Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeandré du Toit (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 6 December 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< December 5 December 7 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. discounting the WP:SPA Secret account 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations

Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. Will retract deletion request with inline references to reliable, published, third party, sources. For more information see email and notes at VRTS ticket # 2008120410019856. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t06:49z 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete Not sure what is thought to be a hoax. Much of the article belongs in the main Council on Foreign Relations article. The Manhattan Committee has a site here. My guess is it just started calling itself "Manhattan" rather than "New York", accounting for paucity of refs under that name. That there were local committees set up by the CFR in 1938 in several cities is easily checked, by looking at these search results. Here's a book on these committees. Here's an encyclopedia article on the Louisville committee. I think we should try to have articles on the overarching organization affiliated to the CFR, the American Committees on Foreign Relations and each local group.John Z (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] is not a third party source, and none of the other refs are for this organization. Google News has nothing [2], and Google only has WP clones, [3], and this discussion about it being a possible scam. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t11:20z
    There's no question there's a NYC committee, the question seems to be whether the nyccfr.org site and the name "manhattan committee ..." is associated with it, or is some kind of scam. The latter seems to be likely, but unproved. My keep was more directed to the real organizations which don't have any articles and to get more information about the nomination. The 1964 book on the committees does not have the word manhattan on any page according to google, so "Manhattan Committee ..." was not in use then, increasing the likelihood of it being unconnected to the CFR.John Z (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty clear now that the "Manhattan Committee on Foreign relations" is a (non-notable) hoax as suspected. Here is the official list of all the local ACFR committees. The Manhattan Committee is not on it, nor is there a local NYC committee, because the main Council on Foreign Relations has always been headquartered there, and so there apparently was no need for a local affiliate.John Z (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems clear that the CFR and the NYCFR are entirely distinct organizations. The only legitimate hit on the NYCFR is its website, which suggests that nobody really cares. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only dispute regarding this page is the fact that the MCFR is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. The summary states that "the committees on foreign relations were founded by the council on foreign relations in 1938" that is a completely verifiable fact Here. The Manhattan Chapter is a chapter of the American Committees on Foreign Relations Here. Furthermore, if that is the only problem with this entry, why not just edit that portion out? Then we can all get back to doing more important, constructive, and fulfilling things. • createawiki (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008
    • [4] is not a reliable, published, third party source. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t21:42z
  • Delete It does seem that this committee is in some extended sense a child of the CFR, being na regional chapter of the ACFR. The problem, nonetheless, is that it isn't notable. Googling consistently fails to turn up anything of note. I can't even get something to turn up on the ACFR. The best hits I get merely trace these chapters back (through linkages) to the CFR. There is an article on at least one other regional chapter, and it has the same issues. If American Committees on Foreign Relations can be made viable, then perhaps these regional chapters can be redirected to it; at this point that doesn't appear possible. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I now agree with your original delete, not this one. :-) The MCFR seems to be a proven hoax which has no relation to the CFR or the ACFR, real and notable organizations with plenty of refs, although only the first has an article here. As above, the MCFR, or any NYC committee is NOT on the complete list of all committees of the ACFR.John Z (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that all the committees that are part of the American Committees on Foreign Relations have the same claim to be founded by the Council on Foreign Relations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 just to name a few!! The Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations is no exception Here. Additionally it could not use the name Committee on Foreign Relations without authorization from the ACFR Here. I see know fraud on this entry, at worst it may simply need some editing!!! • wikieraser 03:49, 9 December 2008
    • Where is the Manahttan committee mentioned in these links? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:06z
  • Keep There is no problem with the viability of the American Committees on Foreign Relations and google turns up over 1,500 searches. Reference This Book on the ACFR, Here, Here, and These 34 Committee websites. Additionally there are independent sources for each committee Reuters and North Florida Committee on Foreign Relations and Lastly this • wikieraser 04:15, 9 December 2008
    • Where is the Manahttan committee mentioned in these links?
    • Also, please don't change or delete other editors' votes and comments: [6], [7], [8]. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:06z
      • The Last post was about the American Committees on Foreign Policy NOT the Manhattan Committee. It was in reference to the earlier post about the ACFR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.14 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-09t23:27:23z, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.14 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-09t23:28:12z

This is getting too confused

This has gotten to be a complete mish-mash, so let me try to lay out the issues:

  • Is the Manhattan Committee independently notable? That is what it needs to have an article. My personal conclusion is that it is not. As I said, I could pull up nothing more than the most minimal signs of it.
  • Is it the same as the Council on Foreign Relations? This it clearly is not. It has a different website, different physical offices, and different officers. This is my biggest issue with the content of the current article: it is borrowing notability from the CFR through the use of a list of references, non of which mention the Manhattan Committee.
  • Is it part of the American Committees on Foreign Relations? That isn't entirely clear. I'm inclined to believe that the ACFR website has a mistake and that the Manhattan Committee is a chapter of the ACFR. Nevertheless, the problem then is that the ACFR doesn't have an article and is of questionable notability itself.

When all the unsourced and CFR-related material is removed from the article, the only thing left is the opening paragraph; and I think at this point that's all we can get. At that point, we don't have to answer the issues about the ACFR. The lack of independent notability is good enough reason to delete the article, or at best redirect it back to the parent organization. When push comes to shove, it is nothing more than a regional chapter of some larger organization. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 10 December 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. Secret account 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaye Saint John

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

This article makes no attempt to relay its importance. It reads as a possible WP:COI submission. There are no reliable sources that substantially discuss the article's topic. ju66l3r (talk) 06:33, 6 December 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.


BRING SHAYE BACK!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.190.222 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaydays (film)

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

Unremarkable film. Unable to identify any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 05:44, 6 December 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 Cenarium (Talk) 11:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaydays(2008)

Awaydays(2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable film. Unable to identify any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 05:43, 6 December 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) 01:15, 11 December 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 Gummies. The current content is brief and unsourced, but may be merged from the history if so desired.  Sandstein  19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzy Blue Bottles

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

Delicious no doubt but not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia entry. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bongomatic 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I dug a little and it appears to have been a candy made by Lutti, which was bought by Leaf SAS [13], the French division of Leaf Candy Company, which has itself been subsequently been sold to a couple private investment companies. I think it would be worth including as one of their candies maybe? Here's a nice pic of the candies to inspire [14]. Or perhaps someone could create a expand the Pick n mix article? Not to be confused with the Pick 'n' Mix album by Lolly (singer). ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tireless work on this important subject hasn't stopped. There is also a Cola bottles article on the candiies. Can it be merged there? ChildofMidnight (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to merge/redirect to either Cola bottles or Leaf Candy Company. A short sentence in the Cola bottles article would suffice. I don't know much about this type of candy or these companies. A search on Google doesn't enlighten me either, so if a merge to one of these articles is implausible, I would support a delete as a last resort. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the tag (before reading your comment). One step at a time. Let's combine these two articles and then consider a merge with the parent company. I'd like a chance to look into the subjects.ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cola Bottles are made by multiple companies - not all make Fizzy Blue Bottles - so I would oppose and merge to a company on that basis. These sweets(candy) need to be show that they are notable or maybe could be listed in an article on gum sweets. Nuttah (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good piont. I think a Gummies article makes sense and the first step of that is to combine these two. I'm open on whether to change the Gummi bear article to Gummies or Gummy candies or something like that, or whether to take out the other types of gummy candy fromt hat article and put those all together with these for a new article. But I think there's no reason to delete the history of these stubby articles that are best merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once they are combined there is also the possibility of merging it with a "Gummies" article. Right now the only article is Gummi bears which mentions the other types. But a renamed more general article (including gummi bears) or a separate article on the various types seems appropriate. There are of course books on these candies, so these are notable topics. I think a merge is quite reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Compton (musician)

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

Apparently entirely non-notable beyond playing with a few notable artists? No sources other than links to website/fan group. MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Davies (musician)

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

Apparently entirely non-notable beyond playing with a few notable artists; primary website is MySpace page. MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 05:14, 6 December 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) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: A large number of sources have been added since the last delete !vote. Relisting so the discussion can focus on the article as it currently stands.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Most of the sources are about the band, not the musician. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "the band"—there are three different bands. And, according to WP:N there is not a requirement that coverage be exclusive, just that it is not trivial. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:26, 16 December 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 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Thomas Miller

