Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 13 March 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect back. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Noriega

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

This individual failed to make it to the finals of American Idol, the reality show he is known for. Any notability obtained through sourcing is a staunch case of Recentism. How exactly is this individual notable? If he had a recording contract elsewhere, I might be able to see some notability, but I don't. I redirected it but that's been contested, hence me sending it here. Wizardman 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back, since he isn't known for anything other than American Idol and isn't highly known in the media either. More is needed to warrant the article. (BTW I created the redirect but not the article) CrazyC83 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I support a redirect as well, but am putting it here due to reverts back and forth by different people. Wizardman 00:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then Josiah Leming's page should be deleted as well, as he didn't make it into the top 24 and he hasn't had any record deals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.179.160 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there, although he does have some pre-Idol recordings - that is not nearly enough for notability, especially considering he wasn't even in the top 24. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until he has a recording contract. This version can be kept in the history and restored once he becomes famous for getting a record deal. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. We go through this EVERY year. He's not a finalist. So no page. Period. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Rules are clear: no Top 12 = no page. If he ever becomes famous outside of Idol/releases something of note, then knock yourselves out making a page. So far this article looks like a list of minutiae about his performances on the show. Merge any pertinent info into his bio paragraph in the Season 7 article. MissMJ (talk) 15:35, 18 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Top 100 DJ's (2005)

AfDs for this article:
List of Top 100 DJ's (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Fails WP:N. We already have articles on most of these people, where their poll ranking is noted. We also put the information (available at DJ Magazine's site anyway) at DJ Magazine (where it's also excessive, but I'm not proposing that for deletion at present). I would also suggest the 2006&'07 lists get deleted, and any further such lists User:Lonelysoulq happens to create. Biruitorul (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Probably better in its own article than in DJ Magazine. Certainly not in both (or possibly either) place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this could be presented better in some way but I'm unsure how. Commendable effort though and does present useful information. Perhaps, gulp, a massive sortable table of the DJs who have made the top 100 lists could be a solution, in that way the data would be sortable so that if I wanted to find the top DJs from Finland, for instance I could sort by that. Benjiboi 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - seems to fail WP:NOT on many levels. "Top" is an entirely subjective term. You could re-title the article as List of top 100 DJs according to DJ Magazine's 2005 poll, but then this list is nothing more than the re-cap of a list from a magazine. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually that magazine is the industry leader and their list is recognized as the definitive list for DJs that operate on a global level either in sales, appearances or both. Renaming might make sense but as long as the article is clear in the lede it should be clear enough to our readers. If another entity comes of prominence and starts a list then the issue could be revisited to reconcile or rename. Benjiboi 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very good, and seems to have no problems, theuser who made it can also go on and make the other Top 100 DJ's for the other years.No need to shoot this article down.Bye.Mertozoro (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is highly detailed and provides lots of information, it includes pictures and charts for example listig the DJ's.So don't delete it!!!Best Wishes!!74.14.101.65 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frostburn (band)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable label, no third party sources, and no reviews. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lacks notability. Some coverage found, but only in the usual unreliable/editable metal sources such as Metal Archives, Tartarean Desire, Spirit of Metal, etc.--Michig (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 08:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Grant

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

Article about a ghostwriter, something of a puff piece. Third party references aren't what you'd call reliable or significant in coverage. I'm also guessing the article's creator has something of a conflict of interest. Many of the claims are unreferenced and as celebrities are loathe to admit to using a ghostwriter these claims seem unlikely to be verified. So here it is for your perusal and opinions. Polly (Parrot) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I am the primary author of this article. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still figuring out how the site works, including policy and guidelines. I have amended the article the best I can, including referencing, but would appreciate some advice on any further improvements that could be made. Due to the secrecy surrounding the business of ghostwriting, it is not known how many books credited to other 'authors' Grant has been involved with, but one of her known books is Escape Domestic Violence (Hodder, 2007). There are other ghostwriters listed at Wikipedia. If this article should be deleted then I request all other ghostwriter pages be deleted too, including Clifford Thurlow and Andrew Crofts. Helen Grant is not only a ghostwriter, but an author, journalist and the founder of H ezine as well. I believe this makes her a notable person, but if this doesn't fall under Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to make any alterations and improvements necessary to avoid deletion. Please advise! (Vintagewriter) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, welcome to Wikipedia. I've placed a {{Rescue}} tag on the article, to see if we can get you some help on rewriting this article to an encyclopedic standard. I must caution you though, comparing this article to other ghostwriters is a fallacy. Our standards for inclusion are objective, meaning that each article must meet our notability guidelines on it's own, and not because "all ghostwriters are notable." -- RoninBK T C 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thankyou RoninBK for flagging the article. I have started work on it, but there is a spartan amount of Reliable Soures available for the subject. The article contained a lot of primary sources, or just links to the websites mentioned as references. I have removed the sources that do not qualify under WP:RS, and added {{fact}} where needed but there's not much left. Only one book published, although if a source can be found for the book published in 1983 for the prince then that might help. I don't know if even the Rescue Squad and fix this one... Fosnez (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the primary author of this article, and would first of all like to say thank you for your assistance in helping to rewrite the article to encyclopedic standards. This is something I had little experience of. I have drastically reduced the length of this article, leaving just the information of which proven sources can be found. I will re-add the additional information when I am able to find valid supporting sources. Thank you once again. (Vintagewriter) 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent work, article is now a perfectly serviceable stub. -- RoninBK T C 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Rudget. 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as repost. ... discospinster talk 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

35 Biggest Hits

35 Biggest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:Music. Unreleased music album due till May 2008. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 14 March 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodmin College Radio

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. A non-notable organization (Radio Station) for student group of a particular college ONLY and established on 14 March 2008 (less than 24 hours old). Information about this station can be added on the respective college article but in noway it deserves to have a standalone article. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non DeletionThere isnt even a Bodmin College Page and I have created a page twice before but lacked information, now I have it. There are only two college radios in Cornwall, the other one being Inferno Radio and in the near future we are expanding to a Community radio, making us on the level of Radio St Austell Bay who are deemed worthy of an article. This is a free wikipedia, not a communist dictatorship. Sotonfc4life —Preceding comment was added at 07:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources to attest to notability -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creating an article about the school's radio station before the school itself has an article is putting the cart before the horse. If an article on Bodmin College existed, this one could be merged into it. But in the absence of such an article, this one should be deleted per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get the school's article going first (and don't forget Roadblock) and add the radio bit there. It isn't near the community-broadcast level of Radio St Austell Bay so isn't notable enough for inclusion - see WP:NN. Free Wikipedia doesn't mean anything-goes-in Wikipedia Plutonium27 (talk) 17:53, 17 March 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. ... discospinster talk 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Green Market

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

Delete as per WP:ORG. I know it is very close to Speedy but still I preferred AfD to have a discussion among active Wikipedian. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had deleted it just as you were AfDing it, so I guess I would have to !vote Delete as well. The article had been deleted twice before, and the two times I deleted it it consisted of just a link. ... discospinster talk 23:27, 14 March 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; default to keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate sex

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

unsourced neologism - it was prod'd earlier but someone removed it because it was "in the urban dictionary" - not a source we put any stock in. Fredrick day (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I love hate sex articles, but I have a love/hate relationship with hate sex article AfDs. On the one hand, if it ends up being kept, then it's less likely someone will try to delete it again later; on the other hand, there's always the potential it will get deleted. I do think this subject is notable if only for the many times the concept appears in literature, including in the seduction community, although more research is probably needed to get some better sources than the ones that were removed. The term itself may be a neologism (hard to say), but the article is not about the term, but rather the act that the term describes. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, seems like an attempt to upgrade a slang expression to science. I've read my share of seduction community books and the expression is not that common even there. Besides, the article seems to have been written to promote hatesex.net (the link has now been removed). 83.227.25.237 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, like trying to establish the notability of a particular "John Smith," it's a difficult subject to do so using Google. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and expand. I'm sure sources exist for it, but they will be harder to find. The term hate will bring up a lot and sex will bring up a lot on google. If anything worse than keep, merge with a related topic.(like bdsm)Undeath (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO Chris! ct 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced (although I might change my mind if sources were provided). --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
which were crap and in no way were reliable sources - anyone can check out the history and check their validity for themselves. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Much fiction has as a plot device two people who hate each other but suddenly are having a roll in the hay. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) consider Xander suddenly getting it on in mid-argument with Cordelia when they had previously hated each other, then Buffy herself getting it on in mid-battle-to the death with her enemy Spike. I am told that romance novels are full of such relationships. But when I searched Google Scholar for "hate sex" the most common instances I found were about "I hate sex" or hate and sex listed in a sequence of things. I believe that references are out there to be found for this, but a quick search did not disclose them. In a Google News search I found at least some uses of the term. There is "The Harder They Come." Nashville Scene - Oct 26, 2006, which says "At the same time, given the recent cinema’s track record of unfaked hate sex (Baise-Moi), diseased sex (Anatomy of Hell) or just plain lousy sex (take your ..." Then there is "Moveable feast for the column-starved," ESPN - Oct 18, 2002, which says "Apparently Hackman's reason was, 'I don't know if a marriage can be built on hate sex, let's cut it off now.' Okay, I made that last quote up. ..." There is "MY CATALOG OF IMPERFECT MEN," New York Post - Sep 2, 2007: "Smoking hot, filled with machismo and the magnetism manifested in total hate sex." There is "Mountain Democrat (Newspaper) - November 6, 1996, Placerville.Nov 6, 1996: "Unfortunately, your karma is distressing (look it You are not only "lovers of hate sex, as you say, but you are guided by reproach and resignation." There is "Hurts so good: Anti-Valentine's Day show to offer balm for..." Chicago Sun-Times Feb 12, 2007: "It's 'sort of about the chilly hate sex we used to have,' says Piatt, who had 'a long, dry 2006' on the dating circuit." So there is hope to find refs for this article, given that the exact phrase is frequently used in the exact sense of the article.(edited to add instances) Edison (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Edison. When I saw the name of the article, I did know what it meant, so the language communicates. It's a simple description, not a true neologism. So the topic is real. What can be said about it that is verifiable? It does seem there are a few things. So ... it does seem likely that there is some sufficiently reliable source, and, paralleling a comment in another AfD, if you build it, they will come. I.e., articles that exist grow and become better sourced. Wikipedia was built with articles like this, inadequately sourced, but the sources came later. Delete it, and you guarantee that, at least for a time, it won't grow. I'd give this article some breathing space. Disclosure that should be here: Mbstpo did originate this article as User:Sarsaparilla, a former account. (*not* a sock puppet, Mbstpo is a serial accountant. Really, a CPA.) Also, I was informed of the existence of this AfD by a file in Mbstpo's user space. The file did not tell me how to vote.--Abd (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, perhaps it is a descriptive term as opposed to a neologism, Consider also "makeup sex" which is supposed to be special after there has been a breakup, or "revenge sex" to get even with someone, or "ricochet sex" after a relationship ends, all of which undeniably are amply present in fiction as well as real life. Could be individual articles or one articles about varieties of sexual relationships. Edison (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article provides no reliable sources with which to verify the information it contains and from the comments above it seems like the sources aren't going to be found anytime soon. No prejudice to recreating the article if such sources can be found and they provide the coverage neccessary to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the concept is clearly notable, and the term is as good as any for it. DGG (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I figured out the key. You have to do searches for strings like "had hate sex" or "have hate sex". Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some dude writes on Yahoo Answers, "Yes, in 10th grade I hated my algebra teacher, MS. Emerson. She was constantly on my case in front of the whole class. About 7 weeks into the semester, I ran into her at movie theater. We talked in the lobby, then sat together in the theater, then went to her apartment and did it. I stayed all night. Every time we had sex that night, we constantly told each other how much we dispised each other. This lasted for 3 years, until the end of my freshman year at college. Never once said the words like or love, only hate despise etc. To this day whenever I eat popcorn I think of her, she was great. I think that to this day I really hate her." So see, it does exist. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a valid example. If one is having sex with one's 10th grade teacher, where'd the hate really come from? (1) The teacher is a paedophile, (2) the relationship is driven by the teacher's inappropriate use of her position and not by any bdsm fantasies either party may try to rationalise into it, and (3) the student probably hates the teacher on an unconscious level more because of (1) and (2) than because of any pre-relationship irritation. Just because the student enjoyed getting his rocks off doesn't mean he doesn't resent being taken advantage of. Dethme0w (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, she sounds like a real TILF. This gives a whole new meaning to those Pink Floyd lyrics, "When we grew up and went to school, there were certain teachers who would hurt the children in any way they could." (Those sick fucks.) Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I've dated women whose whole sexual outlook seems to be summed up by these two words, I don't think all of the "Yeah, I know what that's like" comments in the world are a substitute for a single reference to a published paper in a journal of sexuality, psychology, sociology, etc. Hell, even a letter to Penthouse would almost be enough to change my mind. Without any references at all, this is just a neologism, regardless how familiar the concept. Dethme0w (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the ways you can tell this is a WP:NEO is we're coming up with several plausible definitions here edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't find sources in JSTOR, research databases, or reliable sex dictionaries/encyclopedias. Stuffing the article with examples that don't use the term doesn't help the cause, unfortunately.-Wafulz (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does one search by phrase in JSTOR, by the way? I've tried putting stuff in quotes before but it didn't seem to work. I know that it allows boolean ANDs and ORs, but what about exact phrases? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Select "full text" as your search parameter and look for what you need in quotes.-Wafulz (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At my university, an advanced search allows for term search on JSTOR - this returns no results, neither do any other academia sources I can search. --88.105.110.62 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wouldn't happen to be the same user as 83.227.25.237 (above), would you? I notice you're both from Amsterdam, with OrgName of RIPE Network Coordination Centre. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
em..no.. RIPE is an IP identification service based in Amsterdam - the IP is not posting from there, no IPs are posting from there...for clarification - 83.227.25.237 is posting from sweden and 88.105.110.62 is posting from the uk. --Fredrick day 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just want to advise readers to look through the history of the article, as there are content and citations that have been removed. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it fails WP:V. Biruitorul (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I tried hard to look for something I could use as a source, but the signal to noise ratio is just too low for me to deal with here. I would have no objection to a sourced article, but as far as I can tell this is a neologism that finds some use in blogs and forums but is not in real use. Mangojuicetalk 04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this subject is sufficiently notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Garden Ground Gear Force

Top Garden Ground Gear Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable one off episode of a TV Series Jpeob 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I only created this page because all the other one off 'non-notible' Top Gear spinoffs also have their own pages. If you give me a reason why this one should go, and the others don't then please inform me! LicenseFee (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article needs vastly improving, but all the other Top Gear specials have their own page. You can't delete one without deleting the others. You either create one page to cover all of these one-off specials or agree that each has to have their own article. Personally, I'm not bothered, but I'd hardly call these episodes "non notable" - they need to be covered somewhere. 88.104.204.138 (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Non Deletion I dont think this page should be deleted as all top gear spinoffs have a page so this one deserves it also. Sotonfc4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotonfc4life (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted. Just expanded to meet the standards of a good article. Bearing in mind it was written the day after the event happened! LB22 (talk to me!)Email me! 13:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Non Deletion The article has been expanded now, and I think it's fine for an article. Anyone disagree? LicenseFee (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Non Deletion Though the article could use expansion and improvement, I think it is worth keeping. I read through WP:NOTE, and TGGGF seems, at face value, to meet notability requirements, especially if other non-episode specials have received their own pages and were found to be notable. This is equally notable. It needs more verifiable resources, yes, not deletion. diminutivething (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The article should be kept, it summarizes a Top Gear Special. The claim that the article should be deleted because it is original research has no grounds, it's a recent TV-show. Everything that is written about this Special is based and sourced on that TV-show. This TV-show because it's a Special and longer thann half an hour should be treated as any other movie. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are similar one-off articles for Comic Relief Does The Apprentice and Sport Relief Does The Apprentice. --Madchester (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article seems pleanty notable enough to me. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, but having said that, there are a tonne of other perfectly notable articles on one-off shows, which shows that they can indeed be notable, as this is. TalkIslander 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability appears to be established. Dimitrii (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, for so so many reasons, notability being the biggest, POV/BLP/FORKing being the most troublesome. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nary

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

No obvious claims to notability for this individual. Yellowrooftiles (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Strong Delete. Strident and intemperate POV rant on an apparently unremarkable 2nd degree murder. WP:NN and WP:OR and fails verifiability sources are there but don't back up claim to notability. Hard Impossible to see how it would ever make me WP:HEY happy. 90.240.107.102 [[(talk)]] Plutonium27 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (Its me - dunno what happened there. Shoulda checked it at the time) 00:37, 16 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whitebread

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

Seems to be a trivial publication with no clear notability. Yellowrooftiles (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - Reason 1, there were only ever 2 issues, so I doubt there could be much in thord-party sources about it. Reason 2, I can't even see where the article asserts any notability whatsoever. Reason 3, it's nothing but a plot summary. And I doubt anything could ever be written about it beyond this plot summary. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:32, 19 March 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. Article does not meet notability guidelines. No additional reliable source coverage has been provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How My Dad Killed Dracula

How My Dad Killed Dracula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Short film not listed on IMDB; article created by user with same name as director; no assertion of notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OPINIONS

  • Delete For something to simply exist is not enough for it to have an article here. It needs to be notable WP:N. If the film IS showing at festivals soon you can try to recreate the page after such sources that verify WP:NOTFILM are found.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - WP:NOTFILM sounds a lot like WP:MUSIC - something a few people made up one day. We can instead judge this article by WP:N. If no reliable important third-party independent sources have published any in-depth articles on this film, then the subject is not notable and the article has to go. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION WITH PRIMARY EDITOR, ETC


How My Dad Killed Dracula

http://farm.imdb.com/media/rm2772734208/nm2684485

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1731421/bio

http://allocine.imdb.com/media/rm777752576/nm1731421?slideshow=1

http://sposca.pbwiki.com/Skye+Borgman

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043/bio

http://audience.withoutabox.com/films/hmdkd

Here are several links to information regarding HMDKD that I did not create. The IMDB credit is not the only verification that this film exists. Because of IMDB's rules my film needs to screen at a festival before a credit is given. That is happening soon. However, these links will show that the film truly does exist beyond my self promotion of it. All facts contained therein are true and verifiable. If you need more information I'm happy to provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysoleil (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First off,

Hello.

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm learning as I go. I appreciate your fact checking and I want to do everything I can to veryify the films validity. I've provided several sources showing that this film is as notable as any other film. It will have a screening soon but why does screening at a festival constitute tangibility or actuality or notability? I have a copyright from the US copyright office for the film. If I scan that and put it online as a JPG will that help?

Comment As I said before, it doesn't matter if the film "exists", The policy guideline of WP:NOTFILM says that a film needs to meet certain criteria to be included. This criteria is as follows:
  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[1]
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[2]
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[3]
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If your film meets any of these criteria it will be included and not contested. I apologize for pasting the guideline here, but I thought it was a good way to make sure it was read in this instance.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also The policy guideline specifically states that IMDB is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS to find out what is generally accepted.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One More Thing If you are the director of the film you may want to read WP:COI as editing the article may be a conflict of interest violation if not handled with care.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Since receiving this deletion status I've contacted Variety magazine. They are going to include a listing of my film in their upcoming production listings on Monday. I assume that will fall into the category of Publication of at least two non-trivial articles. I'm working on the second. That's the best I can do for now to satisfy your historically notable requirements. I can have those publications provided by mid next week. I would appreciate the information not being deleted until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.26.92 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this listing going to include non-trivial coverage or some kind of commentary about the production? Both are required.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cited guideline, WP:NOTFILM is just a guideline, and not a policy, and purports to be the consensus of a few Wikipedians who chose to discuss it on its talk page. Out of the few who commented on it, several objected to it. It also says it "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I have not followed the development of that guideline, but it appears rather focussed on a 5 year period having passed. Do we wait 5 years before having articles about murders or disappearances such as those of Natalee Holloway or the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Not at all. The guideline would bear closer examination by a broader cross-section of Wikipedians. I have no strong opinion either way so far as this particular film is concerned. Edison (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are no hard and fast rules, but they're a good starting placing when we're discussing an unreleased short film by a director of questionable notability, especially when the article is written by the director himself.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:12, 15 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Megamix

Hannah Montana Megamix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC#songs. Prod removed by author. This song has received no independant coverage in media or on music charts. Top google hits only include Disney, YouTube and AOLMusic type sites, showing the video or selling the album. The article for the album from which this song offers more than enough coverage. Wolfer68 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. There are only four names in this list that I did not see in the parent article: Christopher Beeny, Tony Capstick, Louis Emerick & Kriss Akabusi. Every other name appears in the article with context and sourcing. Merging those four names without either would not do any service to an article that has obviously been diligently constructed. Merging the list entirely would be redundant. Should the editors of that list choose to reformulate information on cast into list within their article they certainly may. They have more performers in their article on which to draw than this list does. They also have more than enough to create a category if they choose (though as Lugnuts points out, such a category might well be ill-received.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Last of The Summer Wine cast members

List of Last of The Summer Wine cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally created an article by this name intending to use it in the Last of the Summer Wine article but realized I couldn't use it so I speedied it. Someone since recreated it in an even more haphazard manner than I did. This list has the potential to become extremely long since the show has been on going on 29 series. It is messy and resembles an indiscriminate collection of information. Does not increase knowledge. Redfarmer (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Categorise or delete provides no more information than a category would. Guest9999 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Last of the Summer Wine. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm strongly opposed to a merge. We've worked hard to bring the article up to GA status and merging indiscriminate information would greatly diminish the quality of the article. Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the main article. Creating a category would mean it'll be deleted via CFD for over-categorization by perfomers. Lugnuts (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe series is indeed most notable (mostly due to its record-breaking length) but this is listcruft: content is either duplication or not WP:N else. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:41, 19 March 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. Renaming can be done by editorial process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoozing

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

This article is up for GA review. My feeling is that it is a jokey business slang term. It is not notable and is a neologism. At best, it should appear in Wikidictionary. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now Most of the sources are primary sources, but that alone isn't necessarily a reason to delete. It's far from GA class in my opinion as a result -- however, I wouldn't entirely rule out any possible improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A better search term for this might be "credit card arbitrage" or "balance transfer arbitrage". It's also effectively a form of kiting. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename - I have no opinion on the name of the article, but the information is notable and the article should be kept. U$er (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. Yes, the term is a neologism, but what of that? Hedging is also a "jokey slang term," but is not also nominated for deletion because of it. Stoozing is legal so it is not kiting, and arbitrage is a generic term for a number of very different activities. "Credit card arbitrage" might be a more accurate term if Wikipedians find the term "stoozing" off-putting. The nominator also fails to provide any reason why the information in the article is not noteworthy. So, overall I suggest that the GA review is largely bogus. --Gilgongo (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but if it's deleted, at least make it into a redirect to whatever everyone else thinks is the best synonym. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please will all reviewers read the discussion from the last time this article was nominated. If anything has materially changed since then, please declare it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgongo (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep and improve. Consensus seems to have moved towards keeping and improving the article, and has been tagged as such. A merge can still be considered on the articles talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Stafford School (Caterham)

De Stafford School (Caterham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

English middle school with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:SCHOOL —BradV 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switch to keep. I am not convinced as to having plenty of sources but significance to its local community leads me to change. Eóin (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a UK-style high school (11-16) with a teacher honored for service to education.[3] Claims of improvement seem to be supported by the Ofsted inspection report. Encyclopedic content apparently can be developed to satisfy proposed WP:SCHOOL primary criteria. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If it's a high school, it's probably notable... Hobit (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant high school in its community and plenty of sources available to meet WP:N . Needs work but that is a tagging not an AfD matter. TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 17 March 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Mirrors

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

Contested PROD, non notable and highly technical list. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chairing off

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

Made up game apparently. Full of nonsense as well. EJF (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I concur. Likely a hoax. [4]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for made up games, and I somehow doubt that I'll find at least one item associated with this game in my local store. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as complete hoax, tagged as such. All references are faked; books and websites are made up. Supposed merchandise line curiously absent from Google as is any reference to this 'activity.' If the claims that can be checked are all false, it's safe to assume the whole thing is a hoax. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach now, have you people been living in a cave this last 10 years? Its a good honest reliable article,no need to get yer knickers in a twist iver it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanna-kel (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VER-2

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

Delete no sourcing to show that this bomb rack is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like either a made-up term or its just non-notable. THE KC (talk) 22:11, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustian

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

Delete no indication that this name is notable, or sources to indicate its purported origins. I would be surprised to learn that Native Americans had surnames prior to interaction with Europeans, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a notable surname and even if there is a latter-day association with Native Americans it did not originate there (it may be from Sussex, according to some forum posts). --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 14 March 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, without determination of whether or not the article should be retitled and retained or merged and redirected. The primary question here is whether or not the article should be deleted, and consensus there seems quite clearly that it should not. Even the nominator, towards the end, argues that the article should be kept and retitled. While in cases of clear consensus, AfDs may close as keep with a result of merge or redirect, debate as to whether or not this is appropriate here seems to be ongoing. The question of whether or not the article should be merged and redirected or if it should be rather retitled is more appropriately continued in article talk space by procedure set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Indian Infantry Division

7th Indian Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is already an article named 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) on the same topic(division). SMS Talk 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one should be deleted and as the division's current name is 7th Infantry Division, so in my point of view 7th Indian Infantry Division should be deleted. --SMS Talk 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, didn't see that extra word. Delete as duplicate page with misleading name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect It is _not_ a misleading name. It is a former name, during a major conflict. It should be a redirect, and without personally checking the history, one of these needs to preserve the edits per GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 7th Indian Infantry Division is a former name, then definitely a redirect needs to be left behind, pointing to the current name. Whether any information should be merged beforehand, I remain neutral on. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my opinion: clearly this is a tangled and complicated issue which should be sorted out one"by those well-versed in the history. Kibbitzers from the sidelines, such as myself, should stay out till they reach a consensus. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its name seems to be directing to the Indian 7th Infantry division which the current Indian Army has in it's 11 Corps. Currently there is no article on this, but there can be a misleading problem if an article is created on that infantry division too. --SMS Talk 06:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge text, but leave as redirect This was what I have already started, but the two names should be left as they were the most common names for the formation in their periods. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, leave this article for the World War II division and the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) for the post-partition division. The WW2 division would have contained different regiments, including a sizeable contingent from outside Pakistan. The lineage between the two divisions seems unclear. Leithp 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think its name should be changed as it seems that it is a Division of the present Indian Army. --SMS Talk 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Leithp 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom), which is what it was, constituted by the order of the United Kingdom's War Ministry, commanded by officers commissioned by the King of England, and in 1940, India, and duly disbanded on creation of India and Pakistan as independent states.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this 17th Indian infantry division [5]?! This unit article is misnamed. It should be 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom). The division was never a part of the Indian national Army, and was never a part of the Pakistan's Army either. Just because they borrowed the insignia, does not a lineage make. Just flattery.

This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." I bet was added by a Pakistani editor, and the fact that it is not referenced should say something. All British units in India that did not return to British territory after Indian independence were of course disbanded. Do not delete.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should put your opinion in the AfD. Leithp 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg, I sometimes wonder whether you check sources. The British Indian Army was divided - some units went to Pakistan, others to India. It specifically says in several places that the 7th Division was the only division allocated to Pakistan. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit confilct) I don't know whether that's correct. I think that many of the pre-Independence Indian units became part of the Indian and Pakistani militaries upon Independence, with there being no break in the units' lineage. The 'British' Indian Army was mainly made up of Indians serving in Indian regiments under Indian officers, and these certainly weren't disbanded en-mass in 1947. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that any unit above regiment size can claim direct lineage from a pre-partition unit. Wouldn't those divisions have contained artillery, headquarters etc from outside India and Pakistan as well as a number of UK based battalions? I don't doubt that the Pakistani military has continuity of insignia etc though. Leithp 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No unit in either the Indian or the Pakistani armies, no matter the size, can claim lineage from the British Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sources, why, I checked with King George VI. He told me that not one officer of the Indian or Pakistani armies were commissioned in the British Army after partition. What are your sources?
You fail to differentiate between personnel and equipment transfer between armies and actual administrative unit creation as acts of national governments, something we had a difference of opinion on in the matter of Ukrainian armed forces. I dare you to find one British national that continued to serve in the 7th Indian Infantry Division past the independence of Pakistan. Different countries Buckshot06.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lineage is not traced through either equipment, personnel or insignia, but by the continuity of the unit's service in the national forces.
PS. UK WW2 units in the category are a mess--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunetly the best site on this topic, regiments.org, is down at the moment. While the small British component of the Indian Army (which was never much more than 10% of the force's personnel - albeit including almost all of the senior officers as late as 1945) did indeed go home in 1947, the units survived more or less intact and were divided between the two countries and claim lineage from pre-Independence formations. It's no accident that the modern Indian and Pakistani order of battle looks a lot like the OOB from the Burma Campaign of WW2. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can contact the owner of regiments.org if you wish, but it is unnecessary. Several Indian divisions fought with Australian and New Zealand troops in the Middle East as detailed by Gavin Long in Australia in the war of 1939-45:Greece, Crete and Syria. On page 541 you will find calculation of the British government on how AIF was to be created as part of other forces subordinated to the British General Staff. Pakistan was not among them. While the Australian divisions required the Commonwealth Government's agreement to bring them into service, the same was not true for the divisions formed in India which were directed to form by Whitehall. Long confirms this on page 552 "India did not possess political independence and the British and Indian armies were virtually one."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't bring a source but I am pretty much sure that British nationals continued serving in 7th Infantry Division as they did in Pakistan Army for some initial years, after Pakistan was created. --SMS Talk 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some British officers continued to serve in the Pakistani Army,, but not necessarily in the division as 'volunteers'. Since one can only volunteer for service in one's own country's service, they were in fact mercenaries.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirectIt should be mixed with the Pakistan army 7th Infantry Division. I had asked an Indian author, Ravi Rikhye (of Orbat.com) this very question and he replied

A question my friend and I have had a disagreement over, which divisions were transferred to Pakistan on partition and of those still active; do they have their old formation signs from the British Indian Army, for instance 7th Div seems to have the golden arrow from before partition. Also I read that of the 1965 war divisions all except the armoured divs were from pre-partition.

