Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The "voting" percentage isn't that overwhelming, but it's not a vote and the "keep" arguments establish that this material, in this form, will be useful. Metamagician3000 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inner London postcode districts[edit]

London WC1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London WC2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London EC1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London EC2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London EC3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London EC4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(View AfD)

This is a mass nomination. A while back it seems as though all of the outer London post areas were deleted. These are just as un-notable and the information in them is a fork of WC postcode area and EC postcode area. Quentin Smith 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- agree it is a fork of the area articles. Note that WC1 has more information with references (although perhaps not really relevant to the postal code area). Thunderwing 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because useful to some readers. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is usually a "List of zip codes in ____" (ie: a State) on Wiki, but it doesn't futher break down the zip codes and talk about them specifically. For that reason is why I am voting the way I am. Furthermore, these are already listed on WC postcode area and EC postcode area JAMDAWG

16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

  • Keep - Well written articles, I think they're useful and appropriate for Wikipedia --Darksun 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This keeps on coming up from time to time and I agree. WC postcode area and EC postcode area are far superior articles and have proper referencing, are of meaningful size and have room for expansion to become good articles. Aside from the London WC1 article, the rest are just stubs. And WC1 shouldn't be written as a pseudo-district article as it detracts from the 'real' district articles. We wouldn't write such an article about Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency) as if it were a district in its own right and I don't think we should with WC1, it is misleading. In any case even that area is not really a homogeneous area as the article implies, whereas Bloomsbury perhaps is. MRSC • Talk 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being pointless forks that repeat previous information. Eddie.willers 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to WC postcode area and EC postcode area. Useful information can be put on the main articles for the postcode areas. Redirects might be useful but otherwise they are just forks that cannot ever become proper articles. Davewild 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have prior AfD discussion links? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all the reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1. Regan123 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Improper nomination; this issue was decided, after very extensive debate, on March 28th. All the same arguments apply here, with knobs on. Suggest the nomination is withdrawn. Johnbod 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The London postcodes especially are important in the UK as directions and locations are often given as a postcode area. "Where in London do you live? Oh EC1" for example. Even non Londoners (yes there are some of us in the UK) hear these trotted out as locational terms, not just used on letters and parcels. Ben W Bell talk 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ben W Bell. - Nick C 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — London postal districts are the size of a typical town and especially the central ones are very notable. — Jonathan Bowen 04:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Johnbod's argument --St.daniel 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic, game guide material not of interest to the general reader. Pagrashtak 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the creator of this article, I'd like to address these concerns:

Notability:

  • If articles such as Places_in_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess are considered notable enough to stay on this site, surely this articles can be expanded to make it as keep-worthy as the other articles. Dungeons are the "meat and potatoes" of this series.

Verifiability

  • Zelda.com is really the only source we need. The official site has complete walkthroughs for every title in the series, just not with information organized in this fashion.

Etc.

  • This is not a "game help" or "game guide." My original intent was to have a page with similar purposes as "Places" except for dungeons only. I've been wanting to see a complete dungeon list for a long time, but I could never find one online.

So, with these reasons, I vote Keep. Wikipedian06 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • KeepActually I think this article could be expanded and made much better. DBZROCKS 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, (I reformatted that previous comment according to "Wikistandards"), I'm saying weak because Wikipedia is NOT a game manual. If the article explains a broader range of subkects such as the importance or impact of the dungeons in the game, the artucle should be kept. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current condition, the article is very much like a game guide. The individual game articles having sections on the setting of the game is far more important than this. Jay32183 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea of an article on the Dungeons is good, but the current article is not that good. Make it like Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and I will be happy to vote Keep. TJ Spyke 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as breaching the indiscriminate information section of WP:NOT. This list can never be reliably sourced and has no real-world context. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It CAN be reliable sourced, if people wanted to do it. It's a good idea for an article, it just needs to be cleaned up and sourced. TJ Spyke 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To what can it be sourced ? I can't see why a reliable source would be interested in writing about this. All the dungeons require is a mention in the related articles, which already seems there. This is no more an encyclopediac topic than any other strictly in-game piece that has not attracted independant review - Peripitus (Talk) 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The settings in each game are already discussed in context in each individual game's article; simply listing them out of context such as this is indiscriminate and of no encyclopedic value. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:02Z
  • Delete, no game guides. Gazpacho 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thewinchester (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.. As much as I appreciate the games, this is total cruft, and the article title doesn't allow for much real content. Nihiltres 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indescriminate collection of information which amounts to total fancruft. This goes into very little detail and just serves as a collection of information about the game. Since Wikipedia is not a game guide, this is not the place for this information. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT. The topic really isn't rescuable either. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because this is associated with an immensely popular game series that has been around for a long period of time and therefore a variety of readers will be interested. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?, just because it is "interesting" does not mean it should have it's own page on Wiki. Wiki is not a game guide, and if people are interested in reading about the places in a certain game, then they can buy the game guide. There are many other websites better suited than Wiki for this. JAMDAWG

16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

  • Delete per everyone else who said to delete. Acalamari 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Very incomplete, seems almost arbitrarly completed. Rackabello 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cannot be referenced. ➪HiDrNick! 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is laughable. Just because you don't want to find sources doesn't mean it can't be referenced. The strategy guides are a good place to start. TJ Spyke 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game guide content better suited for a Zelda and/or gaming wiki. RobJ1981 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The idea is sound, but...wellllllllll, it's a game guide. Some of these dungeons are significant enough to warrant mentions, being important to the series as a whole (Heck, Death Mountain probably deserves it's own article), but as this article is written, it's clearly on the NOT list --UsaSatsui 07:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR. Highly non-notable.--WaltCip 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Funny that a page I happen to come across right when I need it (this) is listed for deletion. I never saw what was so wrong with this kind of thing -- Wikipedia is, as stated, not limited by paper restrictions and this should not limit its contents strictly to notable things. If it's verifiable, and truthful, why delete it? Then again, maybe it's just any article I come across will be deleted lately... I'm backing the original page up to my userspace even though I'm sure some asswipe admin will simply delete it again, like they did with the other copy of a deleted page I was saving (and failed to respond when I asked about it) --72.193.66.186 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because Wikipedia is editable by everyone doesn't mean it becomes what every person individually wants. There's a clear focus for the project. Don't like it? Make your own wiki. --UsaSatsui 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, um really people. Normally I find the accusation of 'game guide' to be totally off base, but in this case, it's EXACTLY what this is. Listing the dungeons within each article are fine, but saying where they are, what item is found there, and what the boss is? Can it BE any more of a guide? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least it doesn't have any stats. —Cryptic 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoopid Monkey[edit]

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

The production company of actor Seth Green, which produces the TV series Robot Chicken. No sources in its three very short paragraphs attesting to its importance other than a link to its official articles of incorporation, one of its press release announcing that it's signed a deal -- and 42 links to a fanwiki intended to justify the inclusion of a complete list of 42 production logos used on the show. Fails WP:CORP (as a standalone subject, since it's not even mentioned in the Seth Green article itself), fails WP:RS, fails WP:OR (the list), and seems primarily to be used as a fancruftian vehicle for inserting the list of logos. Calton | Talk 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think Calton has said it all! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company's production of an internationally televised TV series and two-picture deal with a major film studio firmly establish its notability. I agree with Calton that the list of production logos doesn't belong, and I also share the suspicion that sock/meat puppetry may have occurred (as a means of circumventing the 3RR), but neither is a valid reason to delete the article. Most of the above objections pertain to content that should simply be removed (as Calton and others attempted to do), leaving behind a perfectly valid stub about a notable company. —David Levy 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detete the show is arguably notable, but not its producer which still has a second show to produce. --FateClub 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, why not merge the lead into the Seth Green article and redirect Stoopid Monkey there? This factually is his production company, and there's no good reason not to document that fact somewhere (and send users who search for "Stoopid Monkey" to a relevant article). —David Levy 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Calton previously proposed such a merger and switched to AfD after an edit-war broke out. —David Levy 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

  • Merge per all other mergers. Acalamari 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Seth Green. Keep, recent changes have asserted notability. -Seinfreak37 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE or KEEP as per other posts! Bacl-presby 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup (remove or somehow shorten list). --ElKevbo 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to clean and expand. This is a legitimate production company of some notability. See no grounds for deletion. Gateman1997 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve article. Company's notability has been established. Alansohn 04:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability has been established WaysAndMeans 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge, mostly per David Levy and DHowell, who's research and information are what tip the scales. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. doesn't need to be merged with Seth, as it's not just his company. Bouncehoper 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese E.[edit]

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

Cheese E. by name, Cheesey by nature - Hoax; I would have nominated this for speedy deletion, but a couple of people (apart from the hoaxer) have edited the article, so maybe it isn't as blatant as I think. Pufnstuf 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, I'm not sure what you mean by hoax, Pufnstuf, because anyone with a 7-year-old brother knows that this is indeed quite an annoying little character from quite an annoying TV show. I've watched it enough to know the notablity of this character. Enough said. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have no clue what I was thinking. I took one look at the picture (which has been deleted, the character there was real) and immediately said keep. I'm so embarrassed... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't know what a hoax is? OK, I'll explain it for you; this article claims "Cheese E." is a main character in a series called "Kyle's Kracks". "Kyle's Kracks" receives zero Ghits. That's ZERO. His second feature film "C.V.B: Cheese Versus Blue", receives ZERO Ghits. Cheese E's current feature film "The Thumb Witch: The Hunt for Steven Oedekerk" receives ZERO Ghits. Hoax. Enough said. Pufnstuf 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete?, Strong Delete (if Cremepuff withdraws assertion of notability I have no question in my vote. Goodnightmush 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)) Cremepuff seems pretty confident this a real thing, but I can't find record of it. A Google search for ' "Cheese E." comic' returns only 220 results and one for the name of the comic it is allegedly in returns exactly one result...this article. Unless I'm missing something, delete. Goodnightmush 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost definitely a hoax, probably something the author made up in school one day. The fact that this article is the only Google result for "Kyle's Kracks" (as well as the "movies" mentioned at the bottom of the page) is pretty conclusive. The image appears to be of another cartoon character altogether. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly Krimpet, I was posting the same proof just as you posted this. It makes me wonder why anyone would recommend keeping such an obvious hoax though. Pufnstuf 02:04, 10 April 2007 (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 and expand. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip)[edit]

Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, and no apparent notability; the creators, "Warren Goodrich" + "Dick Ryan", receive no Ghits combined. Borderline speedy because it fails to assert its notability (comic strips aren't automatically notable), but I'm listing it here in case anyone knows this. Also listing the similarly named, but apparently unrelated Animal Crackers (1930 comic strip) for the same reason - even less information in that one. Pufnstuf 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, if references can be found, I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless (good) references are given. Unverifiable for now (e.g. not on Toonopedia), even when searching for different spellings of names. Fram 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Keep per NewyorkBrad (thank you!). If no other sources can be found, perhaps an article on Goodrich, with a redirect from Animal Crackers to that new article, may be better, but that is more of an editorial decision, and does not mean that this comic strip is not notable, only that we currently lack enough information for a good independent article. Fram 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability for the authors or the strip. Also, in what publication was it featured? How long did it run? We don't know any of this because there aren't any sources of information given, no verifiability. --Cyrus Andiron 12:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -as with Cremepuff222, I can't justify deletion if sources can be found, but as is, this is a delete. Nihiltres 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no sources are to be found. No keep if nothing is attributable.. MURGH disc. 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per new sources. But unless more is found I agree with a merge to a Goodrich article, and above title redirecting there. MURGH disc. 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it's probably useful to keep a record of even obscure shows, i.e. to better catalog human knowledge of entertainment history. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, we appear to be missing the knowledge. WP depends on the information existing elsewhere too. MURGH disc. 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cremepuff222. No sources. Acalamari 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find it listed in any of my sources, including The World Encyclopedia of Comics. 23skidoo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, with no indication of where the strip ran (newspapers? magazines? ads?). For all we know, it ran in some bi-weekly high school newspaper. Caknuck 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - Changing vote per evidence mentioned below. As far as a Google search goes, make sure not to confuse this strip with the one of the same name that ran in the 1980s. Caknuck 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Would be willing to reconsider if verifiable references were provided. --ElKevbo 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per new evidence cited below. Needs quite a bit of work but notability has been established. --ElKevbo 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, shattering the consensus above. This is outside my primary expertise but references include [1], an obituary of creator Warren Goodrich, which states that in 1934, "he started a syndicated cartoon feature called 'Animal Crackers,' using animals to depict human foibles. It became an instant success. Syndicated by the Chicago Sun-Times, the one-panel cartoon, which appeared six times a week, featured in more than 100 newspapers for many years. It was so popular that the [San Francisco] Chronicle featured it on its front page next to the weather report." See also [2]. A referral to Project Comics should be able to elicit additional information and sourcing. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A surprising source in Los Altos Town Crier, but it's something. Too bad so little covers this particular article, but substantial enough to support a Goodrich article which this could be merged into. MURGH disc. 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's this in a 2-minute Google search, there is more out there, although a subject-matter specialist would be useful (I have a relative with a major library on the history of comics and will do some research there when I visit, though that won't be within the 5-day term of this AfD). Newyorkbrad 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. The material cited by New York Brad shows that there is enough material for a stub with possible expansion later on. A Google News Archive shows that there are considerable sources out there to support an article on the strip. [3]. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a prime example of a subject that needs hard-copy research, not online research, and a reminder that just because something's not popular with Generation Google doesn't mean it's not notable. Is there a comics wikiproject? --Charlene 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also wonder if AFD rules should be amended for cases like this which require actually going to the library or other types of research. A five-day window for articles B.G. (before google) seems small. Neier 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added some brief information from a 1990s San Francisco Chronicle article I found in my library; that and Newyorkbrad's Los Altos Town Crier source should get us at least a decent stub. --Dragonfiend 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above. Once again, the Google test fails us. RFerreira 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law[edit]

Politics of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and all of these "political issues" are already discussed in greater detail in List of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episodes. Pufnstuf 00:18, 10 April 2007 (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 early close and delete per unanimous consensus by serious editors that this is a hoax. Sandstein 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repives[edit]

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

The result was a preemptive deletion. --  Denelson83  07:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy, Sick and Cracked[edit]

Crazy, Sick and Cracked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disambiguation page for three related magazines. Nothing links to it (except the list of Disambig pages), and I doubt anyone would ever type in this phrase to find any of individual magazines. Flyguy649talkcontribs 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

  • Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. What is there to disambiguate? They're three different magazine titles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to post a CSD G6 here. It's not a disambig page that only points to one item, it's a disambig page that, per consensus here, attempts to disambiguate something that isn't even ambiguous to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Gouraly[edit]

James Gouraly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possibly non-notable, possibly fails WP:BIO. Asking for ruling. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, reading the article, he seems to have some notability. But without sources, the information is unreliable. (I like that tuba, though...) :-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was created with a spelling error in the title. The correct spelling is James Gourlay. His records alone make him notable, I think. There are many references for him when you search on Google with the correct spelling. --Eastmain 01:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is puffery as written but searching through news articles shows he will easily pass WP:BIO requirements. Very well known musician, judge in international concerts, present on a few music releases I can find, quite a few mentions in news articles etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above two justifications. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; seems notable enough to me. --ElKevbo 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble is a notable band, and the adjectives in the articles can be removed (an anti-adjective bot might come in handy; it should be easy to write. ). DGG 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:Music. Cricket02 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Dragon Ball[edit]

Timeline of Dragon Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This a non-notable, crufty list of dates in a fictional series. It cannot be referenced adequately, and is probably plagiarized. There is no way for it to be improved. Nemu 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out the deletion for Power level (Dragon Ball). It relied off of the same material for a source, and was more important in general than this (yet still crufty and unimportant). Nemu 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dragonball has Three parts The timeline nicely summerises it all. DBZROCKS 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please change your "Support" and "Oppose" votes to "Keep" and "Delete". It appears very confusing. Are you supporting deleting or supporting keeping? - Zero1328 Talk? 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, if the article can be a bit more in depth and if information is cited to insure that it's not plagiarized, it may be useful for some people. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I support the Dragon Ball Timeline because it summirises the plot of the entire series including movies without being too long. DBZROCKS 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) *Keep I feel that it is need do to it has the time and dates of many important event in Dragon Ball history. It can be improved but it is a ok article. Heat P 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very, very weak Keep This page needs to be worked heavily, I will try to add references as soon as I'm done with Devil May Cry's FAC. -凶 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Nemu's points--$UIT 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Material that only appeared in a "reference" book and only in Japan. Since it wasn't adapted directly from the series (which had very very few references to internal dates), inclusion of such a lengthly list can't be anything more than plagarism.JRP 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a timeline of a major series, which could certainly be improved if people took the effort to do so. I'm not sure how anyone could claim Dragon Ball is non-notable, but whatever. The only valid concern is the copyright issue. Where do you believe it was copied from? FrozenPurpleCube 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's basically a word for word copy of its only source, the only noticeable difference being what things are called and how they're spelt. Given that this source says, "If you see this exact translation on anyone elses' site, that means they stole it from me, in that event, please contact me," you could easily slap a {{db-copyvio}} on it and be done with it. ~SnapperTo 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sounds like somebody should contact that author then, see if they care to give permission for its use, and if not, delete, with no prejudice against recreation. FrozenPurpleCube 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ballcruft. -- Hoary 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ors Thewinchester (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyright violation and WP:NOT a plot summary. ' 09:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOT a plot summary. Notice also Dragon Ball alternate timelines. Fram 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and Delete After taking a look at the copied source Snapper just gave us I now go with the points Nemu gave us. So I revert my earlier statement. Heat P 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah i just looked at the page and it really isn't necessisary. put blunt it sucks. forget what I said earlier. DBZROCKS 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because timelines are helpful for putting things in chronological context! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other deletes. Acalamari 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Snapper2. Would reconsider if the original author were willing to relicense under GFDL. --ElKevbo 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRUFT TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team wished upon the Dragon Balls for a Delete...and then a year passed...--UsaSatsui 07:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie O'Neil[edit]

Bonnie O'Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've been meaning to AfD this for a while. Article is a case of WP:AUTOBIO/WP:OR/WP:COI as it was created by User:Perryo, who claims to be husband of the subject. She seems to have written or edited a few technical reports, mostly NN as far as I can tell, and edited a textbook or two (not authored, as the article says). Still, no independent sources, so doesn't meet WP:BIO. Danski14(talk) 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nominator. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, Do I understand correctly that the second "source" is the personal experience of the article creator, the subject's spouse? Pete.Hurd 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also the father of Chris O'Neil, who apparently is notable. Danski14(talk) 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thewinchester (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because perhaps others with less of a personal connection can add and improve it? --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rgds, - Trident13
  • Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete All of the "articles" she has listed seem to be semi-technical write-ups in http://www.b-eye-network.com , and I do not know the reliability or the standards of that website. Some of their material is clearly edited--some of it is probably not. Items from there have been used to support several WP articles, but never as the sole publication medium listed. (It's new to me--does anyone have more knowledge about it?)
She is the principle of Westridge Consulting, and it's odd that this is not even mentioned in the article.Her work is hard to search as there is an apparently more-widely known economic development consultant with the same name. None of her work is in the least academic--not even listed in CiteSeer. It is possible that an article could be written, but not based on this one. DGG 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariners Mania[edit]

Seems like promotion by User: Crushed Optimism. Does not satisfy WP:WEB, so far as I can tell. As a Mariners fan, I have never heard of this site. C S (Talk) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young NOLA[edit]

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

Doesn't provide enough sources to make this musician to be notable. It only provides a MySpace page. Also, I provided a Google search and didn;t get results about such artist. Only links to sites of profiles of the perosn on accounts he could possibly made like MySpace, My Crib, SoundClick, & iSound. esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Harryboyles 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP Output Management Solutions[edit]

HP Output Management Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be nothing but spam. Questionable assertion of notability of the specific service. Previous prod. Page originally claimed to be copyvio, even if this is not the case it doesn't seem to be notable and is blatant advertising. Goodnightmush 01:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as original research. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative natural history[edit]