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

Seems more of a copy-paste from a personal site - notability not attested. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 05:12, 6 December 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 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Flynn

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

Non-notable beyond his role as a member of New Grass Revival? In addition, the primary source is from his own biography on his website? MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. From the article: "During his tenure with NGR, Pat was voted 'Best Acoustic Guitarist' five years in a row by FRETS magazine's National Readers Poll." [...] "In recent years, Flynn has received over stories in Flatpicking Guitar and Bluegrass Now magazines,a and he was chosen as Tom T Hall's musical director and guitarist for Hall’s recent “Artist In Residence” month at The Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, a retrospective of Tom T Hall's incredible musical career." OK, sources need to be found for these, but I'd that's clear notability. JulesH (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New Grass Revival. This is a good place to start, but I'm not certain that he has enough notability outside the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a poorly-written, poorly sourced article that needs a lot of work, but he's suficiently notable for inclusion apart from his work in NGR on the basis of 1) awards from FRETS Magazine (these may or may not be sufficient on their own), 2) authorship of many recorded songs, including a song charting at #13 on country charts and #69 on pop charts ("Do What You Gotta Do"), 3) two solo albums, and 4) a massive body of work as a session artist. Cmadler (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "FRETS" is not a notable publication apparently, no wiki. Having songs recorded is not a basis for having a Wiki, and do we really want to create a page for someone who writes 1 song ? He's not notable beyond a short bio in the New Grass Revival Wiki. In addition his bio is almost verbatim from his website.
          • I have heard of FRETS, but am not familiar with it. That doesn't mean it's not notable. It's not in Wikipedia, but that also doesn't mean the award is non-notable; Wikipedia is not complete. He's written many recorded songs, I gave one example that went high on the charts. As I mentioned, he also has two solo albums and a huge body of work as a session artist. I agree that this article is poorly written. If you were to suggest that the article is so bad that it should be complete scrapped and written from scratch, I might almost agree with you. But I do believe that Flynn is sufficiently notable to merit his own article, separate from NGR. Cmadler (talk) 13:54, 9 December 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman McGuire

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

nn actor, played bit parts in a few TV shows. Does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER, no sources to pass WP:BIO. gnfnrf (talk) 05:02, 6 December 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. Commenters have provided several sources that have Pomeroy as the main subject and show him to be notable. The nominator's statement/question is now moot. Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pomeroy

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

Non-notable? MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 04:59, 6 December 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) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. In addition to links provided by JulesH, there is also significant newscoverage[26]. E.g. this newsarticle[27] called "Dave Pomeroy Chooses Reverend Basses" that begins with "Dave Pomeroy, renowned Nashville session bassist and solo artist..." Pretty clearly notable under both WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernward Malaka

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

If the subject of this article is notable at all (which doesn't seem obvious from the article or a GS), it is for a single event, which is adequately covered at the appropriate article. Bongomatic 04:52, 6 December 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.

