletion isn't the answer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been searching for over a year, that is where the current sources came from, it used to have none at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--AfD is also not the place to find sources for what may be imaginary numbers. Look at the note at the bottom: "Note – Numbers may not be accurate." In the state that it is in right now, this article needs to be deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I used to edit the page, I know I made some of them up through counting certification, but now that I'm experienced, I've learned about a thing called original research. btw, I added that note a few months ago. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha, I should have looked that up--I had a feeling that might be the case. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 02:15, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    STFIL

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

    Non-notable neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:06, 4 November 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 nomination withdrawn. Significant notability has been demonstrated in that this is the first lesbian couple in an American soap opera. Also, the shape of the article has improved dramatically, with a 35-fold increase in its size to prove it. Thirteen reliable and verifiable sources have made this a viable article. Thank you to User:Rocksey for all the work he put in. Closure by nominator and non-administrator. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery

    edit
    Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A fictional couple in a TV show. Is this needed here? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bianca and Reese are proving a point that you can be lesbin couple on a soap opera. --M42380 (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete and no redirect- There is already an article on Bianca Montgomery which covers this, plus article List of All My Children characters which lists the other character. No reason to create another article to describe relationship between two characters in a soap opera. LeaveSleaves talk 04:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note/Comment. It does not matter that the Bianca Montgomery article already exists. Two characters having their own individual articles does not negate those two characters having a couple article about them, if the couple is notable. The article Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone is an example of that. Other examples can be found at List of fictional supercouples. That said, I am very angry that M42380 chose to create this article after I told M42380 that I would create this article and the article Reese Williams would be redirected there due to the fact that Reese Williams is a new character mostly tied to Bianca and they are a notable couple. I do not like to be rushed. I had planned on adding more well-sourced information to the Bianca Montgomery article first, then to create the Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery article, then this one. I am not about to rush to add notability to this article when the Lena and Bianca article I am soon to create deserves my attention first. Therefore, this article can go ahead and be deleted. I will recreate it soon enough, with proper formatting and notability. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- I disagree with the reason this was put up for deletion. This isn't the first Wikipedia article about a fictional couple on a TV show. Also, Reese and Bianca are already a groundbreaking couple even though they're extremely new.Rocksey (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This article was put up for deletion with valid reason. If M42380 wants to create articles here, then M42380 needs to learn how to follow the Wikipedia:Notability policy, like I pointed out on M42380's talk page. Frankly, I am tired of bailing editors out of situations like this or similar to this when they should have been the ones to provide notability for those articles. New editors like M42380 need to learn. But M42380 is a new editor and we must keep that in mind. Rocksey is right that this couple is already groundbreaking. To help out, here is a reference from AfterEllen.com editor Sarah Warn, that proves it: [36]. I was just being bitter because I do not like being forced into something. It takes significant time and effort to construct these articles, and I had already had this article outlined in my head of how I wanted to create it and when I was going to create it, which would be soon. But I may have time to go ahead and fix up this article with that same outline in mind without rushing. In the meantime, if I do not get to it, perhaps it will be fixed up by Rocksey, who has already started to fix it up and who has proven herself to be an excellent editor here in creating/fixing up fictional character/couple articles. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • second comment Flyer22, I never asked you to help me out. I am still learning at Wikipedia and don't know everything about this site.. THank you for helping me. --M42380 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Thanks,Flyer22 for the compliment and the reference. I will try to fix it up. To clarify, I do agree that this article shouldn't have been made so soon. Reese has only just started airing a few days ago. I just don't agree with the reason Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) wrote for the deletion. The article shouldn't be deleted just because it's about a fictional couple. There are several out there right now. Even though it is pretty soon to be creating this, I've already found some good references for it. Rocksey (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete . It's better handled and more complete in the article on Bianca. Since there's no article on Reese, make one, even if it duplicates partially. DGG (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It's only handled and more complete in the Bianca article because this article (Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery) has not yet been written properly. The Bianca article only covers the plot about this couple, and very little of the plot. I would hardly call that complete or truly represenative of this notable couple. With a Writing section and an Impact section, this article will stand on its own; there is enough real-world information and notability regarding this couple for this article to exist with merit. The Reese Williams article does exist. The fact is...she should not have an article yet. She is not yet a developed character and all of her notability lies with her romantic pairing with Bianca Montgomery. This article should remain and the Reese Williams article should be redirected to this one. If I or if Rocksey fixes up this article before this deletion debate is over, I will "vote" Keep. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep . Reese and Bianca are inportant in enough to keep their suppercouple page open for others to view. --M42380 (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE Can easily be assimilated into Bianca Montgomery article. Wikipedia is not a fansite for All My Children and articles on every pairing that ever takes part on the show is not neccessary or desirable. References from soap opera publications cannot be taken as a neutral viewpoint of the notability of the couple. Paul75 (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I point out that Paul75 feels this way about all fictional couple or supercouple articles. Probably even the Lost (TV series) featured couple article Nikki and Paulo. Saying that information on this couple can easily be assimilated in the Bianca Montgomery article is silly. Why should it be, when it will needlessly make that article longer and this couple is notable all on its own? I provided the AfterEllen.com reference above that clearly shows this couple's notability. Wikipedia surely is not a fansite, and will not have an article for every All My Children pairing that ever takes part on this show; it will, however, have a Wikipedia article for every notable pairing that takes part on this show, and Wikipedia's policy for articles on fiction allows that. It not being necessary is only an opinion, just as if it were felt that the article on Nikki and Paulo is not necessary and should instead be easily assimilated into the Lost (TV series) article. The Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery couple also does not soley have references from soap opera publications to prove its notability. The AfterEllen.com reference is just one example of that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to keep comments about the article in question and not about other editors. --neon white talk 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question Why can't soap opera publications be taken as a neutral viewpoint?