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

The user Warfwar3 has been creating a string of articles, Future Human Evolution (speedy delete), Speculative biology (prod, user keeps creating redirects) and now Alternative natural history. These all seem be advertisement/presentation of original research in relation to the book Future Evolution, which was written by Peter Ward (offhand suspicious sounding relation to Warfwar3, but that may just be a coincidence). Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think it should be given some time. Warfwar3 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ha! Warfwar3, Ward?
  • Keep Warfwar3 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 72.70.112.106 interesting subject
  • Delete as original research. The concept does not seem discussed anywhere reputable - Peripitus (Talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, (edit conflict), the article seems to have an interesting subject and an "expansion-able" title. It is unreferenced, has no meaningful links to other articles, and seems to violate WP:OR, but with some work I think it can be improved. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the topic is interesting, where in peer-reviewed journals does the term alternative natural history appear? And now there is a new page called speculative biology which redirects to alternative natural history. Where is this term defined in scientific journals? Warfwar3 just added speculative biology to Human evolution. I think this is growing out of control. Fred Hsu 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ors, original research Thewinchester (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR unless sources can be produced that show where the information came from. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak delete I do not find citations for the exact term "alternative natural history" but I have seen a number of articles in such publications as Scientific American which look at projected evolutionary trends in animal form under various scenarios. An article examining projected evolutionary developments which have been published in such magazines as Scientific American, National Geographic, or even Popular Science would not be statements of well established scientific fact, but neither would they be crystal balling, since the extrapolations did not originate with the Wikipedia editor. Added: Looking at Future evolution and the other article cited in the present article, I feel the topic is adequately covered there and that this otherwise unsourced article adds too little to justify a separate article. I would argue to keep Future evolution. Edison 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's essentially a copy-paste of the other article in question (Speculative biology) and nothing more than a blurb of WP:OR. No reason to keep, compelling or otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    If Arkyan is correct (and others have also suggested) then this should be a CSD:G4 speedy delete. Pete.Hurd 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the problem is that it wasn't really deleted content, the author appears to have "contested" the prod on the original article by redirecting it here with essentially the same text and an example for padding. Not quite a G4 but constantly trying to dodge the issue by redirecting content elsewhere really isn't appropriate. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we cannot be open-minded to any variety of WP:OR. That's policy. New or controversial ideas are welcome so long as it's been attributed and sourced. This is not. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should definitely keep the Future Evolution article since that is about a book that is notable and is presented as such. I raised this AfD because the other articles, Speculative biology and Alternative natural history seem to be aimed as presenting ideas from the book as real science (hence the marking as a biology topic/stub, linking to it from evolutionary biology and human evolution). This is also not a speedy delete because it is basically a contested prod off of Speculative biology. Future human evolution was speedily deleted, but the (limited) content on that article was different enough from these articles so this doesn't constitute G4. However, since the Spec. bio. and Alt. nat. hist. articles are substantially the same, they should probably have the same fate. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why not add a criticism section? 72.70.112.106
  • comment This could be tied into specualtion about lifeforms on other planets, which is also speculation based on natural laws.
  • Delete as Original Research --LeflymanTalk 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There have been a number of articles and books on the subject, some serious projections, some seriously intended hypotheses to teach the principles of evolution, such as Future Evolution, and of course some popular at all sorts of levels. We need an article to tie them together, and this article would do as a start--or Speculative Biology; we definitely do not need the two. I am not sure which way the merge should go. DGG 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There is a lot of information about this scattered through many different articles. ITs time to bring it together.Bioblue93 — User's first edit. Sandstein 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - incoherent bollocks, would say OR if this could be called research. Sandstein 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and/or WP:Neologism. A search in Google Scholar shows that this term isn't really used in the meaning relevant to this article. Yevgeny Kats 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems that the article has been improved with the addition of reliable sources.Yannismarou 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EmailCash[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. All references are directly related to the subject, bringing this article closer to an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic subject. Longhair\talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised you (presumably) haven't heard of them Longhair, they've been around for years, have had TV ads, etc. Probably the best known company of its type in Australia. -- Chuq (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh I've heard of them, but are they notable outside of their own advertising efforts? -- Longhair\talk 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think it can be improved as long as it squeezes out the discreet attempts at advertising, but the article does seem non-notable, at least for people near where I live... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom; while notable, it would need significant improvement to bring it up to an appropriate level worthy of encyclopaedic status. Notability is a real issue for the company per Longhair thewinchester 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Longhair. --cj | talk 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Google News Archive comes up with 25 articles [4] including this article claiming that it was one of Australia's fastest growing companies of 2005. [5]. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Happy to leave it up now (see comment below) Per Longhair and also because article has been tagged etc for sometime and has not and is not moving from advertisement to encyclopedic.--VS talk 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment emailcash is a notable company, though the article is not sourced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bandwagonman (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I have re-formated and sourced the site. I believe EmailCash is of sufficient notability. User:Bandwagonman
Comment In my view you have done little more than made the article more of an advertisement. There are claims being made (for example comments like ... with over 400,000 members as of 2005) require inline referencing and the article needs to be reworded to encyclopedic terms. Most of us won't mind it staying up and I might even change my vote but please provide direct inline references very soon else I will remove the uncited, non-attributed information in the next little while.--VS talk 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was merely trying to help whoever posted this article, if someone could rewrite it in a more encyclopedic way then I encourage them as I feel EmailCash is a notable company. Comments such as with over 400,000 members as of 2005 were more to establish the importance of the company rather than advertise it, personally I have no interest in supporting or joining emailcash, especially after doing some secondary research on it. Bandwagonman 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the obvious comments that may come across as advertising, there may be more that need deleting, also I have referenced two of the articles suggested by capitalistroadster, I still believe that emailcash is a notable company. Bandwagonman 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have altered my view as noted above after Bandwagonman's attention and good work.--VS talk 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just revise it to sound more encyclopedic. Cheers! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, annoying enough to be notable. Lankiveil 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, it's notable and deleting the article will only restart the clock on a slow moving article. John Vandenberg 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Lankiveil. Jtrainor 23:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ATT, not been the subject of multiple independent reviews from WP:RS the BRW ref is independant but the other is only repeating the BRW article. Gnangarra 11:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I added another five references to support notablity and to establish that it is attributable, though basically as per norm, EmailCash is annoying enough to be notable. Bandwagonman 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change to Keep 4 reliable sources(didnt check but agf they aren't advertorials) 3 aust newspapers, and 1 nz business mag. Gnangarra 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Soumyasch. MER-C 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Candidate[edit]

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

There's no information on itSpookyPig 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Akhilleus. MER-C 06:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Banks[edit]

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

Actor in a single commercial; fails WP:BIO. PROD unfortunately contested by article creator. FCYTravis 02:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Disasters 2005[edit]

World Disasters 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant, as other lists of disasters exist. It is not sourced and it is not wikified. – Zntrip 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Christy[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No sources outside of IMDb; utterly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google News Archives comes up with sources in Spanish[6] as well as IMDb. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. 703,000 Ghits seems a reasonable amount, and the Spanish hits look promising, for all I have no understanding of Spanish. Needs better referencing; if none is forthcoming, I will change my vote. Callix 12:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, when the name is put in quotes, the count goes down to only 500. Still, that's not a terrible showing for a 1940s career in Mexico, given the Internet's spotty pre-1995 coverage, which is why I de-prodded a couple of months back. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because actresses are significant and sometimes pretty! :) --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO Google hits don't nessacarially equal notability. Rackabello 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convinced to keep per Capitalistroadster and Callix. Acalamari 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the author is notable, but the article does need to be sourced. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a search and found a number of articles about or mentioning her. Specifically, eight in the magazines Reforma, two in El Norte(A Venezuelan newspaper), two in Mural, two in Palabra, and in English, Video Store Magazine. Granted, two of those articles are reprints. She's definitely not the most notable person in the world, especially in the English-speaking world, but given that we know she exists and we know that at least five newspapers/magazines considered her notable enough to talk about her fifteen times within the past 10 years, even though she last did a movie in 1951. I say she's notable enough to keep around, even if it might not be immediate apparent why to us monolinguals. Chris Croy 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per research by Christ Croy. Being notable in only the Spanish speaking world doesn't make her not-notalbe in general. --Oakshade 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 23:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editor[edit]

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

Self-referential and redundant to the much superior WP:TOOLS. Contested prod. MER-C 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this isn't a WP internal page, this is an article on wikipedia tools that are probably notable enough. But the rationale of the nominator is a non-starter. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimelo! Records[edit]

Dimelo! Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La Charanga Cubana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prods. MER-C 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 10:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooddale Church[edit]

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

Unremarkable place of worship. Contested prod. MER-C 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No real assertion of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of the largest churches in the Twin Cities, and you can see the spire from anywhere in Eden Prairie. It almost qualifies as a megachurch, though I'm not sure how many people attend any single service. I'm still having trouble coming up with an enthusiastic "keep" vote for this one, though, but it's definitely larger and possibly more notable than 95% of the churches in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (give or take). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the article, it is a megachurch with attendance averaging 5,000 each week. The Governor is a member and attends. The Senior Pastor is head of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 30 million Christians. The hall's acoustics are fine enough to make it a regular venue for symphony orchestras and respected chamber orchestras. Satisfies WP:ATT. Clearly one of the most important churches in the U.S. Edison 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Edison. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - There's no assertion of notability, and some of the points mentioned above (the governor's membership; the acoustics) are irrelevant; the pastor's association with the Nat'l Asociation of Evangelicals is more appropriate for an article about him. The para about their planting of six other churches is much better evidence. There's also a strong whiff of copy-and-paste about the article; the lack of a lead and the curious shift in tense from the 1995 paragraph "Weekly attendance in worship services averages nearly 3,500" to 2006 "attendance was averaging 5,000 per week" is suspicious. I think this one may be fixable, though. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and referenced. Clean it up though... Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Edison; though the article should be improved. Acalamari 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable--Greatestrowerever 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep accepting some of Edison's arguments. Its a large parent Church with subsidiaries, and tied to a notable minister. Much of the article is over-detailed. I just condensed some. DGG 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The lack of extensive attribution is a fault of lazyiness, not unverifiability. Passes the notability citeria for organizations as a notable megachurch within the sphere of the National Association of Evangelicals that has been covered by the media and is also the church of a noted figure in the news, the Rev Ted Haggard. No proof of meeting the criteria for deletion has been met in the nomination and it meets all the needed criteria: WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:V. NeoFreak 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced and seems notable enough to be here.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a church with a substantial membership and that is planting others seems notable to me. Peterkingiron 14:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tide Is In[edit]