Formation signs I do not know about. The sole div HQ that went to Pakistan was 7th. 8 and 9 Divs were raised in 1947; 10, 12 and 14 Divs were raised in 1948. 15 Div was raised in 1950. At some point before 1954, 6 Div was raised and 9 Div disbanded. 6 Div was disbanded at some point after 1954 as US assistance was available only for 1 armd and 6 inf divs. 1 Armd Div was raised 1956. 6 Armd and 11 Inf Divs were raised in ad hoc horm 1964-65. 16, 18 and 23 Divs were raised at some point between 1966-69, and 9 Div was reraised in this period. In March 1971, 17 and 33 Divs were raised to replace 9 and 16 Divs sent to East Pakistan. In East Pakistan, 36 and 39 Divs were raised as dummy divs. In November 35 and 37 Divs were ordered raised but obviously were not ready till well after the war. 9, 14, 16 Divs were reraised in 1972. FCNA was raised in 1976 if I recall right. 40 and 41 Divs were raised in the 1980s; I dont have dates. Two more divs have been raised under the rubric "Corps Reserves" for V and XXXI corps. More than that I cannot tell you because the information is part of Concise world Armies 2007, which we sell for $75 in E-book version (800 pages).

Clearly the formation;s lineage is that of the old Indian Army division since it was actually the one transfered. Since the formation dates was also with the British Indian Army, it should be deleted and "7th Indian Army division" should link to 7th Infantry Divison (Pakistan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge/redirect since use of identical insignia does not a lineage make! Lineage can only be traced through national service records, and the 7th Indian Infantry Division also changed its name for obvious reasons. All tat was transfered were assets and personnel already residing in, or moving to the newly created Pakistan. Division HQ may have included vehicles, equipment, stationary, and maybe even a few 'volunteer' officers, but not divisional records, treasury, security cods, personnel records, etc., the last of which can be found in the British Army servce record Archives.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." is misleading and uninformed. A unit can not claim linage from another before the country it serves came into being.
Why not? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover to take over the personnel and assets of the British Army division, the British Army had to disband the division under the Indian Army Act, 1911 and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1939 c. 17, which it was mandated to do by the force of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore the only link between the two units is insignia.

As I suggested before, the article needs to be moved to the correct title in accordance with the Naming convention (units) as 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom), and recategorised accordingly.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg's argument is unfortunately incorrect - according to Wikisource, there is nothing in the Indian Independence Act about mandating to disband any units or formations - in regard to the armed forces, merely about adjustments to discipline arrangements. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The part about it being in Kohat is wrong that is true, it is based in Peshawar, where it was based in 1947. Except for movements during war that is where it has stayed since then. That is the extent of Mrg3105 correctness on this issue. Also British officer continued to serve in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mrg, "virtually one" does not equate to actually. Were the British Army and British Indian Army not nominally distinct, irrespective of the political reality? You must appreciate that the "Commonwealth-style" regiment wasn't/isn't as....."transient", I suppose, as many of its counterparts - and I can only assume that that would apply to the post-partition divisions as well. You are correct that British regiments were indeed either disbanded (e.g: Calcutta Light Horse and the Calcutta Scottish) or repatriated to Britain. Most Indian formations and regiments were, however, allocated to India and Pakistan after partition, with the exception of four regiments of Gurkha Rifles which were transferred to the British Army. I've personally not read a single account of the military aspect of partition that hasn't discussed what happened during and after the allocation of units to India and Pakistan. These regiments were in all probability (regiments.org is down and I've misplaced my reference books!) disbanded and concurrently reconstituted, invariably under a similar title (with the imperialistic vestige naturally eliminated). That doesn't, however, signify the termination of their lineage. At least at the regimental level, the lineage of pre-partition regiments were preserved after allocation (and in the context of the armies of Australia/Britain/India/Pakistan, surely that encompasses a unit's history, colours, battle honours, uniforms, even some of the idiosyncratic traditions that may have been accumulated - such as the carrying of a third colour by the 4th Battalion of the Brigade of the Guards?) I believe many still maintain an affiliation with British regiments that had some form of relationship with their predecessors (for example the King's Regiment was affiliated with the 1st Battalion, Frontier Force Regiment and the 5th Battalion, Sikh Regiment). SoLando (Talk) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi SoLando. Thank you for your insights. However, please note the discussion is about a division, not regiments.
By "virtually one" I suppose it means that the officers were moved from the regular Army list to the India list in terms of promotions. Other then that there were no significant differences with the exception of some particulars as to operating in India's climate and population.
It seems to me "in all probability" is not much better then "virtually one". In fact the disbandment is mandated by the Indian Independence Act 1947. I am not privy to which Act of the Indian Parliament constituted the Indian Army, but as part of it the above named Gurkha were renamed to Gorkha. The Royal titles were dropped from the regiments that joined the Indian Army. Clearly these were distinctly different units no longer subject to the King's oath even if India remained in the Commonwealth.
If you can demonstrate the truth of the statement "That doesn't, however, signify the termination of their lineage." with some sources, I would be greatly appreciative.
When did Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II present colours to the Indian Brigade of Guards 3rd Battalion (former 1 Rajputana Rifles)? What battle honours are on it?(clue: since 1947) The uniforms seem completely different from the British Army, even that of pre-1947. As for traditions, I have no idea, however I note the most interesting progression in the Wikipedia article "In 1921, the battalions finally took its current title, the 1st battalion of the Rajputana Rifles Regiment. As a result of this re-organization the following merged to form the battalions of the Rajputana Rifles Regiment: 1st Battalion - 104th Wellesley's Rifles and then to 3RD BATTALION BRIGADE OF THE GUARDS". Confused? That is because its the British 104th disbanded in 1947, and INDIAN 3rd bn Brigade of the Guards [6].
In any case, this has no bearing on the status of a division which is not a part of the regimental system.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of my comment was to highlight your position vis-á-vis unit lineage and perpetuation. Apologies for the invevitable incoherency: it's after 5:00 am! The adoption of a new political sytem, et al, is irrelevant; a unit's lineage is not contingent on whether the process of affirming a person's allegiance has been altered or a title changed - regiments aren't transient in that respect. I'm also confused by your reference to Queen Elizabeth II. Are you implying that for a regiment's lineage to be perpetuated, that the political and military structure that existed must remain unchanged? That invariably has no impact on the identity of a regiment, brigade, or division - at least in the context of militaries that have a "British-style" unit system. The Royal Scots, for example, served numerous countries - Denmark, England, France, Scotland, Sweden - before its return to the English (later British) establishment in 1678.(regiments.org).
The status of the British Indian Army would appear to be exceedingly complex. While it's explicity apparent that the lineages of pre-partition regiments are perpetuated, at least by the Indian Army and the regiments themselves, certain aspects of their history are evidently deemed "repugnant" (i.e. actions that involved conflict between Indians: see comment authored by T.F. Mills, who maintains regiments.org, and [7]). This profile of the Jat Regiment also demonstrates compelling evidence of lineage perpetuation.
The British Indian Army underwent two major reorganisations in the early 20th Century that resulted in successive name changes and ultimately the amalgamation of the entire lines of cavalry and infantry - their lineages were not discontinued, however. Instead, lineage was perpetuated at both battalion and regimental level. Redesignations and amalgamations are usually inconsequential in respects to lineage. Just review the OOB of the modern British Army ;-). The conferring of a Royal title, for example, was invariably prompted by a regiment distinguishing itself in battle - not an assertion of its legal status, or whatever. The 104th was a pre-reform regiment, composed of a single battalion. It was amalgamted with five other regiments and redesignated as the [1st Battalion (Wellesley) (See regiments.org). Now their collective histories didn't cease upon amalgamation. The new regiment merely "absorbed" them, perpetuated their traditions, heritage, battle honours on their colours, etc and built on that base. See the Royal Irish Rangers and its successor as an example. Now Regiments.org is a reliable, authoritative website that has been extensively used as a source on Wikipedia (it's from the archive as the site is currently unavailable). I've provided compelling sources, I hope. Can you provide verifiable sources supporting your stance (have I misunderstood you?) that a unit's lineage is dependent on a political system, even a unit's title, remaining unchanged? And to support your contention that the lineage of pre-partition regiments/divisions were terminated permanently by the ratification of the 1947 Independence Act, which is pertinent to this AFD.
Also, please don't alter comments made by other users, even if you are merely correcting a spelling error. Refer to WP:TALK. Oh, I almost neglected to explain the honorary third colour! That colour, which is evidently carried by the 4th Battalion of the Brigade of the Guards, was first awarded to the 2/15th BNI, later the 2nd Queen Victoria's Own Rajput Light Infantry, in recognition of the battalion's service in the Second Anglo-Maratha War. I must reiterate my earlier apology for what has become a tangential discussion. Regards, :-) SoLando (Talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly you have not really addressed the issue or provided sources to to back up the proposition that the lineage of the British India Army is perpetuated by the new Army of the Republic of India
  • "While it's explicity apparent that the lineages of pre-partition regiments are perpetuated, at least by the Indian Army and the regiments themselves, certain aspects of their history are evidently deemed "repugnant" - Evidently the Indian Army can put anything they like on their flags. Lineage is perpetuated only when these are issued by the reigning monarch of Britain.
  • In regards to the 104th, compare battle honours here [8] and here
Post-Independence
Theatre Honours: Jammu & Kashmir - 1947-48, Rajasthan - 1965, Punjab - 1965, East Pakistan - 1971 and Jammu & Kashmir - 1971.
Battle Honours: Akhaura, Burki, Gadra Road, Hilli, Naushera, Gurais, Shingo River Valley, Sylhet and Ganga Sagar.
No old pre-Independence BH for the Indian Guards.
  • "Regiments.org is a reliable, authoritative website that has been extensively used as a source on Wikipedia (it's from the archive as the site is currently unavailable)." Well, yes and no. I have corresponded with Mr.Mills in the matter of British Militia during Napoleonic Wars, and he admitted that some tasks were beyond him. In this case I would say same is true since he provides same general statements about what happened before and after 15 August 1947.
  • What happened was that
...initially FM Auchinleck and his SinC General Tuker advised Mountbatten that five years would be required to perform the sort of reorganisation he wanted to create two national armed forces. (p.138, The last days of the British Raj, Leonard Mosley, Wiedenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1961). Eventually to integrate the former units of the India Army into the two new national armed forces the War Ministry established the Armed Forces Reconstitution Committee at the start of July (six weeks before Independence) (p.141, Mosley) as part of the Joint Defence Council in India supervising division of the India Army.
They faced several problems. The Demobilisation Directorate begun to work to reduce the 2,500,000 armed forces of India Army to peacetime footing in 1944 although the permanent copy of the Draft Regulations for release from the Army were not issued until April 1945 because it was found that the under regulations of the Army Council the above Regulation did not apply to forces of the Indian states forces and British service personnel. (pp.225-227, Official history of the Indian Armed Forces in the Second World War 1939-45: Expansion of the Armed Forces and defence organisation, historical section (India and Pakistan), Sri Nandan Prasad PhD.,gen.ed. Bisheshwar Prasad, D.Litt., Orient Longman, 1956)
The reason the Armed Forces Reconstitution Committee was required, was because the Regulations for release from the Army came in two parts: release of individuals from service, and disbandment of units. The regulations were executed by the relevant unit HQ officers under command of the unit CO, which with rare exceptions were British. The air units were subject to similar regulation by the Air Ministry, while the naval units were subject to the RN.
Now, the thing is that all British officers disbanded their units, and went elsewhere...for the most part. Many were re-employed by the new Indian Army and Pakistani Army on contract basis for five years due to officer shortages in both. All were redistributed as required and for the most part did not remain with their old units. In any case most units were extensively reorganised on ethnic lines.
Political pressure ensured no British unit remained India after August 15 based on the statement by Nehru that "I would sooner have every village in India put to the flames then keep the British Army here after August 15" (in reply to Mountbatten on Auchinleck's suggestion to retain some units under British command to assure security for British subjects.
From the above we see that disbandment of the 14th Army begun well before Independence, and was completed by August 15, and this included the FM Auchinleck himself.
The units ceased to exist when its British COs demobilized themselves, and the HQ British Forces India and Pakistan that supervised the last of the troop movements between the two states was required to itself cease on the 31 December 1947 (p.926, Auchinleck, A critical biography, John Connell, Cassell, London, 1959). The last flag to be taken down over its HQ was, on the King's request, delivered to Windsor, while the flag mast was destroyed by the Royal Engineers, British Army's last act in India
This is why no lineage can exist between India Army units and the successor armed forces of India and Pakistan. Units of the India Army were disbanded by its own officers, and units of the armed forces of India and Pakistan were reconstituted under new governments. All standards were returned to United Kingdom (though where they are stored remains unknown to me). All records after the demobilised personnel were paid off were send to War Ministry Records Archives although duplicate rolls of the troops designated to remain in "community battalions" (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc.) were forwarded to the relevant national authorities.
That the new armed forces continued in some cases to refer to units by their old names in the immediate period after 1947 only reflects on the chaos that ensued. In the 1950s most if not all were substantially renamed. New battalions that had never existed in the India Army regiments were created. However, this is another story.
In the case of all divisions, they were all disbanded, the last being 4th Division which acted to supervise partition border between India and Pakistan under General Rees, later General Officer Commanding Punjab Boundary Force, India and Head Military Emergency Staff to Emergency Committee of Cabinet, India.
Thus ended India Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess that I feel your response lacks......substance, and is particularly devoid of sources corroborating your assertions. I don't believe that extract supports your contention that the lineage of pre-partition units were terminated. It merely notes that units were disbanded - does it elaborate on whether these units were concurrently reconstituted? The Fourteenth Army formation has no application to the discussion; it didn't exist before the Second World War. Please provide a source supporting your contention that their lineage was permanently terminated (i.e. not "just" disbanded) and that "Lineage is perpetuated only when these are issued by the reigning monarch of Britain." Regiments aren't transient, they don't vanish or discontinue their lineage because of the adoption of a new political system. I feel obliged to repeat my earlier request: Can you provide verifiable sources supporting your stance (have I misunderstood you?) that a unit's lineage is dependent on a political system, even a unit's title, remaining unchanged? And to support your contention that the lineage of pre-partition regiments/divisions were terminated permanently by the ratification of the 1947 Independence Act, which is pertinent to this AFD.
Reading Valour and Sacrifice: Famous Regiments of India certainly conflicts with your contention that regimental standards were "repatriated" to Britain. Are you perhaps confusing actual British regiments with their Indian counterparts? This is a passage from the aforementioned book regarding the Grenadiers: The King's colours held by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th battalions were withdrawn and laid up at the IMA, Dehra Dun, in November 1950. The old regimental colours, however, continued on ceremonial occasions until the presentation of new colours to all the battalions and the Regimental Centre by the President of India in 1964. Those colours were clearly retained, as were the colours of the Jat Regiment and various others. That the regiments continued to be referred to by similar titles, had similar badges, et al is not emblematic of the chaos that followed partition. There was clearly a conscious effort (see link to Brigade of the Guards) to perpetuate the pre-partition regiments. Yes, the most conspicuous and tangible vestiges of imperialism were discarded on the proclamation of a Republic (royal titles, ciphers on colours and cap badges, etc) but I have found no evidence to suggest that signified a termination of lineage in the Indian Army, nor that an attempt to discontinue lineage happened. It's incumbent upon you to present sources supporting that, which I contend you have yet to do. Do I hear impasse being shouted? Discussion should be continued and definitive resolution sought from authoritative and/or official sources. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Apologies if that seemed like a terse response: I haven't slept since early yesterday! Regards, SoLando (Talk) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Units were reconstituted, but by the authority of the Congress of India, and not the King. Youu need to read the Independence Act to understand this (its in Wiki somewhere I think).
Certainly all Corps and divisions of the Fourteenth and Twelfth Armies were commanded by the British officers. When they demobilised themselves and their HQ personnel, they also disbanded the Corps and divisions which were authorised by the War Department in UK. Whatever was reconstituted by the Indian Congress was not the same entity in the legal and constitutional (i.e. constitution of His Majesty's Armed Forces, not Constitution) sense. It was Indian government's right to call its constituted units and formations whatever they wanted, and obviously they chose to "cling to Empire" rather then to invent their own, but naming units dos not automatically confer on them the status of legacy from a similarly named unit of another sovereign state. Consider how many 1st Infantry divisions there are in the World, or 7th for that matter since same applies to Pakistan. The different political system is what allows armed forces of a nation to come into being, mostly to defend the sovereignty.
I don't know why some units kept British colours, but these having been issued by the King who was no longer Emperor of India, they make no sense since the new Oath was to the Indian Congress, the President of which issued replacements as is the correct process according to the Indian Constitution.
I don't know why people fail to understand how governance, law and armed forces relate to each other, and why no unit can just decide to "inherit" the identity of another unit from a different state. Please read the Act which is fairly explicit.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the dynamics and complexities of transition and legal national succession, but you have still not produced evidence (secondary sources) to even support your contention that the independence of India signified a total severence between the modern Indian Army and the pre-partition units and formations and the discontinuation of their lineages. Until you do, Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is. Even the British Army would appear to recognise the lineage of Indian and Pakistani regiments. As I mentioned earlier, the King's Regiment maintained affiliations with the 5th Battalion of the Sikh Regiment and 1st Battalion of the Frontier Force Regiment. These alliances originated from 1911 when the Manchester Regiment (predecessor to the King's) was brigaded with the 47th Sikhs and the 59th Scinde Rifles. Commonwealth regiments are damned confusing entities. Entire books have been dedicated to the peculiarities of that system. It's no problem, really. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg3105's assertions are palpably not true. The assets of the old British Indian Army were transeffered to Pakistan/India. There seems to be some confusion as the difference between the British Army in India (which were the British ARmy stationed in India) and the British Indian Army (which was the army raised mostly from locals). The assets of the latter were transferd to the new nations. For example Northern Command in Rawalpindi became the GHQ of Pakistan Army and its head, General Messervy the new Pak Army CinC. British officers continued to serve in Pakistani units amnd in high posts for several year, the first two army chiefs of the Pakistan army were British, Messervy and Gracey, most of the senior officers contined to be British for many years, the description given above was about the British Army in India, which was withrawn with the last battalion, (of the Black Watch IIRC) leaving in Febuary '48.
Units were divided up on basis of region rather than ethnicity. For example all the Frontier Regiments and all bar one (2nd) of the Punjab Regiments went to Pakistan, the men who had opted for a different country were transfered, for example FM Marneckshaw was from the 12 Frontier Force Regiment, he went to the Gurkas. The regiments themselves remained intact as did formations, the withrawls that Mrg3105 mentions were about the British Army not British Indian Army regiments.
This particular division was a formation of the British Indian Army not the British Indian Army in India, they belonged to different armies, the army it belonged to was divided on 14th August 1947 and it was one that went to the new Pakistan Army. The fact that the 7th went to Pakistan is recorded in many books about partition, the official records of the Pakistan Army such as Brian Cloughys "History of Pakistan Army", Shakaut Riza's "Pakistan Arrmy till 1965", the official history of the Pakistan Army(signed by a British officer who was its first CinC), by military writers such as Ravi Rikhye etc, mrg3105 sems to be waging a lone crusade to "prove" that no lineage can exist, and he is alone in this. Lineage in the Indo-Pak army date to the British Indian Army and before that to the East India Company forces, for example there Hodson's Horse in the Indian Army or Guides Cavalry in the Pakistan army, the standards of the old regiments are still with them they were never sent to London, Guides still has the standard and colours it captured during the mutiny, 4 Baloch a French flag captured 200 years ago.
Personally I feel that this article should be made a redirect to 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) and perhaps the name should be changed to 7th Infantry Division British India and Pakistan since this is more accurate. It is the only Pakistani formation that has this controvesry. The other division hq transfered was the 6th Infantry Division comprising Bahawalpur state forces, this was disbanded in 1956, its insignia is now that of the 35th Infantry Division, but otherwise it has no linkge. This particular formation was active on 13th August 1947, indeed its peacetime operations was on the Afghan frontier, on 14th it along with all other Northern Command assets and other training centers located in what is now Pakistan (for instance Command and Staff College Quetta) became part of the Pakistan army, it was never "disbanded" not even for a day. And yet mrg3105 is arguing it has no linkage to the present Pakistan division! Next we'll hear the Albert Einstein in US was a different person from Albert Einstein in Germany or Switzerland.
Also the above quotations that Mrg3105 uses are inaccurate as well. Fourteenth Army never disbanded, it became Malaya Command at the end of the war, as mentioned above the units were never disbanded, the Brigade of the Guards is still around in India, it never stopped functioning even for a day, and the Punjab Boundry Commission was not run by the 4th Division, but rather by the 10 Baluch Regiment.
I don't know if I want to answer anonymous posts, but...
  • Declaring "Mrg3105's assertions are palpably not true." before offering proof is the logical equivalent of "cart before the horse"
  • Units were divided by ethnicity. Muslims went to all-Muslim units, Hindus and Sikhs to Indian units. Its a matter of record.
  • Regiments did not remain intact. Personnel which had to be transferred to their "community battalion" were moved as platoons, companies and in some cases battalions.
  • There was no "British Indian Army", only the British "India Army", just as there was a British Spain Army during Napoleonic Wars, and British France Army during First World War though neither were called that. An army only exists by the force of the authority which constitutes it, and maintained by the representatives of this authority. In this case the authority was the reigning British monarch, and the representatives were officers which were commissioned to officiate on the monarch's behalf in India. Hence they were on the India List, and to serve anywhere else an officer had to transfer to the Regular List.
  • I don't really care what you or anyone else "believes" or "feels". It could be that none of these authors read and understood the Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which dissolved the King's authority over any British forces in India. By then there were no British forces in India or Pakistan. Any British officers remaining served under contracts to India and Pakistan, and not under King's commission. However, they remained on the Regular list, and the King had the right of their recall to UK at any time, or if they refused, to forfeit their commission. Therefore the Division could not be reconstituted by a British officer. Having been declared nul and void by the King and an Act of Parliament. Whatever units were created in India and Pakistan were constitutionally entirely new creations.
  • Albert Einstein in US was a different person from Albert Einstein in Germany or Switzerland. You should at least bother to look in the infobox of the Wiki article!
German (1879–96, 1914–33)
Swiss (1901–55)
American (1940–55)
As you can see same concept applies. An authority has to issue the identification that the individual has a citizenship in a given sovereign state. At different times in his life Einstein had dual citizenship. However units and formations of armed forces can not serve two sovereign states simultaneously. Linage means continuity, but continuity can not exist between different political systems that provide the authority for existence of the said force because it would cause split loyalties.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Act of parliament did not "dissolve the Kings Authority" over India. Rather it created two new dominions, India and Pakistan where the Kings authority remained de jure if not de facto. And as for you second part about drawing an analogy between the British Spanish Army, and the British India Army, well thats completely wrong as well. As this article says clearly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army

"the Army of India consisted of two separate entities: the Indian Army and the British Army in India. The former consisted of Indian Army regiments originating in India, while the latter were British Army regiments originating in the United Kingdom which were sent to India on a tour of duty"

The Indian Army was not paid for and its regiments and formations were not created and paid for by the British Goverment, but by the Government of India, which was responsible to the Emperor and the Secretay of State. The legal diffence was important, the officer of the army were not "British officers" at all, but the Kings Commissioned Indian officers.
As for the sources, well lets see, Brain Cloughly is the main western authority on the Pakistan Army, he has served as the defence attache (Australian) in Islamabad, Shaukaut Riza, served in the second world war in Italy and then commanded company in 1948 war, a brigade in 1965 and a division in 1971. Their books are standard references on the Pakistan Army. Both of them are with respect far more reliable than what you have presented which incidentally is supported by no other authority and is dangerously close to original research.
Units were not divided by ethnicity. Units were never as a matter of policy (except a few sikh battalions IIRC) ever ethnically pure. Take the 8th Punjab Regiment which went to Pakistan.

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/8punjabreg.html

Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Sikhs, Rajputana Hindus (other than Rajputs, Jats and Mers) Punjabi Mussalmans; Muslims from Punjab.

Here another one the 10 Baluch Regiment

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/10baluchreg.html

Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Pathans, Baluchis and Brahuis 1946 Punjabi Mussalmans from the Punjab (less Ambala Civil Division) including Niazi and other Pathans from the Punjab. Hazarawalas of NWFP and Mussalmans of Jammu and Kashmir State and Gilgit Agency, Dogras from the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir State. From within the administrative borders of the NWFP of British India. NWFP states and Tribal Territory.

Dogras being Hindu.

And as for lineage The Rajput Regiment http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES//index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=105&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

The Rajput Regiment is from the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) lineage. 31st Bengal Native Infantry, raised in 1778, later became 3 Rajput

And another one Garwhal Rifles In 1891, the two Gorkha Companies were separated and the remaining six Garhwali companies were re-designated as the 39th Garhwal Regiment of the Bengal Infantry.

You have not prodeced a single authoratative link or source which supports your assertions. With the above supporting eveidence and the letter from Mr Ravi Rikhye of Orbat.com, it is submitted that mrg3105 be overruled and this article be merged with the Pakistani 7th Infantry Division page where it belongs.
I just want to hi-light what the above wikipedian said : 'This particular formation was active on 13th August 1947, indeed its peacetime operations was on the Afghan frontier, on 14th it along with all other Northern Command assets and other training centers located in what is now Pakistan (for instance Command and Staff College Quetta) became part of the Pakistan army, it was never "disbanded" not even for a day. And yet mrg3105 is arguing it has no linkage to the present Pakistan division!'