Donofrio v. Wells

The result was Merged into Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I'm going to exercise administrative discretion here and end this discussion early. Following a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about how to deal with a metastizing series of articles relating to Obama's citizenship, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been created to provide a home for these fringey-but-notable issues. Donofrio v. Wells and similar subsections of Andy Martin (U.S. politician), Philip J. Berg and Alan Keyes have been condensed and merged into a roundup of legal cases on this issue; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Litigation. ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Donofrio v. Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is really nothing here. The case doesn't have significant history with which to provide context. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article violates WP:RECENT. Evb-wiki (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The court did not announce today they are hearing this case, which presumably means they have decided not to hear it. The full list including cases that were denied hearing will be available Monday, 12/8. At that point, this article will be about either 1) a frivolous case the Supreme Court rejected (extremely likely) or 2) an historic attempt to subvert the outcome of a US presidential election (extremely unlikely). I suggest simply waiting until Monday. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then I guess we'll wait, since that will apparently affect votes, so WP:SNOW is more or less out the window anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete depending on the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. It's a P0V content fork whose only purpose would be to keep a fringe theory alive, although I don't question the sincerity of its creator as such - it just doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Handle such questions the same way as in the McCain article: "McCain, having been born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, would if elected have become the first president who was born outside the current 50 states. This raised a potential legal issue, since the United States Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen of the United States. A bipartisan legal review[214] and a unanimous but non-binding Senate resolution[215] both concluded that he is a natural-born citizen, but the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[216]" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain I did not create this article POV. I indeed do not understand what this really means, and turned to Wikipedia to know what was going on. Since the article was missing, I created it. I guess we can wait until they decide whether to hear it or not. Tony (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into broader article about the various legal attempts to stop Barack Obama from becoming president. The Supreme Court did not accept this case today - Monday will simply confirm that. Frivolous lawsuits brought to the Supreme Court are not worthy of their own Wikipedia article. Priyanath talk 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see Wikidemon's point below, and agree that the content of this article could go into a larger article about the fringe theories that people will believe about Obama (he is going to provide alot of fodder for the supermarket tabloids for eight years). By keeping this article, though, it only gives credibility to a fringey lawsuit. It's only notability is its nuttability. Priyanath talk 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider merging into a broader article about lawsuits or possibly conspiracy theories and lawsuits about Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the presidency. The subject is notable, perhaps not in the way intended by its author, but as documentation of a fringe theory. The LA times and UPI sources, significant mentions in mainstream major second party sources, amply demonstrate notability. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and to answer Priyanath, frivolous lawsuits do sometimes get covered here. It all depends on whether they are of interest to the point of notability (as demonstrated by sources). The attacks on Obama's eligibility are vexatious to the extreme, but the issue brought up by the case - the exact definition of natural-born citizen, which has not been adjudicated - is interesting and the fact that people keep trying this is itself a curious social/political phenomenon. Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a place for it, it's probably within the natural born citizen article, if it can be presented fairly - and balanced with questions that were raised about McCain's eligibility, if that's not already in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical example of political and legal idiocy, and will be quoted in hstoryies of the campaign forever. There's already enough material.DGG (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(see below) Oddly, the nominator has convinced me we should keep it. The phrase "the case has gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works" , which was added to the article by the same user who nommed it for deletion, indicates the notability that this case has attained, and, though the case seems spurious and it is highly unlikely, according to FactCheck.org article, that it has any merit at all, this concept of obsessively trying to unseat the President-elect with these challenges seems to have captured the public imagination, as well as drawing the attention of the Supreme Court and the media. How it became notable, and whether or not "educated people" believe a word of it doesn't change the basic decision we face here, which is if the article meets the general notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: Even if it's news-y, the subject matter means its will probably be seen as a big deal (as already demonstrated in the article itself and in Beeblebrox's comment above mine). If it absolutely must be deleted, most of the content can at least be moved to Natural-born citizen#Cases in other courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause or another subsection of that page. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge too. I feel that while this and the other cases have no merit as also agreed by a variety if legal watchers. Yet, with the supreme court deciding not to hear this case, we will still continue to hear about this case/idea. Someone will always be bring this back up and at one point in the very near future, this will take the status of a small conspiracy theory. My thoughts are that we should treat it as such and either keep it with notations that it is a theory, or merge it into the appropriate pages that would better deal with it. Brothejr (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment My guess is that the whole reason they are considering this case at all is so they can make a ruling that Barack Obama is legally qualified to be president, rendering all such lawsuits moot... Beeblebrox (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's the idea of having a final court of appeal, isn't it? They make a final decision and then it's decided that way for good (or, in the United States, until judges are replaced by the other party and the balance of power changes :) ). - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has to be a notable legal case, whether the SCOTUS hands down judgments or not. The question of whether Obama is legally qualified to be president is of critical importance. The argument in this case, while it may be unlikely to succeed, is a notable legal argument and has received non-trivial coverage all over the place. I bet that US legal journals will be carrying this over the next few months. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL -- how do we know journals will be talking about this? There is no assertion in the article that it is a notable legal argument. The only assertion of notability is that this concerns Obama. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fringe conspiracy theory, filed by a nut, about to be kicked into the dustbin etc.... (i noticed this articles creation because of a redirect created from the deleted berg v. obama article, which was still on my watchlist).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear Donofrio v. Wells (read here, there is no valid reason for a separate article about this case. Any info worth keeping in the article should be incorporated as appropriate, either into the Natural-born citizen article, or into some other article devoted to objections of this sort in general. Richwales (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article goes beyond "news." It relates to one of the most important elections of this decade, and i cant fathom how someone would justify its removal. I believe this afd is politically motivated, but that's my opinion. also, it's sufficiently sourced. if need be, i can link 40+ articles that fall well below the quality and notability standards of this article....Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - because there are articles out there of less quality and notability does not improve either variable for this article. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A frivolous and unfounded lawsuit does not go "beyond news." It's removal is simple based on the fact that if there were wikipages for every idiotic lawsuit there would be millions of articles lacking notability. This article is only notable to those with a partisan agenda. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS, RECENT and FRINGE. Or perhaps Merge to whichever article we discuss the Secret Muslim, Granny is an Illegal Alien, and the Pals Around With Terrorists memes. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note this article is heavily sourced by WND and the LA Times Blog, hardly reliable sources. The only assertion of notability appears to be that it concerns Obama. Dozens and dozens of cases are not heard by SCOTUS each year so the fact that they may hear this does not assert notability on its own. No mention is given of who Wells or Donofrio are and the logistics around why Wells is being sued instead of Obama. --guyzero | talk 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to Beeblebrox for removing my previous comment. At least, I think it's him, as he is the only editor in history. Clearly this discussion has become more politically-charged than I anticipated, which has snowballed to become a text-book bandwagon. We need to separate the supportors of Obama and those who question his status as a natural-born citizen. Whether this case is frivolous or not is entirely irrelevant. It's notability is what justifies its existence. It is also one of the few cases being argued that actually contains any traces of true evidence. Remember - wikipedia is NOT about the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You had mistakenly duplicated the entire text from this section, and he reverted it. You're reading things into the arguments. Wikipedia has a responsibility to not lend too much credence to fringe theories, no matter how much momentary publicity they get. If the Court hears it, then it might be worth discussing. If not, it's kaput. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, that was an accident. However, in doing the revert, he also erased my comment. The reason behind the duplication was there was an editing conflict when I clicked submit, and somehow I pasted my comment over again and that carried over the entire page. Weird. Anyways - since when is there a stipulation that requires a court case be actually "heard" before it is acceptable to be on wikipedia. It's been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and even commented on my Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, what more do you need? Obviously this is yet another politically-driven bandwagon fueled by partisan politics. If this was any other topic no one would care even in the slightest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, Bugs is correct, I undid your edit because you duplicated the entire conversation. It had nothing to do with politics or POV pushing, just that you messed up the AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the court doesn't choose to hear it, then by implication it has no merit, and continuing to make a thing out of it here, especially an entire article's worth, is POV-pushing. It would be fair to give it a sentence or two in the article about natural-born citizenry, next to a line or two about the similar situation with McCain. One thing that's interesting is that questions were raised about both candidates' natural-born qualifications, which I suspect is rare. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course you think it's POV pushing, you disagree with the case itself. Just because something is controversial does not mean it should be sandbagged. These are the arguments I see: A) No merit - plenty of cases being pushed to challenge Obama's presidency, this is just another futile attempt. B) Article is blasted with bias and political opinion. C) Sources provided do not adhere to the standards of wikipedia. In my opinion, these are the ideas that need to be scrutinized. Simply shouting, "It's frivolous, just another neo-con conspiracy, POV pushing, etc..." doesn't mean anything. Saying it over and over and over again just makes you look even more politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The case is supported by reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. The case will be unlikely to determine that Obama is ineligible to serve as President and far more likely to establish the guidelines for what it means to be natural born. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — Whether or not the idea of the suit is a fringe theory and complete stupid (It is, just admit it), the article itself needs to be kept. The suit has been mentioned by enough reliable sources, including NPR, to merit its own article. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether it reaches the Supreme Court or anything else, its several reliable sources demonstrate its notability. If you think it's too minor to have its own article, request a merge or something like that; but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Instead of just outright keeping an article on this one case, why not roll it into another article? I have a feeling that while this case might probably be closed tomorrow with the supreme court rejecting it, we are not going to hear the last of this. This most likely will morph into some type of theory that various web blogs and such will keep alive like any other conspiracy theory. My thinking is that instead of having an article on it's own, why not create a much larger article covering the theories just like we have for all the JFK conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, and so on. That way if someone wants to know about this case they will see it listed on the same page as a variety of other cases. Then if this case becomes so notable to outlast the recent attention it is getting now, then an article should be written then. This case/issue still falls under the WP:RECENT policy and the only reason the article was created in the first case was due to the fact it was not included any where else. So lets give this case a home where it should be included instead of being it's own article. Brothejr (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Brothejr's comment (just above). Donofrio vs. Wells is not notable on its own merits, but only as part of a larger series of lawsuits and conspiracy claims. That is what the article should be about, and Donofrio vs. Wells belongs there. For example, Berg (of Berg vs. Obama) is a big 9/11 truther who also sued to have Bush and Cheney charged with a few thousand counts of murder for 9/11. These should all be lumped into one article about the various citizenship/birth/Kenya/Indonesia theories and lawsuits, and the characters driving them. Priyanath talk 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would be amenable to the hypothetical larger article about the "Obama birth certificate truther movement" or whatever we might call these nutjobs; the Donofrio v. Wells article could be the seed for such a larger article, which would of course be appropriately retitled. Until that article exists, though, this one should be kept. DemocraplypseNow argues, "This article is only notable to those with a partisan agenda...." I agree that it is notable only to such persons, but there are enough such persons to justify a Wikipedia article. The merits of the lawsuit have only tangential relevance to its notability. JamesMLane t c 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Has multiple reliable sources. Is clearly more than just a short news article. I agree with some comments that it may make more sense to merge into a larger article about challenges to Obama's citizenship and ability to become President but that's a separate issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:FRINGE nutjobbery relying on unreliable sources for a story that fizzled like a firecracker in a rainstorm. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN, etc...only note the fact that it was a failed court case, and little more. The "unreliably sourced" was in reference to the worldnetdailies and the like that were used in an attempt to assert the notability of the court case. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to broader article about challenges to Obama's citizenship. Donofrio v. Wells is a news story from the WP:FRINGE. The case is going nowhere.[33] It is all too easy to get a burst of press attention with a fringe petition like this. This Obama-is-not-a-citizen nutjobbery may notable as a whole, but not every individual assertion merits a Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt- Now that SCOTUS declined to hear Donofrio v. Wells, [34] this should be a footnote in Natural-born citizen (with the others), at best. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment snowball it already. Case not heard, nor ever well be heard, in any US court of law. Only claim to notability is that famous people were named in a suit that courts refused to hear at every level.