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

Put simply, candidly, and concisely, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 (T|C) 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mfkzt[edit]

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

sources were requested, but the only sources provided so far have been unreliable websites which cite no references. Subject is dubious in the extreme. I am willing to change my mind if real reliable sources can be provided. IPSOS (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, it does get 6 hits on Google Books [8], though I'm kinda suspicious of the reliability of those books. I'm guessing the odd spelling is due to the impossibility of reconstructing the vowels --- is this substance commonly known by another name? cab 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. cab 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a notable part of Egyptian anthropology, nor even of modern New Agey refurbishment of Egyptian anthropology. Zero hits on Google Scholar, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just allow for more time for sources request to be fulfilled, because Egyptology is significant to many. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has nothing to do with Egyptology, if you were to ask an Egyptologist. There are no reliable sources to back up the claims made in this article, and in fact most ghits to this term turn up a bunch of crackpot sites about a mystical new form of gold that does - ahh - something mystical. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not referenced. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan and Cremepuff222. Acalamari 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the references are added. If there a 6 gBooks hits, its verifiable. DGG 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll admit that those books might be stretched into being references, but none of them looks even vaguely like a reliable source (though Rat Scabies and the Holy Grail: Can a Punk Rock Legend Find What Monty Python Couldn't? sounds mildly interesting). I find no evidence that it actually comes from Egypt; it may well be a made-up modern myth (as with much in New Age writings). And since most of those books seem to have, at most, only a passing reference, I'm not convinced that it's a notable myth. If someone really wants to try and rewrite this from a NPOV, I might be willing to reconsider my position, but only after reviewing the rewrite. Xtifr tälk 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've started by adding some proper cited refs, and further content as to why it's part of Egyptology (amongst other things). Burns flipper 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely a step in the right direction, however, I have strong reservations about Laurence Gardner as a source for anything but the opinions of Laurence Gardner. The Cerny citation looks better, but it's not clear whether he's being cited about the word itself, or merely about Petrie's discovery the temple where the word was supposedly enscribed. Also, Cerny died in 1970, but you list his reference as 1980, so something's not quite right there. But you did provide the ISBN, so I can probably sort that out if I want. Anyway, I'm still not convinced, but I am...less not convinced. Xtifr tälk 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stein Elementary School[edit]

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

an article with this identical text under Rose Stein Elementary School was just deleted for non-notability, this article was suggested in the article but not deleted Chris 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Athlete[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Contested prod. MER-C 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Stusser[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Merkle[edit]

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

Non-notable; possible autobiography or vanity page Dppowell 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The assertion of notability is made with the statement of American actor. However, amateur actors at the high school level are not notable. Further, the article cites no reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable high school/college actor. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not-notable JAMDAWG

12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laz Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable art gallery, not a place of local significance. Found zero sources on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metamagician3000 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay villages[edit]

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

Unverifiable OR. Can't separate truth from high school vandalism. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep These are easily verifiable. The list should include a header or lead-in that defined "gay village" (this may reference the older term "gay ghetto," explain why "gay village" has become a more preferable term, and include the caveat that gay villages are always in flux, as the percentage of gay-identified residents rises or declines. A link to an article about gentrification and gay real-estate trends could be useful. There are many ways to make this page more "official," but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater! Brent Calderwood 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Gay villages covers this better, though that may need some investigation as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- I think it could be turned into a good article- perhaps by using a different name and setting out what defines a gay village. Thunderwing 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's unsourced right now, but it is sourceable, and much of it is true. There are also reasons for maintaining lists separate from categories. Fireplace 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It can be useful; however, for this list everything is going to have to be cited to keep away vandals. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. 100% WP:OR and unverifiable. What someone has done here is put up a list of cities/towns where there is supposedly a large concentration of LGBT people. Key West, for example, is well known for being a socially liberal sort of town and very open to people of all types, to call it some sort of gay village flies in the face of reason. Until the Census bureau starts adding "sexual orientation" to their questionnaire there will be no way to qualitatively say what areas are or are not "social centers" for the LGBT community. I suspect that places like The Castro in San Fransisco - which is fairly well documented as a center for LGBT activities - will be very few and far in between, and when you excise all of the OR and speculation you'll be left with a very small handful of locations that can easily be ported back in to the parent article (which is in dire need of sourcing to clean up the OR there as well). Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response You asked for it, you got it: 2000 Census statistics. Fireplace 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's interesting - and I stand corrected. The data tables that hold this information are not easily accessible through the Census website and don't appear in the fact finder tables published, which is why I assumed it was not information that is available. Curious taht it's buried so deep in there ... anyway, I'll strike my opinion from above, but do maintain that the list needs to be worked on and better referenced, as well as setting some kind of objective inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because I think there's an audience of readers who would probably want to learn more about and improve this article over time. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, some may find it useful, but there are no sources. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep providing entries can be verified. I know there's an area of Manchester called The Gay Village (centered on and around Canal Street, which has numerous LGBT friendly bars and clubs). I don't know about any other cities that have areas called The Gay Village, but certainly many have areas where most of the LGBT friendly bars are situated. --Darksun 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a corresponding category and delete this list. WP not Yellow pages. No clear criteria for inclusion, no sources etc. A category will serve much better to the end without the mentioned drawbacks.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep can be sourced, is notable, and hardly OR. Carlossuarez46 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete' per WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Article fails to cite sources and it really does seem to be original research. GreenJoe 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Doczilla 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are no less verifyable than the list of Chinatowns. To ensure accuracy and consistency, the criteria for inclusion should be better explained on the list page. The facts supporting the listing should be explained and referenced in the article for the city or neighborhood. -- Beland 23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, no consensus to redirect. Sjakkalle's argument to keep wasn't adequately answered by the redirecters; even so, if anyone wants to pursue a redirect further, it doesn't need AfD (see WP:MERGE). However, there is no consensus to redirect as a result of this discussion. Daniel Bryant 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of registered political parties in Spain[edit]

List of registered political parties in Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  1. at 242k, this page is practically unusable;
  2. it is incomplete, ending with parties registered in 2001, and maintenance would only aggravate the length problem;
  3. most entries are non-notable, eg local groupings established for a single, unsuccessful municipal election;
  4. there is little additional information apart from the red wikilink;
  5. the information is available in a complete and up-to-date form from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior;
  6. there is a maintained list of notable Spanish political parties at List of political parties in Spain.

Physchim62 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Regarding some of the points given to delete. I do not agree that a long article is useless, length could incidentally be solved by splitting it (though I'm not sure that I would support that idea). Even though the article is long, the chronological ordering makes the list navigable. I see that most entries are not notable and are redlinks, and I think that most of them, being little more than a one-shot gathering of people, should be unlinked. There is in all likelihood very little to write about them. Even so, the fact that the Spanish government keeps registries over this and puts it online would indicate that at least a mention on Wikipedia can be warranted. Regarding the final point, presence of one article does not mean that another one cannot exist unless we are dealing with content forks (which this is not, the two lists serve different purposes). In the interests of complete coverage of the Spanish political system, I think this list is OK. It tells something about the Spanish political system, about how party registration works and has worked historically. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of political parties in Spain; I can't think of a purer content fork than this. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mentioned above. No reason for this fork. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because Spain is a historically important country and political parties are also significant and noteworthy. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per Diavian. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of political parties in Spain; A brief mention of the register of political parties and an external link on the main article to the reigster would be sufficient. Davewild 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an extensive list, and that is why lengthy! Simple redirecting it to List of political parties in Spain would result in loss of information. In fact, this list may be considered as a daughter list of "Registered parties" subsection of List of political parties in Spain, and the daughter has outgrown the mother (in terms of size)! As User:Sjakkalle has mentioned above, the fact that the Spanish government keeps registries over this and puts it online would indicate that at least a mention on Wikipedia can be warranted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No information would be "lost" as the up-to-date list is available from the Spanish government (this fact should be mentioned in List of political parties in Spain, along with a description of the registration system). There is no "added value" in the list as it stands, and little prospect of any improvement given the non-notability of the vast majority of the entries. Physchim62 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wirt Walker[edit]

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

Private businessman with extremely few reliable sources, questionable notability. Most material found online is from conspiracy websites. Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This gentleman is in business with a member of the Bush family. Other than this connection, he would not be written about at all. The 9/11 conspiracy crowd makes much of the fact that he has the same last name as the Walker family (as in George Walker Bush, etc.), but they are not actually related. It is nigh impossible to write a balanced article because non-conspiracy sources have paid him very little attention other than brief asides. The article as it stands is written from primary sources, with no demonstrated notability. I think it's best to put this article out of its misery. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Needs third-party reliable sources of notability. —dgiestc 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of third party sources. --RaiderAspect 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if not a single one of KuwAm, Aviation General and Stratesec warrant their own entries why should their director? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but find more sources. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources/notability. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Since he has the business connection mentioned, he will appear in news sources, and thus be worth an article. One of his companies, Securacom, is certainly notable in this connection. But if so, there should be some sources already, and they need to be added. A Yahoo profile is not an independent source.DGG 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Erm, DDG, with due respect, if you want this article kept, it's dependent on you to provide the independent sources. You cant just say "I'm sure they exist". --RaiderAspect 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, which has already been done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bereg (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor character from a film (as the article says, he only has one line). Also, it's written from a somewhat in-world perspective. Prod tag was removed without explanation Feeeshboy 04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please read WP:USEFUL. Not a policy but nonetheless addresses your vote. Rockstar915 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Islam in Korea per almost unanimous consensus. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (non-admin)[reply]

Islam in North Korea[edit]