    Also, I've done some work to add real world material with references. Rocksey (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional comment. As further proof of what this article can be, I advise others and the closing administrator of this debate to look at the Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery article I just created. That article is very valid, very relevant, and the couple is very notable. I do not create fluff articles. In the same way that the information in that article on Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery would have taken over too much of the Bianca Montgomery article, so would all the information I have of the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery couple. Bottomline is...the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery couple is very notable; they carried out the first marriage proposal between lesbians on an American soap opera, and will be the first lesbian marriage on an American soap opera, possibly any soap opera. In addition, they are notable for displaying more onscreen kisses than any of Bianca's other romantic pairings, and the controversy surrounding Bianca's second child. There is no valid point in deleting this article when I have provided a little notability for it above, and when all that will happen is my recreating it to comply with Wikipedia's standards in full. Deleting it, essentially, would be a waste of time. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the case then there should be no trouble finding mutliple second party sources. --neon white talk 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no trouble. I gave one third party source above. Others can easily be found if people would Google good enough. But it should also be kept in mind that Google and online sources are not everything. This article has not been fixed up completely yet...because I have not done so yet. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. It's apparent that Rocksey has now started fixing up this article and has now provided more second party sources. Looks like I will be "voting" Keep now below. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Flyer22 has been reported here [37] for attempting the prejudice the outcome of this AfD by using proof by assertionPaul75 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. There is nothing wrong with pointing out a biased "vote" whatsoever, and it has been done in deletion debates here before. This is not the first deletion debate I have pointed out a biased "vote" in. And as for my comments about keeping the article in general, but writing paragraphs and paragraphs of reasons why the article should not be deleted, simply reiterating my viewpoint over and over again every time an editor makes an argument for deleting the article is exactly what goes on in deletion debates. I have not stated the same exact thing over and over again, anyway. My comments are helpful and justified, and do not stop a fair or truthful deletion procedure. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ASAP Welcome to 2008 - it's no longer a big/notable thing to be a lesbian, and many other shows have been there before. To actually say this is now a big deal is rather ... well, bigoted (and so 1970's), IMHO.
      • Comment. Welcome to 2008 is exactly what American soap opera viewers still have to say to networks, and to some viewers who do not want to see it. It is still a big/notable thing to be gay or lesbian on an American soap opera, and especially to have a gay or lesbian romance on an American soap opera, despite that many other shows have been there before. To actually say this is now a big deal is rather ... well, not bigoted (and not so 1970s); it's the truth. Gay and lesbian romances on American soap operas are extremely rare. If they were not, then this couple would not be groundbreaking for including the first lesbian marriage proposal on an American soap opera and for the upcoming first same-sex marriage on an Ameriacn soap opera. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This couple is clearly notable, as I have pointed out above, and this article has now started being fixed up and now has second party sources to prove its notability. More fixing up and second party sources will continue to be done/added to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 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 deleted by me. This is plainly a hoax/self-amusement on behalf of the author. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cory Dean

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

    WP:HOAX? AfD because notability is asserted. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:44, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Confederation of Asian and Pacific Accountants

    edit
    Confederation of Asian and Pacific Accountants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Created by User:Capa-kl, implying a conflict of interest. Some notability asserted. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Delete Obvious copyvio http://www.capa.com.my/ ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 7 November 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 deleted by Orangemike. Synergy 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SIFE Tsinghua

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

    Foreign language. Is it on -zh? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:36, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rules of Tag Backs

    edit
    Rules of Tag Backs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can identify the subject of the article (I removed a CSD A1 tag), but is it really notable? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not notable, little context, and presents rules as if they were set and present for all cases when obviously not the case. I agree with deletion; maybe could be fit into Tag (game) somewhere, but finding good sources for even that is probably iffy. Jomasecu (talk) 01:45, 4 November 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 SNOW StarM 03:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Real witches

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

    Reads like someone's essay. WP:OR? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:32, 4 November 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 Miley Cyrus. Black Kite 01:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brandi Glenn Cyrus

    edit
    Brandi Glenn Cyrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    May well be notable, but I can't see strong, referenced notability claims, other than being a relative of someone else who is notable (but notability doesn't transfer that way) and playing a minor role as a musician...