No precedent, important or otherwise, was set. Refusing to hear a case without comment sets no precedent.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This case set no federal precedent, and is merely a state case. If we accept a whole article about this case, then there's no reason not to accept whole articles about each of the other cases on Obama's eligibility. If someone wants to write an article that describes all of those other cases, then it would be fine to include some info about Donofrio's case. But this whole article for one state case is excessive, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The conspiracy theory surrounding Obama's natural-born citizenship status has gotten enough coverage in reliable source to make the conspiracy theory notable enough to be included in its own article in a manner similar to how 9/11 conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is treated. This particular lawsuit may not be large enough to warrant its own stand-alone article, but it has been covered in numerous reliable sources and is verifiable enough to include on Wikipedia. I see a number of people tossing WP:FRINGE out as a reason as to why this article should be deleted, but the usage of WP:FRINGE for this purpose is contradicted by the guideline itself. According to WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are not to be given undue weight, but may be included in articles as long as they are verifiable via reliable sources. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bobblehead is 100% correct about WP:Fringe. Wikipedia has tons of articles about fringe theories that describe the theories without endorsing them. But I don't see how the present article can currently be merged, if there's nothing to merge it into. Additionally, I'm very skeptical that a consolidated article about Obama-eligibility theories will be written neutrally or accurately, but people are more than welcome to try. Judging from discussion at the Barack Obama talk page, it would be very difficult to overcome misconceptions about the fringe theories.[35]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's dead. Bereft of life, let it rest in peace. Unless the petitioner is going to claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because of a Caesarean section, its fifteen minutes of fame are finished. Not only is it Beyond the Fringe, there is no purpose for giving this absurdity undue weight. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. You clearly did not research the case. the court offered no reason for denial or the willingness for commentary. as stated, it can be assumed there was a technical reason, as the petitioner had no standing. it takes more than merit to appeal to the supreme court. after all, theyre going to be dealing with 20+ more cases being submitted (especially by notable politician alan keys). if anything, this article offers and easy reference for the rest of the cases being considered. the article is sourced and commented by mainstream media, so at this point we're beyond fringe and conspiracy...that's a moot argument. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a general article on Obama fringe/conspiracy theories. The Obama fringe theories are notable enough as a political and social phenomina, but separate articles in the individual theories gives them undue weight and distorts the context in which they have arisen. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but that is a terrible suggestion. It is bad enough that pages like this exist or that POV vandals keep inserting the conspiracy nuttery into the main Obama article. I'd rather not see all of the fringe junk collated and collected into a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been proven that this is more than a conspiracy theory. Therefore, dismissing this article as such is simply naive, ignorant, and/or politically motivated. so let's drop the conspiracy theory argument (not that it isnt true) and focus on the core problems. repeating the same excuses over and over and over again only makes you look stupid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also, i will add the the tally stands at 14 keeps to 13 deletes. im not familiar with the exact rules in what results in a total delete... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it not "proven that this is more than a conspiracy theory", it's not even up to that level. It's more on the level of the morons who think the Apollo program was faked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories has its own article. If kept, this nonsense should be merged into Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories. It is becoming a notable conspiracy theory, and looks to have legs. Priyanath talk 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, and it efficiently shoots down every one of the so-called "theories" about the Apollo program. Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories could be handled the same way. The difference is, there are a lot of idiots who think we didn't go to the moon, and only a few who think (or wish) Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree Baseball Bugs here. This case should be rolled into a page with all the other cases and whatever else that had not made it to the courts. While yes this did make it to all the news stations, the cases and other cases notability is not about a real question of Obama's validity but instead of the absurdness of the cases. We have more then enough reliable sources that debunk these cases that we could easily write an article on these conspiracy theories and handle it the same way as the other hoax pages. Maybe we can just simply rewrite this article into such an article. Brothejr (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing this article to hoax is beyond absurd. The article provides a proven and sourced outlook questioning the validity of Obama's citizenship. rejection by the supreme court does not dismiss the merit nor the notability of this article. wikipedia is NOT about truth. it's an actual court case that made it all the way to the highest judicial branch in the country - meaning the case had to go through other courts before hand, as far as i know. anyways, we're running in circles here, and at this point i dont think it would be appropriate to merge/delete or move this article anywhere this early. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also, the name calling is completely inexcusable. stop it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO, there is no proof whatsoever that these stories have any validity. And what name-calling are you referring to??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there's plenty of proof that these stories have validity, especially considering the fact that Obama has spent over a million dollars in campaign money to prevent the release of his real authentic birth certificate. but that's besides the point. the point is, this article is well sourced, and ur belief that it is a conspiracy theory or a hoax is not an opinion shared by all. calling people lunatics, fundamentalists, nutcases, nutjobs, or any force of dismissive tone that would reduce the opposing opinion is not the cordial way to settle things. anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I've already !voted so I won't do it again, but if it is merged it should be into a more narrow category with some reasonable focus, such as attacks / theories on Obama's citizenship and eligibility. That is a moderately notable subject per a fair number of reliable sources, and actually an interesting topic - why do people get this idea in their heads? No doubt political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, etc., will be publishing articles on it here and there. An all purposes "fringe theories about Obama" or "political attacks on Obama' article would be too broad and risks becoming a mess. Having said that, a "merge" outcome is essentially a "keep" outcome because it means keeping the content. As of now there is no other article to merge the content into so essentially we would have to retitle this one and then allow people to add other legal challenges and notable fringe theories. Good luck patrolling that article :) Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are no fun at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, must be because im a conspiracy theory-supporting nutcase.Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humor is lacking in a wide variety of different people. Not just conspiracy theorists. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There is enough here to attain some notability, even if it results in a fairly short article. Grandmasterka 06:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm looking up the article right now after finding out the case got thrown out, and it seems that this article has enough context to stand, given this article quotes a legal scholar and a couple of other commentators. I mean, if wikipedia can have so many articles about untalented one-hit wonders/short-lived TV shows/unsuccessful movies, then a failed supreme court case article can stay if there's enough coverage to warrant. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or (less preferable) Delete. This case did attract a certain amount of media attention, although virtually no one in the mainstream media took it seriously; but I'm sympathetic to the WP:NOTNEWS arguments that in six months' time, it will have been forgotten entirely. As the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, I don't think there's a strong argument for keeping this as a separate article; but it would be appropriate, I believe, as part of a larger article on rumours/conspiracy theories about Obama (or even as part of his article, though there would be definite WP:BLP issues there). That would probably be the best way of handling this, preferable to outright deletion. Terraxos (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And salt the earth, so it does not get recreated - should be done even if it gets merged. This uis news and respectable sources are only reporting on it because it is silly hoax/conspiracy/nuttiness/fundiness/craziness. And we need better guidelines on that sort of thing in news. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt well - the article is a POV fork to start with (not to mention violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS). The article is a running political commentary dressed up in the form of a WP:SYNTHESIS. Move away, there's nothing to see here. The assertion (unsupported by reliable sources) of a person "spending ... millions of dollars" to prevent the State of Hawaii from releasing his birth records (which, under Hawaii state law, are public records) does not add anything credible to this discussion in terms of Wikipedia policy and editorial guidelines. Again, the court case is dead - the same should be true of the tempest in a teapot that some people are trying to push as a "valid" article despite Wikipedia policies stated above. B.Wind (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Votes shouldn't count if you don't know about the case you're voting on. The issue in this case was not about a birth certificate.LedRush (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The issue has gotten a lot of mainstream press and is notable for that reason alone. Also, this is an interesting constitutional issue that probably won't be answered any time soon.LedRush (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This case sets no legal precedent and brings up no constitutional issues. Obama is a natural born citizen, McCain had a congressional vote allowing him to run. This is a state case that was thrown out at both the state and national level. It is only of importance to people on the fringe. This is not encyclopedic content. Furthermore, its not news. Sure a few news outlets have reported on it. They also reported on a woman in Bloomington, Illinois who makes Christmas Ornaments out of deer droppings. Where is the article for that? It should be removed completely, or altered into a list of conspiracy theories. This isn't worthy of its own page. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that the case doesn't bring up constitutional issues is odd, because that is the only type of issue covered in the case. Also, while there is no precedent (because the case was not accepted) it doesn't mean that important issues aren't raised by it. The fact that mainstream media has picked up on the issue and admitted that it makes an interesting, if biased and lunatic fringe, argument concerning the consitutional issues demonstrates that it is notable.LedRush (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres a constitutional issue with the White House being White. Sure, Im just saying it. I swear, Ill create blogs, and the news will eventually report it, can someone tell me how to create the page for it? This case brings up constitutional issues that DO NOT EXIST. Period. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are just plain wrong. There is a constitutional debate regarding what it means to be a "natural born citizen". The White House isn't in the constitution, and so your comparison is just silly.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This whole arguement is silly. NBC has always been interpreted to mean "Born on U.S. Soil" Obama was, therefore Natural Born Citizen. You are just plain wrong. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, everyone calm down. I think at this point it is more than obvious that no administrator is going to rule towards a delete or merge. considering that, we should be spending our time actually revising the article instead of bickering over its merit/notability/etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing's for sure. Regardless of whether this article is kept, expanded, or merged, the resulting article will never be mentioned, summarized, wikilinked, or footnoted in any of the Obama sub-articles.[37] But, if this article is kept, expanded, or merged then it may be appropriate to include some of the material that is already located at Alan_Keyes#Obama_citizenship_lawsuit. Incidentally, I still think this article ought to be deleted, even though some of the contrary arguments seem reasonable. I should also add that Donofrio is already mentioned at the article Natural-born citizen, which seems like plenty to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt - Natural-born citizen seems like a good place for it to me. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:37, 10 December 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 Cenarium (Talk) 11:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Patterson MD