Islam in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent and therefore... totally irrelevant, non-notable, etcetera. KazakhPol 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Islam in Korea which includes the one-sentence text of this article anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above.. It could have even been speedied because of the lack of content. It is not like the article has the potential to get longer in the near future or anything :) Baristarim 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to nihilism. But seriously, to the title suggested. Abeg92contribs 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without prejudice to Islam in Korea. I assume the reason for this article's existence is to avoid a redlink in the {{Asia in topic|Islam in}} link box, so don't delete it altogether. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if true, because this would be something of significance, especially if Islam existed in North Korea prior to its current political situation and if it somehow persists underground. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the convention of WikiProject Korea in general is that the "xxx in North/South Korea" articles only cover the period since the division of Korea and perhaps a bit of background information about the time immediately prior, so even if there were, say, Muslims in Pyongyang during the Japanese colonial period (for which I can't find any evidence), that would belong in Islam in Korea. The only other thing I could think of that could be used to expand the page is information about diplomats from Muslim countries in Pyongyang. cab 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per above. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per everyone else. Acalamari 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Redirect like it was before. It's in the history. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all above. Incidentally this article and various others relating to divided countries (e.g. Islam in the Republic of China, Islam in South Korea) have all been created around November 2006 as copy-paste forks by User:Tarikur, probably filling in links from an {{Asia topic}}-based template. So in general, they should be redirected back to wherever they were forked from. cab 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non existant.--Sefringle 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and possibly merge with Dan Boeckner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Strategic, Rapture, Ye Minions![edit]

Atlas Strategic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rapture, Ye Minions! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this article when investigating an unsourced image. This article has been speedied many times before under g12, a7, etc. I think we should run a proper AfD to decide whether this band is notable. Also nominating the band's first album for which "Only 500 copies were made". Looks like a NN band to me. My vote is to delete Aksi_great (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn --RaiderAspect 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band itself may not be particularly notable; however, due to Dan Boeckner's presence, it deserves to stay. Boeckner is musically significant as part of the recent, critically-acclaimed "Indie" band Wolf Parade, and thus a chronicle of his previous musical exploits demands relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.77.237 (talk) ; This signature was previously placed at the very top of the AFD, and has been moved by Dennisthe2 at 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because recreations suggest a determined audience who will work to keep it and hopefully improve it. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A small number of dedicated fans is not a sign of notability if they're that obscure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, firstly because look at what Dan Boeckner has done since his time leading Atlas Strategic. He's in one of the most notable indie bands, Wolf Parade. Also, the note of only 500 copies being made being a bad thing, that just means the label wasn't able to print more. The only time one has ever shown up on ebay it went for 75 USD, tell that doesn't add some notability. To back that up Rapute, Ye Minions! on eBay going for 75. Also the stir that the band makes, or the page on last.fm, it seems much larger than many other bands who have articles here. I'll find those bands if you would like. Mikqick 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Deletion standards are generally not subjective (i.e. just because someone thinks X is more/as notable as Y doesn't mean X should be kept). Reviewing WP:MUSIC, the only criteria it might pass is #5 (contains at least one notable member), but even that is borderline. Maybe merge/redirect to Dan Boeckner? --RaiderAspect 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, One of many numerous less needed articles than this is the Flashy Python and the Body Snatchers article. Why should it stay and this be deleted? Mikqick 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer - because nobody has yet nominated it for deletion. Check WP:AFD for instructions on how to do this (hint: scroll down until you see the instructions) - but make sure you review the reasons that an article should be deleted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Then why is this article so often up for deletion? Is it purely bad luck? Mikqick 03:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a sense, yes, it is purely a question of luck. Some articles that have no place on Wikipedia survive for months, even years, simply because no one finds them and bothers to AFD them. Others are deleted within days. The end result is the same, but the process just takes longer for some articles than others. --RaiderAspect 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do I need to continue to prove why this shouldn't be deleted? Mikqick 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer - If by prove, you mean that you are going to provide reliable sources that verify notability, especially according to WP:MUSIC, then yes, you still need to provide them - in the article. If you can do this, I will change my mind. Read those links for guidelines on how to do this. If, however, this is not the case, then no - in this latter case, my !vote, for one, will stand. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would a public announcement of the plan to reissue the two albums make it relevant? Does it have to take Pitchfork's ranting about something to make it 'fit' for wikipedia? Should I try to have Global Symphonic publically announce the upcoming reissue? Mikqick 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the looks of it, if GS makes the announcement, then there might be something - heavy emphasis on might. I cannot stress it enough: read up on WP:MUSIC, because the answers to your questions are in there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Atlas Strategic is a very notable British Columbian band, look at the official description of Wolf Parade on Sub Pop's site, "Band Boeckner of notable B.C. band Atlas Strategic. 72.161.50.57 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Above user has made no contributions outside this AFD. --RaiderAspect 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Is that relevant? Mikqick 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dan Boeckner per criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (T/C) 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would be fine with this as long as much of the Atlas Strategic information can be added and if the Rapture, Ye Minions! page is left. Also, once there is any new news that makes an Atlas Strategic page 'worthy' of wikipedia for it to be added. Okay? Mikqick 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Rapture has even less notability than the main article itself. An album that only sold 500 copies (for whatever reason) is not notable. --RaiderAspect 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable band. The fact that this article has until this point escaped deletion is a coincidence, not an indication of value. —Ocatecir Talk 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennis The Tiger ffm ✎talk 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scaryduck[edit]

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

First time author, not otherwise notable, article seems to have been written solely by subject and associates. 81.178.80.196 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. non notable BBC journalist and blogger. IMO a blogger award is not enough. Anyway a big clean-up (and removing non encyclopedic facts) should be done after this AfD. Cate | Talk 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it ironic that an internet entity like Wikpedia doesn't hold internet writers who have thousands of readers in the same regard as book authors with far smaller readerships? It's the same argument old encyclopeadias use against Wikipedia in a way. Why are book awards notable and blogger awards not? I'm not an associate of Scaryduck but bloggers are ever more important and deleting them is turning one's back on the future Wikipedia is supposed to exemplify. Most articles start off in a ramshackle way and gradually imporve, that's the whole idea. The category of bloggers is going to do the same thing. Nick mallory 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should check carefully Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are an huge number of blogger and an big number of popular blog, so notability must not depends on popular blog. Notability doesn't mean that if you publish a real books, you can have a wikipedia article, nor it is about numbers (Notability_is_not_popularity). For awards, see examples in Wikipedia:Notability (people): it depend on the type (and importance) of award. As an example, check some important movie awards and you will see that not all people have an article. And as third (and probably not a wikipolicy), an internet phenomena needs is less important to wikipedia: a simple search will give you the needed information (but it doesn't happen with a lot more article). Cate | Talk 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are 240,000 results for Scaryduck on Google. --Dreaded Walrus 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Guardian is a major broadsheet newspaper in Britain, it's hardly a trivial source. If it gives a website an award then it's a notable award. Popularity is not notability but someone with 240,000 Google hits is going to get looked up on Wikipedia, and if this article is deleted then those surfers won't find anything. On a wider point, Wikipedia is successful because it gives people the information they want and when it ceases to do that, and becomes an end in itself run by editors for themselves, then it will die as quickly as it has arisen. An internet entity which does not respond to the needs of its users is doomed. 203.108.239.12 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the subject of the article, I support its deletion. I was embarrassed about it being there in the first place as I felt I did not rise to selection criteria. I'm rather offended at being termed a non-notable journalist, mind you. Duckorange 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of secondary sources. It looks like the book is essentially self-published as well, casting doubts about it's validity as a source. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever other than he has a blog and has written what looks like a self-published book. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it looks like this is something of increasing notability. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And has since been blocked. --Dreaded Walrus 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep on the basis of the high quality of the content of the blog. I agree with nick mallory, that our standards for blogs are not attuned to reality. Unfortunately, I have no firm idea what we should use instead. I am reluctant to do it by ghits, because it is not the number of mentions that count, it is where the mentions are. There are various proposed webometrics of greater subtlety, but none that are generally accepted and available. But still f we need to distinguish in some way between blogs suitable for WP articles and those not suitable for WP articles (I avoid the word "notable" )
We can preserve the appearance of continuity by appropriately defining "reliable" and "published." Further, I note that WP:WEB says "the content itself [must] has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." This means not the blog itself--nobody need have said anything about it as a blog, but the content published on the blog. As a first approximation, interesting blogs will have content discussed elsewhere. (To be refined further for discussion) : DGG 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I guess then, seeing as how content from the author has been linked to by both B3ta and the BBC, both of which have wikipedia entries, that this counts as multiple non-trivial sources. Russ 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus). Nabla 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts Therapy[edit]