The 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) has an obvious, clear linkage to the 7th Indian Infantry Division, and thus, along the lines of 4th Indian Division, all the information should be at one page, probably the present day formation, with redirects elsewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon' does indeed present a cogent argurment against Mrg's position, although I recommend they moderate their tone to a degree. Discuss the subject not the user. Mrg, it is incumbent upon you to produce secondary sources that support your contention that the units, et al of the Indian and Pakistan Armies legally or otherwise severed their connection with the pre-partition military. I've scrutinised the Indian Independence Act at Wikisource and could not identify a single passage that corresponds with your claims. The overwhelming majority of sources presented at this AFD have supported the position that Indian and Pakistani units formally perpetuate the lineage of their predecessors. Your sources are not compelling, in that they do not appear to even suggest the termination of lineage upon the declaration of independence and subsequent proclamation of a republic. Nor have the legal ramifications of such events been substantiated. Clearly the Indian Independence Act did not have such an impact as Royal designations, etc, were not omitted until 1950. They were evidently superficial amendements that appear to have had no substantive impact on the identity of these units. Consensus outside of Wikipedia is unequivocal from the sources presented.I will therefore repeat my earlier observation: Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is.. SoLando (Talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact no actual sources have been brought to support lineage transfer from the British units to Indian and Pakistani Armies other then Indian and Pakistani websites and archived regiments.org! These can not be used as sources since they themselves do not cite sources and represent POV or OR or both.
On the other hand I sighted original and secondary sources, including an Act of Parliament which obviously neither you nor Buckshot06 have been able to understand, an order by the last C-in-C of the India Army, a description of the process that took place from an official publication of the Indian Army, and a book by a reputed UK writer.
I also provided a logical argument which has not been repudiated.
Actually, since I was not the one who commenced the AfD, the onus is on that editor to prove such lineage exists.
Change of a unit's name, in tis case 7th Indian Infantry Division, alone would convince any reasonable person that a change in political system was its reason since the division was created as a part of the sovereign state of Pakistan which immediately went to war with the sovereign state of India. This change in name was not sanctioned by the authorities in United Kingdom because no such formation was by then existing in its Order of Battle.
What exactly would you find "compelling", eyewitnesses?! --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg, your continued insistence that the India Independence Act proves that linkages between pre- and post- Independence formations is, frankly, baffling. Both SoLando and I have examined the document without success to find something that matches your claims - there's no mention of the word 'disbandment' anywhere, for example. Could you direct us to the clause that you're referring to? - it might make it a bit clearer. The C-in-C's order is on the name of the Army, not the future lineage links of its divisions, and neither of your other two written sources provides official confirmation of breaking or continuing lineages. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the original proposer's request
  • "I think one should be deleted and as the division's current name is 7th Infantry Division, so in my point of view 7th Indian Infantry Division should be deleted. --SMS Talk 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"
Unit articles should not be titled on their "current" name, but on their "name on formation", since the "current" name is subject to future change, maybe tomorrow.
The AfD is based on "point of view"
Buckshot06, what is your source for te statement "The 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) has an obvious, clear linkage to the 7th Indian Infantry Division"?
I shall have to 'digest' the Act for your 'consumption' :o\--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the editor above 'This particular formation was active on 13th August 1947, indeed its peacetime operations was on the Afghan frontier, on 14th it along with all other Northern Command assets and other training centers located in what is now Pakistan became part of the Pakistan army, it was never "disbanded" not even for a day.' That's a clear linkage - unbroken service. I don't think anyone has tried to say that the division HQ was dispersed. On the act, please don't digest it, I'd rather you gave me a reference to the specific clause(s?) that are relevant. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Act break

From sublime to the ridiculous. An unsigned "editor" is "quoted" as a "source" of divisional operations of a Second World War British formation as a "clear linkage"! I would remind you on Wikipedia guidelines, but I fear I would waste time if you choose to stoop to these sort of sources now.
I pointed you to the clauses much earlier to which you replied "::Mrg's argument is unfortunately incorrect - according to Wikisource, there is nothing in the Indian Independence Act about mandating to disband any units or formations - in regard to the armed forces, merely about adjustments to discipline arrangements. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
So...
The Act represents a Legislation that authorises the Crown to raise and employ armed forces. Similarly other Acts make provisions for demobilisation and disbandment of these forces. Forces can only exist within the authority of the Crown as as per the arrangements made between it, and the Parliament since 1707.
The Indian Independence Act 1947 was such an act, removing authority of the Crown and UK Parliament to maintain any forces in India. Although the Crown was still represented by a GG, the responsibility of the GG was severely limited to overseeing the transition of authority, and ad no conventional powers exercised on behalf of the Crown in other Commonwealth states. With both Dominions becoming republics in the 1950s, this too ended.
  • 6. (1) The legislature of each of the New Dominions shall have full power to make laws for that Dominion, including laws having extra-territorial operation.

(2) No law and no provision of any law made by the Legislature of either of the new Dominions shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of this or any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Legislature of each Dominion include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the Dominion.

In simple English it means the governments of new Dominions can make own laws, and repeal old laws made in UK, and no future laws made in UK have any validity in Dominions of India and Pakistan.
  • (5) No Order in Council made on or after the appointed day under any Act passed before the appointed day, and no order, rule or other instrument made on or after the appointed day under any such Act by any United Kingdom Minister or other authority, shall extend, or to deemed to extended, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion.
For why this is important please read here for basic history of the British Army.
  • 11. (1) The orders to be made by the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act shall make provision for the divisions of the Indian armed forces of He Majesty between the new dominions, and for the command and governance of those forces until the division is completed.
Means Mountbatten was responsible for completion of hand over of forces.

(2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces- (a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but (b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.

Means the British officers can use disciplinary laws while in employment of the new Dominions, but are not subject to any laws of the new Dominions.

12. (1) Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction or authority of His Majesty's Government United Kingdom, or of the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council or the any other United Kingdom authority, in relation to any of His Majesty's forces which may, on or after the appointed day, be in either of the new Dominions or else where in the territories which, before appointed day, were included in India, not being Indian forces.

Means the King retained command over members of British Army,, but not Indian Army.

(2) in its application in relation to His Majesty's forces, the Army Act shall have effect on or after the appointed day- (a) as if His Majesty's Indian forces were not included in the expressions "the forces" His Majesty's" and "the regular forces" and (b) subject to the further modifications specified in parts I and II of the third Schedule to this Act. (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and to any provision any law of the Legislature of the Dominion, concerned, all civil authorities in the new Dominion, and, subject as aforesaid and subject also to the provisions of the last preceding section, all service authorities in the new Dominions, shall, in those Dominion and in the other territories which were included in India before the appointed day, perform in relation to His Majesty's Military forces, not being Indian forces, the same functions as were, before the appointed day, performed by them or by the authorities corresponding to them, whether by virtue of the Army Act or otherwise, and the matters for which provision in to be made by order of the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act included facilitating of the withdrawal from the new Dominion and other territories aforesaid of His Majesty's military forces not being Indian forces.

This means all British troops shall go away, and the former forces of India Army continue to reorganise themselves subject to GG's plan.
By this stage (late 1946) all the wartime-created nits and formations had been disbanded. Any British administrative facilities such as divisional HQs were occupied by caretaker teams responsible for asset handover, and were not a part of the divisions themselves since all the garrisons (2nd battalions?) by now had been disbanded and there were no wartime field head quarters either.
I will post moore later--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And where dose it say that existing units of the British Indian Army, not the British Army are disbanded? Nowhere.58.65.163.248 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you liike answering youur own quuestins, I will lave you to have a chat with yourself--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to add a bit more, sec 11 which calls for the division of the Indian Armed forces, support my argument. No one is suggesting that the forces were not divided, simply that this was a formation that was infact part of the division (no pun intended) and was allocated to Pakistan. A fact that has been mentioned time and time ane time again, by both "Indian and Pakistani" authors, who mrg3105 seems to hold in such little regard (apparently they don't know the history of their own army) and by the main western authority on the Pakistan Army such as Brain Cloughly and also IIRC by John Keegan (though I read that a long time ago, so I cannot be absolutly certain so it is not offered as proof). The Act simply gives some individuals the power to undertake the division of the military. It dose not say anything about the units and formations themselves. As it is, if you can find me an order given by the Viceroy or Auchinleck or any other person so empowered to the effect of "all units of the Indian army are hereby dissolved and their colours laid up" which is the defination of disbandment, then I would beleive you. But then there are no such ordersm (except for regiments like the Calcutta Scottish which recruited from the British living in India anyway).--58.65.163.248 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A fact that has been mentioned time and time ane time again, by both "Indian and Pakistani" authors", but no sources provided!
Brian Cloughley
See above for process of disbandment and last order. A last order by the CinC is given when no more orders are required because no more units, or indeed individal personnel need orders issuued.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, posted last order elsewhere, so here it is

I will quote a document by the former C-in-C of the Army, Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck who must be one of the best sources possible on the name of the Army:

  • SPECAL INDIA ARMY ORDER
by
His Excellency Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck
G.C.B., G.C.I.E., C.S.I., D.S.O., O.B.E.
Commander-in-Chief India
New Delhi, 14 August 1947
S.I.A.O. 79/S/47 Discontinuance of India Army orders.
This is the last India Army order.
R.A.Savory Lieutenant-General
Adjutant-General in India
(p.898, Auchinleck, A critical biography, John Connell, Cassell, London, 1959)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the British Indian Army was at that date divided, its assets given over to the new dominion forces. That is not the question at hand, since all agree that the British Indian Army was divided up, the question is about this formation, which as all those authors whose books I have mentioned states this division was transfered to the Pakistan army, nothing that you have stated says that this was not the case. Indeed higher formations, or command are routinely disbanded that dose not necessarily mean that its components are being disbanded, indeed right now the V Corps (United States) is being disbanded but its constituent units, 1 AD, 1 ID are still around and being redsitributed elsewhere. 58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the books you mentioned? If so, feel free to quote :o)
You should know the US Army operates differently to the British Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also going by this logic there is no linkage between the Royal Scots of the Scottish Army and the Royal Scots of the British Army, since after all the Scottish Army was disbanded upon union in 1707.58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Do not confuse History of armed forces on the British Islands, and Official records of the British Army. The last are subject to legislations, including those that obligate for these records to be kept,, something non-existent before 1707.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case of the Scots, the Royal Warrant was simply reissued after 1707, but under new Parliament's Act. Its not a good example to use in this case, as is any subject of the regimental system.
Commanders of brigades and higher formations are the right place to look. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"British rule over India came to an end on 14 August 1947 and with it also ended the old institution of British honours and awards. The new Indian awards could come into being only with the dawn of the Republic on 26 January 1950." and "The first batch of decorations introduced on 26 January 1950 was thus made effective with retrospective effect from 15 August 1947." [9] --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, and excerpt from the service record of the first commander of the 7th Pakistan Infantry Division
  • Loftus-Tottenham, Frederick Joseph A/Maj.Gen. 04.08.1944-(04.1946)
04.08.1944-1945 General Officer Commanding, 81st (West Africa) Division (India, Burma) [except for 15-26.8.1944 & 31.1-2.3.1945]
1946-1947 Commander, Force 401 (Iraq)
27.02.1948 transferred, Special List (ex-India Army) [23216]
(1948) General Officer Commanding, 7th Pakistan Infantry Division
28.08.1950 ceased to be employed with the Pakistan Armed Forces and reverted to retired list (Regular Army Reserve of Officers)

[10]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg, I would advise you to remain civil in your interactions with other users and accept that people have diverging opinions. That's the very essence of a collaborative project such as this and without such an attribute one is liable to create ill-feeling in the future. I've been a Wikipedian for almost five-years and I can assure you unnecessary Wikidrama is something that must always be avoided. I'm sorry but the Independence Act is unacceptable as a source as it neither suggests or provides explicit support for your position contending termination of lineage, either by national transition and/or unit retitling. It amounts to OR as you are effectively establishing judgement from the document without using supporting secondary sources. You have still not presented evidence supporting your position that lineage was terminated, nor evidence supporting the legal military ramifications of independence and republic. That the Government of India now had the capacity to repeal laws and acts that had been enacted by the United Kingdom do not demonstrate conclusitivity to me. The redesignation of a unit also does not signify a "new beginning" and the termination of lineage, as you evidently believe - which appeared to be a motivator for your proposal at the British Divisions of World War II page. That isn't how Commonwealth-style units operate and Wikipedia must reflect established reality. Are you perhaps applying the Soviet concept? Not that I'm familiar with the units of the Soviet Union. Your dismissal of an opposing POV by attempting to devalue the authority of presented sources does not convince me of the veracity of your claims. I shall partially reproduce yesterday's message: Consensus outside of Wikipedia is unequivocal from the sources presented.I will therefore repeat my earlier observation: Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is... Regards, SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: That British awards were abolished is inconsequential. We're discussing unit lineage. SoLando (Talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Them are a lot of words.
  • What sources were brought that prove transfer of lineage from The India Army 7th Indian Infantry Division to 7th Pakistan Infantry Division?
  • I do not have actual documents ordering disbanding of the division which need to be requested from British Archives. It seems this will be the only proof you will accept.
  • "I would advise you to remain civil in your interactions with other users" - which, the unsigned poster, or Buuckshot06 who quoted him/her as a source?
  • "and accept that people have diverging opinions." - but in Wikipedia we do not deal with opinions, right?
  • "the Independence Act is unacceptable as a source as it neither suggests or provides explicit support for your position contending termination of lineage, either by national transition and/or unit retitling." - so why are British forces mentioned in it?
  • "It amounts to OR as you are effectively establishing judgement from the document without using supporting secondary sources." - actually I quoted the final order by the CinC The India Army,, which is a supporting document. It was in fact the last order issued to British forces before the publishing of the Act.
  • "You have still not presented evidence supporting your position that lineage was terminated, nor evidence supporting the legal military ramifications of independence and republic." - Ok, I'm willing to repeat myself. I will do so later by breaking the whole process into clearer steps.
  • "That the Government of India now had the capacity to repeal laws and acts that had been enacted by the United Kingdom do not demonstrate conclusitivity to me." - not just repeal. No laws used to administer and garrison India by British applied. This included everything, including all things military. Since the The India Army 7th Indian Infantry Division which had been removed from the UK Order of Battle. The Pakistan Congress had no power to restore it to UK Order of Battle, only to its own. Somewhere there is a ledger recording the first day of that division with no prior record to 15 August 1947.
  • "The redesignation of a unit also does not signify a "new beginning" and the termination of lineage, as you evidently believe - which appeared to be a motivator for your proposal at the British Divisions of World War II page." - It wasn't a redesignation, but a creation. A unit can not be redesignated by another, even Commonwealth, country after it had been removed from the UK OOB.
  • "That isn't how Commonwealth-style units operate" - Ok, how do they work? BTW, 'operate' is the right word. The reason Pakistan asked to hire British officers is because it could not make its new Army operational without them.
  • "Wikipedia must reflect established reality." - your impression of reality seems to differ from mine .
  • "Are you perhaps applying the Soviet concept?" - No, another story.
  • "Your dismissal of an opposing POV by attempting to devalue the authority of presented sources does not convince me of the veracity of your claims." - for the record, I dismiss all POV unsupported by verifiable sources. What are they inn this case?
  • Consensus outside of Wikipedia is unequivocal from the sources presented. I will therefore repeat my earlier observation: Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is...- And I repeat, IF the "mainstream consensus" is based on actual verifiable sources I will gladly accept them, if not, it is just erroneous belief based on nothing but wishful thinking. Consensus is not based on votes, but on consensus that sources are acceptable to base the article on, agreed?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the incivility that you have begun to exhibit towards other users. Moderating ourselves is essential to constructive discussion. Ample sources have been presented demonstrating that Indian and Pakistani units are perpetuating the lineage of their pre-partitition predecessors. Let's not cycle the debate here. Those sources seem reliable, in accordance with RS. What is disputed here is the legal status of that lineage. The independence act is essentially a primary source, which doesn't even contain the suggestion of lineage discontinuation - the complete severance between the modern Indian and Pakistan armies and the pre-partition Indian Army - that would support your position contending termination of lineage, either by national transition and/or unit retitling, as I observed earlier. We're going to be repeating ourselves ad infinitum here until the AFD is closed, I fear. I'm sorry but the final order by the C-in-C also is a primary document which doesn't appear to even suggest support from my cursory glance. Secondary sources are needed here to support what is a highly contentious assertion. That is what is required and I don't believe none of us are going to reach a resolution until that is achieved. SoLando (Talk) 10:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
addemdum:Consensus in the context of outside sources, which have demonstrated lineage continuation suffcient to engender support from multiple users. SoLando (Talk) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources break

What are the "outside sources, which have demonstrated lineage continuation"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and how are they reliable and in accordance with Wikipedia:RS#Claims_of_consensus?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus and demonsration in respect that almost all sources have contained reference and implication of unit perpetuation. This link appears to support the transfer of the 7th Division to Pakistan (unless there was a particularly unusual numbering sequence in the reconstitution of units). Admittedly, I do not find it compelling but it appears to be more substantive than the sources you have presented. You are arguing that there has been a termination of lineage - legally or otherwise. Where are the secondary sources demonstrating that. It is incumbent upon to produce those sources for such an exceedingly contentious claim to substantiation your claims on the legal ramifications of independence, republic, redesignation, military constitution, et al. Apologies for my preceding brief reply. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commonwealth regiments aren't transient in respect to lineage. Lineage and continuity encompass so much more than the organic elements, and extends to, for example, battle honours, history, traditions, customs, insignia, et al. My own personal project, the King's Regiment, has undergone numerous amalgamations and redesignations and yet the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment is its perpetuation, inheriting its traditions and battle honours, and so forth. Now I appreciate you are arguing that there has been a legal severence and this therefore has limited relevance. But you have not produced evidence - secondary sources - explicitly supporting your intrepetation of the legal ramifications and legitimacy of lineage claims by Indian and Pakistani units. SoLando (Talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your contention has hinged on the utilisation of primary sources, of which none allude to continuity and perpetuation. All sources that have been presented here contain the implication of lineage. What you have disputed is its legal status. I've scoured Google Books for evidence supporting your claim which did not yield a supporting source. Perhaps Red Coats to Olive Green: A History of the Indian Army 1600-1974 and Fidelity & Honour: The Indian Army from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-first Century may contain pertinent information. SoLando (Talk) 11:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We base our judgement on verifiability, most important in situations of contention. Truth is a subjective term and on Wikipedia verifiability takes precedence. I'm continuing to scour Google Books for a resolution. This is from India and Pakistan; a Political Analysis: There was a direct continuity between the regiments founded by British officers a hundred years ago or more and the new formations of the new armies. SoLando (Talk) 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link you supplied by Brig. (Ret.) Noor A. Husain is actually reproduced from his book by numerous other sites. You will note there are no supporting references to sources. You will not find them in the book either.
Again, I ask what secondary sources do you think I should produce?
Please understand the the process.
  • GHQ India would determine which order the formations and divisions were to be demobilised. Upon this decision an order was issued.
  • The CO of the unit would then issue appropriate orders for each sub-unit concerned, and the clerks of the sub-units would issue individual discharge orders.
  • The formation CO and his Adjutant would then discharge themselves last, and be immediately placed on the officer lists.
  • With the dispatch of all records to the Secretary, Military Department India (Mayne, Sir Ashton Gerard Oswald Mosley Gen. (retd 01.09.1947)) the officers were either: reassigned command, placed in reserve (a trip home), retired as Mayne, or employed by the Dominions.
  • The formation records, once accounted for by the Military Department India and telegraphed to UK, were sent by ship while the War Ministry duly struck the formation and its constituent parts off the Order of Battle.
This process begun in late 1944 administratively, and in earnest in terms of discharges from June (?) 1945. By 1947 all that remained on the OOB India were regional Commands that largely administered reduction of British forces in India and repatriation of Allied POWs, security of Japanese, Italian and German POW camps, and own garrisons.
No field Army, Corps or Division operational HQs remained other then the 4th division which shortly before partition was renamed into a Border Force. Some six weeks before the Independence, with virtually all British troops gone, the movement of former India Army troops commenced based on ethnic affiliations.
At this time the only officers remaining were those representing GHQ Commands (regions) at facility handovers. They had a disbanded formation or sub-unit ledger, and they would go through the ledger with receiving Dominion officer after which the later would sign as the authority representing the Dominion. The ledger would of course reference the formation to which the facility and its assets belonged to because that is how it was known to the Committee. After the handover the Dominions could start working on the composition of their own units, and eventually own OOB. They chose to "cling to Empire" and use old unit titles and even insignia. I guess they were now free to call their units anything they wanted. In the case of Gurkhas the change only concerned one letter. In Pakistan the word Indian was duly removed from the the title. It didn't matter. The unit had been removed from the UK OOB permanently. I would guess that political pressure of the Foreign Office anxious to keep both Dominions in the Commonwealth through it prudent not to point out the obvious.
The myth that Indian and Pakistani formations and units maintain lineage to The India Army is based solely on the self-reference of those forces to themselves as past members of The India Army, and has no basis in UK military law, procedure, UK or Commonwealth, or legislative basis in either UK or the Dominions, and certainly not after both became republics.
Having written all this, it occurs to me that because this was such a common process that virtually every British officer had to go through, it is unlikely to be documented outside official records. What this means is that I am unlikely to be seen as being right unless I pay for the Archival searches!
I have quoted the best place available for this to be verified from an official publication of the national Indian Army. I will get a book about Messervy, 15.08.1947-10.02.1948 Commander-in-Chief, Pakistan Armed Forces. I will also contact some people in UK who may be able to help, but I strongly suspect this will not be resolved by AfD end date, nor will I be able to show "secondary sources" aside from those that illustrate the legislative basis of existence of any division on the UK OOB from the Duke of York reforms that created first divisions inn 1809 to those of today.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Coats to Olive Green: A History of the Indian Army 1600-1974 was published in Bombay 1974, the height of India-Pakistan conflict, and can not be said to be neutral.
  • Fidelity & Honour: The Indian Army from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-first Century Oxford University Press ,1999 ,New Delhi, Bunch of essays presented in honour of Prof. S. Sankaranarayanan, on archaeology and culture, epigraphy, religion and philosophy, literature; and art and architecture have fresh and original interpretations. The essays on archaeology and culture cover the 684p.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry but I do not agree. The sources that have been presented by myself and others are verifiable and reliable (many of which are independent of the Indian and Pakistani militaries). They cannot be dismissed because of their organisational affiliation or for being accused by you of being effectively ignorant; they're hardly extremist in nature ;-). Primary sources (independence act, archives, et al) cannot - I repeat CANNOT - be used to support your position as it is evidently exceedingly contentious and disputed. Produce secondary sources supporting your claims vis-á-vis the legal military ramifications of independence, republic, termination of lineage, etc. Otherwise you'll be effectively engaged in the propagation of original research. We represent verifiability, not truth. And what is verifiable is the claim by India and Pakistan of lineal continity. What isn't is your position that it is not legally valid. Please understand that I sympathise with you. I've been in many situations where I knew believed something was true but I could not verify it using reliable secondary sources. I've also been musing on a paradox. Surely the British government would have issued a formal protest requesting that Indian and Pakistani units not claim lineal descent from their pre-partition antecedents, were they not legally entitled? Would regiments from the United Kingdom not also be prohibited from maintaining official affiliations with their counterparts on the sub-continent who claim lineage from pre-partition regiments that had maintained relationships with British units? I concede that's purely hypothetical but it is intriguing. That's Wikipedia. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well,, since I am no the proposer, but opposer here, is not the onus on the proposer to show secondary sources? Regardless of the rank of the Pakistani author, if they are just his understanding of things, how are they more authoritative? In Pakistan a general can write anything he wants as we all know.
Excuse me Mrg, on what basis are you making nasty comments about what Pakistanis can and cannot write? Everyone can judge all written work based on how much supporting evidence and references, whatever, any writer writes - if someone from the Soviet General Staff makes completely unsupported statements, then one would believe them less too! Please be a little more civil. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that when someone from SGS makes statements, they do lead to Central MOD Archives or references from some other place, or memoirs of someone, or they explain rationale. Ultimately statements are traceable to a source. So far I have not seen one source that corroborates the assumption that post-1947 Indian and Pakistani units and formations continued pre-1947 lineages. All I see are statements made by mostly former generals in both Armies which are never referenced to any of their armed forces files, or archives or even other people responsible for this process. Moreover, I have never seen similar statements from British generals although some ended up being regimental honorary colonels of Indian and Pakistani regiments AFTER 1947. What I said was not uncivil, but true. It seems you have something to learn about global publishing business and cultural impacts on the industry. A general, or for that matter any prominent figure in either Pakistan or India can publish almost anything, and it will be taken for "gospel truth" there although no editor in an English speaking country would allow it to be published. Its just a fact of different cultures. This is why Oxford University Press has a separate office in New Delhi. However, if you disagree, go and find a proof to the contrary. I will try and get a book on Masservy from a regional library in the near future, so may learn something from that.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, these two sources from GoogleBooks suggest emphasis on tradition and not linage, which are different concepts as I'm sure you will agree.
  • "British Indian military traditions were maintained not because they were British, but because they were the Army's, and the Indian Army continued..." - World Armies - Page 303 by John Keegan
  • "... the continuity of tradition in an army was essential and the Indian Army was built on the British model" - Asian Recorder - Page 910 1955
In any case, I have not actually seen any sources other then websites. Can I actually get an English language published work with a page reference at least?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is incumbent upon a person making highly contentious, disputed claims on legality seemingly inconsistent with the established position to substantiate with secondary sources, for were it demonstrated it would require extensive restructuring of articles on Indian and Pakistani units. That lineage is claimed is not disputed and you yourself are no longer contesting that. What you are claiming about legal status has not been substantiated with secondary sources. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The continuation of tradition logically would entail the perpetuation of unit lineage. SoLando (Talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition and lineage are separate concepts. Many different units may share traditions, but not have the same lineage. I doubt short of archival material I will find secondary sources. However I would have thought that the way this division name was written in its first CO's service record stood for something--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. British/Commonwealth style regiments are immensely complex entities, often fervently protective of their identity. It was inevitable that, irrespective of political change and national transition, those identities would continue to be perpetuated. If those primary sources stated explicitly (in the stricted definition of that word) that lineage was no longer legally continued, consensus could be etsbalished to accept those sources. But if those sources are only suggestive, only interpretive and theoretical, it is inconceivable that they would be accepted as legitimate. Again, I sympathise. I've been in similar situations. Verifiability has precedence here, not what a person believes is "true". It's a subjective term and on the internet, especially here on Wikipedia, it is a word that is invariably hijacked by people pushing minority theories. That's just one of the reasons why verifiability is so intrinsic to the project. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retired Brig Noor Hussein was Jinnah's Military Secretary and thus privy to a lot of the happenings esp wrt to the transfer. He is far more reliable than Mrg3105's spurious, far fetched and misguided interpretation of the Indian Independence Act 1947 (IIA 1947). None of the other editors have found any support in the IIA 1947 for his proposition or his interpretation. We have several sources, independent, diverse which say that this formation was the only one transfered to the Pakistan Army, and Mrg3105 holds them in contempt, he has dismissed them as being unworthy or wrong or that they are "perpetutating myths". Brig Noor Hussein's piece is waved away by a statement, "in Pakistan Generals can write whatever they want, as we all know." The purpose of this is not to "put down" mrg3105, but to display why his claims should be ignored and this article not held hostage to the whims of one editor. 58.65.163.248 (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this formation is the only one of its type for which the claim is made by Pakistan. If they wanted to "perpetuate myths" then no doubt they would have done this when creating other divisions with the same ordinal number as British Indian Army divisions and "passed them off" as Mrg3105 seems to insist they are doing, after all this is Pakistan and generals can write whatever they want! So why not the 8th Division, which was created a few months after independance? Or the 17th? There were Indian Army divisions with that number? Why stop at this one only? The simple reason for that was since 8 and 17 were not British Indian Army Divisions which were transferd rather they were new raisings with no linkage to the British Divisions except the name.

And some more "myths" for our consumption regarding lineage. The lineage of the Punjab Regt of Pakistan from, the time of their rasing to 1957 when all the present Punjab Regiments were consolidated into one regiment (the 8th formed the new Baloch regt).

http://orbat.com/site/history/open1/pakistan_punjabregt.html 58.65.163.248 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the author display not only the present but the prior lineage all the way to the first one.

I concur with your argurments but please moderate your tone. Ok, this AFD is hardly going to qualify as an example of gross incivility but there have been moments that should merit reflection by participants (myself included) on the articulation of their argurments.
Mrg, although I must concede I found this discussion on occassion quite frustrating, I thank you for rekindling what has been a passing interest in the Indian and Pakistani armies (and the pre-partition Army in India). Intriguingly, according to Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991, those battle honours which you may recall me mentioning were considered "repugnant" were apparently never withdrawn "but would continue to be recorded in the Army Lists. Orders for the emblazonment of Second World War and subsequent battle honours, all of which were considered non-repugnant, were soon published separately." The book later states: The report of this Committee was published in 1966 and Army Order 405 listed all the battle honours considered to be `non-repugnant': only thirty-eight pre-1914 awards were so classified"
For Pakistan it notes that "the award of battle honours for the Second World War was the first approved by a President of Pakistan."
Now that may not seem significant but to me the issuing of an Army Order compellingly demonstrates official recognition of lineal continuity and the act of the President of Pakistan is even more definitive. As has been repeatedly requested, unless you can produce secondary sources supporting your contentions vis-á-vis legality, the ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, and the claim of lineage termination, or indeed explicit and unambiguous primary sources (i.e. a passage stating "lineage is forthwith terminated" and "lineage claims are illegtimate") I am of the opinion that this discussion has reached its extent until a time when sources contradicting what has been demonstrated to be the established position are produced.
If there isn't a strong prospect of expansion, I'm voting in support of a proposed merge with the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) to consolidate the duplicate history. If only someone had access to this book which would undoubtedly be beneficial to the nominated article. SoLando (Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is even more definative, to quote it. "The Division (in 1952) lives as the 7th Division of the Pakistan ArmyBold text". Sparten (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose to merge into 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan). If the claim is that the division has liniage to The India Army of pre-1947, then the initial formation should be the title of the article, which was 7th Indian Infantry Division, and a section devoted to its renamed status. As I proposed, the name needs to be 7th (Indian) Infantry Division (India Army) to conform with the naming convention. Alternatively the nation-in-brackets can be (Britain). --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • yup ! need not be merged but keep and improve / fix the article . Pearll's sun (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons mentioned above. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , this very lengthy debate shows how important this article is . it is better to fix it and deletion isn't wise . Pearll's sun (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process break

Below is a description of how unit diaries which were used for theatre and battle honours awards during the First World War were kept. The process was the same during the Second World War. I am not aware that copies were made for Indian and Pakistani Armies, so in fact no awards, unit or individual could be granted to post-1947 units based on pre-1947 records. Nor could unit records be used for unit history compilation after 1947.