Robert D. Patterson MD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable autobiography. Nothing in the article, or the external links, or a quick Google search shows any notability. —G716 <T·C> 04:07, 6 December 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) 01:17, 11 December 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. Secret account 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peru–Romania relations

Peru–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another Groubani special. (For those who don't know him, Groubani is an editor who knows little English, and whose idea of "improving" the encyclopedia is in authoring countless stubs on bilateral relations, replete with grammatical mistakes and violations of the MOS. These are either absurd (Chile–Malta relations, Colombia–Estonia relations) or about 20 times shorter than they should be (Hungary–Romania relations, Germany–Italy relations). Either way they're pretty worthless.) Let's see here. Bucharest and Lima are 7453 miles apart. Virtually no Peruvians live in Romania, and vice versa. The countries have about zero historic or political ties, and minimal economic ones. The existence of their diplomatic relations is attested at List of diplomatic missions in Romania and List of diplomatic missions in Peru. It's pretty clear that beyond this, the relationship lacks notability, and thus the article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 04:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviets had a rapprochement with various Latin American nations starting in the late 1960s. I don't know the extent to which the Romanians did (other than by establishing relations), but I will note they were much closer to Africa than to Latin America. Do you perhaps have any sources to help us out? - Biruitorul Talk 22:09, 7 December 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. Usually I would relist this, but article is a WP:BLP violation and a copyvio, should have been speedied. Secret account 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Landry (football scout)

Chris Landry (football scout) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biographical information is copied from here, so that's a copyright violation. Landry is not a widely known writer or scout and since notability is not temporary (i.e. the plagiarism controversy between him, nationalfootballpost.com, and profootballtalk.com), he does not meet WP:BIO. Pats1 T/C 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This guy is on Multiple radio shows and TV programs. I submit that he is known to a wide audience. Just type "Chris Landry scout" into google and see how many places he either has directly provided content or is cited as a source. Sorry I have not entered this in the standard format; please consider reformatting it instead of summarily deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.200.51 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 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. Secret account 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race for the galaxy

Race for the galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable card game and reads like an advertisement. Clubmarx (talk) 03:27, 6 December 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. Secret account 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sennon

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

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment what the material on this series needs is a decent job of writing, starting over entirely. I'm not even going to say my usual keep and improve, because what is needed is a description of the actual books in the first place, much more than fussing about how to handle the background. The possible need for specific articles is for later. DGG (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. I was sorely tempted to !vote keep per nom. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge) even within the series itself the country is not that notable and the Age of the Five series is not all that notable. Little or no real world impact, "sennon" "Ithiana" gets twenty Google hits. Icewedge (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect--sorry if that sounds contradictory. I don't know this 'series' (whatever it is) so I can't decide if this is a likely search term (you all make the call). Now, even without the benefit of knowledge about this topic, the content of the article is pretty much, ahem, not so good. Hence my delete, if the search term is deemed not likely enough. I hope I made myself clear! Drmies (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The main article is short enough for a reduced amount of information on the fictional places to be merged with the main article. If no one can be bothered, it's still a reasonable search term. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 11 December 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 Age of the Five. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of the Gods

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I see no actual research, original or summarizing, and no plot information, necessary or unnecessary. I see miscellaneous descriptive material which needs to be integrated into proper articles on this series if they ever get written. As its a best -selling author, i assume the books are important enough to be worth the coverage, but this sort of way of going about it is not helpful. I can't reply to the third sentence of the nomination, because I do not know what it means. DGG (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. I was sorely tempted to !vote keep per nom. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'- there seems to be this belief that every major or major-ish character in a work of fiction is automatically entitled to an article. That's a lot of bunk. It leads to bad articles like this one, which has no sources and is just a reiteration of bits of the plot because there's nothing to be said about the real-world impact of the subject. Reyk YO! 03:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if the term is searchable enough, something I cannot judge. But yeah, sheesh, does every fictional sneeze and fart deserve an article on WP? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: No luck trying to find independent notability on Google. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 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 Dreamweaver (disambiguation). MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamweavers

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not that I defend this article, but the nomination does not seem to match the article. Far from unnecessary plot details, there is not even the minimum of plot information whatever to give any idea of what's going on or any but the vaguest impression of what role the figures might have. 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I was notified about this deletion request because the requestor saw me listed as creator. In fact, I did not create the article in place now; I had made a redirect page under that title to The Dream Weavers. If you do delete this article, I wish to have the redirect page that I originally put there restored. -- BRG (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirct to the dab page Dreamweaver (disambiguation). There don't appear to even be articles on the books, if so why should element of the books have articles? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Plot details that don't support real world context are unnecessary. Jay32183 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I agree about the above point for the dab. Eusebeus (talk) 00:04, 11 December 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) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Falcone

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

This article does not meet any of the notability criteria for a musician (or ensemble) to be listen on Wikipedia. Daniel Musto (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The White

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge into an article on the fictional universe. We ned to try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail above. Just deleting is not constructive. But this nomination doesn't fit the article -- there are no fictional plot details here at all. I wish they would be done itn so specificaway as to make it clear that the actual individual article has been read and considered. Although I havent the least interest in the topic I am at least trying to read thearticles as I go and see how they might be used; I consider that only fair to those who have been working on them. . DGG (talk)
  • improve, merge, redirect per DGG -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much worth merging. Eusebeus (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dannyl

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:26, 6 December 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. However, if anyone would like it userfied in order to improve this, drop me a line. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Kyralia

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

This trivial list of fictional elements does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. TTN (talk) 03:25, 6 December 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) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as Jay32183 says, merging will not address the fact that this list staggeringly fails to demonstrate any real-world notability. Including this stuff anywhere would be a gross example of putting undue weight on extremely minor aspects of a fictional work. Reyk YO! 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This describes a minor part of a world for which we don't have an article. So it's not a split off of some larger piece that can be merged back. Not verified and unlikely to be verifiable with independent sources (verifying with dependent sources is only acceptable to some degree in context of a larger piece of writing) - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I moved/ "merged" (I don't understand the history merge process very well) the information over to the Age of the Five article. If I acted improperly, please delete, revert, expunge, and slap me with whatever notices, warnings, and penalties appropriate. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep and improve. List like this have potential to be good breakout articles. This one isn't there yet. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 14 December 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) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circlian

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auraya of the White

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, WP:FICT is a proposed guideline and thus toothless for the moment, so citing it is the equivalent of citing an essay. Next you're heavily misconstruing the intent of the section, which is to indicate that main characters in works are the ones that tend to get articles; it does not give editors carte blanche to create articles on all main characters for every work because many are simply not notable. In any case, from FICT:
"Real world information: the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sources not independent of the subject, such as developer commentary, may be used in accordance with the policy on self-published sources to provide some of the above information. Articles are expected to conform to an out-of-universe perspective, according to the writing about fiction guideline."
  • There's zilch, nada, zero in terms of any real-world content here. Please don't misrepresent stuff in the future, especially FICT, which has been carved out through compromises from discussion that have gone on through months, and I would hate for their work to be misused in this fashion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:49, 8 December 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. Secret account 22:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danjin Spear

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:22, 6 December 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 Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirar

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail below. Just deleting is not constructive. This particular article is the first I've seen which gives me some idea of t he actual plot. So far from excessive plot information, its the others which are inadequate. DGG (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT as plot + no real-world assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentadrians

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Percy Jackson & The Olympians. MBisanz talk 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaklusmos

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- fancruft supported by only a single primary source. No notability established. This is simply not what an encyclopedia is for. Reyk YO!
  • Merge I agree this article is useless as is, but i do not understand the nomination: i see no excessive plot summary. What is called OR is likely to just be description--I don't eeally see synthesis. The article cannot stand on its own unless the weapons and the series were both of great significance, which seems unlikely. (I fail to understand the last sentence, as usual; I ask once more TTN to word it differently, as nobody has yet proposed what it means) But this whole group of articles needs some careful attention,--its being done wrong, and we should rather be conserving and merging he fragments in the hope of getting the start for one decent article on the series Ditto for all the related articles. This is not the way to build the encyclopedia--help for those working on the topic is the way. Unconstructive nomination in terms of really improving the encycopedia. DGG (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG.John Z (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per DGG. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as more cruft (i.e. per nom). Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 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 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulimia Banquet

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

not notable; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why this is being questioned. I had references. They were a very influential punk band from the 80's..I'll continue to work on the page to improve it. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:24, 6 December 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 Happy Holidays 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sprouse Jr.