Martial Arts Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article reads like OR, lacks references, and even has a photoshopped picture of a ninja freud. RogueNinjatalk 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 scientific references in the article, and 7 references to scientific publications at the end that are part of the information in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by lacks references, or for that matter, "original research," since all the issues brought up in the article are derived from said scientific publications. --Scb steve 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has a bunch of external links, not references. Some of the links are dead, some are on random webhosts (ie, not good references), some are password protected, and some show that the article is counter-factual! (Ie, the link 5 says: "The total pattern of results strongly suggests that participation in power sports actually leads to an increase or enhancement of antisocial involvement in the form of elevated levels of violent as well as non-violent antisocial behaviour outside sports." Link 4 says the same thing. One of these references is another wiki article! RogueNinjatalk 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that "power sports" and martial arts are different? And that the possibility of learning martial arts may increase antisocial behavior is addressed in the article? Namely, the section referring to Bandura's social learning theory. Regarding the links, one was to a site that had published material by a Ph.D level university professor, one was previously accessible without password protection, and the remainder are PubMed abstracts of peer-reviewed articles. Further, you can clearly see references in the citations, such as (Endresen and Olweus, 2005), (Gleser, 1992), etc. --Scb steve 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article clearly needs work, but we should let it survive for now, keep an eye on it, attempt to improve it, and then nominate it again in say 3 months, if it proves impossible to improve. None of the nom's arguments lead me to conclude that this article can not be improved to the point of being worthy of staying. Jerry 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:OR by synthesis. There are references cited in the article, but none of which support the external existence of article's topic, Martial Arts Therapy as a subject recognized as a field unto itself by that name. The material in this article which is supported by reliable sources more properly belongs in the articles on the specific martial arts involved. I've also nominated the image of Freud's head photoshopped onto Bruce Lee's body for deletion, it's beyond silly. Nowhere in this article does the therapeutic benefits of martial arts go anywhere near Freudian psychodynamics. It just makes the whole article, and therefore the encyclopdeia, look juvenile. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because many use martial arts as a mean of therapy and therefore just improve it. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I use martial arts as a therapy of sorts. Click on bio to find out more. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:ILIKEIT is grounds for "strong keep" Pete.Hurd 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with many proprietary techniques, there are references dealing with the general subject, for the connection between exercise and mood is well-known. Of the refs given at the end of the article, 2 are dead links, 1 is a locally-restricted study--the only source given for POMS-- 1 is a personal web site, 1 was a self-ref to a WP article (now removed), and 4 were truly articles in peer-reviewed journals. At least 2 of the 4 said explicitly in the abstracts they were about traditional Judo, which is not the topic here.
I conclude that the term is not well-established, that it is a common phrase being used in a special meaning by a specific group of practitioners, and that it is self-advertisingin the guide of an article DGG 02:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pete.Hurd. --Dariusk 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to criticisms concerning references, revisions have been made, such as the inclusion of links to two full-length, peer-reviewed articles that used non-judo methods to treat juvenile delinquents. I haven't been able to find as good of a summary of the POMS as before, but any quick look will show it's a validated and widely used measure in psychological studies. I have also fixed the link to the UConn source, as that link has changed, and it is in working order now.
There are very specific reasons why martial arts stands distinct from other fitness methods or for other sports in terms of promoting psychosocial health, as explained in this article and at the references. Talking about the specific martial arts and their benefits on their own page is inappropriate since it gets into a tangentially related aspect of those arts, whereas this page focuses on potential benefits inherent to all arts. In fact, the issue of whether some arts are non-therapeutic is a notable controversy addressed here in this article, and would be lost if forced to be put into separate style pages. --Scb steve 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article still primarily an advertisement for the site Martial Arts Therapy.org which is a site advertising particular programs--even though the article is disguised and includes no external links, it uses the wording: "Martial Arts Therapy (hereafter referred to as MA-Therapy)" this is wording as a particular style of using martial arts, as is "MA-Therapy is a concept still in development. " but the references cited directly and through the bibliography listed in almost all the sources are talking about it in general, and use a variety of wordings for the concept. There is no consistent use of the title in the articles cited and listed or anywhere else. . The wording here is specific to this particular school of thought. Most of the article still is OR as the unique summarization of loosely related studies or as totally unsupported OR. If kept I will suggest a title change. DGG 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no basis to say that this is an advertisement for that site, especially since 1. I have no links to that site while being the article-starter, and 2. That site isn't even mentioned in the article itself. The usage of the term "martial arts therapy" is a codification of the concept "using martial arts to treat physical/psychological disorders," no different than "using horses to treat physical/psychological disorders" is called equine therapy. --Scb steve 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of yo-yo tricks[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate list that provides no information whatsoever about any of these tricks. It contains no information and no criteria for inclusion. This article may meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I listed it here anyway in case it was controversial. Hnsampat 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Geez, There's a site call Wikibooks! Use it! 142.58.101.27 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikibooks is for textbooks. It is not a dumping ground. Uncle G 00:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge since the use of the Yo-Yo is reasonably notable, a list of the various tricks associated with it would be appropriate. However, I do see that this list is not very much, as it just names the trick, with no description. I suggest adding descriptions in order to flesh out the contents. FrozenPurpleCube 00:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just reference more. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list of yo-yo tricks is not needed here. I see no reason to keep this page. A load of yo-yo tricks are not notable as far as I'm aware. Acalamari 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now to see if descriptions of the various tricks can be a[dded. If they can article could be useful for some people. If nothing is added then another look at deletion in future could be necessary. Davewild 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response FYI, this page has been in existence since 2004 and has pretty much looked the same in all of that time. In 3 years, if nobody's been able to add meaningful descriptions to this page, then I think it's time to pull the plug.--Hnsampat 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment explaining reasoning for DELETE I think there are two key reasons why this page simply has to go. First, as it stands, it is an unsourced, indiscriminate list with absolutely no substance whatsoever. It doesn't even define what each of these tricks is. The second and probably more important point, though, is the fact that this list has no hope of every being encyclopedic. Only one or two yo-yo tricks may pass Wikipedia's requirements for notability. All other additions to this page will be non-notable and will most likely have not been cited by any reliable source. As such, this page is a magnet for original research (which, in this case, will be people inventing their own yo-yo tricks and then posting them, which is what I suspect the page is right now). It has no hope of every being encyclopedic.--Hnsampat 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of your arguments as justification for deletion. Descriptions of the various tricks could be added to the page. References do exist ([9] and [10]. I'm not seeing any significant original research on the page right now, but if it were a problem, it's easy to deal with by requiring sources as is the usual practice. Sorry, but your claims that this page can't be encyclopedic just don't persuade me. I think this is just a page that attracts little attention, but it could be improved. At the most, merge it to Yo-yo. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatic Detach[edit]

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

no indication that it passes WP:MUSIC. Autobiographical. ccwaters 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Falls under the "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." With reviews/ interviews in many of the top industrial magazines/zines. As well as "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." With 5 releases on the notable Hive Records. 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment': notice two separate comments by the same IP which also happens to have similar edit histories as Ppudate. Anyway, please direct us to these unnamed articles. ccwaters 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: first comment was made about six months ago due to a previous delete opinion. Second comment made due to this one. I Wasn't actually attempting to vote twice. Ppudate 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may only vote once. Rockstar915 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No one made a comment about Ppudate. It was only about the IP's multiple votes. Rockstar915 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Discogs article states notable history and release history (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Pneumatic+Detach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment We should probably do a check user. This all smells of sock puppetry. Rockstar915 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Pneumatic Detach performed 2 years as a headling act at Notable North American electronic music festival C.O.M.A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.O.M.A.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

  • Very strong delete. I checked on LexisNexis, google and nothing notable has been written about this band. Discogs is not a notable source, as anyone can add their releases to the site. So by nature the article fails WP:A. The articles cited are trivial. Furthermore, Hive Records is not a notable record label, so the band does not fit criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC. Essentially, it just fails every other aspect of WP:MUSIC. All all this not to mention that this AfD has been vandalized into oblivion. Rockstar915 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #1 if we are uncertain of C.O.M.A.'s validity then why is there a Wiki article about it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.O.M.A.) #2 if discogs is not a valid source why is it listed as a resource under WP:MUSIC. #3 if the pneumatic detach wiki article is not note worthy why has it been a Wiki article since 01:41, 28 May 2006 with many contributors? 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. a) C.O.M.A. does not have an article, per your link. b) Discogs is a good place to check validity of record labels, etc. It is not a reliable secondary source, as anyone can add their album information, thus making it a primary source. c) there is no relationship between time on Wikipedia and notability. By all counts, this article fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It turns out that C.O.M.A. does have an article. The wrong link was added. However, please show me where playing in a festival, notable or not, fits unter WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you mind telling me why in WP:MUSIC it states "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;" and User:Ccwaters has commented on the article before and was Ok with it, nothing has really changed about except some small facts but now there is a problem? In addition there are many other "artists" in wikipedia with much less credability and yet you are targeting this article? if there is a problem here you need to do some reviewing of other similar articles. 02:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)
  • COMMENT My silence doesn't mean I've changed my mind. Its great that you FINALLY have references, but you ignored 2-3 past requests for them. It took the threat of deletion for you to produce them. As far as the criteria at WP:MUSIC the only one that this article MIGHT PASS is the label one: is HIVE a notable label? I don't know. The criterium are only guidelines, but that fact that this article meets only one as a borderline maybe and that the article is largely autobiographical says a lot. BTW pointing out other articles that should be deleted is no way to justify you own. With that said, I'll be quiet and let others chime in. ccwaters 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for the comment. Per my research, Hive Records is not a notable label. Pneumatic Detach is the only band on the label with a Wikipedia page, and none of the artists have any reliable sources written about them. I'm still waiting for some non-trivial sources or some other reason why this band might pass WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition I feel this article should stay because it falls under WP:MUSIC "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Examples are (http://www.industrialnation.com), and many online magazines. I can list more if you need them.

http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=8335_0_2_0_C http://www.regenmag.com/Reviews-521-Pneumatic-Detach-viscera.html http://www.virus-mag.com/index.php?a=3729 http://www.pneumaticdetach.com/press.htm http://www.yip.org/squid/reviews/pneumaticdetach/viscera.htm 

"02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Undecided (currently) - I am not famililar with the area but there are alot of CD compilations listed on the site. Also, how signiifcant is this C.O.M.A. festival - anyone here from Montreal? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only criteria of WP:MUSIC that this band might pass is the label. I have a feeling Hive Records is not notable, but that's another discussion. It fails the other 10 criteria out right. The article is overwhelmingly autobiographical and the newly added references are questionable (some primary). This is the only comment I'll make on this AFD. I challenge the author to do the same: make your statement and then let others contribute. There is no need to rebut EVERYONE'S comments. If the article is truly worthy then others will show their support to keep it. AND DO NOT PROCLAIM, like you did before, that my silence afterwards signifies a change in my stance. Thanks. ccwaters 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Only appearance in Google News Archive is in a festival listing -- a festival which itself fails to garner any more results.--Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for various reasons listed by "keepers" throughout discussion. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can you please expand on your reasoning or how this group fulfills WP:MUSIC? Every keep reason given was, as far as I'm concerned, addressed. Rockstar915 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems like a useful article and someone went through the trouble of keeping it, so I just want help out a fellow article-creating Wikipedian. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? has been blocked for sockpuppetry and for disruptive edits. Rockstar915 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newstalk[edit]

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

claim to notability is 'only all talk radio station in the Republic of Ireland' killing sparrows 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== There is nothing notable or newsworthy! and is unreferenced with old news about a presenters dificulty from 2006. Recitation of programming schedule is silly padding of a dull article and seems to fail to meet the notability guideline WP:CORP Approve deletion 10:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable national radio station, the Irish equivalent of something like talkSPORT. The article could so with a bit of citing and tidying up, though. EliminatorJR Talk 10:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree it needs more citations and references to prove notability. If these are added then I would !vote "keep" but at the moment it fails WP:V. --Vintagekits 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per EliminatorJR's reasoning. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ironically for the statement contained in the nomination - 'only all talk radio station in the Republic of Ireland' is good enough for me. - fchd 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EliminatorJR. Acalamari 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Radio stations with a significant broadcast area are notable. --Darksun 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Davewild 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not exclusively talk. On weekend evenings it is padded out with music. It is irritating in the number of advt. breaks which are self promoting of itself, truely navel gazing. talkSPORT equivalents appear on all radio stations, as is recognised as a cheap method of having the public fill up airtime. Sports talk presence from 19-22 daily is an shrewd economic way to run a radio station especially if listeners pay 30 cent for texts to pad the program and email comment is not encouraged.