"Unit Records: War Diaries A soldier's medal records normally only give his regiment or corps. To trace his actual unit, e.g. the battalion in an infantry regiment, the brigade and/or battery in the Royal

Artillery, the company in the Royal Engineers or Army Service Corps, you may need more information from family sources such as letters home, or his pay-book (AB 64) or discharge papers if these have survived in the family. Infantry battalions are normally included in the medal rolls in WO329 but not always on the medal index cards.

Each unit serving in a theatre of operations abroad was required to keep a daily War Diary on a special form, Army Form C 2118. These were normally kept by the unit's adjutant or another junior officer, although for smaller units they were kept by the commanding officer. They were maintained in duplicate, normally written in indelible pencil, and once a month one copy would be sent to the Adjutant-General's Office at the Base, Rouen. These latter copies have survived and are at Kew in class WO95. The other copies were retained by the unit, and some of these survive in regimental museums.

The stated purpose of keeping a War Diary was to compile a contemporaneous record from which, in due course, the history of the campaign could be written, and indeed the Official History was written with reference to these diaries (as well as other sources). For this reason, and also bearing in mind that it was often compiled late at night, sometimes after a full day's fighting, it contains little information on individual soldiers. The comings and goings of officers (including casualties) are usually recorded individually but it is rare indeed to find other ranks mentioned by name. A notable exception is for gallantry awards, as mentioned above. War Diaries normally begin on the first day of disembarkation so information on the unit's training and service in the UK is only given in rare cases.

The sequence in which WO95 is kept follows the "order of battle." This means that units and formations in France come first, then those in Italy, then those in Gallipoli, and so on through the remaining theatres of operations. Within each theatre, records of General Headquarters (GHQ) and attached units come first, then those of Armies and attached units (France only), then of Corps and attached units, then of Divisions. In the latter case, the divisional HQ diaries come first, then those of divisional troops (i.e. arms other than infantry), then those of each infantry brigade (HQ, four battalions, and usually a machine-gun company and a trench mortar battery). Records of Canadian, Australian, Indian and other overseas formations come after those of the corresponding British corps and divisions within the relevant theatre.

War Diaries of headquarters and units on the Lines of Communication (the rear area behind the fighting troops, as far back as the ports) are shown after those of the divisions in the relevant theatre. These are mainly hospitals and other medical units, the railway service, base depots and workshops, and the offices of the Base Commandants and staff at the ports.

Some War Diaries are incomplete, especially for the period of the German 1918 Spring offensives when some units were completely over-run in a matter of hours, and records of units attached to GHQ, Armies, Corps and the Lines of Communication may also be incomplete or even missing entirely.

British Regiments 1914-18 by Brig E A James (Samson Books, 1978) gives a brief summary of the locations in the UK in which each cavalry regiment and infantry battalion served, and the brigades and divisions to which they belonged thereafter. The movements and major actions in which each division served are listed in Order of Battle of Divisions by Major A F Becke, reprinted in the late 1980s by Sherwood Press, Nottingham (Parts 1 and 2A) and Ray Westlake Military Books of Newport, Gwent (Parts 2B, 3A and 3B). It is possible that your local library might have copies or could get them for you through the inter-library loan service.

Becke also gives details of which units comprised each division at various times, but it may be easier to get this information from the National Archives website by searching or browsing the index to class WO95. Alternatively, if you are already at Kew, the last few files in class WO95, numbers 5467 to 5500, contain detailed and indexed Orders of Battle for each of the theatres of operations, normally at intervals of about one month. A copy of the edition of November 1918 for France has also been published by the Imperial War Museum. These should enable you to trace the formations in which your ancestor fought at various times, which in turn will help to narrow down your search of the rest of the WO95 class index."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg, you cannot make these claims without sources, secondary or otherwise. If you actually have to interpret a source because it is only suggestive or theoretical, it is wholly unacceptable to come to a conclusion and present your personal interpretation as fact. You have not presented a single source that has even alluded to your claims via-á-vis legal military ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, lineage termination, etc. If you can't produce a source that literally says, unambigously and explictly, that "lineage has been terminated", "claims to lineage are now invalid", your argurments will lack substance and you are effectively engaged, as has been said, in original research and the propagation of your personal interpretation. Official recognition by the governments of India and Pakistan has been proven abundant. Evidence of British recognition to some degree has also been demonstrated (affiliations; another example from the Light Dragoons). It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate your exceptional contentions without deriding the authority of those sources by dimissing them as products of ignorance and the claims of generals. That is your personal opinion, not fact. Verifiability trumps personal convictions of what is true and untrue.
Indeed, you have not presented sources that have even demonstrated Indian units were integral components of the British Army and that the Indian Army was not a nominally distinct organisation maintained at the expense of the "Indian Empire", regardless of political reality. As I have said, you appear to be interpreting primary sources in the forming of judgement. Here's the Oxford History of the British Army on the disbanding of the predominantly European Auxiliary Force: "There was, however, no place for them in the armies of the two successor states of the British Indian Empire, and with the achievement of independence in 1947 they were disbanded."
In addition, in regard to Kitchener's reform: "To emphasise the homogeneity of the reformed army, the title 'Indian Army', which had previously been applied to all the forces at the disposal of the government of India, and which since 1895 had also been applied to the troops of the former Bengal, Madras, and Bombay armies, was henceforth to be used to denominate the forces recruited and permanently based in India, together with its ex-patriate British officers. The term 'Army in India' was henceforth to be used to mean the whole of the land forces of the Indian Empire, including the 30 per cent provided by the British Army at the Indian taxpayer's expense." SoLando (Talk) 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above came from the http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/thegreatwar/articles/sourcesofinfo/tracinganancestor.htm
All sources brought from current Indian and Pakistani Armies are also "only suggestive or theoretical". They are unsourced assertions.
Can anyone produce any document source that literally says, unambiguously and explicitly, that "lineage has not been terminated", "claims to lineage are still valid"?
Official recognition by the governments of India and Pakistan is abundant, but unproven since it requires acknowledgement from the UK, which has remained silent to the claims for over 60 years.
Your site http://www.army.mod.uk/ld/affiliations.htm from the Light Dragoons only speaks of affiliations, not lineage! Consider this site http://mod.nic.in/Samachar/nov15-03/html/ch1.htm which lists only British theatre and battle honours gained before 1947. If there was linage, post-1947 honours would also apply, but they do not due to a different political system.

Regimental affiliations are handled by the Light Dragoons Regimental Association Charitaible Trust. Contact Fenham Barracks, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4NP, Tel: 0191 2611046 ext 3140.

Unit lineage is handled by the UK Ministry of Defence.
"not presented sources that have even demonstrated Indian units were integral components of the British Army and that the Indian Army was not a nominally distinct organisation maintained at the expense of the "Indian Empire", regardless of political reality." - You must be kidding! Until 1930s there were no Indian or Pakistani officers. All officers were British, transferred to the India List from other seniority lists administered by the War Office. If you can, go to Kew, UK and you can look it up yourself.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That website says NOTHING to support you. You are no longer disputing that Indian and Pakistani units assert lineage. What you now dispute and have done since your initial claims were disproven is to emphasise your belief that lineage was terminated and that their claims are invalid. What you have not done is support those exceptional claims with sources, vis-á-vis legal ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, and lineage termination. Official recognition from the governments of India and Pakistan has been demonstrated - it isn't theoretical and it doesn't require interpretation. The evidence is self-explanatory. Those governments are internationall recognised and authoritative and you cannot dismiss them and devalue the compelling sources. Until you produce evidence to the contrary (unambiguous and explicit with the formulations previously mentioned regarding your claims), we must reflect that recognition which does not appear to have been disputed and/or challenged by the United Kingdom (indeed, it has evidently been recognised to a degree). The official affiliations of the Light Dragoons explicitly recogonises the lineage connecting them to the antecedents of the Indian and Pakistani regiments. Read it. Wikipedia does not deal with hypotheticals and original research; it deals with verifiability and as said that trumps personal convinctions on what you believe is and and isn't true. The lack of indigenous officers is irrelevant. Present your sources that disprove the nominal distinction of the Indian Army from that of the British Army. Present your sources, don't present your personal opinion and theories as fact. Your approach amounts to original research. I really sympathise with you, I do, but I will continue to pursue this until you have satisfied the requests that have been made. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I AM still disputing their claim to lineage. I just don't have the sources you expect of me, but not of the editors who propose the AfD.
Official recognition from the governments of India and Pakistan has NOT been demonstrated. A website, even if representing a state's armed forces is not a form of official policy or record, nor does it claim to be. In fact PakDef Military Consortium (PMC) "Despite the focus on Pakistani military and geo-strategic issues neither PMC, nor www.PakDef.info have anything to do with the Government of Pakistan, its military establishment or any civil agency" [11]
I think you just fail to comprehend the 'transition of government' concept. With the transition of government from that of a Viceroy to that of the Indian Congress the Viceroy's commissions for the Indian officers ended, and they were commissioned anew by the new government. How could this be required for officers, but not for the units they command? It is such a basic concept that seemingly no-on has bothered to document it on the assumption of basic logic and common sense. Consider the following example from business world. One corporation takes over another. After accounting for the assets, and moving the personnel to its payroll, the previous corporation is wound up. It ceases to be a legal entity, all its corporate responsibilities now being those of the post-takeover entity. There is no 'lineage'. On the other hand, if the new corporation retains the previous entity as a corporate member, there is lineage. I.e. A takes over B; B is made nul and void. C takes over D, but D is incorporated into its structure becoming D (C Group); there is lineage. You yourself deal with this in British regimental amalgamations, so you must understand the concept. Regiments A, B and C are amalgamated, becoming regiment D (a, b and c). All pre-1707 regiments have been taken over by the Crown under new parliament and stricken from Order of Battle rolls, the seniority re-enumerated from 1st. While history does record that the personnel of regiment X became those of the 1st regiment, the Warrant under which they were formed as X is no longer legal tender. Officers previously commissioned into regiment X may not serve unless they are commissioned again into the new regiment, requiring new commissions.
"Until you produce evidence to the contrary"? First the originator of this AfD has to bring supporting evidence.
"The official affiliations of the Light Dragoons explicitly recogonises the lineage connecting them to the antecedents of the Indian and Pakistani regiments. Read it."! I suggest you "read it" and the whole site! To quote "In the 1950s and 60s, the regiments continued to see plenty of active service in what was to be the twilight of the British Empire - notably in Malaya and Aden. But the main effort was in the divided Germany as part of BAOR - the British Army of the Rhine." Not a word on India. Where is the lineage?! Why isn't the South Alberta Light Horse claiming lineage based on the alliance? Is this "The Officers of the Light Dragoons today wear the Skinner's Horse turban silk as cummerbunds, whilst their officers carry 13th/18th crops." what you base claims of lineage on?
"we must reflect that recognition which does not appear to have been disputed and/or challenged by the United Kingdom (indeed, it has evidently been recognised to a degree)." In actual fact there has been nothing to dispute because all Indian and Pakistani sources only claim traditions, not lineage. Only the Wikipedia articles claim lineage, but these are not sourced from official records of the Pakistan Government.
I quote from http://www.chowk.com/interacts/13455/1/0/152
"Neither India nor Pakistan take their military history seriously. India, for example, has still to release its war histories for 1965 and 1971, though xeroxed copies were obtained by the Times of India. The histories are so bland as to be next to useless. The history of the 1962 War may not even have been written. Aside from the Ministry of Defense's in-house historians, no one is allowed access to war documents. The same is true of Pakistan. Much of the conduct of Indian and Pakistani battles is by means of verbal orders, and there seems to be no scheme of keeping proper records and notes of conversations and signals. Unsurprisingly, Indian and Pakistani military history becomes an unbroken disaster of "I said - he said" Few of the histories published by retired soldiers would meet the requirement of rigor needed for real history. The more decent writers couch their language in ambigious terms, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. Those with an axe to grind go after their bete noir, who can do nothing right, while covering up their own errors, to indicate they did nothing wrong. Good research is expensive, and almost without exception no Indian or Pakistani writer, university, or publisher can afford to pay for it. So accounts are written in great part because you happen to run across an officer who was there, or a story told you by the batchmate of the general concerned, who heard it from a staff officer, who was told by someone from the general's staff…and so on. Even the most concietntious writer has trouble getting a fair picture under these cirucmstances, and the best such writers can do is to acknowledge their limitations, and continue. Else we would have no history at all, good or bad." (the writer of this can be contacted by email)
Did you read my citation of official Indian Army publication outlining the process of demobilisation and disbandment? These were conducted under the same set of UK War Office Regulations, the only place lineage can be confirmed from. I provided full source reference, including page numbers. If you have no access to this published work, that is not my problem. You can go to the RUSI library (as I did), and I'm sure they will have a copy.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was alluding to the fact that you apparently no longer dispute they claim lineage (which you originally were, no?). The Light Dragoons descend from many regiments, including the 13th Hussars, and are explicitly perpetuating the affiliations that their predecessors maintained with their pre-partition counterparts (it's self-evident). Your theory on what constitutes and defines lineage is irrelevant, as is your theory (?) on what determines perpetuation and transition - it's complete unverified and would probably remain so even if you continued to use what appears to be original research. The Oxford History of the British Army, Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991, official websites of the Indian and Pakistani armies (another example: [12]), et al, have all provided compelling evidence of official recognition and support of my assertions. Again, until you can produce sources that explictly and unambiguously support your statements on lineage termination, lineage invalidty, legal military ramifications of independence and organisational succession, etc, your resort to primary documents that have a strong emphasis on the hypothetical and theoretical have no application to this discussion. Verifiability trumps personal opinion, theory and interpretation. Please understand that verifiability is intrinsic and pretty much precludes original research which is invariably dependent upon primary documents - documents which do not even appear to allude to your contentions. Wikipedia must reflect what is evidently the official position of the governments of India and Pakistan until a time when you demonstrate evidence to the contrary - which after the elapsing of four-days since my first request I fear won't be realised. You cannot dismiss the authority of sources, official or otherwise, because you believe they are the product of "ignorance" and "myth" or unreliable because of nationality. That is your personal opinion and has no relevance here. Your claims are exceptional and I have found no evidence in Google books, Amazon, etc to support them (and I scoured for hours). They are exceptional claims, contentious and disputed and it is therefore incumbent upon you to substantiate them with exceptional, high quality sources. I can't believe how many times this has been said, which you appear to have utterly disregarded. I respect your position but this won't be resolved if you continue to push your own theories as fact. I am not asserting my position to be fact, unlike you. I am deferring to verifiability on what, until your contentions, proved to be a non-controversial issue (and which I assert remains non-controversial). SoLando (Talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On [13] A HISTORY OF THE PAKISTAN ARMY by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY (REVIEWED BY MAJOR A.H AMIN-RETIRED) "On page-96 the author states that 13 Dogra in 4 Indian Mountain Division area captured Bedian but was driven out by 7 Punjab’s counter attack the next day. In reality 13 Dogra never attacked Bedian, nor was Bedian defended by 7 Punjab. Bedian was defended by 7 Baluch and attacked by 17 Rajput. Further Bedian was not attacked by a unit from the 4 Mountain Division but by a unit of 7 Indian Division which failed to capture it in the first place".
Do you do appreciate that you're contradicting your (to be candid) perplexing position on the authority of retired officers and 2) not contexualising this extract. Its significance? SoLando (Talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the claim that I was insulting to the Pakistani, or Indian generals, here is something from [14] so I am not accused of representing my own POV: "The Pakistan Army is the central institution that runs the country, whether there is a democratic government or not. Militarily, the Pakistan army is well trained and seasoned, adequately armed and excellent at smaller unit combat. At full theater combat Pakistan, like India have developed a mental block. This stems (for both Pakistan and India), perhaps to the fact that the generals are not well trained in their art. Since in British India, the British took the higher positions, there is a deep grained mental block in thinking strategically, and going through with wider plans. The comedy of errors during 1965 is an able testament to this. The 1971 strategy of regional commands was a glaring red light. Further, with the involvement of the Pakistan army in politics and country running, these generals have become corrupt and this has further deteriorated their prowess. The Pakistan Army also breeds linear thinkers. Anybody who has been in close association with the Pakistan Army knows the specific setting they have and the unique manner in which they think. Hierarchy and rank are also very important."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grand strategy doesn't really seem reliable (diplomatically speaking) and this has no relevance, IMO. SoLando (Talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, when you reply, divide your text into paragraphs.
Your site provides history of British Artillery in India, not a proof of lineage of artillery units. In fact all it says is "Indian Artillery during independence consisted of Field, Air Defence, Counter Bombardment, Coastal, Air Observation Post branches and was allotted eighteen and half all types of artillery regiments while remaining nine and half units went to Pakistan." Even if these were listed with same designations as those units previously so called before Independence, this still does not prove lineage.
My above quotes illustrate the lack of reliability of sources derived from Pakistan (or India). Also the book by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY recommended as a source uses "7 Indian Division" in the immediate post-Independence period. Clearly it can not be named this because it was no longer belonging to the India Army OOB, but he does not attribute it to the Pakistan Army. This is either sloppy writing, or sloppy editing, or both.
Why do you resist referring to any of the sources I cited?
Why are no published sources cited by the proposers to move the 7th Indian Infantry division to 7th Infantry division (Pakistan)? That can be said to be original research also since there are plenty of published sources for the existence of the former, but none that I'm aware of that propose its conversion into the later outside its constitution in the Pakistani Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of my responses are at my discretion, as your messages are at your discretion. Please don't misrepresent the Indian Army source. The assertion of inherited lineage is incontrovertable, otherwise they'd just provide a history of the Indian Artillery from 1947. Also, note the cap badge and the flag - both assertions of lineal continuity. What sources have you cited? Your argurments have depended upon original research, hypotheticals and personal theory, and the attempted (but not successful, IMO) undermining of sources produced in this discussion. I never employed Brian Cloughey's history as a source and can make no opinion on the authority of that source. What I have utilised is reliable sources, official and independent. I have not had to resort to original research to support my position - documents that don't actually appear to support you - in apparent contrast to your situation. You must appreciate that your contentions would have a profound impact on the structure of Indian and Pakistani units on Wikipedia. That is why it has been requested that you provide exceptional, high-quality sources for exceptional claims. Before you raised this issue, I had never encountered this suggestion. Therefore, I can only assume it is original research. And the material you have used reinforces that perception. SoLando (Talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs are just easier to read and reply to, and are the accepted way of dividing text in the English language for presenting different ideas within same context. However, your choice.
You are confusing History of armed forces in India (and Pakistan) as a whole, and the official history of the Pakistan Army. These are distinctly different concepts.
Assertions are only incontrovertible when they are based on incontrovertible facts. However, this [15] site by Pakistan Army claims that "Pakistan has one of the world's strongest militaries. Its army has played an integral part of the Pakistan government and politics since its inception. It was created on June 30, 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army and Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments..." where as in fact the planning of the transfer of the Muslim troops to Pakistan begun on this date, and the division was on the August 15, 1947. So much for record keeping. If you read my sources, you will see I had mentioned this already, and properly referenced.
"note the cap badge and the flag - both assertions of lineal continuity" - have you looked at the cap badges and flags?! For the record, the last Queen's colour was withdrawn from Pakistani units on it becoming a republic. Divisions do not have a Queen;s colour, or regimental badges.
You have to read from the beginning to see the multiple published sources I cited.
Brian Cloughey was suggested by another editor, not yourself.
"What I have utilised is reliable sources, official and independent." - which are?!
Which part of my argument is "original research"?!
"You must appreciate that your contentions would have a profound impact on the structure of Indian and Pakistani units on Wikipedia." - I realise
"why it has been requested that you provide exceptional, high-quality sources for exceptional claims." - I have explained that the only place such sources can be found would be in the War Office records of the UK Ministry of Defence formation operational orders. Since I am in Australia, I am physically unable to comply. However, it seems that no one is able to show records that prove assertions that there is formation lineage between the British India Army and the Armies of the Dominions of (and later republics) India and Pakistan. Instead there is a continued use of unit (regimental and battalion) unofficial histories that use no official sources of any government to assert this extends to the formation lineages.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break

Mrg, I've scrutinised your contributions to the AFD and identified not a single source that does not appear to be used to facilitate OR or even correspond with your claims, unambigously and explicitly. They are clearly hypothetical, requiring theorising and supposition on your part. Wikipedia is not a platform for that. The only thing I've noticed is that you mentioned the King of England in one of your earlier contributions. Correction, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know, I know, but its a misconception that can still irk many!
Again, you've provided no sources about your claim vis-á-vis Pakistan's standards, and as has been mentioned the legal military ramifications of independence, republic, organisational succession and lineage termination. And that flag is neither a Regimental Colour or Queen's Colour (it would have been a King's Colour, anyway), but the regimental flag of the Regiment of Artillery. This reminds me of your earlier claim about India's standards, which were later proven erroneoeus. The cap badge is for all intents and purposes identical to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, albeit omitting the Royal cipher and other vestiges of imperialism.
These battalion and regimental histories are NOT unofficial. Do not misrepresent sources, please. These are the official websites of the British and Indian Army. There have been an array of independent sources, most prominently The Oxford History of the British Army and Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991. You cannot dismiss the sources of official organisations, of sources in general, just because you believe their positions are the product of "ignorance" and "myth". Personal opinion in this instance has no relevance to the discussion and authority of the sources.
And why do I suspect that those War Office records would not support your contentions either. They would have to be so explicit, as has been asked of you before. What I am doing here is not to demonstrate legal perpetuation, but providing evidence of official recognition by the armies of India and Pakistan. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia's articles must reflect that evident position and defer to verifiability. Otherwise, as has been said ad nauseum, you'll be engaged in original research and the propagation of original thought, theory, and conjecture. What passages in your sources explicitly supports your position that aren't hypothetical and don't necessitate conjecture and theory on your part? I am not presenting my position as fact, unlike you. Wikipedia defers to verifiability, not personal opinion on what is and isn't true. That's been explained to you before. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Add Lineage Book of British Land Forces 1660-1978 to that list. SoLando (Talk) 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have sufficient faith in the self-moderation of official sources - whether it's the Indian Army, Pakistan Army, or the MoD - to be confident that they are assuredly reliable sources. Does their official status compromise the integrity of these sources? No, of course not. Arguably the opposite. I would naturally have issues using official websites if the subject was controversial, if it was advocating a widely disputed assertion, if it was extremist in nature, or if the information was demonstrated to be patently false. But these sites do not conform to any of that, Lineage does not appear to be widely disputed or controversial. Only you have seemingly taken umbrage. Prove otherwise. Yet more sources: Bengal Cavalry Regiments, 1857-1914, [16]. The sources that have been produced in this discussion do not state that "lineage was terminated", that these regiments were disbanded and their history consigned to, well, history. They note which army the regiment was transferred to, they expound on their lineage, their distinctions, their history and antecedents.
Again, I do not present my arguments as fact. Neither should you. I'm deferring to verifiability and it's been said throughout the debate: verifiability trumps personal opinion and theory; truth is subjective. I weary of repeating this but I feel compelled: you cannot dismiss the authority of sources, their reliability, because of their organisational affiliation, national allegiance, and your personal opinion that they are the products of myth and ignorance - that does not determine the validity of a source. And again: you do appear to be propagating personal theory and supposition, which you evidently based on your personal interpretation of primary documents. Your contentions about the legal military ramifications of independence, republic, organisational succession and lineage termination is devoid of compelling substantiation.
You can observe: "But what of the United Kingdom!" Well, I believe "British recognition" has been indicated to a degree by the aforementioned sources. You yourself note the British Government has been conspicously silent and so arguing from that perspective is utterly hypothetical. Wikipedia doesn't read minds and isn't a crystal ball :-D.
Until evidence has been produced to the contrary - and the standards are high because the claims are so exceptional - these articles should reflect what is seemingly the position of India and Pakistan. I honestly don't believe this can continue to be debated until those sources have been presented. It's self-perpetuating futility. Could anyone calculate the total size of the contributions to this discussion by myself and Mrg? We've spent so many hours repeating ourselves, and neither of us are satisfied, when we could have devoted that available time to building the encyclopedia. SoLando (Talk) 08:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pixelface have you even read the peceeding pages?58.65.163.248 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pixelface I think you haven't gone through the whole discussion. --SMS Talk 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mrg3105 has repeated the same arguement time and time again and it has been refuted time and time again. His sources are way off and downright incorrect, defence.pk for instance is not the offical Pakistan Army website, it is a private site owned by a Mr Ahsan Farooqi. And Chowk.com is an internet forum, on Pakistan not an official site, and its assertion about there being no record of military history of the Indo-Pak wars is rubbished by the plethora of official and private recollections that have been published. About the one battle of the 65 war for instance (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-141706141.html), or the published war diaries of all units divisons and battalions of Pakistan. Here is an excerpt from (Pak)1 Armoured Division's published account of the '65 war "THe urgency of the move required the division to ignore all procedure and staff actions normally required for a move and all formations and units moved head to tail in a mad rush". If mrg3105 really wanted o use Pakistani History/sources to use/refute, he could easily have requested them or been told where to find them by Inter-Services Public Relations of the Pak Military (http://www.ispr.gov.pk/) but he seems to have a near pathological dislike for Pakistan, Pakistanis and the Pakistan Army. That is his right. It under wikipedia policy not his right to impose his own personal views on a subject, especially when it contradicts tons of sources which say otherwise.58.65.163.248 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close this discussion as keep and if possible merge the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) to this article .Pearll's sun (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to change the name of the article from 7th Indian Infantry Division to 7th British Indian Infantry Division or 7th Infantry Division(British Indian Army). --SMS Talk 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I do not hate any army. I am simply opposed to bad history of them.

Secondly, if SoLando will dismiss my sources without once referring to them, is there a point to bringing sources?

Thirdly, although the lineage claim is same issue, for the purpose of this article the regimental systems do not apply because we are talking about a formation.

Lastly, as was pointed out above, finally, what I have been saying is that the India Army, and the Armies of the two Dominions that emerged from it were entirely different organisations. These organisations had entirely different structures, foundations in legislation, Orders of Battle, etc. Although thee two successor organisations chose to retain many accouterments and traditions of the former organisation from which it was derived, they could not be a continuity of each other.

It seems to me the AfD was politically motivated because Pakistan editors may find it hard to to see the 7th Indian Infantry division due to the word Indian in it because they choose to believe this is one and the same as the same numbered division in the current Army, but it is not.

The name 7th Indian Infantry Division is a historical name used in many sources. The only question as far as I'm concerned is what state it belonged to per naming conventions. Is it British because of the British Raj administration and the officers or is it Indian Army because of the actual name of the higher organisation? It seems to me the use of (Indian Army) would duplicate the word Indian in the name, and confuse with the Indian Army of the present day. I therefore would suggest (British Raj) as ts reflects both the political and legislative historiography of the formation.

As for "why do I suspect that those War Office records would not support your contentions either." - suspicion is all yours because you don't know. However, had you read the sources I referred to, you would be less suspicious.