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for notable musicians (and ensembles) to be listed on Wikipedia. Daniel Musto (talk) 03:12, 6 December 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) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not much there. I don't see a need for separate article for the band and artist. One not great source does not a stand alone article make. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the band's article was deleted... I think the artist and song have some notability based on being recorded by a number of artists nad evidence of influence and tribute beign paid.
  • Delete: nothing of note here. JamesBurns (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was very excited to find this article as I have early memories of Sprouse's song "Since I Met Jesus". I am still trying to find more information about Sprouse and where to buy his recordings. Jdz (talk) 23:20, 14 December 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 Percy Jackson & The Olympians. Also delete; the current content is useless anyway.  Sandstein  19:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Jackson

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating another version of the same topic:
Percy Jackson (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete- nominator is correct. Neither article has any sources, or establishes the subject's notability outside the book series. Reyk YO! 07:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree this article is useless as is, but i do not understand the nomination: i see no excessive plot summary, just a poor plot summary that seems to incomplete to represent his likely actual role. . The character is the hero, and thus very likely to be notable if the work is important. (I fail to understand the last sentence, as usual; I ask once more TTN to word it differently, as nobody has yet proposed what it means) But this whole group of articles needs some careful attention,--its being done wrong, and we should rather be conserving and merging he fragments in the hope of getting the start for one decent article on the series Ditto for all the related articles. This is not the way to build the encyclopedia--help for those working on the topic is the way. DGG (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means that; "no one has attempted to improve that article, and therefore probably never will". I'm not condemning or condoning this logic in this particular debate, just honestly trying to answer your question. That's just my perception of what he said, so don't shoot the messenger, peace n love. :D Ryan4314 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Percy Jackson & The Olympians. MBisanz talk 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Jackson (Percy Jackson)

Sally Jackson (Percy Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:13, 6 December 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. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max.Blog

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

Does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate software articles.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:01, 6 December 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 03:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaahin Espahbodi

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

non-notable architect. It is borderline speedy delete, but it does say he had a 'silver medial' for his PhD thesis. Clubmarx (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm also moving the disambig page Secret account 17:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garib

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

Appears to be a dictionary definition of a word, sourced only to other wikipedia articles. This may have some sources indicating some encyclopedic content could be written, but I don't feel competent to check (As a comprehensive source check would include a non-english search). I declined the speedy deletion of this article in order to send it here, but I have no preference for its disposition (no "per nom" here!). Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This page can be a disambig page that points to encyclopedic terms that contain the word Garib such as Garib Rath and so on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP-This article speaks to the provenance of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.191.38 (talk • contribs) (From the article's talk page).
  • Delete. This article says absolutely nothing; it's useless even as a dicdef. What language is this word in? What does it mean? "[I]t is presently utilized in Hindi and some Semitic languages to mean a variety of things" implies merely that several languages have different, probably unrelated, words that sound vaguely like "garib" and mean several different things. That's probably true for a great many consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel-consonant sequences. The article is unsourced and its content is either original research or a hoax. —Angr 19:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Garib mean poor in Hindi, and other Indic-related languages. This text though, I can't understand. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into Disambig- Angr is correct about the current state of the article. It is sourceless and, when you actually read it through, contentless. However, there are several notable people and things named Garib:
and maybe others. Reyk YO! 21:01, 6 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marked as patrolled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath chicago

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

Declined speedy. There is clearly an assertion of something here, though I don't know if it is importance or significance. The article claims that they are on "A to Z of thrash Metal" though no page number or links (save a link to the book itself). Likewise it is claimed that they were featured on a notable compilation but the source for that is another wikipedia article. I don't have an opinion on this either way (so no "per nom" this time), but some sourcing needs to be confirmed or disconfirmed (I can't believe that is actually a word). Protonk (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie above. Article fails WP:MUSIC. Trusilver 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to neutral. I think that the involvement with a lawsuit creeps up a little bit on WP:BLP1E. Even so, I see enough here to make me unwilling to delete the article but not really enough to satisfy my belief that it passes [[WP:BAND].] Trusilver 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Got an email from the author, who is username blocked right now. I told him to register a different username so he should be on shortly. He claims that they are on pp. 9-10 of Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Thrash Metal, were featured in various thrash metal mags (including Kerrang, RIP, Metal Maniacs, Metal Hammer, Metal Forces and Raw) and released an album before their Interscope album on Big Chief Records/Warners entitled "Eyes of Tomorrow". Also (as I think the article claims), they were involved in some lawsuit w/ the Doctor--though I'm not sure that produced any publicity. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The band signed with Big Chief/ Warners recorded their "Eyes of Tomorrow" that was released on Thermometer and later re-released on Black Lotus Records http://www.rhapsody.com/aftermath-2/eyes-of-tomorrow and released its subsequent record on Interscope Records in 1998 as Mother God Moviestar http://www.amazon.com/Mother-God-Moviestar/dp/B0000061Q6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1228149689&sr=8- .

The name change resulted after the band lost its trademark battle with the rapper Dr. Dre. The band sued Dr. Dre for trademark infringment case citation Tsiolis v. Interscope. Records. Inc., 946 F.Supp. 1344, 1349 (N.D.III. 1996) The case has been referenced in law review article and journals on the issue of tradmark dilution. http://books.google.com/books?id=e67o2-S_riMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22TSIOLIS+V+INTERSCOPE%22&source=web&ots=EtR0w9ZV_V&sig=KScYi4a3viSDK0fACnu7RzR7uao&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

The band also appeared on the Metal Forces' compilation "Sream Your Brains Out" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Forces Reviewed and featured in numerous issues of Kerrang, Metal Forces, Metal Hammer, Rip, etc.Zoident (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It The trademark case is in federal court against Dr. Dre should be enough, but when you consider that the band was included in the only compilation record ever released by Metal Forces magazine, then you really see a significance in terms of music. The Metal Forces compilation featured only 5 bands from around the world, Aftermath's inclusion on this exclusive list is truly impressive. Finally, the band did release 2 records one on an indie and the other on Interscope (major). Zoident (talk) 19:53, 6 December 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. MBisanz talk 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Craighead

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

The subject does not meet WP:BIO. Her greatest claim to notability was as senior adviser to First Lady Hillary Clinton. Has not been the subject of any profiles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*DELETE! No brainer. Living person. Dosent meet the Bio requirements. Also a quick googling can confirm that this isnt a person who has chosen to step into the public eye, and thus isnt fair game.

  • Keep - She does seem to pass WP:BIO as being the subject of multiple secondary sources. Here are a few ... [46][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56710][47]. WP:BIO does not require that a topic be the specific subject of "profiles." --Oakshade (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The secondary sources repeat themselves and she's not been profiled in the print media or books. It's littering really.--WeakWinterSon (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)— WeakWinterSon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:41, 6 December 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 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DaishoCon