Thus there is nothing original or inovative in the station. It is just one of many forgetable, non notable radio stations, which is not reaching its' advertising quota. Other contributors to this debate are merely saying "aye" without rational reasoning. Their recommendations are as fans who say nothing rather than neutral rational editors. We could fill wikipedia with worldwide similar niche commercial advertising stations so Deletion per notability guideline WP:CORP as non notable is merited. 23:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Extreme keep. Long standing radio station (in its Dublin local format), now a national radio station in a non-insignificant country - this is its "claim to notability". Doesn't meet any criteria of deletion, under any imaginable circumstances. Large listenership. Need I go on? I also note that the delete vote above accusing sheep-like tactics, and which appears to be an attack on the stations content and no justification of why to delete... hasn't actually got a person attached to it. --Kiand 19:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* Kiand claims that a five year old radio station is a "Long standing radio station"!! Where are the listnership figures quoted. Tune on FM band circa 100 MHz upwards and you will find many stations of non notable worth and uninteresting to the majority of listneners and also correspondingly also to the advertiser. Newstalk is heavily self promoting, implying a lack of paying advertisers, so just another attempt by business interests to garner revenue from a "new" source.

As there are a multitude of radio stations seeking advertising, it is not unique and non-encyclopediac and merits deletion. Zubenzenubi 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also find that all of those stations "circa 100MHz upwards" that are licenced in Ireland have articles on here, including those with significantly less than 10% reach (Dublin's Country Mix 106.8 for example, as well as those with less than 10% that are well below 100MHz - Lyric FM. I'd also like to suggest that the unsigned, anonymous IP vote above that has exactly the same sentiments is, in fact, you - duplicate voting is extremely frowned on here.
Listernship figures are available from the BCI, and are both quouted and referenced in the article.
Self promotion, perceived lack of advertisers, and an apparent lack of uniqueness do not, under any circumstances, classify as reasons for deletion. I'd suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies before waging what seems to be some surreal, one-man-war. --217.67.139.104 08:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Zubenzenubi HAS voted twice, IP votes or not - [12] and [13]. --Kiand 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items and concepts in FLCL[edit]

Items and concepts in FLCL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of FLCL, so this nomination is not related to my opinion.

The article is entirely unsourced original research. I proposed that it be merged with FLCL a few months ago, but the truth is that anything in this article that is both notable and verifiable is already in the FLCL article. The notability of the "items and concepts" is unclear (as far as I know, no academic publications have explored them). The only source for most of this information is the collective speculation of the authors -- even using the DVD commentaries wouldn't be acceptable for the intent of this page.

In order to convince me that this article should be kept, I would need to see that 1) these items and concepts are notable -- that they have been discussed in reliable sources in a manner that is not trivial, and 2) they can be proven to not simply be the interpretations of fans. Leebo T/C 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The ideas on the page are direct observation from the series. It's mostly like "this and that happens here and there". I beleive it should be merged instead of deleted. When talking about a show, the show itself should be considered valid source. As for the DVD commentaries, I don't understand your point in saying it's not acceptable. Wilderns 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The information is not just observations; a lot of it is original research -- interpretations of what the directors meant without a source to confirm that meaning. The information also needs to be notable, being info from FLCL doesn't make it notable. And what I meant about the DVD commentaries is that a lot of the DVD trivia is in the FLCL article, and it doesn't go this into depth with the symbolism. Leebo T/C 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, I wonder what makes something in a work of fiction "notable". Tjstrf pointed out the "possibility" (rotflol) of a reviewed academic paper delving into FLCL, but that's just too absurd. Something out of a Monty Python sketch. In browsing Wikipedia, it looks to me quite as much of a (sub)cultural reference library as a strictly academic reference. However, I'm nobody to ruin the game - if that is what's wanted, let's delete 90% of the ruddy thing, and only leave the "notable" stuff from reviewed scientific articles. 195.38.101.16 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, if you read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll see that a lot of the articles on fiction (especially contemporary fiction) fall short of what is expected in a Wikipedia article. The idea is not to set the standard by what already exists and deal with it. Also, deleting 90% of the original research of fiction articles would not have any effect on the thousands and thousands of proper articles that don't deal with fiction. In short, the "(sub)cultural reference library" aspect is exactly the kind of thing this is aiming to clean up. Leebo T/C 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, one really can't argue with that. Do what thy oh so holy policies suggest, but as a user I fail to see how this would raise the "quality" of Wikipedia. But well, let's be thorough. In that spirit, why not delete all articles on anything but scientific theories and classical art (the kind that has an extensive base of academic papers debating it)? That would make Wikipedia just the best there is! Just defeats the whole purpose of having it on a web2 basis. Why not gather a bunch of professors to do the work for us. I quit. 195.38.101.16 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Putting aside the caustic sarcasm, did you read the link I put below: Wikipedia is not for plot summaries? I don't think one can make a case that this article is more than a plot summary. FLCL has an article. I'm not trying to get rid of that. Leebo T/C 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1 important point that I should have mentioned in my reason is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. The parts of this that are not original research are essentially summaries of stuff that happens, without much commentary. Leebo T/C 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although in complex or lengthy series, it is often appropriate to devote a page to describing terminology or plot as part of the wider subject, this one not only fails to fulfill that function but is made up of Original Research.
    FLCL was written to be purposefully vague, and it succeeded. There is no way to write an article explaining FLCL's meaning based solely on the work itself. (If FLCL ever becomes the subject of a reviewed academic paper or two that delved into the symbolism, then maybe we could write it.) A few parts, such as pieces of the section on N.O., should probably be merged to the main article. --tjstrf talk 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I speed read, and anyway, I think I voted to keep 50 articles, because it's a nice even number. Anyway, the main thing that I was seeing was that some people seemed to want to keep it, so as I prefer more articles to few, I thought those arguments seemed valid and I throw my lot with them. Regards, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Astor, Baroness Astor of Hever[edit]

Elizabeth Astor, Baroness Astor of Hever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. While nobility is, I suppose, assertion enough of notability to prevent speedy, I can find absolutely nothing to indicate that this person actually is notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that this person's lineage and spouse are not enough to pass WP:BIO or merit inclusion in Wikipedia. For what it is worth, I was the one that contested the prod. I knda wanted to gauge community feelings here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; notability isn't venereal, and the sum total of this lady's life seems to be that she was born a minor member of the British aristocracy, married a minor member of the British aristocracy, and had a couple kids. Frankly, I'd be curious as to the grounds upon which the prod was contested. RGTraynor 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I do not agree with the contention expressed on the guideline for nobility talk page that everyone with a title is inherently notable and that their spouses are as well. However, she is presently the wife of a fairly important politician, so I wold expect she has been written about, so someone might be able to find articles about her activities sufficient to justify an article. The wife of U.S. politician Joe Lieberman, Hadassah Lieberman, has an article, for instance, with only 2 references. Edison 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It would have been contested on the basis of being opposed to long-standing policy. I'm not sure what distinguishes a minor member; even if it were decided that mere UK Barons are not all notable, then do we include the richer? the ones with the longest lineage? the ones that are offshoots of the best known houses? -- those interested can and have debated for generations on this sort of thing, and therefore there is a very good reason for having a firm guideline to follow. I think I have a very rough understanding of the UK, but no knowledge elsewhere, and each country will be different. (In this particular case, she's from a rich but parvenue house; but it terms of prominence, and historical notability, the Astors are probably notable specifically. Others will disagree, perhaps sharply) If the guideline is to be challenged, it should be on that talk page. It makes sense to me to keep it--it does not refer to all that many people. I could understand a decision that if she married into a non-noble family, and her children were not noble, then her children would not get articles of their own. DGG 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm hunting for the policy you cite, and if I'm missing the obvious I apologize, but I'm afraid I can't find it. Could you please put up a link to it for participants to look at? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion of every AfD on these topics in last 6 months. <personal view>Considering the inconclusiveness of discussion on the actual policy pages, this seems to be where policy is made. Of course, there's nothing to stop us from changing direction. </personal view> DGG 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG above. The UK nobility is small enough that we'll never get 10,000 articles cluttering up the encyclopedia, and (for better or worse) is still of interest to a lot of people. Elected hereditary peers are rare enough (there are only 92 of them) that to be both the daughter of one and married to another is interesting in itself, whilst the Astors are an interesting family. I agree it could be expanded with some details of what she's actually done in her own right, but that's not grounds for deleting it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above on British nobility. She's an Astor, even if by affinity, and that's enough for me. 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being part of a notable family doesn't in and of itself make one notable. I'd imagine there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Astors in this world. Do they all get articles? szyslak (t, c) 09:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, though, I think this issue should be decided by English editors. Those of us in countries without an established nobility probably don't know how inherently notable a hereditary peer is. I'm sure the article can be expanded - she must be patron of lots of things. StAnselm 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Astor family, an article which can easily contain a line or two of information such as parentage for all minor members of the family. This is a widely-accepted solution for the "family notable, member not" dilemma. --Dhartung | Talk 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as for the love of God a baroness, someone with a royal title, is significant and part of a lineage! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baroness is not a royal title, at least not in the UK. It's a noble title, which is not the same thing. --Metropolitan90 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have kept some nutty one election politicians recently, surely someone who's house was used for the greatest 20th century British poltical scandal is notable? Rgds, - Trident13
  • Comment right, there ought to be no discrimination against major historical figures of past periods. We have , besides minor state politicians, many articles about 20th century heirs and heiresses of no importance whatsoever except their money. This is not an argument that othercrapexists, as I have ben questioning the N of the politicians here, and will soon start asking about the heirs. Those articles shouldn't exist. This one should. DGG 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG & others. Johnbod 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. EliminatorJR Talk 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belfield Park[edit]

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

Football park with no apparent claim to notability killing sparrows 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa[edit]