I have not repeated myself. I ave sown through use of memoirs, bioraphies, official puublications, primary documents, and eyewitness reports that on August 15 1947 the India Army came to an end, politically, legislatively, organisationally, in terms of economic burden on the UK government, in terms of War Office record keeping, socially as a community for British officers, and as an ethnicly mixed force in India. For most historians these would be enough, but you demand operational HQ orders for formation disbandment although not being able to provide any record of transfer of lineage yourself from any source, or even explain how that would have worked despite Regulations too the contrary. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the discussion on this division and what has been the overriding debate on lineage are technically distinct. But I would not have waded into this AFD had you not been assertively presenting your argurments as fact. Indeed, I would not dismiss the sources you have employed had they actually supported your contentions. You do appear to have based your interpretations on hypothetical documents, personal theory and conjecture for assertions that have proven to be enourmously contentious and disputed, yet not a single source has been provided to even demonstrate a controversy about Indian and Pakistani units asserting lineage. Only you appear to have questioned the legality of lineage without producing sources that have explicitly demonstrated illegetimacy. That is what has been requested - sources that actually state your claims. Identify those historians who correspond with the claims you have presented in this AFD.
When you assert claims about lineage termination, organisational succession, the legal military ramifications of independence and republic, you must present sources that aren't merely hypothetical, that don't require theory and conjecture. Why? Because the claims are so exceptional and the aforementioned approach is at its very essence OR. Sources have demonstrated official recognition from the Governments of India and Pakistan, sources have stated regiments were allocated and transfered - not X was disbanded and its lineage terminated. Until you present sources explictly supporting your contentions, what can actually be debated? Wikipedia reflects verifibiaility and must accurately represent used sources. SoLando (Talk) 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg3105! I think you have missed my comments above, I nominated this article for Afd as it was an article on division which already have an article on it(I don't want to comment on that because many editors have replied to your this concern). Now I could have redirected it which I didn't because of the article's name. By its name it seemed that it is Indian Army's 7th Infantry Division which is located at Ferozepur and this could be a misleading name. So, this article nomination for Afd wasn't politically motivated as you claimed. --SMS Talk 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. The Pakistani and Indian formation have no claims to any history of the formations that existed before Independence. Units and formations can not exist without officers, and all officers before August 15, 1947 one way or another were sworn to the Crown in UK, and not to the Indian and Pakistani states. When the oath was invalidated by the Independence, officers were demobilised and units disbanded. What the Indian and Pakistani Armies think they have of history, and the reality are far apart. My problem is that I'm in the wrong country to do this research, and then I would have to have it published before I can use it as a reference in Wikipedia. I think that is a sign of the editorial "quality" that lack of understanding and knowledge perpetuates mythology. The standard application of the term editor includes the ability to research and analyse the subject of editing, not just copy blindly from anything that's handy. So, for the last time: the post-1947 Indian Army never had a 7th Indian Infantry Division, the post-1947 Pakistani Army never had a 7th Indian Infantry Division. There is nothing ambiguous about this unless when the four words in the division's title add to the three in the Pakistani formation's title. I can understand how interpreting the Act may be difficult for those not familiar with the language used in them (all are formulaic), but that is really no excuse to abuse history.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse history? That's undoubtedly your personal opinion and that can never be relevant to determining the veracity of sources. You have repeatedly dismissed the verifiable, the reliably sourced - whether official or independent - because you disagree, because of your personal opinion that they are the product of "myth" and "ignorance". Has anyone dismissed your sources using such a rationale? I hope not. To have personal theory, conjecture, opinion, take precedence above the verifiable in a project such as this is utter fallacy, IMO ;-).
Again, the standards are so high because the claims are so high. Can you demonstrate there is even a controversy about Indian and Pakistani units asserting lineage? Your claims have been dependent, as has been said repeatedly, on primary documents necessitating the hypothetical, theoretical, and conjecture. Sources have not been presented supporting (even suggesting) your claims that have not required that. Until you present sources to the contrary, Wikipedia should reflect the non-controversial, verifiable and evident position of India and Pakistan. If their position was disputed, if it was controversial, there would be verifiable sources demonstrating that. But there does not appear to be. Only you have been in dispute. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. I have redirected to America's Next Top Model; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model (mobile game)

America's Next Top Model (mobile game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This game does not appear to have ANY independent notability beyond its connection to the TV show. There is no independent and extensive coverage of this game in any sources, and thus there is no need for an article about this game. Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A dime a dozen mobile phone game tie-in no one but extreme fans of the show buys and is probably only notable to Tyra Banks (and she probably has a phone that doesn't play this either). Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Must agree with the nominator, there is no independent notability and isn't a game which is notable. Xtreme racer (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the content into the bottom of the America's Next Top Model article. I see something on IGN[17], a review on pocketgamer[18], and a press release on Yahoo![19], but I think this is short enough to merge. --Pixelface (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pixelface's comment. Possibly part of a merchandise section stub? Bill (talk|contribs) 15:23, 17 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZHLT

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

Non-notable software. Some counterarguments were given on the talk page, but they make no reference to policy or guideline and I see no independent coverage of this software in any reliable sources. The article was created by a ZHLT developer. Jfire (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lots of fourm posts, and trivial sources, but nothing meets WP:RS. --Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete following changes bellow, I'd be happy to change to keep if a source could be found. I did try some google searches but I only found a good number of blog posts. --Salix alba (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty strong delete Lots of problems. Somewhat of an ad, no links, and not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm40 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has no references and much of it looks like original research/personal opinion. It is also written like an advertisement or perhaps a love letter to the software in question asserting that it is a "shining example[,]" a "household name[,]" and "higher quality than the original game company[,]" all of which are unsupported statements of personal opinion. It also contains obvious speculation that it has "probably been used for 85%+ of all maps released for HL1[,]" again with no sources cited. It further fails to establish notability. Just because a particular game is notable, doesn't automatically mean that a given after-market editing hack program is itself notable. ZHLT gets a number of ghits but they all seem to be either directly related to the software (primary sources,) or niche sites; I found no significant, reliable, independent, secondary source coverage as per WP:N. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version of the article is a considerable improvement in terms of style. The subjective info has been removed and the article sticks to facts which is much better, but there are still no WP:RS compliant sources (or indeed any at all) to either verify the article's contents or establish notability. By a strict interpretation of the policies, this article should be out...however...Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and it is true that the spirit of the policy, not its letter, is of paramount importance. The question of "notable to who?" must be considered carefully in such a case since everything is notable to someone and not notable to another. For a niche item like this software, I realize that it may be of interest to a fair number of people, but that that fact may be difficult to prove. I would, therefore, change my vote to keep if just one article or review about the software (not just mentioning it, about it) were added. I'm not asking for the front page of the New York Times, I'd even be happy with an online gaming mag here. Does that seem fair? OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems eminently fair to me, Olen, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if at least one source evincing substantial coverage is found. Jfire (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen them discussed in a gaming magazine several years ago. I will try to find coverage, although it might take some time. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching, I don't think it will be possible to find this or any other substantial reference in a reasonable amount of time. I have found a lot of mentions on a variety of mapping and gaming news sites, but they tend to be short blurbs and not substantial coverage. Most are along the lines of "hey mappers, ZHLT version X has been released and implements new features YZW. Check it out at the official website (link)". Mappers are apparently not the target audience of magazines. I will be on the lookout for substantial coverage - just don't get your hopes up. )-: 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah wow when I wrote those arguments on the talk page, it was to explain notability. Although the statements are true, I didn't expect what I wrote to be incorporated into the article itself. If they are in the article they will need to be sourced. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep ZHLT is highly notable, as you will find if you talk to anyone in the game modding community. I believe this is an example of people who don't know anything about a subject unintentionally displaying their systematic bias. I gave a series of arguments on the talk page as to why ZHLT is notable, which should be read before rejecting this subject as non-notable. The nominator mentioned that I did not bring WP policy into my points, and yeah that is true. Please give me a bit more time to research WP policy more carefully so that I may cite it (if appropriate).
  • OlenWhitaker takes issue with the style of the article and lack of sources. That is a problem, but should be dealt with by improving the article instead of deleting it. In any case, if the article is deleted, it should be done so in such a way that it can be easily re-created and written in the appropriate style. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I now have read the policies and guidelines referenced, and believe I can properly address the points raised with respect to WP policy. (note: I am not a developer of ZHLT, just a former mapper that used it)
  1. NPOV - I have edited the article to remove a lot of the POV people here were objecting to. This is an ongoing process and further improvements are welcome, of course. Furthermore, the article should not be deleted on this basis alone, as WP:DEL states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion... A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.".
  2. Verifiability - WP:V states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (emphasis mine). This is not a controversial article where strict sourcing is required! It is an informative article detailing a technical tool, the details of which are sourced in the websites linked. No one is likely to "challenge" the fact that ZHLT implemented the null texture, or that there is an SDK for Unix. The one potentially "controversial" piece of information (after my recent edits today) is in the 2nd paragraph which talks about how widespread the tool is. No one who has ever mapped for HL or GoldSrc would challenge this statement, and a few minutes of googling around will confirm its validity. However, if those here believe that this statement is controversial, the offending paragraph can be easily removed without deleting the whole article!
  3. Reliable Sources - Going by the "letter of the law", this is a tough point to refute. The article is not sourced by WP:RS sources, this is true. It would also be very hard to track down the magazine articles and so forth that have mentioned ZHLT. However, what I gather from reading these policies is that the spirit of WP:RS is to stop people from adding things that are blatantly false, and serve as an arbiter where facts are disputed. It was not intended to weed out simple obvious facts, otherwise every article in the whole of WP would need a citation after every sentence, and the project would grind to a halt. In this case, I ask that we use some common sense here, as the WP:RS page advises us to do. In terms of policy, I would note that WP:V is a policy, whereas WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:V states that reliable sources only need to be used for points that are likely to be challenged. As mentioned above, I think the bulk of the information in this article is very unlikely to be challenged after the edits I recently made.
  4. Notability - I think that a lot of people here have the wrong impression about this. ZHLT is not "yet another" random program used by a few hackers to make minor edits to some computer game. It is a tool of major importance to the mapping community, as I explain on the talk page, and it has a somewhat unique and interesting development history which I would like to expand upon if the article is kept. This is probably the most difficult thing to convince non-modders/mappers of - we have hundreds of tools and programs, and without doing a bit of mapping it would would be hard to understand why a particular compile tool is important while a certain model viewer program is not, etc. To a non-mapper they all look the same, and this creates a form of bias in articles about technical subjects. All I can say is that I am a mapper, and after Valve Hammer Editor, this tool is the second most important program in mapping for Half-Life/Counterstrike/GoldSrc/etc, and has had considerable influence on the entire mod scene. I would also point out that, according to WP:N, a lack of reliable sources does not imply a lack of notability. There they state, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." This is one of those edge cases where a subject is notable, but not of the type that tends to get covered in news stories, etc.
  • I hope that some of you will at least reconsider your positions after reading this information and looking at the modified article. Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Tiptoety talk 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even after the rewrite, this doesn't seem to really assert any notability criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability. Even if everything in the article could be sourced, it still wouldn't be an encyclopedic subject. Quale (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I am still an admin and/or editor at several big mapping sites. If I wrote a solid article and published it there, would that qualify as a legitimate source, or would that be considered a conflict of interest? I could also probably convince another editor to write such an article if writing it myself would pose a problem. These are neutral sites that got huge readership from ~1999-2004, but are waning now. I would take care not to present false information (as always). What do you think? Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:27, 15 March 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 Empire (magazine). Non-admin closure -- RoninBK T C 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empireonline.com

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

Unsourced with no sufficient claims of notability. I speedied this, but was suggested I take this to AfD. I have since then become neutral on this. -WarthogDemon 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ss4000-e

Ss4000-e (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing indicating that this techie subject is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Borderline speedy, as there's not really enough context here. What is being stored? Even knowing that Intel is a processor company, I still don't know the answer. Powers T 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say Goodbye nothing here, and no one seems interested in adding to it.Thright (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: It meets the CSD. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's little more than a network hard drive bay, and no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies & Gentelman

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

Future album from a producer with no other albums as a performer. We don't know how notable this album will be because it hasn't yet been released. Powers T 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete should never have been a page to start with. Oh well! Time to go.Thright (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable hip-hop producer, but the album is WP:CRYSTAL at this point. And his quote isn't even spelled right, it's Ladies and Gentlemen. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but don't put a lock on recreating the article. I have been told by my label rep that he is working on an album, tentatively with this title, but I have not heard any official confirmation. A quick search of all the "usual suspects" does not turn up any references to this particular album, either. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Crystal. Cosprings (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worm day

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

Hoax. Prodded, but removed by creator. Even if such a day did exist, there's no assertion of notability. -WarthogDemon 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete after a google search, the only thing I found with regards to worm day is "its windows release day!" therefore, there is no such day. Furthermore, march 15 is from the play JC, and the article makes little mention of the link,.Thright (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just got my hands on some original Worm Day artwork, and will be uploading images that don't in themselves violate copyright. I'm also looking through online journal archives for an article in Worm Digest written in the early 2000s regarding an interview with Dr. Perry regarding worm day. The correlation between Worm Day and Julius Caesar is purely coincidental, and was therefore not elaborated upon in the article.--Cosmoknot (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The artwork's cute, but this still violates WP:NFT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has been suggested that this is a hoax. It might be, but I'll assume good faith for a moment and pretend that we all know it is a real event. There is still no material presented in the article or available on Google to make the article verifiable, or to establish that it is notable. In the absense of sources, this is all original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. A passage from the Wikipedia verifiability standards states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I do understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and strict interpretation of the policies is not alwasys appropriate, but, in this case, the lack of available sources is pretty damning on the grounds of both WP:V and WP:N. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Allen3 talk 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and OlenWhitaker - probably not a hoax, but not notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, there are those who would consider the concept of the celebration "patent nonsense." Indeed. 86.133.214.243 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete cute, but still junk. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch Geddit? (see re the discovery "Dr" Lee Perry) I kill me Plutonium27 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Virus

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

Subject is a member of two notable bands. From prod: "Article does not assert or demonstrate subject's notability. It appears that the article is primarily about the bands the subject was in, not about the subject himself." Punkmorten (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a member of a significant band, he deserves an article. The article obviously doesn't deal with his biography very well and it should be improved, not deleted. --Oldak Quill 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Although I'm all for improving articles, the fact that the article's subject has no apparent notability outside his bands (which in itself is generally cause for deletion or merging) seems to mean that there is in fact little room for improvement, because there is no significant verifiable material to be added. Again though, it seems to be largely a moot point because of the notability issue. --Zahnrad (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to band article unless sourced. The criterion is whether we can write a WP:V article on the person, not whether they "deserve" an article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the music guidelines for notability, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." That suggests that even if the bands the subject is/was in are notable, his article should be deleted, and the fact that the bands themselves are of uncertain notability seems to make the case for deletion even stronger. --Zahnrad (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sean William @ 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated by zahnradThright (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Zahnrad. I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability outside of the bands.--Nsevs • Talk 19:21, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter-warrior (archaeology)

Hunter-warrior (archaeology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete at best a dicdef or neologism; this concept is unsourced and the usage among archaeologists is neither widespread nor uniform Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as a 4-year-old orphan stub that's not even a dicdef without any sources backing it up. I haven't heard of "hunter-warriors", nor can I see how an article on them could differentiate itself from an article on "warriors", "gatherer-warriors", "pastoralist-warriors" or suchlike. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:46, 19 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stef van der Linden

Stef van der Linden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed saying this was a high profile quitting in the Netherlands but I can't find any evidence among the false positives in the ghits or evidence of RS coverage to back up this claim. Without that, he appears to fail WP:BIO for entertainers. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, apparently fails WP:BIO standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Delete is brought to you by the letters NN. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. This is a very difficult issue. If the claims in this article are true, he is easily notable enough for Wikipedia, by virtue of playing one of the lead characters in the Dutch Sesame Street (Tommie was my childhood hero!) and by presenting Klokhuis. However, and that is a big problem, I haven't been able to find any reliable sources mentioning him, so the information can't be verified. For this reason, I'm inclined to !vote delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation when such sources can be found. AecisBrievenbus 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn, nominator admits that this is WP:SNOW at work here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Lintgen

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

Interesting, but not notable. This is not a biography, this is ... um, I'm not sure WHAT it is. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This person is real and notable, he was profiled in skeptical Inquirer Magazine [20]Vol6 No. 4 Summer of 1982 and Vol. 7 No. 2 Winter of 1982. I also see his Snopes listing as a good source.I found the Skeptical Magazine references in under five minutes and I'm sure there are more sources to follow.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it here are a few more... Guniess Book of World Records 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993 and Brainstorm by Wendy Ashton Shimkofsky & Loris Lesynski (1997) all profile him. [21]. I'm sure there are more, but this seems like more than enough for a speedy keep.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More Here is an article where James Randi discusses Arthur. [22]Also, the sources on snopes can actually be used as good reference... Time Magazine "Read Any Good Records Lately?" 4 January 1982 (p. 88)., they also include the New York Times and LA Times.[23]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. I'm the first to admit it when I may have been too hasty and I may have been in this case. I'll withdraw as some of the references indicate possible notability. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mamawala

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

I normally wouldn't take an article to AfD this soon after creation, especially with an undercontruction tag, but this seems a clear cut case of non-notability. All sources are either user driven sites or connected to the person's college. No secondary source coverage. No news coverage. This would normally be speediable but I have a feeling it would be declined because of the tag. In any case, fails WP:BIO. Would recommend a WP:SNOW close on this. Redfarmer (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per creator. He was featured in an article in the most-read newspaper for college administrators and professors. Very few students get this kind of acclaim. I'm still adding sources; give me a chance, please. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWC Classics

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

Contested prod, fails WP:WEB. Khatru2 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom., no independent references to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 14 March 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samba Squad

Samba Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I nom'd for speedy. I still don't see an assertion of importance. In any case, I don't see it meeting WP:music. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Now has multiple non-trivial references. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No allusion to notability. I found some of their songs and albums on Amazon.com, but subject still fails WP:MUSIC. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove my earlier suggestion per discussion. Article looks good now. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is it too much to ask editors to do a quick web search before nominating for deletion, speedy or otherwise? I've just put three sources in the article, and they've had plenty more coverage in the Toronto Star. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I originally nom'd for speedy because I didn't see even an assertion of importance. When it was turned into an AFD I automatically thought delete without going back to check for refs. Thanks for the lesson. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've contacted one of the primary historians of the band (the original creator of the page) who will be adding a whole bunch of content which would satisfy music notability criteria --JHehner (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per consensus and improvements. The article needs to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri, a title currently protected against creation. I will contact the protecting admin about the proper relocation of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Better Courts for Missouri"

"Better Courts for Missouri" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Better Courts for

Missouri"|View AfD]])

Procedural nom. Tagged for speedy A7, but has had some media coverage. The references provided don't seem to be enough to meet WP:N guidelines though. On a related note, Better Courts for Missouri (without quotes) was deleted and protected after these comments, but the content and contributor appear to be different. Marasmusine (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete many problems as stated by redfarmer, futhermore, I have to question who twoclockjazz is, a search of there wiki activity is week and seems to be involved in these conflicts.Thright (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Google search reveals substantial news activity from major newspapers, including St. Louis Post Dispatch and Kansas City Star. Organization is clearly legitimate. Rather than delete, I encourage addition of more sources. (Freemarketman (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC))— Freemarketman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

KC Star

MissouriNet

St. Louis Post

St. Louis Post

St. Joseph News Press

Wall Street Journal

Columbia Tribune

Columbia Missourian

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemarketman (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, some people seem to oppose the way judges are selected in Missouri, but this particular group does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Of the sources listed by Freemarketman above, the last four don't even mention the organization (this is also true of some of the references cited in the article itself), and the only one that offers what might charitably be construed as substantial coverage is the Missourinet piece. I don't see enough to establish the notability of this recently formed interest group. Deor (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deor, the St. Louis Post and the Kansas City Star are Missouri's largest newspapers. Both specifically mention the organization. Missourinet is the Missouri radio version of the Associated Press. News covered by Missourinet is syndicated throughout the state. Also, the St. Louis Post article credits reform advocates, including Better Courts for Missouri, with pushing the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court to change policy. Specifically, the Chief Justice committed to adding more openness to the judicial selection process after Better Courts and its supporters began advocating reform.

A Lexis search reveals several articles by Missouri's preeminent legal newspaper, Missouri Lawyers Weekly. A number of these articles -- including what appears to be a cover story from the last week -- specifically mention Better Courts for Missouri.

For instance, one discusses a recent debate sponsored by the Federalist Society between Missouri Bar leadership and Better Courts for Missouri leadership. A wiki search of the Federalist Society indicates Better Courts for Missouri must have a decent amount of notoriety to have been invited to the Federalist Society's forum. ^ Wiese, Kelly. Daily Record "Proposed changes to Missouri Plan gather steam at Capitol." 2008-12-03.

(69.29.78.196 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— 69.29.78.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]


Yes, I lived in Missouri for 23 years, and I'm aware of the status of the Post-Dispatch (note the name) and the Star. I stand by my statement that the articles linked to above do not constitute substantial coverage of the organization. With regard to the debate, since the panelist identified as a BCfM co-founder was also the former president of the St. Louis Federalist Society itself, it's perhaps not surprising that he was participating. Deor (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deor, wouldn't it increase the significance of BCfM if one of its co-founders were a former President of the Federalist Society? 69.29.78.196 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources listed by Freemarketman above, the last four don't even mention the organization. This is a valid point. But while it may be true that some of the sources don't mention BCfM specifically, they certainly mention its members (William Placke being the obvious example). It should also be also be noted that even if the sources mentioned above are not enough to satisfy WP:ORG, a simple lexus/google search should. I did some basic google searching a few hours ago and found a giant stack of sources (AP, Post-Dispatch, etc. most of which have already been mentioned by the above contributer) which, in my mind, should satiate the requirments. If this is still unable to prove the groups legitimacy and notability, I wish someone would enlighten me on what could. (Grange1272 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Specifically, coverage required for WP:N needs to be directly about the subject. Of the links above, only MissouriNet is a possibility, but it's still rather short and multiple coverage is preferable. I remain neutral. Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked at a few of the articles linked to above. Group looks minimally notable and sources are enough to keep. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to look at Deor's comments above. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would encourage you to read 69.29.78.196's sources below. (Grange1272 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Still think keep is pretty clear...Hobit (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I did some Lexus searching recently, and here are a few things I came up with.

"Placke and Jonathan Bunch, executive director of the newly formed “Better Courts” group, said the judges' retention elections virtually are meaningless, because no Supreme or appeals court judge ever has been removed from the bench." Watson, Bob. "Stith touts changes in judicial selection process". Jefferson City News Tribune. 06 Feb. 2008

"In Missouri, that would include groups called Better Courts for Missouri and the Adam Smith Foundation; legislators like Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County and state Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph; the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and sundry other outfits on the right who don't like the way the Missouri Non-Partisan Courts Plan operates." Horrigan, Kevin. "Stranger Than Fiction." ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 03 Feb 2008

"Opponents of Missouri's judicial selection process have formed a new group to push for change.The organization calling itself "Better Courts for Missouri" says it wants to make the selection of judges more open and accountable to Missourians. Supporters of the current judicial selection method say the new group simply would inject more money and politics into the courts." "Judicial selection opponents form group" Associated Press 30 Jan 2008.

"The Bar’s leadership is dominated by and beholden to trial lawyers, who often argue cases before the state’s judges, said Bill Placke, co-founder of Better Courts for Missouri, a judicial reform group. “There’s no good reason that plaintiff’s attorneys should be selecting the judges before whom they argue cases,” Placke said." "Missouri Plan gets scrutiny and support today" KC Star

And this is just a small sample of the largest newspapers in the state. If you'd like more, feel free to ask. (Grange1272 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

These are all trivial references. To establish notability, you need to show that the organization itself has been covered by the newspapers and not just mentioned in passing in reference to other news stories. Redfarmer (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've left a note on Grange1272's talk page asking him not to vote more than once. I do question whether there is vote skewing going on, though, judging by the number of single purpose accounts that have showed up to support this. Redfarmer (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As 69.29.78.196 writes below, these are not trivial sources, nor was Better Courts mentioned "in passing". Each of these articles were written directly as a result of calls for reform in Missouri, and Better Courts was seen as the major advocacy group here. Again as 69.29.78.196 writes below, this group's calls for reform has led to three bills, an initiative petition, and an ongoing debate across the state. Shouldn't a group this influential have it's own wiki page? (Grange1272 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I have reviewed the references on the Better Courts for Missouri wiki. The organization has been specifically mentioned in publications by the Kansas City Star, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missourinet, the Missouri Bar Association, the Jefferson City News Tribune (state capital's newspaper), among others. I respectfully suggest the extensive coverage the organization has received in a short period of time makes it notable. 69.29.78.196 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)— 69.29.78.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Comment: :Redfarmer, the references may seem trivial to you, but as someone who follows Missouri politics I would like to point out that every one of those articles was generated as the result of the advocacy of Better Courts for Missouri. The organization's website explains that it exists to encourage reform of the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. Each of these articles is about that very topic. Wouldn't it make sense to have an encyclopedia entry for the main 501(c)(4) that is urging reform? 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As for Better Courts for Missouri, it appears that Missourinet -- syndicated all over Missouri -- the Kansas City Business Journal and Missouri Lawyers Weekly have all done some sort of profile of the organization. These are linked on the main page. 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also point out that this entry has more references and sources than does the "Missouri Plan" entry, which is the subject of the ongoing debate in Missouri. 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few articles about the organization:

(1)Jefferson City News Tribune (2)City Business Journal (3)MissouriNet (4)Associated Press 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Agree with Hobit. Keep seems pretty clear, especially in light of references immediately above posted by 69.29.78.196. Freemarketman (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for this late entry, I've been without internet for the weekend, but I'd like to respond to some allegations that my account is some kind of SPA. Yes, I am a wiki-novice, but everyone starts somewhere, and I thought it would be fun to begin with a page on a group that has cause quite a stir at the capitol. Perhaps I should have waited until I was a more established user to start such a controversial page, but I was unaware it would be so controversial at the time. There's not much that I can add that hasn't already been stated by others on the board, but I would simply like to say that this group is notable (just ask anyone at the capitol. Tempers will flare.) (Twooclockjazz (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Twooclockjazz, I think your contributions have been taken in good faith, I hope you don't feel that you are being "accused" of anything! I'm happy with the sources 69.29.78.196 has posted, so will change my not-vote to Keep. Marasmusine (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply anything specifically about you Twooclockjazz and I apologize if I came off that way. I was simply concerned with the number of accounts and ips showing up out of nowhere whose only contributions are to this discussion or the article in question. I believe you are probably acting in good faith. Redfarmer (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept, I expect it to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri without the incorrect quotation marks, which for some reason I could not do. Reywas92Talk 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Better Courts for Missouri without quotation marks has been protected. If the article is kept, I'll see what I can do about getting that page unprotected. (Twooclockjazz (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep The article has 13 references now, most of which are published news articles about the group. There's no reason to delete now other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also unprotect the version w/o quotes and rename. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can find no evidence that anyone on either side of the debate has advocated WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the course of this discussion. Please stick to the issue at hand and don't imply motives for which there is no evidence. Redfarmer (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm about to the point where I'm ready to change my vote due to improvements. However, I would ask first the creator of the article address possible conflict of interest problems, i.e. is it someone from the organization writing the article? Redfarmer (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Keep, the creator has satisfied me that they are not involved in a COI. I still can't speak for the many single purpose accounts that have shown up, but I'm satisfied the creator isn't one of them. BTW, kudos for bringing the quality of the article up in such a short period of time. Impressive. Redfarmer (talk) 23:51, 20 March 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. Nothing in reliable sources to show notability. IMDB is not a reliable source. The one link in the article which looks promising turns out to be a dead link. No prejudice to re-creation with better sourcing. Black Kite 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Sohl

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced; a google search comes up with no reliable third party sources AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Max Sohl" DOES meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Mr. Sohl is an award winning director. His debut video "Dawson's 20 Load Weekend" received a total of 6 Bareback Video Awards in 2004 including Video of the Year. Mr. Sohl has been credited with discovering international porn star Dawson. A google search for Max Sohl shows that his videos are sold not only in the United States but also around the entire world including the UK, Australia, Germany, China and elsewhere. Mr. Sohl was at the center of a organized protest in 2005 which led to articles appearing in the gay press including The New York Blade [24]. His works have received rave reviews in multiple publications both online and in print including rad video, onguys, adultdvdtalk and many many others. mannet.com went so far as to create an entire Max Sohl page to feature reviews of his videos all in one place. Proposing this article for deletion was the work of an over zealous editor - if anything - as per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it should have been proposed that the article be improved.Cainebj (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this user has claimed he works for Max (here), which is a WP:COI, and you can read the full discussion here of the COI and copyrighted image issues. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if he is noteworthy because of awards, etc. then it should be added to the article because its current form is not encyclopedic. If you add the awards he has won with WP:RS, then it could be considered notable. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AVN which sponsors the GayVN Awards has a strict policy that no gay video that depicts barebacking can be nominated for an award. For the 2007 Awards, several videos which were nominated had their nominations withdrawn after it was learned the videos depicted scenes that did not use condoms. [25] Cainebj (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that wasn't really a reason to "strong keep" the article. A yahoo search just shows porn sites, no WP:RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo Search shows more than porn sites - although we are talking about a porn director here - it also links to several press/media and blog articles on the subject, including The New York Blade, Vidio View, and In Newsweekly who describe themselves as New England's Premier GLBT Media Company. WP:PORNBIO - Media reference criteria. Cainebj (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of inserting a yahoo search, show the links to the actual articles. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has been nominated for awards. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which ones that were reported in the mainstream media? If these awards are significant, they should be stated in the article and cited. If I were basing an opinion on the article's contents by themselves, I'd be leaning toward "delete," but as there might be more information/cited material that qualifies Max Sohl under WP:PORNBIO, I am neutral for now in the hopes that someone who wants the article saved inserts that needed information and citations. As it is, the article is in dire need of clean up. B.Wind (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as - despite assertions on this AfD - there is no evidence of notability. Fails WP:PORNBIO. SilkTork *YES! 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment keep if this has notability as claimed else delete it . but this article seems to be a needed presence in an encyclopedia . so if possible fixing may be requested . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) date
CommentSo is that a keep or delete? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment im neutral as the previous editor . lets leave some one to fix it . Pearll's sun (talk) 12:32, 22 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeekSpeak

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

Non-notable local radio show/web content. Searches yield Technobabble. Prod contested without rationale. Jfire (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep If its currently being broadcast on NPR and has been since 1998, then I think that could be considered an assertion of notability. Needs a rewrite though, reads like a promo. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were broadcast nationally it would be, but it appears to be only local NPR affiliates. Jfire (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a re-write maybe its the best thing to delete the page and start over with this one.Thright (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with improvement. It has been around for a while, and I'm sure notability can be established. It's just a matter of someone improving the article. Celarnor (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged as needing to establish notability since May 2007, and nobody has stepped up. Jfire (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems promising, don't see the problem of having a local radio show featured, though it seems to bug the nominator. Should also mention that it ties in a few different tech personalities from different tech companies and fields. As the article states, it's a big presence in its niche field. I could see how the uninformed reader doing a google search might interpret the results as technobabble. My understanding of the results is that most of them talk about the term "Geek Speak" as well as a few podcasts. Seems good enough to me. 69.143.226.129 (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I've heard of the show before, and have downloaded it. So I'm not against the show. However... this article is little more than a promotional piece right now, and has no outside sources asserting the notability of the show. And I can't see how a weekly techie radio show/podcast would become notable enough for an article on Wikipedia - unless it were something like Off the Hook, notable because of its host and its association with the notable 2600 magazine. So, fails WP:RS, no sources, and not even any assertion of notability beyond the standard promo-piece peacocking. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:53, 19 March 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.