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

Article is about an apparently non-notable convention. It does have a few references, but so far every one of them is to information published by the convention itself, or by people associated with it. There are also a few blogs that talk about the convention, but there is nothing that would qualify as an independent reliable source as required by the notability guidelines Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I was going to hold off from commenting since I had that spat with the article's original creator. (He took his anger out on me because I initially tagged the article for A7 speedy deletion.) However, the nominator and Kesac make good points. The article is also getting filled with original research and appear to be used by the con as an information platform. --Farix (Talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an open community where anyone can make or adjust an entry. This entry was not created by the convention staff, and that should be kept in mind when making assumptions as to its purpose. I see a lot of sloppy references posted as well as misinformation. As much as I'd like to see this article kept clean until a detailed one is compiled/sourced....it likely won't happen due to the notoriety the convention has received amongst attendees. Please be patient while post-con excitement causes a few "quick and dirty" articles to be posted. (delete as necessary) VicFlik (talk 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice, we like to have at least two independent sources or one nationally published source. As for the Nan Desu Kan article, there are actually two independent sources listed on its talk page which haven't been incorporated into the article yet. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't bring up Nan Desu Kan. I cited No Brand Con which only has references from animecons.com. Even on its talk page the only other mentioned references are from the campus newspaper, which were likely submitted/written by people dealing with the convention.VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backing In another effort to give reasons for my Weak Keep stance, I think Daisho Con has notability as an organization as well. WP:CORP states that "an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including interest groups. Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, etc." Daisho Con is student run organization[50] which has created the third largest convention of this type in Wisconsin (as of right now) which gives the group a fairly large amount of notability and has had a notable/demonstrable effect on the anime/manga/sci-fi/etc. culture in that area. WP:CORP also makes particular that: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." VicFlik (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears this convention has been held exactly once, and not even a month ago. Isn't there some inclusion criteria where it has to be a repeating event? Does a one-off get an article?76.116.247.15 (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, there is nothing in the inclusion criteria that says there is a minimum number of acceptable sources. The con could run for 6 years and still have no 3rd party references, as is the case with No Brand Con (which no one has taken an issue with) Furthermore, how long ago the con happened and the number of times it has happened are not areas of concern under Wikipedia's notability requirement. Please stop bringing up the fact that it has only happened once. VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Wikipedia's decisions are based on a rough consensus developed by discussion. This is especially true for guidelines, such as WP:NOTE where the interpretation of significant coverage is left to the community. To argue that the exact wording of a guideline somehow trumps consensus is considered Wikilawyering and frowned upon. It is also inappropriate to respond to every "delete" comment with the same arguments. --Farix (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple things regarding those arguments. First, if the community decides what is "significant coverage" then it is well worth at least pointing out that there is no minimum in the guidelines. Second, it seems that you missed my argument that the duration of the convention and how long ago it happened are irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards. Let's stick to arguing the legitimacy of the article rather than trying to patronize me on what you deem to be appropriate action. VicFlik (talk) 07:09, 7 December 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. Redirect is allowed if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
NmVac A/C/Y/W-135 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NmVac A/C/Y/W-135 DT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate Collection of Information (User's talk shows history of creating articles like this, nominating for review of notability). Wikipedia does not need a string of articles on specific versions of vaccines. At best a list. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:07, 6 December 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  19:54, 11 December 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. However, if someone thinks they can show notability and wants it userfied to do so, drop me a line. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UDR Benevolent Fund

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

Non-notable charity, anything useful here can be in the main UDR article. BigDuncTalk 02:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rational, and the information is already in the main article. --Domer48'fenian' 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: I would not agree to this article being deleted as it relates to a major Northern Ireland military charity in the same way as the Army Benevolent Fund relates to a major UK military charity. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Hi Gavin Lisburn could you please provide sources which would establish its notability as a major Northern Ireland military charity. Would I be right in saying the British government don't even support it, or consider it at all notable? Would you not agree that the information is in the UDR article already? Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen evidence to show that the Government does not support it as being a NI charity, it is not required to produce public accounts etc. However, NI charity law is changing and the fund should become more visible next year. I still don't see any reason why it should be deleted and would recommend that we leave be at the moment. It has only been up a short time. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source that says the British Government support it. BigDuncTalk 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one that says they don't, but Gavin Lisburn may have one? --Domer48'fenian' 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only have some more information from the 'Potter' book source which I can add when I get some more time. If there is a source to sday the Government do not support the fund, then certainly please publish it. I do not have an issue with that. There are probably many, many charities that are not supported by any Government. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as it is none notable. It says as much in the Lead "Little is known of the make up of the Trustees," "It is not known how the fund is financed at the present moment." The information is already in the UDR Article. --Domer48'fenian' 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: NI charity law is different from GB charity law. Currently, it is not regulated which means that charities do not require to publish 'public' accounts or give details about their trustees. This will change during 2009 with new NI legislation coming into being. May I suggest that we leave be until the first public report is issued and we see what comes out from that information. This would be preferable to being placed into the main UDR article whiuch is subject to a lot of continuous editing etc. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:06, 11 December 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. Secret account 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JN-QC-SPOT TB

JN-QC-SPOT TB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like a manual/science paper/treatment guide, too technical, about the actual disease in some sections, seems like copied, really confusing naming, etc. Wikipedia is not a place for science journals, or manuals. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:01, 6 December 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. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Peace Project

Everest Peace Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The organization appears to be a well-marketed climbing club with very little notability. It has been heavily edited by Lancetrumbull (talk · contribs) the founder and executive director of The Everest Peace Project. Despite what the article says, the organization seems to be dedicated to selling DVDs. Toddst1 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, you're alway submit this article for deletetion, again and again. I don't understand why you keep doing this... do you have anythig agains't this movie? From my point of view, it's out of criterias. A small clean up in the article, it makes sense ... but to fight for several months, it becomes an obsession! Thak you. Antaya (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you think the article is notable, I suggest fixing up the references so we can see what the sources of the article are. Where are these links from? It looks like a couple might be legitimate, but it would be nice to give dates and to identify the sources.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 11 December 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) 01:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--since a good look at these references (and some of them were bogus--one was mentioned twice, another was hardly independent) proves there's little here. Really, you got two articles from entirely local papers/websites (coverage probably only because some of the group members got the interview from their local reporter), there's one from a sort of bloggiething, and the most notable thing was the Dalai Lama's endorsement (which can be found in somewhat dependable-looking publications). So I'm really not convinced of notability here--this one thing, then, this endorsement, strikes me as a single news event. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 11 December 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 Happy Holidays 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external link to the "official website" is about a movie. The article is about an organization. What is the relation? What is the story? I'm confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. News search shows significant mention of the project that is covered by myriad of sites in various countries. Albeit some of these news items detail a person who joined the group in the expedition (e.g. 1, 2, 3) there are others who specifically describe the group (4, 5). I feel this amount of coverage is significant to cover WP:GNG. LeaveSleaves talk 15:05, 17 December 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 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontenac Mall

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

Delete Fails current notability standards and even based on the level of the failed WP:MALL (WP:MALL is just used as a barometer for discussion) Yanksox (talk) 04:36, 1 December 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) 01:31, 6 December 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 03:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power's brewery

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

Pretty blatantly fails WP:CORP- very few sources or information available online, article is somewhat spammy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:21, 1 December 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) 01:30, 6 December 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. Secret account 14:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DEK Computer Center

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

I repeat my PROD rationale: A company with 60 employees would typically not be notable. There's no evidence that this one is an exception - many external links are given, but I don't see substantial and independent coverage. Worse, this article was apparently created in WP:COI by the company itself. Thus, if notability can be established at all per WP:CORP, it would be better to restart the article from scratch. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is notable, on that basis, if there is evidence of it, though I could not find it among the references given. Have the creators of the article been asked to supply a source for it---they should be able to. I. . DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creators have been notified of this discussion on their talk page, plus the notability tag has informed them of the problem for more than a year. That being said, I do not like the idea of companies writing encyclopedia articles about themselves, and I think we shouldn't encourage it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:36, 2 December 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) 01:30, 6 December 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. Secret account 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Morris

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

non notable radio presenter - last afd no consensus... very few google hits, and only for minor regional radio station. Richard Hock (talk) 11:31, 1 December 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) 01:29, 6 December 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MadPunK

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

non-notable spoken word artist, very few google hits other than self-published sources Richard Hock (talk) 12:46, 1 December 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) 01:27, 6 December 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lavender

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. No albums, no charting singles, no significant coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 13:17, 1 December 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) 01:26, 6 December 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esko Martinez

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC No albums, no charting singles, no reliable references, and no significant coverage. Daz11R (talk) 13:40, 1 December 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) 01:26, 6 December 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 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Anderson

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

Person notable for only one event; the information summarized here should and can be summarized in the parent shooting articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:57, 1 December 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) 01:26, 6 December 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 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glint (band)

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

Doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC --fvw* 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article does satisfy the requirements for musician inclusion:

1. Glint has been the the subject of non-trivial published works. The band was written in Billboard Magazine, Deli Magazine, The Westchester Magazine, The Inquirer Mirror (Newspaper), High Times Magazine, Rockland Journal News

Glint has also had a video on the CBS Early Show. The band has been interviewed by Matt Pinfield and Noahm (well known NYC Blogger)

6. Jase is a notable musician and former famous actor, see his IMDB

7. Winning the 2007 IMWS showed how prominent Glint is in the local scene of NYC underground, the band was also one of the "smallest" to play live on a major radio station, perform at the Apple Soho Store, and get featured on the homepage of the itunes music store in July 2008.