    Happy for this to be kept if some verified notability is noted.

    I also have some BLP concerns over some of the content. The article's also very trashy - not that that is a reason for deletion. Dweller (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the tidyup. In gratitude, please accept the wikilink I've inserted in your message. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. She is mentioned in her sister's article already. There's not an awful lot here that seems necessary to add to the bare mention of her, and it's extremely unlikely anyone's going to enter "Brandi Glenn Cyrus" as a search term, as she's so (apparently) unnotable. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Wynford Lodge

    edit
    Charles Wynford Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fictional biography of a character who has only appeared in a few YouTube videos and one (apparently unreleased) amateur film. If the film fails WP:MOVIE, as it seems to, then the fictional actor playing its lead character also does. McGeddon (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamila Coleman

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

    Marginally asserts importance but lacks reliable sources to substantiate the claim. Subject simply does not meet the threshold for Wikipedia. JodyB talk 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:24, 4 November 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nespak Society

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

    As far as can be ascertained, this is a run-of-the-mill housing estate. Article makes no claim to notability. Emeraude (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 November 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 have been provided to support the content of this BLP. the two sources that are provided merely mention his name once.  Sandstein  16:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alireza Amirghassemi

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

    Unsourced BLP, either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Although there are mixed reviews about this man, as there are about many public figures, he is a very well-known and important figure in the Iranian community in the United States. He has one website www.tapeshtv.com , he is the publisher of a magazine, Tapesh Magazine, he is the president of Tapesh TV, Tapesh Records, and Tapesh Productions, and he has several shows on television. His channel, Tapesh TV, is a non-political entertainment channel and is also available on DishNetwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhamenehpour (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hard to find English sources for people in the middle east. I added a couple of rough sources, and it appears that there are plenty more. I hate to beat a dead horse, but the nom keeps saying "either it should be sourced or deleted" and simply is NOT the policy here. WP:DEADLINE covers this, and others. If there isn't any sources to be found, then yes, I am all over the delete !vote. But to keep nominating and demand that we all jump and find the sources that DO exist, and YOU can go see them yourself, is a bit unreasonable. Assuming you search before you nom an article, if you find any decent sources, you can't nom. If you really feel they are borderline, why don't you just tag the article instead of flooding AFD with articles that HAVE sources? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep until a native speaker says sources don't exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
    • Weak delete This is a little more of a problem, and the nomination was not unreasonable--the article contains material that is evaluative of the subject on a personal basis, and article in the only link, an Iranian newspaper, does not strike me as reliable. I don't think this can stay in unless stubiffied or sourced. Thus the reason way these sort of nominations are not a good idea--they fail to highlight the actual problems. DGG (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 November 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  16:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agavi

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

    Another PHP framework that seems to fail WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable, third-party sources that cover the topic in sufficient depth to support notability. VG ☎ 23:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: All the sources that T8BGH1 posted are unreliable or not independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No references no mention establishing notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Agavi is heavily used outside of the English-speaking world (particularly in Germany), which is why it's somewhat difficult to find sources for it in English. [43], [44] (partially English), [45] for instance. The fact that it has lasting articles on de and fr Wikipedia is evidence of this. $nf->{'user'}; $nf->{'talk'}; 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 1st link is a blog, albeit a fairly detailed entry; the 2nd is directory-type entry, the third is a talk given by David Zülke one of the developers of Agavi, at a monthly London PHP meeting. If it were a more selective conference (like not held monthly), it would have some weight towards establishing notability. VG ☎ 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure how many conferences Agavi has been mentioned in; here's another talk by Mr. Zülke at the International PHP Conference this year: [46]. It's also mentioned in Rasmus Lerdorf's talk on frameworks [47] among several other notable PHP frameworks (Zend, etc.). The article definitely needs a lot of work, but I think notability can be established. $nf->{'user'}; $nf->{'talk'}; 05:18, 9 November 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. MBisanz talk 09:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Alaimo

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

    Fails WP:BIO. Plus, if the film he directed doesn't have its own wikipedia article, why should he? If the consensus is Keep, then it shouldn't be hard to cleanup, so I suggest not letting the current state of the article sway you. DavidWS (contribs) 00:01, 4 November 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_November_4&oldid=1116879511"