Integritive

The result was Speedy delete. Useight (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don't be confused by how this is worded, it's not a neologism - it's an advert for a non-notable webdesign company (tried to CSD it yesterday but other people like to generate work for the rest of us). Fredrick day (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I changed the tag originally to prod, which would have gotten rid of it soon enough. It's not letting the prod run, and doing the afd, that is making the work. I judged the article as it existed when I saw it, which had the direct part of the advertising removed. speedy is not the place to judge intent, just content. DGG (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody edited it expect to add tags, how was the advertising "removed"? by magic? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Non Admin Close. Dustitalk to me 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Mall

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

From the text, this mall has less than 10 stores open in a two story mall and is dying. It seems to have no assertion of notability and be more of a comparision between this mall and the more notable Warwick Mall. Does not appear to meet WP:N. Doesn't even have a website. Collectonian (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily add the deadmalls.com source which is here to the page. Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ten Pound Hammer's efforts to improve the article. Bravo! NOTE: Iad to remove the associated content link from TPH's post as it was preventing me from saving the page and was taking me to some spam filter error page instead. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:37, 16 March 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. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Su Meredith

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

Delete unsourced article about nn voice actress, so nn we don't know where or when she was born, whether she's still alive, or anything close to material that one would expect in an encyclopedic biography. The article, with only tweaks has lain in this dismal state for over 2 years, without expansion or improvement, presumably because there is nothing more that could be said.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a blatant copyright violation (Criteria G12). --Allen3 talk 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Immersive Education"

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

Not notable - fails WP:N, no references - fails WP:V and WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Yannismarou (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carson DeVries

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

Completely fictional wrestler. Editor has also added this false information to other articles Mshake3 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Google comes up with a 10 year old under this name from Palatine, IL who ran in a mini-marathon, so the article appears to be a "wish" article, so - fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've placed a hoax tag on the article as well as this is nothing more than a fantasy by aforementioned person above. ArcAngel (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Beyond the blatant hoax, the creator is an SPA doing nothing much but push this malarkey.  Ravenswing  15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pestiferous nonsense. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as hoax per everyone else, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Previous AfDs for this article:

Per all my reasons on the last AfD, the list is compiled in a manner that constitutes original research. In this case, being sourced is irrelevant. The word "fuck" is notable and the films themselves are also notable, which does not make this mere statistic notable. Note, this has nothing to do with censorship. The Dominator (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Dominator (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list is cruft, not needed. ArcAngel (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Oh, for pity's sake. What's next, List of films that most frequently display a female nipple? Complete OR -- I can't imagine there's actually reliable source out there tabulating this information.  RGTraynor  15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I won't vote to Keep on a bit of nonsense like this, but I do agree that AfDs a month apart without compelling new evidence or lack of non-fluffy consensus are obnoxious.  RGTraynor  17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence that consensus has changed since the last time round. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus last time around. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not because I want to see this article stay, but because the last AFD was just a little over a month ago. I feel that it's too soon to seek a new consensus again -- at least six months would have been preferable. While I feel that the nominator does not intend this, this AFD so soon makes me concerned about an attempt to game the system. I would recommend withdrawal of the AFD for the present time and explore a new AFD when significant time has passed. In addition, I would ask an admin to move the AFD pages around -- the February 2008 one should end with (2nd nomination), the March 2007 one that currently has (2nd nomination) should not have it, and this one should have (3rd nomination). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik, I don't see what you mean a change of consensus? The last AfD ended tightly as no consensus which is exactly what the name implies, there is no consensus and I nominated so we can reach it. The Dominator (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was saying that it's too soon to push for a new AFD so soon after the last one. You were not by any means a small participant in the last AFD, so the fact that you bring it up so soon again can be seen as a sign of gaming. Klausness and Colonel Warden have expressed this concern as well. I really think that if the AFD for this article was to be renewed, it should be either after a certain duration of time or nominated by an editor uninvolved with previous AFDs. It's not looked upon lightly to repeat an AFD to get your preferred result. You may think that your arguments are objective, but the other side think theirs are objective, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two AfDs have failed already, and I don't see any new arguments for deletion. Not getting the AfD results you wanted last time is not a good reason for renominating an article. Klausness (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's completely appropriate to revisit AFD for an article, maybe unless there is an undisputed snowball keep for a topic. In addition, the first AFD resulted in "keep", and the second AFD resulted in "no consensus", so perhaps the third AFD, if set up in time, addressing all previous arguments, could result in "delete". My concern was that it's too soon to revisit the community's present stance on the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it has survived three whole nominations what makes you think it will be removed this time? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are articles like Daniel Brandt that have undergone AFD processes into double digits and do ultimately get deleted. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a bit closer together than most AfD's but it did end in a tight no consensus so I think it's completely appropriate. What new evidence are you waiting for exactly? Nothing is going to change even if we waited a decade, the list is still going to be trivial listcruft full of OR research and people will still vote the same way. The Dominator (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read my comments and assume good faith. The Dominator (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I am biased, as I've edited the article a lot, and yes its amusing (and there is nothing wrong with that). But more importantly:
    • Obviously, the word fuck is different from random other words (including other swearing and sexual slang), given the controversy that surrounds it.
    • Excessive usage of the word fuck in specific movies is often mentioned in reviews/reports, showing the notability of the subject.
    • A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also mentioned before, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control.
    • The main argument in most previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable.
    • Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias (NOT:PAPER).
So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST or WP:CLS. Therefore, I do not see the grounds for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for stating your prior involvement. I think the concern that was reflected in the last AFD was that it uses family measurement websites as references to support this topic, where if you review the references from these websites, none of them point out its rank as a film that has used the most f-words. They just say, "This film has x many f-words in it." Certainly, there are films that are known for their profanity, but many of the films on that list don't have that notoriety. The references are synthesized to give the false appearance of a list where the large majority of these films have never before been identified specifically as a film that most frequently uses the word "fuck". Since this is the case, it is not encyclopedic to have all these irrelevant examples. They're not known for their frequency of the f-word, thus they can't be part of the topic. I don't have a problem with a prose article about the word "fuck" in film using examples of films that have clearly been identified to go overboard with profanity, like the South Park film. In this case, though, only a handful of films can have a claim to fame with its f-word frequency. The overwhelming majority of them do not -- they use family measurement websites written for the purpose of outlining the appropriateness of a film, not an independently composed list or article of f-word frequency. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do this all the time, all over Wikipedia. I am not gonna give overwhelming evidence, just one totally random example that I could think of. See the article List of largest suspension bridges, with the bri~dge at position 17 in the list. This: [26] is the supplied reference. Not exactly a reference that discusses how this bridge is well known for its length. It just shows some details and, indeed, the length of the bridge. Is that article ever nominated for deletion? Not once. In fact, it is a Featured list. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To any closing admin: please don't speedy close, a full discussion and all opinions are welcome. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The word is no different than shit, piss, cunt, slut or whore in the US, and is equivalent to just about any swear word in real English (sorry, couldn't resist :) ) and is equvalent to words like "concubine" in China. I have never heard or thought of it as unique. 2) It is not excessive usage of the word fuck but of profanity. Again, I've never heard a proper movie critic single out the word fuck for critique. 3) Your cut of is arbitrary and therefore WP:OR. This may sound strange but you would not believe some of the debates regarding cut-offs for lists. 4) Starting an article about a known Jo'burg prostitute would also probably be unique among encyclopaedias but do you think we'd keep it? +Hexagon1 (t) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)Then why is there a movie dedicated to the usage of the word fuck, as well as many scientific articles?
2) An example of a movie critic commenting on the use of the word fuck in a movie: [27]
3) Choosing cutoffs is arbitrary, but not OR, see many other articles on Wikipedia (like the example above).
--Reinoutr (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Same reason why FOX is still in business, the proles demand 'entertainment'. Just because there was an art exhibit in NYC where a man self-circumcised with a swiss army knife doesn't necessitate the creation of List of artists who circumcised themselves on stage. 2) Blogspot doesn't exactly qualify as a 'proper' movie critic for me. 3) I know many others have arbitrary cut-offs but all of those could be challenged. Just because everyone else does it... PS: Your scientific sources either deal with the translation of fuck (due to its versatility) or take it as a case study. They don't discuss this new "concept" we've invented here on Wiki. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — does not appear consensus has changed since the last AfD. The above argument is also rather convincing. --Haemo (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46. Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply per Carlossuarez46. Thought per me-tooism. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't agree with the other users who claimed that this was original research. It would be original research if Wikipedia editors counted up the uses themselves, but in this case there are apparently third-party sources that tabulated and posted this, and the article is citing those sources. It therefore meets WP:NOR as well as WP:V. Just because an article might not be included in a paper encyclopedia doesn't mean it should not be included here. *** Crotalus *** 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the sources do not count profanity for the express purpose of identifying films that most frequently use the word "fuck". There are a few films that have sources for this, but the majority of the films depend on family measurement websites that only provide the amount of profanity usage to determine a film's appropriateness, not to declare it a frequent user of the f-word. Thus, it's a hodge-podge of unrelated resources that gives the false impression of being directly related to the topic. Most of these films have not at all been identified by secondary sources as films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Their notoriety is exaggerated, basically, because it's the result of research from family measurement websites. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) I said that the individual pieces aren't OR but the way it is compiled is. There is no such thing as a "fuck list", Wikipedia users invented that, hence it is OR. The Dominator (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that criteria, every list on Wikipedia is either a copyright violation (if it's copied directly from a third-party source) or original research (if it's synthesized by other sources). In practice, WP:NOR has never been interpreted in that fashion, and shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we should use common sense and precedent to guide our actions here. *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BURN Delete. This article is ridiculous and has only become semi-policy compliant due to my continued whinging on the talk page. It can fit nicely in one sentence in the Fuck article. And previous votes shouldn't matter - especially as no consensus was reached - not a keep vote. This is a new vote by another editor who wants the article dead and I wholeheartedly agree. How is it that we don't have articles on the majority of Aboriginal peoples but when the word 'fuck' rolls about the giggling hordes start an article with graphs and "Fucks Per Minute" statistics on it (check the history). And I like the List of films that most frequently display a female nipple, let's start it if the AfD fails. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear you don't like this article, and that's understandable, but I find your characterisation (on the talk page and in this discussion) of editors who have worked on the article or support its retention as "immature" "giggling" "12 year olds" really quite offensive and somewhat uncivil. --Canley (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the previous no consensus result, there hasn't been enough time between AfDs for much to change either with the article or with consensable opinion. This merely feels like a fishing expedition of "keep nominating it until the 'right' lucky group of people converges upon it and achieves the desired result." As already stated by Reinoutr, this is no more original research than many other lists on Wikipedia, some of which are of very high quality. And the course of this discussion has illustrated, at least to me, that there is no more of a consensus now about this article than there was a month ago, further solidifying my opinion that there's no way that opinion can even sway from "no consensus" to either "keep" or "delete" in a month's time. My !vote is mostly procedural, though I don't really see anything glaringly wrong with this article other than perhaps some need for cleanup and further sourcing. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on! This has been nominated for AFD six what looks like nine times! And had a deletion review a week ago? There is no consensus to delete this article, there hasn't been since it was first nominated in 2004, and certainly not a month after the last discussion. I'm sure the nominator is in good faith, and I completely believe this is not for censorship reasons, but it's getting borderline disruptive whether that was his intention or not. --Canley (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, six times! Somebody just added the six after three were already listed. The Dominator (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that was me. It does look like more but going on the previous AFD list on the talk page and there seems to be some redirection weirdness going on, so OK, only six times! --Canley (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning last time -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a collection of statistics (or at least it shouldn't be). I can't see how this is even remotely encyclopedic. The nominator put it best, I think. --clpo13(talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know I'm going against everybody else here, but I gotta agree with Clpo13: how is this article encyclopedic? However, being that an AfD was closed so recently with no consensus, that this probably will end in much the same fashion. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) - Changed to Keep, due to criteria. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This nomination seems borderline disruptive to me. Not enough time has passed since the last nomination and as Canley said it’s already been nominated SIX TIMES! Consensus does not usually change in four weeks. . . Besides I would vote keep even without the incongruities in nomination. Per Reinoutr this article is clearly notable, useful, and not in violation of policy. A speedy keep would not be unjustified. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I believe the sources establish the importance of the concept and support the facts, even if this exact list does not exist elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', a list like this is not necessarily original research. It's in a table so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply. I'm sure you can find sources for such a list if you looked. --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep disruptive nomination Chris! ct 02:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF The Dominator (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, this isn't a speedy keep. Per WP:CSK, it only qualifies as speedy keep if: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it... (iii) making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Last AFD was no consensus, hardly a qualification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reinoutr. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. WP:NOT#STATS does not, I repeat, does not apply here. The article is not lengthy or confusing. It is certainly not WP:OR, and I see absolutely no reason to delete it. Also, keep WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED in mind. Celarnor (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep no new arguments for a deletion since the last AfD. If it's even the same nominator I find this Deja Vu situation highly disruptive. I also claim the same arguments I wrote during the last AfD, the situation didn't change since. --Einemnet (talk) 18:21, 15 March 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 without prejudice to creation of a redirect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga 2007/2008 schedule

La Liga 2007/2008 schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, list of matches in a league season  ARTYOM  14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.  ARTYOM  14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to La Liga 2007-08. The notability of the Spanish premiership is unquestioned, but this information already exists.  RGTraynor  15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say it's not a plausible search term.  ARTYOM  16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would respond that if no one thought so, an article would not have been created by that name. A redirect does no harm.  RGTraynor  17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Schedules for football matches are usually termed "fixtures". Either way, it could mean a thesaurus' worth of terms being added to redirects all over the place - and any such from a search term that adds terms and so complicates it isn't something to be encouraged...Plutonium27 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Punkmorten (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 08:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I mean in 11 months that information will be irrelevant. Post the schedule of HBO as well then. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 09:51, 21 March 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. Rewritten and notable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Belton

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

Article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for Shooting Dogs. I suggest merging the article to Shooting Dogs since the only assert of notability in the article is his involvement with Shooting Dogs. Ozgod (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Generally merger requests are not appropriate for AFD. I was going to chastise you for misusing WP:COATRACK (as normally a biographical accomplishment would not constitute a "bias topic"), but it appears you're right -- the biography apparently exists to introduce a POV essay about why he made the film. Still, it seems like a redirect to the film article is best. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was a copyvio of this news article by him [28]. I rewrote the article from scratch with proper references. He's notable for writing and producing Shooting Dogs, so keep the rewrite. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After Jfire's rewrite. Bláthnaid 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable film director/screenwriter/producer. I've expanded the article to include additional cited documentaries and his BAFTA award. Rosiestep (talk) 23:36, 15 March 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, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lampungese

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

The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The only reference cited on this page is a travel book, hardly an authoritative source. The ethnic groups in Lampung according to the last census are in fact Javanese, Sundanese, Peminggir, Pepadun, Malay, Bantenese, Abung Bunga Mayang, Minangkabau, ... Caniago (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone took the word Lampung and added -ese on the end does not automatically mean an ethic group by the name exists. You can similarly add an appendix to the names of most cities (Sydneysider, New Yorker, Melbournite, ...), , but that does not mean we should have an article on these names. You can't do a search of Google, pull out all the books containing a certain word and go ah ha, here's proof. You need to have some understanding of the topic at hand, in this case ethnic groups in Indonesia, and specifically Sumatra. For those of you without knowledge of this topic the Indonesian census, which asks all citizens which ethnic group they belong to, is the clearest and easiest means to see that this ethnic group is not considered to exist. (Caniago (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. In all of those references the auhors are clearly not using the term "Lampungese" to mean a resident of Lampung - they are using it as a term for an ethnic group which does not include ethnic Javanese residents of Lampung. Governments over the centuries have denied the existence of ethnic groups for their own purposes. Here we have to go by what reliable sources say, not the categories that the Indonesian government uses on its census forms. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid thats your interpretation, there is nothing clear about it, nothing to indicate they are using the term in reference to an ethnic group. Here's a direct quote from Google Books ([36]), since you seem so keen to use that tool: "In general, indigenous people of Lampung consist of coastline ethnic groups (Peminggir, including Krui, Ranau Komering and Kayu Agung) and interior ethnic groups (Pepadun, including Suku Abung, Pubian, Manggala/Tulan Bawang and Buay Lima). The common local language is Lampungese and has two dialects, the coastline dialect (Pemingggir) and the interior dialect (Abung)." (Caniago (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. Article needs improvements, expansion and citations though if it is to survive a future deletion nomination. Tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palembangese

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

The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The ethnic groups in South Sumatra, the location of Palembang are, according to the last census are in fact Malay, Javanese, Kerinci, Minangkabau, Banjarese, Sundanese, Buginese, Madurese, Betawi, Bantenese ... Caniago (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone took the city Palembang and added -ese on the end does not automatically mean an ethic group by the name exists. You can similarly add an appendix to the names of most cities (Sydneysider, New Yorker, Melbournite, ...), , but that does not mean we should have an article on these names. You can't do a search of Google, pull out all the books containing a certain word and go ah ha, here's proof. You need to have some understanding of the topic at hand, in this case ethnic groups in Indonesia, and specifically Sumatra. For those of you without knowledge of this topic the Indonesian census, which asks all citizens which ethnic group they belong to, is the clearest and easiest means to see that this ethnic group is not considered to exist. (Caniago (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. The very first of those sources which I supplied is a table of the ethnicity of the Indonesian military elite, which treats the Palembangese as an ethnic group. Reliable sources determine what is included in Wikipedia, not the Indonesian government. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to find a reliable and authoritative source, I haven't seen any authoritative sources among the ones you have quoted above. A publication about the Indonesian military is certainly not an authoritative source on ethnicity. If you want to criticize the accuracy and authority of the Indonesian census you again need to find an authoritative source which indicates the data can't be trusted, we certainly can't disregard the data it provides just because you have anti-establishment views. (Caniago (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Judging a "reliable source" also needs to take into account to what ends the sources are being used. For example, I have no reason to doubt that The Military and Democracy in Indonesia: Challenges, Politics, and Power is indeed a reliable source on that topic, but that doesn't mean it can necessarily be used to say that this is an identifiable ethnic group - as Caniago says, there needs to be something authorative, on that particular point. Like the rest of the sources provided, it’s just a mention of the word with no elaboration of what it might mean. --Merbabu (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few passing but non-elaborative uses of the word Palembangese from Google doesn’t actually make it an ethnic group. While I agree that the Indonesian government shouldn’t necessarily always be the arbiter of what is or isn’t an ethnic group, there is nothing further here that provides any notion of exactly who, what, where these people are – except that the name suggests that they are somewhere around Palembang.
Is this perhaps simply a writer's/researchers original research or coined term that others, none of which I note seem to particularly authorative) have picked up on? I think it is more likely a term of convenience to describe someone who comes from the Palembang area. We have a few googled tidbits – mere mentions – but nothing explanatory or expansionary. If indeed there was such a group, then where are the equivalent reams of info explanatory info available on other groups in Indonesia such as Sasak, Madurese, Balinese, Timorese, Acehnese, Batak, Bugis, Toraja, etc, etc. Further, most of which are much smaller than the 20m + this article suggests exists.
And 20m?!?!?! That would be one of the biggest groups in Indonesia, and in 15 years of study, work and travel in and about Indonesia, I’ve not come across the term before. Even now, it’s only a mention, not explanation. Do those supporting 'Keep' have any further info? --Merbabu (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A "Palembang language" is listed, with approx. 500,000 speakers, in in D. T. Tryon (ed.) Comparative Austronesian Dictionary: An Introduction to Austronesian (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), fasc. 1, p.227, in the chapter "Listing of Austronesian languages", and in Ethnologue ([44]), as "Palembang Malay". Nothing about the alleged name "Wong Galo" though, and nothing about 20m speakers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's the date of the book? If there is such a language, it would be called Bahasa Palembang in Indonesian. "Palembangese" also translates to "Orang Palembang" in Indonesian, which rather than an ethnic group simply means someone from the city Palembang, in the same vein as "Orang Jakarta", or "Orang New York". That's not necessarily an ethnic group at all. --Merbabu (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book seems to be from 1995. Google books. id:Bahasa Palembang has an entry on the Indonesian wikipedia and gets a few more google book hits too [45]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - from considerable experience I can say that Indonesian wikipedia comes in at "pretty damn lousy" on the reliability index. :-) Anyway, I will wait for our in-house Sumatra expert to come along. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this book, apparently a descriptive grammar. Of course, all of this isn't really saying much about the separateness of an ethnic group, nor even about the notorious language-vs.-dialect issue. (For all we know, it could simply be the regional variety of Malay, without any ethnic ramifications). (disclaimer: I can't read a word of it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've voted delete, this was in the context of the article stating categorically that there was an ethnic group. Perhaps there is a place for this page saying something vague like "...is a term sometimes used by x and y to refer to z people/language." As I've stated above, if this really was a discernible group (and not just Palembang residents), then there would be a lot more info on the group, such as there is for the groups I listed. We are really scraping the bottom for references - just mentions of the people. Yes, the source you listed talks about it being a Malay-based language (which is the same as many Sumatran languages, and Indonesian itself). The rest of the paragraph goes on to talk about two levels of the language - the refined, and the everyday levels. Anyway, hopefully User:Caniago can shed some light on this again. --Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very unhealthy over reliance of such sourcces as amazon, google shows how wikipedia can get caught up in these astonishing conversations - Indonesians are extraordinarily adept at inventing things on the internet and running with them for all they are worth - and good luck to them - their acronym usage and their inventiveness in folk etymology is nothing short of brilliant - and an outsider with limited cultural context could well believe some of the material - and with no mediation by independent researchers sources of the more difficult to prove items - have allowed trends and terms that have crept into common usage in Indonesia media and internet culture with no form of mediation or checking devices for the outsider to know where they came or where they might be going either - I would strongly suggest that the language has been given a label and probably used to be known by the earlier term - and insufficient scholarship has appeared to clearly outline the change and the runaway internet based usage SatuSuro 13:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. All of the sources quoted here have been book sources, not the result of "inventing things on the internet" Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Books or not, what seems to be obvious to the 3 Indonesianists here, but not others, is that this term is vague, obscure and not one source definitively shows it to be a recogniseable and distinct ethnic group. The sources concern themselves with other topics and include only mentions. Internet or not, the term does smack of a very loose coining of terminology that is indeed prelevant in Indonesia as SatuSuro points out. If not deletion, then at least the article needs to show this lack of authoritative definition. --Merbabu (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be notable [46], but the contents are not enough for an encyclopedia , this article must be made larger . Pearll's sun (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly an authorative source. Just more fleeting mentions. Thus, it's interesting that you suggest the article be made much larger - with what information? --Merbabu (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • my suggestion was to improve the article with more info's , but for sure this article is a needed one . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:44, 22 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners of the Americas

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

actual notability unclear, perhaps buried in flowery and POV overtones; article states some connection to Wikipedia and JFK -- what??? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google News lights up like a Christmas tree on this. It's hard to find web references due to the large number of chapters, but evidence suggests that this is real and notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks le-gitThright (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangoe. FWIW I'd heard about this lot already from here in Brit-land. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy close, please sort this out through normal editing and a requested move if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bălţi Plain

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

Imaginary unexisting geographical renaming of scientifically researched Balti Steppe, no single authority-weigth reference for Balti Plain or Balti Plateau available, except a page with porn adds. Britannica calls it Balti Steppe, just as internal Moldavian and other external sources listed on the Balti steppe talk page, copied to created Bălţi Plain talk page[47] (including European Commission, etc...). Per previous discussion on the talk page, consensus was reached on the name Balti Steppe. This article may also meet criteria for speedy deletion. The template for the first nomination was deleted minutes after it was placed[48] Moldopodo (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (possibly speedy close): What you want is not deletion, what you want is a move back to a different title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite simply only move back to the original title. If you compare the contents, it became quite different in the Bălţi Plain article, with plenty of unsourced info or otherwise simply imaginary data. The same person edited consequently the article on Geography of Moldova, making it quite a mess inserting inexistent geographic terms for well established terms and grassland types in Moldova.--Moldopodo (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects were made again and the deletion nomination tag deleted... I have informed the original author of this invention User:Dc76.--Moldopodo (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a reason for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? It's the same if I called Black Sea Carpathian Mountains, stating that "hey, it's just this way because I say so and I do not care for whatever rules on Wikipedia there are, whatever sources are presented, whichever consenusus is reached"...--Moldopodo (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument above, this is a naming issue, not a content one that would require deletion. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:58, 14 March 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. And create redirect from this page title to Satyagraha. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satyagrahi

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

Fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It shouldnt be redirected for obvious reasons. NN, V, and fannish. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What are those "obvious reasons"? The word vastly predates the film. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. check the spelling. :) One is a about a film, the other a philosophy. Why would we redirect it? It should be deleted. One page has nothing to do with the other. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See declension. See satyagrahi: an adherent of satyagraha. See our own article satyagraha in which the word is already used. See Non-Violent Resistance (translated from Satyagraha) by a gentleman named M.K. Gandhi, in which he answers the question What can a solitary Satyagrahi do? with some philosophical advice. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still fail to see how a film page should redirect to the philosophy. The film isnt even in the making anymore, its shelved. If it was a page about the individual practitioners of the philosophy that would be ok. Maybe a brief description of the movie can be added to the Satyagraha page, but this can be done now and redirected without discussion. As the page stands, it should be deleted. You can make any changes without my interference. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You seem to be confusing WP:MERGE with WP:REDIRECT. They are separate actions, although it is true they are often done in conjunction with one another. I have no opinion on whether the film article should exist, but the term satyagrahi, which the filmmakers chose to use as their title, is best known as an adherent of the discipline satyagraha. Both terms were coined by Mahatma Gandhi. I am not advocating that information about the film be merged into satyagraha, if that's what has sparked your concern. I am advocating that when someone types satyagrahi into the search box, they are sent to the article we already have on satyagraha. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I assure you, I'm not confused. Mentioning additions to the satygraha page was only an option if you wished to persue it. I do see your point about the title of the page and redirecting after deletion is up to whoever recreates the page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful content to the director's page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. I have redirected to Cloak and Dagger (comics); knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Daffodil

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

Non-notable comic book mutant. I could not find any sources for it. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:12, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Entertainment

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

This shows little to no notability for the record label. It was deleted in June 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oasis Entertainment. All the references here appear to be press releases, which cannot be used to established notability. The only two source that appears to be a non-press release is the Coffee Talk article, but that doesn't appear to proivde a lot of notability. Metros (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources for this article and see WP:COI issues.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G4, recreation of deleted material. "New" references appear to be self-written press releases, so content is not significantly different to deleted version. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:20, 15 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-rod exercises

Metal-rod exercises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Metal-rod exercises has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. The material used in an attempt to assert notability is self published by the creator of the article. The primary contributor to this article has written a self-published book on the subject (which is the only source cited in the article) and runs the website http://www.metalrodexercises.com/. This is a clear conflict of interest and per Wikipedia policy, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable reliable sources. Searches for other reliable sources turn up few (if any) third-party published sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Quartet 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:08, 14 March 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. I am having a difficult time determining if and when material has been merged from this article into the parent. There is a note on the talk page of the article suggesting an editor placed material on the subject in the parent article in September of 2007. All edits to the parent article in that time range have been deleted, obscuring contribution history, but deleted edits suggest that the material was rewritten, not merged and there is no note of a merger from this article in the edit summaries of the parent article (deleted or otherwise). A note of merger on March 4th doesn't seem to have been accompanied by any transfer of material, and the note does indicate that the material is already there. I'm assuming at this point that "merge" has been used in this AfD more in the sense of duplicated substance, not duplicated text. :) If in spite of my efforts to comb through the history here, there has been substantial transfer of material, the redirect should be placed in Category:Redirects from merges by placing the template {{R from merge}}. A null edit with a link to the destination article as set out at Help:Merge also needs to be made. Otherwise, redirect is sufficient, and it is within consensus that the redirect be protected if efforts are made to restore the article without sufficient sourcing to verify stand-alone notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Kabanalbanalan

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

Notability is not stated for this radio program. The article previously survived an AfD, with the strong suggestion (but no consensus) that it be merged into Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. The merge has been completed, but the article was recreated. I doubt that this article could ever contain more useful information than that in Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus, and is really only acting as advertising. I propose that we delete and redirect to Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus Papa November (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Papa November. It isn't notable enough for it's own article. The part that was merged was taken out of the church article and it was listed as "See also" but should be merged back into the chuch article and deleted. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you - I hadn't noticed that the merge was undone. I have restored the merge for now. Papa November (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it's been merged, we need to retain the history per the GFDL. cab (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:01, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dig Safe System

Dig Safe System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, no assertion of notability (fails WP:N and WP:CORP), no references other than the official website, (fails WP:V.) Ran a Google search, didn't find anything that would qualify as a non-trivial secondary source. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)


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

The result was Keep, nomination has been withdrawn after a reference was produced showing the song has charted. This after both delete opinions had been made and appears that it would have addressed their concerns. Davewild (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slave New World

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

individual song fails WP:MUSIC, lacking notable cutural significance or appearance on charts - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:N due to a lack of sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for me, having a music video for a song makes the song notable, but since I found nothing charted for the band on Billboard, then it does indeed fail WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"for me, having a music video for a song makes the song notable, but since I found nothing charted for the band on Billboard"

Magnum valentino (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Try the UK charts. It has a music video, and by your criteria is thus notable. Say someone saw the video but didn't know the title, if they checked this page it might shed some light on their situation. This page is just as valid as every other singles page. At least I'm contributing something, rather than scouring the internet looking for something to do, such as deleting things from Wikipedia, which benefits absolutely no-one, rather than the alternate which has potential benefits.[reply]

That would be his personal view, not Wikipedia's guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Magnum valentino (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)No no no no no, it is not my opinion, it did chart in the UK, it reached number 45/6. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT![reply]

Please remain calm. If you could give a link to a site which states as much, you should be able to build a good keep consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum valentino (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)The following link shows the Chart positions of a few Sepultura singles Hopefully this will end this debate once anf for all, but I would also like to point out that this song is one of the band's most enduring songs and a classic metal staple of the 1990s. Please bear in mind that this is not a page for in indiviudal song, but rather an article about a genuine release, a CD and vinyl single which DID have a music video and DID chart, so those previous arguments to the contrary should be ignored.[reply]

http://www.rockdetector.com/discography,7880.sm?type=SinglesEPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum valentino (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums (18th edition) lists this single as having reached number 46 in the Official UK Singles Chart........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum valentino (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Thanks Chris. I'm removing the deletion template now seeing as previous conditions have been proved false.[reply]

  • As stated on the AfD template, you are not permitted to do that, so I have restored the template. The AfD discussion must be permitted to run to its conclusion ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Magnum valentino (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Stupidly I never thought to update the page with the link to the chart page! Will doing so remove the deletion page?[reply]

Only a final consensus of keep will result in the template being removed by the closing administrator.
The link provided above does not verify any charting. However, is there a way to link to " The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums (18th edition) "? This alone may substatniate minimum notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum valentino (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The following website also confirms this, though I couldn't find any links to the latest book.[reply]

http://www.polyhex.com/music/chartruns/chartruns.php

Withdrawal nomination by nominator. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:01, 20 March 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andok's Lechon

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

The title, Andok's Lechon, follows under wiki notability guidelines for deletion. Andok's Lechon is a single item on the menu of this fast-food chain. It is a pork product. Not only does a single menu item fail the notability criteria, but nothing in the article bothers to describe it. The majority of the content is around random bits of info about the parent company with a few references to poultry and beverage items. It includes a subsidiary company reference and an item on its menu also. Again, forking off onto a new topic.