9. Glint has won or placed in a major music competition, the Independent Music World Series of 2007, in which Billboard Magazine hand picked Glint out of 1300+ bands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glint (band) (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Coverage is just sufficient to meet notability guidelines.--Michig (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I feel they squeak through WP:MUSIC#C1.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm. How peculiar. My comment 1 seems to have disappeared from the AFD discussion! Here it is, back again!
  • Delete I can't find very much online about them, the article seems to have been written by user "Glint (band)" (no relation) and much as Jase has a formidable iMDB page with roles such as "Store Customer" I'm not sure if that counts as notability. Richard Hock (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only do i agree with the Billboard comment above (having sufficient evidence for WP:MUSIC#C1), but also having an interview and performance with Matt Pinfield on 101.9 Rxp is notable as well. See video here [53] The recording is also referenced on the wiki page. The reason the page was first written by Glint (band) was a mistake, I work for Rely Records and have verified all content. I also included all appropriate citations. I also happen to think that many bands are significant if they had front page advertisement on the iTunes homepage, see screenshot here [54]. Winning the competition that was judged by Billboard awarded the band $50,000 in cash and prizes, I think that is fairly significant as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: articles written by record labels, the artists themselves and press releases shouldn't be counted towards notability. I believe there is insufficient grounds for this article to be kept as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How could this not be notability if they had a story in Billboard Magazine, raving about their "air tight" live show and Jase Blankfort as an "irresistible frontman? Take the time and explore all references and attachments before making a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although an AFD isn't a vote collection, that's the third Keep vote from 68.193.87.216... Richard Hock (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think its not the strongest keep, but according to the guidelines this band does pass for WP:MUSIC#C1, especially with the story i found on google of Glint in Billboard. Just my two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.65.168 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LightSpire

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

The articles seems to be about an upcoming gaming mod which has yet to be fully developed and does not appear to have received coverage from reliable sources. The information from the article comes from a forum post by the mod's creators and all the sources I can find using Google[55] seem to be from forums or self promotion and do not show the kind of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to meet the general notability criteria or to verify the information within the article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 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) 01:15, 6 December 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. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship Connection

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

There do not seem to be independent, reliable sources to use as the basis for this article. It was created by an IP editor back in the days when that was allowed, and no registered users have made substantive edits, so I have not been able to notify or discuss with them. Matchups 17:30, 1 December 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) 01:13, 6 December 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 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Role of Interest Groups in International Relations

The Role of Interest Groups in International Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Uencyclopaedic essay that states, in a nutshell, that groups interested in shaping policy... shape policy. 9Nak (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your statement is a very oversimplified summary of my article. I discuss how interest groups have risen due to international phenominon, the different types of interest groups, how these groups function, and I also provide historical examples of the roles of interest groups in international relations. I do state that interest groups are very effective in shaping policies, however I made it clear that not all achieve their goals.concernedcavalier (concernedcavalier)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 6 December 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 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted & Francis

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

Doesn't fulfil WP:MUSIC criteria --fvw* 18:01, 1 December 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) 01:12, 6 December 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. MBisanz talk 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Equipment Optician

Scientific Equipment Optician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, is as usefull/relevant as "1984 Volvo mechanic" Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:05, 1 December 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) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of notable subjects seems to be useful for the encyclopedia. This is a specialized field. I will consider what others have to say, but seems notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly appropriate list. All of the important in either science of technology .wE could use most customary terminology and call them a list of notable microscope and telescope makers, but the existing title, though unfamiliar , will do. Considerable information can and should be quickly added to show why its better than a category (years of activity is the principal orienting element toadd, though nationality would be a good idea as well.). They are every one of them extremely important in the development of science, and there are books & articlescovering them as a group. I could suggest a few other groups, such as survying instrument makers. DGG (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a poor way of providing information about the persons who contributed to the development of the telescope and the microscope -- obscurely titled, uninformative, and difficult to locate. If someone wants to make this more than what a category would accomplish, then it might serve a purpose. A list of notable subjects has the potential to be useful for an encylcopedia; this list does not live up to that potential. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google searching shows this to be a neologism. I get no hits that aren't catch-all search pages or mirrors of Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does attempt a fix, the silly title would be the first change. Describing Anton Von Leeuwenhoek as a "scientific equipment optician" makes him sound like "Tony from our quality control department" ("and G.G. here is our SEO for long-range visuals"). However, moving the article to something different won't make this less indiscriminate. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 7 December 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 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Kart Racing

NASCAR Kart Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsure about this article, may just need expansion, reliable sources and verification, and a good general clean-up Doomsday2029 (talk) 18:14, 30 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hoplin

Eric_Hoplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

The subject is not notable. He has never held public office, no longer holds any college republican or state republican party positions and is currently a full-time student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar58888888 (talk • contribs) 2008/11/29 00:06:26

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 December 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 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Florez

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

Non notable; no context within article LH (talk) 09:21, 1 December 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) 01:07, 6 December 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Git Fresh (album)

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. A song that may or may not appear on the album when/if the album is released almost charted on the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop chart. Almost. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that can be said should be said in the artist's article.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 2 December 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) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A9. Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December's Keep

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

The article does not claim any notability for this song. A google search proves that it exists, but no information is available to establish that it is important or significant in any way. Speedy and prod were both contested. —BradV 19:45, 1 December 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) 01:06, 6 December 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giatsis

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

Non-notable coach. He's borderline because he coached an Olympian, but I couldn't find any WP:RS. DARTH PANDAduel 21:32, 1 December 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) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote this article for what it's worth: [62]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur with Darth Panda's comment above regarding sourcing - we need reliable sources in order to verify the information in the article. I've done an initial search but turned up empty-handed, I'll have a more thorough look though. Wiw8 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 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. Secret account 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton family

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

I can't see how this family is notable. According to the article: Cuthbert bought land, John was a wealthy squire, and Henry was an inheritor. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 1 December 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) 01:03, 6 December 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 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up The Irons

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

A local Iron Maiden tribute band that don't appear to be particularly notable in any way. Has been primarily edited by Uptheironsnc (talk · contribs) suggesting a possible conflict of interest with the subject. ~ mazca t|c 00:52, 6 December 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. Secret account 14:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Newell

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

Tagged for doubtful notability since sept 2007 and hasn't improved much since. There are the usual MySpace and YouTube links, but not much else. I can't find anything notable about the man. Fails WP:N.    SIS  00:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sophie Ellis-Bextor official site credits Ross Newell with playing guitar, bass and keyboards and also as a co-writer.[63][64][65][66][67][68] He is also apparently for artist Stella Vine "the love of her life".[69] If the article is not kept, I suggest including minimal information in Read My Lips (album) and redirecting to there. That article, at variance with the Ellis-Bextor site, credits "Allen Newell". Ty 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the Wikipedia article (which I now realise was a huge mistake). I now checked all music which credits those songs to Ross Newell. However the Guitar & keyboards credits are given to Roger Newell (Another Newell). The web results otherwise can't be trusted as most of them seem to derive information from Wikipedia. Anyways, in any of these cases I don't see this person passing WP:CREATIVE. LeaveSleaves talk 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the official Ellis-Bextor site should have the correct info. I agree as things stand this article does not have sufficient sources to merit retention. However, per WP:NNC it would be informative, as I've mentioned above, to include some minimal info in Read My Lips (album). Some of the material would be valid there. Ty 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. Particularly since it now appears that the song credits in that article are completely wrong. LeaveSleaves talk 19:08, 9 December 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. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wycombe house cricket club

Wycombe house cricket club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cricket club; non-encyclopedic Johnlp (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:31, 11 December 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 Happy Holidays 00:52, 16 December 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. Secret account 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Morgana

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

No reliable independent sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Monroe

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

No significant reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 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_December_6&oldid=256191503"