This article had already once been nominated for speedy deletion for advertisement although the tag was removed without any explanation and again, the neutral point of view has been lost with the inclusion of emotional terms like "most popular...in the Philippines", "dominance", "very popular", and "sizzling". While these are normally minor edits, it does prove a history of reading like an advertisement.

Over all, this article has nothing to do with its own title. It also is too forked to be simply renamed and categorized as a stub. It titles to a pork product but the only food references included are for chicken and vegetable dishes. Perhaps the writers are having language translations problems, which would explain this: "Andok's Litson is one of the most popular roasted chicken products in the Philippines." That is not the name of a product they sell, it is the name of the company. Another irony is that Litson it also another Tagalog word for suckling pig, not chicken, (roasted or otherwise).

I would have no objection to separating this into an article about the company, provided it has verifiable sources and remained on topic with a NPOV. As it stands, it's simply a jumble of randomness. Lightertack (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and rewrite as an article about the fast food chain rather than this mish-mash of half-developed themes. There is some potential here but it needs a complete reorganisation and rewrite. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Molko

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

Maud Molko has worked once for Marc Jacobs in 2004 but she has done nothing else since then and her notability is vastly questionable. Not working on anything significant for four years is a good indicator, let alone the infamous google test that reaches a mere 416 hits, which is clearly too low to be considered notable. Thiste (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I spent some time looking through the ghits, and I couldn't find anything substantive. She is a fashion model, but there is no evidence that she is a notable one.--Kubigula (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable WP:N. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not even assert notability to me. Dimitrii (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any assertion of notability is microscopic in magnitude, if at all. Borders on speedy territory. B.Wind (talk) 18:08, 21 March 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, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolin Hoppe

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

Not notable enough. Google test shows 367 results. For perspective, there are about one thousand models in just parisian agencies. They probably all hit that kind of numbers on google. Now do we need an article for all of them? Thiste (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real assertion of notability Dimitrii (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient notability; no independent references in article. This borders on advertisement. B.Wind (talk) 18:11, 21 March 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, fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a Spin

In a Spin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Radio sitcom broadcast by a small student-radio. The claim is that the show has a "cult following" but I found no source backing up that claim and in fact I haven't found any coverage besides this which in fact was written by the sitcom's main organizer. Much of the content is a plot summary of each episode but there is no critical commentary accompanying it. Pichpich (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete student radio says it all, so fails WP:N. It may have a "campus cult" following, but that doesn't make it notable enough for WP. ArcAngel (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cult radio sitcom?! Fails both WP:N, for lack of notability and WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not your web host. Information about this radio sitcom belongs at the University's own website. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:25, 21 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr manhattan (album)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:BAND. Non-notable album by a non-notable band that was previously deleted. No reliable secondary sources provided in the article. Nsevs • Talk 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:N as well. I was planning on bringing this here myself, but didn't get around to it as quickly. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't delete it. You guys can find information if you want. I just really don't know how to improve it--Alkalinetrio78 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete I can't find information to support inclusion and without these necessary verifiable sources to prove notability it can't improve enough to keep. Soz. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InfoRegistry

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

Once proposed for deletion but tag removed by author. Company of questionable notability with an article written more like a brochure than an actual article. From the contributions of the author, there's a strong suspicion of conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Information service businesses need to show fairly clear notability from the text in chief, especially when they read like advertising. Google News knows them not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 14:14, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine 'Jazz' Summers

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


There is no proof that the actress Laura Greenwood is to be involved in Hollyoaks BlonddudeGoneDark (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. IMDB does not list the actress as being involved with the series, and the article proffers no sources, reliable or otherwise.  RGTraynor  16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-The articles states that this new Hollyoaks character will arrive in Hollyoaks in February 2008, but it is now March and she is still yet to arrive. xxZaydenxx
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per my original nomination and the fact there are no sources to prove she is joining the show. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:32, 19 March 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 David H. M. Brooks the correct spelling of the article name. The correct thing to do in the first place would have been just to move the article to the correct title instead of creating a new duplicate article. There was no need for this to come to AFD. Davewild (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David H.M. Brooks

David_H.M._Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This should be deleted because it was created as an accidental duplicate of David H.M.Brooks by the accidental addition of a space between the '.' and 'Brooks'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archnoid process (talk • contribs) 2008/03/14 02:45:13

David H.M.Brooks has been moved to the more appropriate David H. M. Brooks. I'd redirect this article to the new name if this AfD weren't still going on. B.Wind (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Close - listed in the wrong xFD name-space. Non-admin closure and will relist at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ELLIOT PRIOR. Yngvarr (c) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ELLIOT PRIOR

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

This page has been created by a pupil that attends the same school as me, meant as a direct attack on me. I find this content extremely offensive and as it contributes nothing to Wikipedia as it is not factual, it should be deleted. Cyber bullying should not be allowed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmenonpie (talk • contribs) 2008/03/13 13:51:15

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I wouldn't be sorry to see this article disappear, as it has wasted enough of my time recently (I have it watchlisted, and have reverted vandalism, deleted multiple attempts to insert unsourced material, and blocked a multitude of sockpuppets). Nevertheless, it is sourced - though many of those sources need fixing or removing - clearly meets WP:LIST and is equally clearly not an indiscriminate list. So it looks like I'll be fixing it for a while longer :) Black Kite 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hooligan firms

List of hooligan firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT#LIST -- that page is simply a list. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason it is a list is because that is what was agreed in a previous discussion when it was an article about hooligan firms. The content about the firms was moved to the article Football hooliganism and to keep that article manageable it was decided to make the Hooligan firms article into a list; something that appears all over wikipedia with all sorts of articles. (And yes I know that comparisons with what happens on other articles is not really relevant, however the fact remains that there are numerous football related lists. For instance, List of association football competitions, List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of football clubs in Latvia to name but three.) If of course you feel that it should be expanded from a list then that is what should happen rather than simply proposing it be deleted.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus never overrides policy. So it still must be deleted. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What policy? As someone else has pointed out, the WP shortcut you quoted does not lead anywhere. Advise you research thoroughly before bringing another AfD. Ref (chew)(do) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a verifiable list that is set out as recommended in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), has a selection criteria and every entry is cited from a verifiable source. It's stated it's purpose in the lead and presented the associated information underneath. What exactly is the reason for the AFD? WP:NOT#LIST isn't a valid internal link. Nanonic (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nanonic, who just wrote pretty much what I was going to. Struway2 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. A brief introduction as to what exactly a hooligan firm is would be welcome, but otherwise it's a well referenced list. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use some improvement, as TRM suggests, but it's a valid topic for a list. As WP:NOT#LIST doesn't seem to exist, no reason has actually been offered for deletion. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't particularly like the subject matter, but there's no reason to delete under present Wikipedia policies. List are allowed. Ref (chew)(do) 13:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no actual reason for deletion exists (neither on WP:NOT#LIST [...] nor anywhere else). – Elisson • T • C • 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to answer about expanding it, the reason it is just a list is because there was a huge discussion quite some time ago when it was an article Hooligan firms and not just a list. And a decision was made to move all the content discussing firms to the Football hooliganism article. I didn't agree with the decision at the time, but I accepted it. Also, the subject matter isn't the most pleasant, however I keep a constant eye on it to ensure it is always fully verified.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment no reason why the lead couldn't be expanded a little bit though, no need to copy the football hooliganism article verbatim but something more than is there right now wouldn't hurt. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks for replying. To be honest I was wary of expanding the lead, but once this AfD has closed, if of course the article is kept, which I see no reason why it should not be kept when the overwhelming view apart from one user who seems to with the greatest of respect, using this article to make a point because they don't like articles that are in list format, appears to be for it to be kept, then I will expand the lead.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per TRM. Although not perfectly asserted now, article has potential to assert notability, but does fine currently. Rudget. 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REF - Comment on contribution, not contributor, first. Second, WP:NOT#LIST actually is a valid link bringing you to what wikipedia is not. Specifically, in these guidelines, it states that Wikipedia is not a list. To Quote:

Wikipedia is not a directory
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOT#DIR
WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
WP:DIRECTORY
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Wikipedia articles are not:A


Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)



That's the policy I'm referring to. This list quailifies as such, and as such, consensus or not, will be deleted as policy over-rides consensus.
Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, right now, there are many editors who have agreed that this does not fail to meet the policy you're describing. Are you suggesting this list is a list of "Loosely associated topics"? Not exactly, it's a very well defined set of articles, very closely related indeed. At the moment, it's surprising to me that it hasn't been snowball kept. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and you're shouting. Cool it please. Ref (chew)(do) 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — it is true that "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Fortunately, this article is neither. --Haemo (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh indeed yes, notable alright and this separate-from-teams/matches/etc List Of (per explanation from Tangerines, above) is appropriate and is in good, if not perfect, shape re verifications. Possibly I may have a teeny POV but they wouldn't let us girls in the ICF...Plutonium27 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • snowball keep Somebody, anybody. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has only been open for three days. It quite clearly states on the article about AfD's that, "If the discussion has been listed according to the rules above, at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it should be closed within a few more days at most." Five days not three, and not especially when valid reasons have been stated by numerous users for the article to be kept. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand, I want the Afd closed early and the article kept, as I understand is allowed under WP:SNOW MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, however, I wasn't replying to your message, but commenting, after the nominator had yet again closed this AfD trying to maintain that the result was to delete, and his attempt to close it was reverted again. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was sure he had replied earlier to my comment too but can't see it now.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no breach of Wikipedia policy here. --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually. This list is actually pretty hopeless. Most of these firms are known only to each other and as passing mentions in tabloids; I don't see any evidence that this serves a purpose over and above the article on football firm. It's just a directory of groups tat are not in themselves particularly notable, severla of which have articles based on sources which don't even name them. The whole nest of articles could probably be pruned to one good article. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can I point you in the direction of the article's 59 references (so far) and the 3 external links, just to back up my assertion that, far from being "known only to each other", their activities are firmly in the public domain, and (obviously) they are well known to police force crime units, not just among their own kind. The crucial thing with this list is that it is properly referenced (as Wikipedia demands) and is not an indiscriminate collection. For those reasons alone, it passes the required standards. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:34, 17 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta

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

Delete - WP:NOT#LIST, not to mention fails to assert notability and not referenced. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If there were several notable parishes, it might be good to have this article, but individual churches aren't usually notable. With none of them even having articles (let alone proving notability) except the cathedral, this isn't at all useful. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta. It isn't as if the main article is overlong.  RGTraynor  16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep take the time to research the list and one will find that every church mention fits the bill as per wiki standards. Lists, are usually kept even know some users cry WP. I can point to several examples, but deleting this page and not others is cherrypicking.Thright (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) ps -merging would be ok, except if one wanted to expand the list to include all 90+ churches the merged article will be affected[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSHITEEXISTS doesn't cut it as a rational. This page is not referenced, no notability is show, but even more basic than that, it's a list, and

per policy needs (and most likely will) be deleted per WP:NOT#LIST Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, bad faith nomination. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Peace

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

Violation of Neutral Point of View Markmulligan (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment nominator made a hyperweird PROD at [49] and then claimed vandalism on his soapboxing being deleted. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be deleted, first of all, because it is totally important. Second of all, because since world peace has never been achieved or attained, the causes and effects of world peace will never be truly established. There will always be debate on whether information regarding world peace is justified, so the text of the article should be written in such a way that will be reasonable to justify. Third of all, why was this article nominated for deletion again? WinterSpw (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is notable and verifiable. NPOV concerns can be worked out in editing...but I don't see any myself. Is the nom suggesting that the topic of "world peace" is NPOV? Perhaps they can explain themselves better. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy This article is typical neocon flat-earth twaddle. World Peace is a question of mutually axsured destruction (MAD), the brainchild of George W. Bush and go.army.com, that are quoted as reference sources. No mention of Tolstoy, Kropotkin, Adler, More and dozens of other contributors to the idea of World Peace. This editor knows as much about World Peace as he does about being intelligent; as do his saboteur supporters. All pro-peace references have been deleted as of Nov 2007 (including mine -- full disclosure). I am ashamed of everyone here at Wiki; an outsider has to come and clean up your in-house messes. You people are so wrapped up in your rule nerddom, you let flagrant liars flourish among your topics. I wonder how many more topics are equally corrupt, and you just let slide. Read the damn article and see for yourselves...Markmulligan (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disagreeing with the current content is not a good reason for deletion. If the content is bad (I have no opinion about this) but the topic is notable (which it clearly is), then the article should be improved, not deleted.Klausness (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps speedy keep, nomination does not state a real ground for deleting this. NPOV violations are not deletion grounds. This page wants improvement, not deletion, so it can be a valuable reference resource for potential beauty pageant contestants everywhere. It certainly is a well known phrase. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep! Come on, how many zillions of sources are there for this topic? Even the US post office has issued multiple stamps on this topic (here and here). Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable topic, as mentioned above. Sure the article could use some updating and cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. Useight (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: as bad faith nomination. It is plain that nom (who could stand to review WP:CIVIL) came out on the wrong end of a content dispute, quite aside from having his only Wikipedia activity before the last couple days being trying to insert an external link linking to an essay written by ... Mark Mulligan. This AfD should be closed at once.  RGTraynor  16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge with Miss World Plutonium27 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and tag for cleanup The article needs work, that much is true, but the nom is obviously a pointy one. Jtrainor (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Nominator's arguments do not seem to be based on, or otherwise related to, wikipedia deletion policy; speaking of which: although the article contains several unsourced statements, the subject is inherently notable and numerous sources are readily available. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator has offered no valid rationale for deletion. NPOV is a problem to be resolved through editing. Likely bad faith per RGTraynor. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep no questionThright (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to Zekki Pasha where the content has already been merged. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeki Pasha

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

    Reason the page should be deleted

    This page already exists under Zekki Pasha along with numerous references. This page has no references and is poorly written as to make the reader believe Zeki Pasha helped the Serbian's gain their independence.Kansas Bear (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge. And maybe move the result to Zeki Paşa; I don't know what political implications the choice of orthography has but it's the one used in the text of the longer Zekki Pasha article. All this could have been done immediately, without going through the hassle of an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Can be redirected immediately - salient contents of Zeki Pasha (one paragraph or so) merged into existing Zekki Pasha page. Anatoliano (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or delete - there is an article under the same on Wikipedia already.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:07, 21 March 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 with Konami_Code#Mentions_in_popular_culture (non-admin closure). SilkTork *YES! 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AfDs for this article:

    List of pop culture references to the Konami Code

    List of pop culture references to the Konami Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I'm just going to afd, skipping prod. Like most WP:TRIVIA sections, this is basically a lot of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. If anything, merge into the Konami Code article, but I don't see this needing it's own discrete article. I would not recommend neither merge nor redirect Yngvarr (c) 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are certain people who seem to hold a strict dominion over the Konami Code page (see discussion for Konami Code). They have repeatedly deleted references from the Konami Code, including song lyrics and band names, but have left references that fit their own interests, such as comics. They also removed the bulleted list of references because they believed the page looked messy. As a compromise, I created this separate page, linked it to the original, and encouraged others to add to it. Ingridjames (talk)
      • This kind of compromise is usually a bad idea; see Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Trivia articles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot. I tried to find a guideline before creating the page, but I guess I didn't search for it correctly. It appears from the guideline that either a) this page is legit or b) the information shouldn't have been removed from the original page to begin with. Ingridjames (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I can sympathize with Ingrid. I think we've all dealt with control freaks who put an article on their watchlist, and then make it their life's work to fend off any edits. Usually, the obsession is over something trivial. I recall that Konami Code survived a nomination for deletion, so that article isn't exactly on safe ground either. Often times, that type of jealous obsession that you describe shows that an article in being poorly maintained, and it can be a factor in the deletion process. Perhaps an adminsitrator decision to merge the content would serve to warn people that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And just to reaffirm what Mandsford says above, you might want to post a link to WP:OWN on the talk page. If there is little, or no discussion about this stuff, then there appears to be a greater issue at hand here. Yngvarr (c) 12:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - definitely not notable. Deb (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been debated before, and the verdict was delete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_Konami_code_references_in_popular_culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.160.10 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, it seems that we're already going in circles... I've added the link to the old AfD above. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: into the main article, which is not remotely too long to support this short list; I agree with Yngvarr that this looks a lot more like a WP:OWN issue than any other. Beyond that, though, what the hell? A pop culture section about a cheat code?? How much more trivial, non-notable and/or OR can you get?  RGTraynor  16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Konami Code, the article does not stand on its own. Even the Konami code is barely an article at this point. I also suggest the appearances in popular culture not be a bulleted list. It's not a disambig page. Integrate the information in to a well formed section such as "Impact on culture". AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Konami Code, which is not long enough to require a spinoff, even with this folded back into the batter. Agree with AtaruMoroboshi that prose would be better than a list, but that's a style issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge for all the obvious reasons and those stated above. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Konami Code. Neither article stands up well on their own. The Konami Code article itself suffers from a lack of references and would benefit dramatically from having this content merged in. If anything, it would help to establish notability, as well as backing up verifiability. It also might be worth putting a note on the article page to inform editors that a merger is being suggested. Gazimoff (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge for the same reasons stated above. Combining the articles will lead to a better overall result. *** Crotalus *** 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (pasted from the last time this was up for deletion) Take a look at what the main Konami Code page [used to look like]. If we merge, this is what it's going to look like again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.45.45 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    — 202.71.45.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An issue such as that should not be addressed in AFD, but rather on the article talk page. Editors can reach consensus on a reasonable amount of content to effectively illustrate the permeation in culture, but again, a talk page issue. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors haven't reached a consensus yet -- for years, the pop culture section grows and grows with references of dubious notability, then it gets cleared out all at once or moved to a separate article, then the cycle repeats. If we want to resolve this once and for all, we need clear notability criteria. --202.71.45.45 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no consensus because there is little or no discussion. The last discussion regarding pop culture was dated 16:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC). Ingridjames's last posting to try to open more discussion has been unanswered. Yngvarr (c) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen your ip make several unexplained edits with no edit summary to the main Konami Code article, you've also added a great bit of unsourced material to List of pop culture references to the Konami Code with out much discussion. Despite repeated requests to take issues to talk page you have not. In order for a process to work, you must respect it. Also, please see WP:NNC which states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles" If content can be verified with reliable sourced a representative sample of appearances in pop culture can easily be reached and that should not be decided in an AFD. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Ataru. Yes, I'm aware that constantly trimming out superficial pop culture refs is time-consuming and boring. It remains part of the cost of doing business here.  RGTraynor  15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    so how do we decide which crappy bands that nobody has ever heard of get to go on the page? does digg.com have more precedence over gamespot? how about that wrestler nobody's ever heard of or that cartoon nobody's ever heard of?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.45.45 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment IP 202.71.45.45 added "that wrestler nobody's ever heard of" to the article along with "the cartoon nobody's ever heard of" in several edits at List of pop culture references to the Konami Code[50] If you question whether or not these items were notable, why did you insistently insert them into the article? Why not take to the article talk page and discuss, or simply not add them? It appears at odds with the fact that IP 202.71.45.45 has removed items from the main konami code article (again!)without discussion [51]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge verifiable items into Konami Code. References in popular culture seem to be a significant aspect of the topic, but isn't substantial enough for its own article. Bill (talk|contribs) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I see no benefit to a merge here, there is no encyclopedic value to this list. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:51, 19 March 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. Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Demo 2002

    AfDs for this article:
    Demo 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Demo albums fail WP:MUSIC. Possibly CSD G4 (recreation), but I can't check against the previous version. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Probably not G4 as the former article was about a demo of a different band. Delete this anyway. Punkmorten (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC for non-notability about as hard as it is possible to do. Possibly, just possibly, the demo tape that got the Beatles their first contract is article-worthy, although I have a hard tiem imagining how. This?  Ravenswing  16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just moved the page Demo 2002 to Demo 2002 (The Black Dahlia Murder album), due to the fact that the Demo 2002 page was, at first, talking about a whole different demo. Also, there are probably plethoras of demos named "Demo 2002". Before the move though, I added some information, which included an infobox. BTC 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge since that demo seems to be relevant to the band IMO it's better to simply merge this article into the band's history. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:19, 21 March 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, fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Coleman (radio presenter)

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

    Prod contested without improvement. Non notable local radio presenter, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 11:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete - no sources, no content, can't see how a radio presenter can be notable. WP:HOLE applies. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:BIO, people can't expect Wikipedia to have an article for every radio presenter in existence. Also that article has almost no content. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedily deleted by Nick Dowling (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as patent nonsense. cab (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbour Ministry

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

    Contested prod, originally thought to be a joke/hoax entry authored by the party's leader, based on a MySpace profile listed in the article. The prod was subsequently removed, accompanied by a content addition stating the party is "currently in the process of formally registering with the Australian Electoral Commission". A check of the Commission's website shows that the party is not as yet recognized.

    I found no online references for the party, except for MySpace and here. Listed ministers appear to be friends, relations or perhaps enemies; are celebrities (e.g. Tom Cruise, The Chasers) with no clear connection to the party; or are members of another political party, as with Pauline Hanson of the AEC-registered "Pauline's United Australia Party". It is true that humorous or spoof political candidates have a long and colorful history, some with their own WP entries (e.g. Sister Boom-Boom, Dick Tuck, Monarchy Party), but here reliable sources appear lacking. And while there is precedent for joke members of a group listed in a Wikipedia article (e.g. Rakeops), an AEC-registered political party requires 500 actual exclusive members. Regardless of how the content is framed in the article, failures of reliable sources, verifiability, notability, and the overall dubious nature of the party's claims make this article suitable for AfD recommendation. Michael Devore (talk) 10:16, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Rice

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

    Doesn't appear to be that controversial an influence, as I can't find any serious reference to this person online (it is a common name, however). Similarly, I can't find any proof of the claim to be the President of Delta Iota Kappa. There is one newspaper reference from a local paper provided, but I don't think that that is enough to attest to this person's notability (or notoriety). Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete. Nothing notable here. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete No sources to show notability, article reeks of spamminess. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete per notability and cyrstal ball concerns. Davewild (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This Time Canadian Tour

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

    This future tour is of one country only, by a former Spice Girl. It basically says she is touring to support her latest album, then goes on to list tour dates. I have listed this AfD under cat=O, since it is a corporate product, and I do not feel it is Wikipedia's job to advertize for millionaires. Also, it's not notable, has no sources, and is crystal ballery--tour dates get changed and cancelled all the time. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete - nom pretty much says it all. I love/cherish/stalk Mel C with all my heart, but this is crystalballery without any third-party assertions of the notability of the subject. Also: is this article just a sub-set of a "This Time Tour", or is she really going to tour just Canada? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. B.Wind (talk) 18:23, 21 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Demo 2007 (Courtesy Blush)

    Demo 2007 (Courtesy Blush) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Demo albums generally fail the notability criteria (WP:MUSIC#Albums).

    Note: This nomination is for the demo album only; notability of the band may be a different issue. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete - a demo that is given away at shows, by a band from Thornhill? WP:HOLE. Give me a break. I'd also suggest that a successful AfD can be mounted against the band's article, since there are no sources (outside of their myspace, now deleted, and a zine interview) establishing any notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:11, 19 March 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. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luis Sera Resident Evil 4

    Luis Sera Resident Evil 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Non-notable video game character. Yngvarr (c) 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: The material is overly detailed, in-universe, and does not demonstrate the notability or importance of the character outside the plot of Resident Evil 4. The subject is in my opinion better handled by Characters in Resident Evil 4#Luis Sera, which may be a suitable target for redirect with or without merge. -- saberwyn 10:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge- Although I love the game, the character doesn't need its own article. Some of the extensively detailed needs to be removed, but merging would help to better expand the character's section in Characters in Resident Evil 4. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 21:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Excessive detail and info that's is better presented in the list of characters. I don't believe anything needs to be merged as the list entry seems to be appropriate. Bill (talk|contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A quick glimpse at the history of Characters in Resident Evil 4 shows the creator trying to add misc. in-universe details and getting reverted, probably the reason for this page's creation. The characters page could do with some expansion and additional sources, which there are, but what's really needed is some communication between editors. There's nothing really worth keeping, it's just retelling the game's plot. Sera is a character introduced and killed within the same game, he's hardly a major figure that will be covered in the detail needed for a separate article. Someoneanother 23:26, 17 March 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.

    Zeta Interactive

    The result was Delete (non-admin closure), page has been blanked and tagged for speedy deletion. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

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

    Blatant advertising. Rien (talk\stalk)  06:42, 14 March 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 A7 bio. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Holley Keith

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

    Somebody confusing Wikipedia with MySpace. Rien (talk\stalk)  06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spykee Head Dude (video game)

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

    Appears to be a made up game Salavat (talk) 04:50, 14 March 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 but clean up, consensus is that the topic is notable and that the article can be improved. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Snap music

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

    Now, don't get me wrong. This is a style of music. However, this article is abysmal. First of all, there is only one source that has any coverage of snap music, and even that is just a short paragraph in an article that doesn't really have anything to do with snap music.

    The entire criticism section is awful. There is no mention of snap dancing in the section, or even in the article that is the source for some of the section.It starts off by saying that snap dancing has been criticized as "garbage" and provides nothing to back this up. The "snap dance" section is pretty bad too.

    So, at the moment, there is no indication of notability. It's also riddled with irrelevant, POV, uncited ramblings. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. How is the article POV? I'm sorry, but I just can't see how. It does have notability... if About.com has got something on it[52] it's notable. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I personally despise this genre of hip-hop, but it does exist and it does appear to be an ever-growing genre. I do recommend revisions to the article, however, to make it a bit more suitable to Wikipedia. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete About.com coverage or not, this article's not really up to WP standards of notability or original research restrictions. If the subject is notable, there's got to be better reliable sources out there to include in the article than what's there now (one of the sources doesn't even mention snap). A Google search for better sources reveals some privately maintained blogs (not RS), some trivial, trivial coverage on MTV.com and the about.com article which lists no sources. So what do we use to put together an encyclopedic article? If more, better sources are found I'm open to recreating, but my deletionist streak says that we should find the sources first, then create the article. SingCal 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and tag for massive cleanup. My initial impulse upon reading the unsourced hodgepodge would be to be bold and redirect to hip hop, but if someone spends some time removing the lists and adding cited information telling more about the music itself (instead of the gossip-like politics of the genre, this could most likely stand quite well on its own. B.Wind (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep per concensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Macintosh software

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

    Wikipedia is not a list of loosely associated topics. This list serves little purpose, especially since there is already a category page for Macintosh software, and this page does nothing more than list a number of them, which could be construed as saying that the listed programs are more important that other ones. If someone wants to search for Mac programs, there are better places than Wikipedia, as the article even states, but even the category page here would be more complete than this. Althepal (talk) 04:30, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Doxtad

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

    Nonsense. No other word for it. A kind of MySpace personal shrine. Rien (talk\stalk)  04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete. He's on a few model pages out there, but nothing shows as notable. Only a few ghits that are directly relevant. This is not a resume service for anybody, including up and coming models. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. COI.. Non notable.. Anshuk (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non notable and none of the information can be verified. AngelOfSadness talk 00:12, 18 March 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 convert to disambig. This article will be deleted, and (disambiguation) will be moved to the unappended title. The new Highlights page's link to the hairstyle will be modified. If I miss anything, please let me know. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Highlights

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

    A better version of this article already exists at Hair highlighting. Maybe the information here should be merged? Lady Galaxy 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Convert to disambig per Dhartung; disambig for hair highlighting, the magazine, and maybe highlighter markers? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convert to disambig When I hear the phrase "highlights", I think of a recording of the most exciting portions of a sporting event. Even if that usage isn't notable globally, there are numerous other meanings, including hair (which, as stated, already has an article). Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convert to disambig per Dhartung with TPH's items --Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 15 March 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 defaulting to Keep, sources found during the debate suggest some notability but some remain onconvinced that they meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard soosay

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

    This appears to be a recreated version of a recently deleted page. By spelling the title in a different way (lowercase 's' in the last name) it comes back as new. Rien (talk\stalk)  04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I'm not quite sure why you dismiss the article in Today - it's a major newpaper with a circulation of over half a million. Anyway here are some more sources: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. The coverage may not be extensive in most cases but the sources do all refer to him as one of Singapore's top producer/engineers. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If someone merits a five day deletion discussion, they also merit correct spelling. If the article isn't moved before, it is also difficult to track recreations after an AfD results in delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response, I was thinking it's just easier to rename/move following the keep, which it appears this will be. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moving an article before nominating for deletion is always a good idea, IMO, because on AfD there is a chance of keep in which case it is already correct, and in the case of deletion you have the link to the AfD at the right place (and an indirect reference via the deleted redirect). Otherwise the next article creator or tagger may not be aware that this has already been discussed at AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:N, I Googled it and came back with only 1,500 results, that's mathematical proof of non-notability although disputable, Google's result is still meaningful. He needs more fame. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's the quality of sources that counts, not the quantity, and don't you think that "mathematical proof" is putting it a bit strongly? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see here... a real mess of an "article" created by a editor with a single purpose account, muddled format, generic (non-specific) "award citations", recreation of a deleted article. Did I leave anything significant out? Strong delete. No systematic bias here - notable Singaporeans have articles in Wikipedia: there are ways of demonstrating notability as Singapore has the greatest Web penetration in the world. B.Wind (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Is anyone piling on with these delete comments actually going to address the fact that I have provided reliable sources to show that the subject is notable? I feel like I'm talking to brick wall. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not piling on - and I'd suggest looking beyond the first paragraph. By the way, notability is but one consideration as to the suitability of an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. Look at similar, well established articles about people in similar positions (I'd recommend one or two that have been around for at least one year), and see what's missing from this article compared to those others. The latter 80% of this article lacks credibility and needs to be removed or cleaned up, for example. If Mr. Soosay is significant enough for an article, make sure that his career is well-documented with specifics. Don't just say he won a "best score for television" award without giving the name of the people who sponsored it. One last thing: if it continues to look like an extended business card, it will be deleted. Looking at WP:MOS would help if this is to be saved. B.Wind (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say he won that award, but I did put in the effort to establish that this is a notable subject which should have an article. If you don't like the last 80% of the article you can remove it by editing - there's no need for an administrator to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look immediately above "references." At this point, everything between the first paragraph and "references" need to be purged. In addition, the Infobox disagrees with the article title as to the individual's name. B.Wind (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the sources cited by Phil Bridger suggest notability rather than proving it. However, he is consistently referred to as a significant indie producer who has been involved with developing (at least some) notable bands. It's enough evidence to convince me that he is probably a notable figure in his field and that more sources are out there.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 22 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lomax (band)

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

    Non notable band 

    Beeblbrox (talk) 03:54, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Place in the Cosmos

    My Place in the Cosmos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable. I've looked and looked for something encyclopedic. nada. Kingturtle (talk) 03:40, 14 March 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. Nothing to merge as all logos are already present in either Fox Broadcasting Company#Logos or Fox Sports (USA). Rjd0060 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fox Broadcasting Company logos

    Fox Broadcasting Company logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page is nothing but a gallery/repository for logos of Fox Broadcasting, which goes squarely against WP:NOT, and quite possibly again fair-use of logos on WP. Speedy delete was declined, so bringing here to Afd for discussion, and using this as a test Afd for these articles. Russavia (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, per nom. Also violates WP:NONFREE parts 3a, regarding minimal usage, and 8, regarding significance (inclusion here does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"). The current logo should be used in the main article(s), but beyond that, historical logos should only be used in an article where it is critically discussed, not just put in a page to be a gallery. Collectonian (talk) 03:57, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Bonto

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

    contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    keep - Has published books and possesses several awards. Meets WP:BIO. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    keep - Have actually seen him win awards on local TV. There's a copy on DVD somewhere. Writes many books (checked Google and the publisher) and have seen his television show for years. comment added by WP:BIOUser:BobHydan


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sally Bishai

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

    Non-notable webmistress, v-blogger and blogger. I ran into the article on a recent AfD for X Culture Magazine, a weblog she founded. The AfD resulted in no consensus, the Keep voters citing Bishai's resume, and it struck me to actually research it. I wound up filing a prod, which was removed without comment by an SBA created today. Beyond that ...

    • (1) Neither of her two self-published books crack 2.5 million on Amazon.com's sales rank, which is beyond lousy;
    • (2) None of the works listed on her filmography have IMDB listings, even by the generous standards of that site.
    • (3) The Alexa traffic ranking for her xculturemag.com site is ... 10,146,215. I have never seen anything that low on Alexa. I may have measurably improved the traffic by surfing over to look at it.
    • (4) The lead Google hits for Bishai are her own website, this article, a blogsite for her film work, Xculturemag, the lulu.com entry peddling her wares, several more blog sites to which she has posted, the Youtube link to her film clips ... conspicuously missing are any legitimate reliable sources.
    • (5) Despite the article's academic claims, she has only two Google Scholar citations; one for her self-published book, and one for a listing that turns out to be part of a group acknowledgement in a classmate's master's thesis.

    No doubt Ms. Bishai is a perfectly pleasant young woman, but despite what appears to be energetic self-promotion, the world just hasn't taken much notice of her.  RGTraynor  03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect to X Culture Magazine for now. this local profile was the only coverage I found (she has a number of articles with her byline in Google News Archive), and it's not even a proper review of her book East Meets West (and she's also written a couple of times for the same paper, so it isn't even wholly independent). --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err .... X Culture Magazine redirects to Bishai.  RGTraynor  03:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose one or the other is potentially notable, but not both. Delete, then. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as per RGTraynor; nothing to indicate achievements worth documenting in an encyclopedia. Few sources other than self-published. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as irredeemable advertisement. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Miss Curves United States Pageant

    The Miss Curves United States Pageant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Plain advertising for an event ("Miss Curves U.S.A.") that hasn't even started yet. Nothing to do with Wikipedia at all. Rien (talk\stalk)  03:03, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stace van onlen guitars

    Stace van onlen guitars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence found that the company exists. Does not meet the notability guidelines. Article claims notability so speedy not used. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - it is not credible that there would be absolutely no Ghits on a modern electric guitar maker of note, given the degree to which musicianship and equipment is discussed online. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lower-case title article. Couldn't find a thing either. And a call to my mate at the guitar emporium I frequent unsurprisingly turned up nothing anywhere in the trades or ads. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    George E. Walker

    George E. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO Veritas (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: No evidence proffered that this fellow did anything other than be an ancestor of a President, let alone anything that might fulfill any element of WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I disagree. The man is the ancestor of two US presidents. In each case the articles of the presidents are too long to include discussion of the ancestor. Since each president includes Walker in their name, at minimum there should be an article on the Walker family. I see reasonable notability from a historical perspective -- though we would all be better off if the man had been sterile. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To quote from WP:BIO: "Invalid criteria: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" Given that WP:BIO specifically enjoins the creation of an article under that premise, we need something more than "X was the ancestor of a president" ... and this article gives us nothing more.  RGTraynor  03:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There are notable Walkers; he isn't one of them. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the only thing that seems to be of note about this individual is that they appear in the family tree of the two Bush presidents. Aside from details of birth, parentage and offspring there is nothing here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete He rates a mention in other articles, but to put it in perspective, he was one of 16 great-great-grandparents of George H.W. Bush, and one of 32 greatgreatgreatgrandparents of the current President. He died in 1864, sixty years before the first President Bush was born. Given that George Herbert Walker was probably named after this person, one could say that the two Presidents named George Bush were indirectly named for this person, and speculate that perhaps that this person (born 1797) was named for George Washington. However, there's no indication that this person did anything of note in the first half of the 19th century. Mandsford (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete if he didn't do anything notable in HIS OWN lifetime, then he fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability does not propagate backward through the time-space continuum to make notable otherwise utterly non-notable persons whose chromosomomes make up part of the genome of their distant notable descendants, barring any non-paternity events. Edison (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Global skills

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

    Neologism / original research. Guerilla spam for the external link at the bottom. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy delete by User:Bradeos Graphon, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Culture

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

    Fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot. Possible COI. Also, the page's creater, and a sock, have been deleting the speedy deletion templates off of it. So I brought it here. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:48, 14 March 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 (Criteria A1) --Allen3 talk 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FromIdolToEnemy

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

    C:\>RIEN_  01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Axis of medieval

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

    This article constitutes original research by synthesis. It takes a relatively obscure phrase, used three times by Nicholas Kristof and once by Alex Kirby, and builds a framework that is not clearly supported by the underlying sources. As such, the article violates WP:NPOV and fails verifiability. It should be deleted because it doesn't meet these encyclopedic standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: As neologism. All of 176 Ghits, the lead one this article, and the overwhelming majority blog entries. Great, it's a nice pun, har de har har, but there's no evidence that this is more than a catchphrase in the mouths of a few bloggers.  Ravenswing  03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence that this is actually in widespread use. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This has been at AfD before; Twinkle seems to have overwritten the old version. Perhaps someone more confident in such matters could fix? Regardless, delete per nom, as this seems to be a synthesis of primary sources which happen to use the term somewhere, not secondary sources which discuss the term itself (WP:NEO). Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not worthy of the 'pedia! --Camaeron (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - neologism U$er (talk) 21:55, 15 March 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Theology Online

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

    Non-notable web forum. Very poorly sourced; most is from the primary source (the site itself) and the ones that aren't, still aren't sufficient. Also wary of it being web promotion . . . this was once temporarily speedied, but failed and followed by an influx of fresh accounts making promotional comments on the talk page. In the interests of full disclosure, any of my personal beliefs were not factors into nominating this. -WarthogDemon 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Cannot find anything that meets any of the WP:Web criteria. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete as per WP:WEB guidelines. Also has zero independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:V - for all I know, this could simply be yet another web forum like a million others. --Minimaki (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete-The content of the article is certainly very POV-based. It also goes against WP:SOAP, although it may not be intentional. The article also cites Wikipedia as a source. Additionally, the sources are very small in scope. It does not fulfill WP:N nor WP:CITE. Perhaps, with a major cleanup...--Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:27, 21 March 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. Duplication of a category is not a reason to delete; however consensus focuses on other issues as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Montenegrin hip hop musicians

    List of Montenegrin hip hop musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    list of red links is more like it. Listcruft Bananaqueen (talk) 00:36, 14 March 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 Keep. Clearly notable. Resolute 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Independence Air

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

    24 sources, but no evidence this airline is in any way notable. It's out of business and seems to be just another commuter airline. Not encyclopedic in tone and not something anyone is going to look up Basegirlball (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep Just because something no longer exists doesn't mean it's not notable. This page has 24 sources, which means that it's obviously notable if someone bothered to give it in depth coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - obviously notable. This is this users 7th AFD nomination today. KnightLago (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep Notability is not temporary so just because it's out of business doesn't mean it's no longer notable. Also, (as another user stated) it has 24 sources so it is definitely notable. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. Interesting rise and fall of an airline, it was important at the time. --Matt (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and the fact that articles in such publications as the Washington Post, Boston Globe, and New York Times pack plenty of notability power. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 00:49, 14 March 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, pointless fork which tramples all over WP:NOT, much better dealt with via a link to this page [60] which is already there. Black Kite 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry statistics

    Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Nothing more than a list of football (soccer) results between two rival teams, of non-encyclopaedic value and fails Wikipedia is not a list of statistics. A summary is already present in the article Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry. Qwghlm (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • To clarify, I believe that delete is the only option. Qwghlm (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. This article assumes that every single match between the two clubs is notable. They're not. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Essentially a fork of Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry. Since the rivalry has only taken on real significance in the last decade or so, I'm not sure I see the value in knowing evey last result from the last 100 years. The summary in the main article seems sufficient to me. If Sthenel objected to the removal of this content from the main article, it would have been better to revert or discuss rather than cut & paste into a new article. PC78 (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge content/redirect. It would be better suited on the other end of the fork. Not a neccesary deletion per say. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:INFO BanRay 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per PC78. Comment Of all the inter-London football rivalries, Arsenal and Chelsea is one of the least combustible - artificially inflated within recent years, maybe. There's a bit of a "Life didn't exist before 1999" going on here...Plutonium27 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge wikipedia is not for statistics *quote appropriate wiki-rule herè* Some of the content is probably still worth merging though. --Camaeron (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge A lot of work went into this and it is important to Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry. Merge them. Mm40 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry and just make a table for matches historically. matt91486 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or Keep to Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry but do not delete , good collection , appreciable work . Pearll's sun (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep after finding appropriate citations. A cleaner presentation would be much preferable, but I do not see the violation of WP:NOT applies here if there is a demonstration of the notability of the Arsenal-Chelsea rivalry (before I forget, WP:INFO redirects to a list of templates). An acceptable alternative is to merge with Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry. B.Wind (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and talk - this page is a content fork created after an edit dispute between Qwghlm and Sthenel. I am not !voting merge because that would mean pressing content on the editors of the main article. This is an old-fashioned edit dispute that can only be settled on the main article talk page. BlueValour (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • im supporting for the above two comments , keeping and fixing too would work if merge isnt applicable . but delete isnt justified . Pearll's sun (talk) 10:56, 22 March 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. Not because its a German subject (I agree with the sentiments about sytemic bias), but because its a non-notable German subject, per reasoning given below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karim Maataoui

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

    Although his band was popular, as an individual member of the band I believe this fails WP:MUSIC. —BradV 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep He was also a contestant on Big Brother Germany I believe, which is not notable on its own but added to his previous band membership may make the grade. My German is lousy but the charity single for Germany Helps ("Mastana") seems to have been fairly notable, and he has begun a solo career. --Canley (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: A top Sex symbol of teenies? Hunh? Any source to #1 act in 20 nations? Any record label? Any real sales figures, and how does a band sell 10,000,000 copies (of itself?)? If the person were of superior notability, there would need to be a head to toe rewrite, which means, essentially blanking, and that means, effectively, deletion, and this is if the notability were verifiable and verified. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete big brother germany may make it famous in germany, but that's for german wiki editors to decide. Just had a quick look: The german wiki has a small page on him but this doesnt mean we need one too! --Camaeron (talk) 21:58, 14 March 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. Extensive precedent shows that additional notability is required. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Clement (Survivor contestant)

    James Clement (Survivor contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    He is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, he has been on two seasons, but recent precedent shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion0422 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Vote off, just being a Survivor contestant isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Just a contestant. Possible merge if there is a good article to merge it with. Undeath (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: We are all trying to be survivors, and this is a contestant in a show. No note for this. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: He has nothing notable outside the show. If he wins, or is a runner-up in Micronesia then an article can be created, but for now delete Survivorfan101 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per those above. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep he is a star of two seasons of a network TV show. There is no reason to require that such a star have off-screen accomplishments in addition. Edison (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction: He is one of over a dozen contestants on a reality TV show. He is hardly the star. -- Scorpion0422 04:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was brought back as a "favorite" in the current series, along with a select few others from the entire run of the show, showing he is a star so far as such a show has stars. How do the others' Google hits stack up to his 16,000[61]? Edison (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I mentioned on another afd, the term "favorites" is used extremely loosely in the show, very few of the contestants actually were favourites from their season. And let's not forget about WP:GOOGLEHITS. -- Scorpion0422 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep My reasoning is essentially the same as Edison's. I would respond to Scorpion's assertion about the looseness of the term "favorites" by noting that James is certainly one of the "very few" contestants who actually were favorites from their season. I think that when you look at the number of episodes that he has appeared on, and the popularity of the series, he is comparable to many characters from non-reality series that have articles. Maxamegalon2000 17:21, 16 March 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 Neutral Close per Snow/Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure .Fosnez (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elvish Linguistic Fellowship

    Elvish Linguistic Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? This is an encyclopedia, not a ton of Lord of the Rings crap. Give me a break! Basegirlball (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Could you please be more specific as to why this article should be deleted? --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete After reading the article, I don't think the organization is notable. No references are cited. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - There are 5250 Google hits for this organization. Its website has been in place since 2003. A specialized area of scholarship, but legit, no reason to delete. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notability established through sources. Mentioned in The Guardian here, with more significant coverage here. A Google search here shows articles from the Boston Globe, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Duluth News Tribune. KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Quite aside from this being one of Basegirlball's flurry of newbie AfDs, I would hope and trust we'd make slightly more of an effort to gauge the notability of a subject than to glance at the article and decide we don't like the cut of its jib. It's not a well-written article, but even the most cursory Google search turns up a number of reliable sources, and the organization has sixteen cites on Google Scholar.  RGTraynor  03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This isn't just a group of fans, it's a scholarly collegium that has provided invaluable editorial assistance in the later publication of Tolkien's works (and which predates the web, so who cares when they put up a .org?). Needs cleanup & secondary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Your reasoning seems to be a bit crazy, if I may say so. But the organization does have sufficient notability from what others have posted. crassic![talk] 05:02, 14 March 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. SNOW. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dance Theater Workshop

    Dance Theater Workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A list of notable funders!notable organization. Spammy. What, does every museum in NYC have an article here? Basegirlball (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep - Well, as a matter of fact, yes, every museum in New York should have a page here, because the museums in New York are generally world class and significant. But that's entirely irrelevant, because Dance Theatre Workshop is not a museum at all, it is one of the premiere presenters of modern and post-modern dance and performance art in New York, which happens to be the dance capital of the U.S., and one of the most significant locations for dance in the world. Whatever are the deficiencies of the article, it has nothing to do with the notability of the organization. A search of the NY Times website for "Dance Theater Workshop" brings up over 1500 hits since 1981. In 2007 alone there are 126 hits. Almost every performance at DTW is reveiwed by the major media, some of them by national media. A Google search for "Dance Theater Workshop" brings up 46,300 hits. There is absolutely no question about its notability, and this AfD should be speedily closed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Salamat Ali

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

    Non notable promotional crap. Basegirlball (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The subject fails to satisfy notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:BIO, no secondary sources. KnightLago (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Exceptionally poorly written mishmash that looks like a vanity page. Being rich is not being notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Bad sign when Google's first hit is the WP article and the second hit is a site that tracks how many edits are made to said article. Can't find anything of use, and it's an autobio. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the directly above... --Camaeron (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep per WP:IAR, nominator gave weak rationale and has a history of possibly disruptive AfDs (and I'm a bit wary of a user whose first edit is installing Twinkle). Notability is clearly asserted in article anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Openhousenewyork

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

    Spammy with zero evidence of notability. This is ridiculous Basegirlball (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - To my understanding "this is ridiculous" is not an accepted criteria for deletion. The organization in question has been around for a number of years, and their primary event, which takes place every October, has gotten coverage in the NY Times in the form of a number of articles each year. It seems a small organization, but size does not necessarily determine notability. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per Ed and the New York Times. KnightLago (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - Added a ref from Ed to the article. Ridiculous is a particularly weak argument. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep as per Ed Fitzgerald, KnightLago and DeadEyeArrow. Horologium (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Speedily kept - notability estabilished. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bitforms gallery

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

    What do you know? Another non-notable NYC gallery. They're a dime a dozen and enough with creating articles for all of them Basegirlball (talk) 00:16, 14 March 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 keep. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heart of Brooklyn

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

    NN local org, huge COI issues. Only news coverage is NYC based papers, heardly evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a NYC museum directory. Basegirlball (talk) 00:13, 14 March 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 Neutral Close per Snow/Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Julia Sakharova

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

    Orphaned since November '06, no evidence of notability another than puff Bananaqueen (talk) 00:11, 14 March 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 Keep. Article is in more of a need to be cleaned and deodorized. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mount Colosseum National Park

    Mount Colosseum National Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A fact sheet is not an encyclopedic artic.e Bananaqueen (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep Isn't a national park inherently notable? The fact that this page is a "fact sheet" can easily be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep- what you need is an expansion and cleanup, not a deletion. Lookslikema perfectly acceptable stub to me, on an inherently notable subject. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong and Speedy Keep A national park is notable without secondary sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:20, 14 March 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 Neutral Close per Snow/Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Federation Walk

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

    It's a path, and despite promo fluff to the contrary no evidence that it's a notable one. Bananaqueen (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    also Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:06, 14 March 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 Cornell University#Academics --JForget 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Undergraduate Business Program at Cornell University

    Undergraduate Business Program at Cornell University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn and unreferenced part of a part of a uni. No sourced content, nothing worth merging. Bananaqueen (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete we do not give articles to individual majors at individual schools. There is amost never anything particularly notable about them. DGG (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. JJL (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nn part of a notable school!notability. THere's no evidence that there's anything special about Cornell's program TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Definitely does not satisfy general notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources or any reason for inclusion.—Noetic Sage 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've just finished reading the Sock accusations, and although I agree sockpuppets (and their associated IPs) should be blocked, this nomination is a genuine AfD nomination and it seems like the general consensus so far proves that this article should be deleted. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. Not notable and sets a bad precedent to every single university creating articles for every single possible degree program in their university. (Just think of how many separate articles University of Phoenix can whip up alone!!!) If we don't grant university departments (or faculties for our UK users) their own articles (that fails WP:N), whom essentially runs these programs, there's no reason this particular program in Cornell should have their own separate article. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Cornell University#Academics. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:N - --Camaeron (talk) 21:55, 14 March 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 Neutral Close per Snow/Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    San Diego Children's Choir

    AfDs for this article:
    San Diego Children's Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn local org Bananaqueen (talk) 00:03, 14 March 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. Nom is banned. Merge at will. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia and Gerry Anderson

    Sylvia and Gerry Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia and Gerry Anderson was supposed to have been merged a year ago, no one did it. No one cares and frankly, it's redundant. Bananaqueen (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Seems to be a good article on a notable topic. It should be kept until it can be demonstrated that this material is better covered elsewhere. A supposed merge which does not, in fact retain the material, is not acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convert to DAB page. It looks better covered to me - both Gerry Anderson and Sylvia Anderson contain entire paragraphs that are direct copies from the source article. I think someone managed to complete the merge, but couldn't decide where to redirect the page as is required by the GFDL. We can solve that problem by effectively redirecting to both with a DAB page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge any remaining unique information and then delete the duo article. Both people are independently notable and therefore anyone looking for information on their collaborative works will search for either Gerry or Sylvia. There's no need for a duet article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect: I concur with the above: this is one iteration of a name, and not the most likely search term. Therefore, this should be a redirect, and there should be a settled location (e.g. the production company) other than a combining term. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Close nom has been blocked as a sockpuppet for disruptive and bad-faith noms. DarkAudit (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. No problem with having sub-articles for the main article (we have a few), but polemical forks are just going to add to bad blood and further fuel disputes, especially when their title is that inflammatory (you should have seen the lengths I had to go to to retitle Operation Summer Rains as 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict). Incidentally, anyone knows why the 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article doesn't appear to at all mention the 2007 Israel-Gaza conflict? I am hoping to see energies expended toward streamlining & organizing the 2006, 2007, and 2008 articles, than ones devoted to one side trying to get an edge over the other (reply on my talk page if you have ideas). El_C 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Izak has taken the initiative of authoring a central Israel-Gaza conflict (as well as creating a Category:Israel-Gaza conflict). Well done! El_C 07:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Holocaust of Gaza

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

    This poorly thought out and POV title violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (citing and backing a propaganda article from the Tehran Times: Israel's Holocaust against Gaza by Khalid Amayreh that is all twisted hype), because there is no "Holocaust" going on since this is (a) an armed conflict between two armies Hamas (trained and armed by Iran) and the IDF, (b) there is no record of genocide, and (c) there are relatively minor casualties on both sides in this new chapter of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The contents of this article should be merged after editing to comply with WP:NPOV policies into the NPOV 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article where this subject belongs. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete and Merge contents into 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per IZAK. I would have said "delete and merge per IZAK" but I'm not sure we could accomplish that under GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Highly inappropriate. Keyed In (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete With such a plainly inflammatory POV title, you're going to need a better and more neutral source than the Tehran Times and various Syrian websites. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Merge to 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict after editing for NPOV. The fact that notable people have compared this event to the Jewish Holocaust is already mentioned there, which is quite enough. This title is obviously non-neutral (though calling it "wrong" is itself a POV). The harder question is whether this title should be deleted completely or left as a redirect to the main NPOV article, because it yields a considerable number of non-trivial google hits - i'm not sure what to say here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict as a WP:POVFORK per Amir. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict covers this. The article looks like it's been automatically translated from the tehran times - almost unreadable. Camillus (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, do not merge: we have plenty of coverage of this, and if we merged the text into any other article, it would just make that article more POV. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seriously POV to the extent that sources and commentary are unencyclopedic non-starters, regardless of the "non-trivial ghits". "Notable people" (as per Amir) can surely have their opinions stated in their own articles. Merging would set a dreadful precedence: there'd be collections of incendiary and irretreivably POV agitprop all over. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This can never be anything but inherently POV. Jtrainor (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, of which this article appears to be a POV fork. If the term has been prominently used in one or more reliable sources it can be mentioned in the main article. Incidentally, why is this considered a "Judaism-related" deletion? I don't see the purpose of adding this category when there are already two more appropriate categories (Israel and Palestinian-related deletion discussions). *** Crotalus *** 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (do not redirect) whatever is important and compiles with WP:NPOV into 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge & mention the term in the main article.--Statros (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - gut feeling really..--Camaeron (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • mergeSoroma (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - provocative fork of more NPOV article 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict which already covers comparison to the Holocaust. --MPerel 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per MPerel: provocative fork of more NPOV article 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict which already covers comparison to the Holocaust. Johntex\talk 17:05, 15 March 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.
    1. ^ Examples would include the Sight and Sound Poll, AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies, Time Out Centenary of Cinema, 1999 Village Voice Critics Poll, Positif's poll, etc.
    2. ^ This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected fit our standard as well.
    3. ^ See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our standards.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_14&oldid=1081073340"