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

Non-notable, see WP:ORG CA387 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no independant sources. given that meetings are now few, and it was seen as a vehicle for scientists' irony, rather than standing up for the stupid, and we can't get good references within a year, it needs to go. Callix 12:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Densa now has three New York Times references and a book in the article as references. Densa gets 1.6 million Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia. A humorous alternative to Mensa, which has been around for decades. Edison 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Edison's reasoning. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' thanks for the referencing, Edison. --W.marsh 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where are you getting the 1.6 million hits figure from? The organization seems defunct now (archived site), which makes me question whether it's worth having an article on. Despite two references in the Times, the last one was back in 1999. --CA387 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does it matter when the reference was? Wikipedia is not just for things in the news lately. --W.marsh 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. Just because may not be active now does not mean it should be deleted. References now establish notability. Davewild 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If some organization had multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, then absolutely ceased to exist one day after the last reference was published, it would still be notable, because notability is permanent. Edison 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Edison.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense to a brief section in the Mensa article, and redirect. "Densa" is not notable as a real organisation, but it is notable as a common pun with 40,000 Google results (there are 1.6 million results if you don't include "Mensa" in the search, because you end up catching countless pages with densa, which is "dense" in Spanish, Italian, Latin and other languages). — Chameleon 08:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoaneta Kyuchukova (Antoinette)[edit]

Antoaneta Kyuchukova (Antoinette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally tagged as a speedy, but then it started to look a little better, so I prodded it instead. The prod was then removed, and so I am bringing it here. I am just not convinced that being head of a student union confers notability- there are a few web sources, but they all constitute blogs, and are not third party anyway. Delete from me. J Milburn 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not the sort of article where truly independent references can be expected--the most that would be found would by Oxford student publications. Probably almost all will be blogs. DGG 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then surely, they are non notable, unless notability is automatically conveyed by such a thing? J Milburn 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --DMG413 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; sooner or later "the first <insert race here> student to be President of <insert student union name here>" ceases to be notable enough for coverage in reliable sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 07:01Z
  • Delete as non-notable and lacking reliable sources. --RaiderAspect 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just augment reasons for notability and provide more sources. Sincerely, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the point is that there won't be independent sources of such a non-notable person. Feeeshboy 01:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until she graduates and does something notable, she will not be. But this will then be a factor in her bio.DGG 02:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hosinshu[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no Google hits for the subject of this article, "Hosinshu". The article makes it clear that this is a martial art that was only recently invented by one person. There are no references and the lack of hits implies very few people use it or are talking about it. andy 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, Unrefed looks like was created as an ad. --Nate 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably was. The article originally began with this line: "This Article is Hosted with the permission & information from the developer of Hosinshu Martial Arts only. Please do not edit this." andy 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that & replaced with the {{advert}} tag --Nate 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep, because martial arts develop over time and so even new developments are worth mentioning when concerning something that is significant to pretty much all human civilizations. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (user blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet) --Ashenai 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unchurched Belt[edit]

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

Original research. Just 272 Google hits, most of them Wikipedia mirrors. Just about the only non-Wikipedia use of the term I could find was from a single paper written in 1985, mentioned here. szyslak (t, c) 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my original comment that the article is original research. I wrote it as I was looking through the first reference, which doesn't use the term. However, I still support deleting the article, as the term "unchurched belt" is little used outside Wikipedia and thus not notable. szyslak (t, c) 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Religion in the United States. It's an interesting academic term (5 Google Scholar hits, all referencing the original paper) but mostly relevant as an illustration. --Dhartung | Talk 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because terms like this are helpful for people doing research on such topics. And on that, ta ta for now! :) --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not original research in the Wikipedia sense at all. The term was used in 1985 by Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge according to "Accounting for the Uncounted", one of the references cited in the article. --Eastmain 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge The term is not original research as per Eastmain. However not sure how notable it is and if no more can be added a merge into Religion in the United States could be appropriate. Davewild 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Stark and Bainbridge are well known authors.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if the term is not much used, the conclusion is an interesting one. It is not original research, since is is based on a statistical source which is cited. However it is a stub. That might warrant a merge, but certainly not a delete. Peterkingiron 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Infidels[edit]

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

Has been nominated for speedy deletion (presumedly on the grounds that it didn't establish notability, see WP:WEB). I don't believe that it really meets the speedy deletion criteria, so I am bringing it here. In any case, the article has been around for some time, it is linked from multiple articles, and has been kept after this discussion in 2004. For the record, Internet Infidels (www.infidels.org) has an Alexa rank of 84.583; its discussion board (www.iidb.org) 95.460. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This site is really well known in the web world both by atheist/humanists and particularly christians where an awful lot of links are to refutations of stuff on this site. Whilst I agree its not the best written article there are plenty more sources to add but care is needed as as with the Richard Carrier article it can be come a case of "us versus them" in the links. As I'm not a deletion review expert I assume the no vote means this is just a discussion on the merits of the article. Sophia 08:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of; every nomination for deletion is more a discussion about the article's merits than a vote. By the "no vote" comment I intended to stress that my nomination was meant neither to support its deletion, nor its keeping; it was only made for procedural reasons. - Mike Rosoft 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think that this site should be kept, and that the Richard Carrier article should be merged into it, because i think he is notable only for his involvement with this site. DGG 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate website operating for twelve years with monthly site-traffic exceeding 600,000 unique hits. website has an international audience. website is pure HTML with no bells and whistles. the article is little more than a stub and needs work. obligatory disclosure: member since 1997. παράδοξος 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and often-referred-to website, well worth an article. I'd like more in the article, though! Snalwibma 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an oft-referenced website in its topic area. 73 Google Scholar hits 22 Google News Archive hits Actually gets slightly more results than "secular web", incidentally, which is a generic phrase not always referring to the website. Article should be cleaned up, it has a very amateurish tone. --Dhartung | Talk 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. Acalamari 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dipole antigravity[edit]

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

Fails on notability and possibly on original research grounds as well. The article appears to have been written solely to promote the author's theory, which failed to gain acceptance in the physics community (see the author's note on the talk page). Jim E. Black 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - Fails WP:SCIENCE. No evidence of notability. (It does pass WP:NOR on the technicality of peer reviewed journal publication.) It also fails WP:ATT due to the total lack of any independent primary or secondary sources. --EMS | Talk 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken about WP:NOR; however, since the Physica Scripta article is behind a subscription wall, I can't tell how much of this came from there and how much was invented ex nihilo. I suspect much of the material is not in the arXiv preprint, either. Anville 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt. Even without WP:NOR your other reasons apply, and are more than adequate for the removal of this article. (This article is one reason why I frowm on WP:NOR, and love the idea of merging it into WP:ATT.) --EMS | Talk 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Gnixon 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- one person's theory. --Pjacobi 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Getting some theory or experiment published in one of the thousands of scientific journals does not ensure getting an article in Wikipedia. I would have several articles if that were the case! The article has never been cited by another scientist, per discussion at the Wikipedia Reference Desk: Science. Edison 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's improvement PeaceNT 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carrier[edit]

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

probably NN except for Internet Infidels, and I do not think that II is of sufficient importance that it alone is enough to make him notable for WP purposes. Contested speedy--probably should have gone here directly DGG 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I !voted Weak Keep for Internet Infidels). DGG 08:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As Carrier often debates outside the infidels forum it would be POV to include all his links there. I'm considering attempting to flesh this out a bit but we have had horrendous problems in the past as this guy is positively hated by some Christians and we run into WP:BIO issues. Sophia 10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced. Article contains no reliable sources demonstrating notability. No Google News Archive results for "richard.carrier empty.tomb", and his other book is apparently self-published. --Dhartung | Talk 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the criteria for notability? According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), it has nothing to do with whether the man has an impressive CV or if you think the website he writes for is famous or not. The criteria is whether there has been enough external notice from intellectually independent sources so that we can write a verifiable and neutral article without having to engage in original research. Sources that establish notability are things like: a critical response to his book, a response to his review by Earl Doherty, and a mention on the apologetic website "Tektonics". These are the kind of stuff that establish notability because they are completely independent of the subject, and independent from each other, and therefore can help us write a neutral account of his views. --Merzul 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considerable web presence, extremely notable - just because he doesn't have a PhD or a formal university post does not make him not-notable. One of his books is self-published, but that is not all that surprising, given the medium he works in and the ways he works. He is an internet person, not a member of the formal academic "history" or "philosophy" club. He is also very strongly disliked in certain christian circles - so beware POV-pushing attempts to delete this article! Gnusmas 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This guy has a lot of ghits and although I profoundly disagree with his views he has a perfect right to express them. But he's a PhD candidate (who BTW claims to have an "office" at the University of Colombia!) and one book published by a vanity publisher and a lot of bloggery/web presence is certainly not enough for notabilty. We need reliable published sources ("intellectually independent" sources have nothing to do with it, the question is are they reliable and published - mentions on websites aren't enough). I'd be surprised if these can't be found in sufficient quantity, and if they are then I will of course change my vote. User:SOPHIA is a v experienced editor and I have no doubt that if they exist she will find them. NBeale 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the guidelines, intellectual independence has everything to do with it. You are confusing importance with Wikipedia:Notability. --Merzul 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gnusmas and Merzul. Not much else to say. Clearly meets notability, lots of google hits, IMDB page, editor-in-Chief of a website with a high google ranking and a wikipedia article. -Andrew c 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable atheist thinker and expert on the historicity of Jesus. Laurence Boyce 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if he is indeed notable there should be reliable published sources that establish this, referenced in the article. Whether people like or dislike his ideas has nothing to do with it. The IMDB page shows an appearance along with many others in a documentary, and being former editor of a website (which I think was in fact self-published?) is not per se enough for notability. BTW: no reputable scholar considers him an expert on the Historicity of Jesus - Jesus as Myth is lunatic fringe stuff on a par with young earth creationism. We should vote on the basis of what is in the article. NBeale 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jesus as Myth is lunatic fringe stuff on a par with young earth creationism. Whereas the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, and then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky . . . Laurence Boyce 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...is true iff Jesus is the Son of God, as believed by c2bn people. The ideas may look a bit strange, but so does QM NBeale 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....but QM has the photoelectric effect whereas Christianity has the power of prayer. And what about the 4bn that don't believe??? Sophia 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and besides, more than half of Americins are creationists, so we have to take that seriously too? Laurence Boyce 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely. Even if he is on a lunatic fringe (which he isn't), he is notable, and that's that. Snalwibma 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other keeps. Acalamari 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Anyone interested in this area will come to know Carrier's work, as it stands out among the literature in the field for both is accesssibility and noteworthyness.Giovanni33 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Coverage in published sources is limited but not trivial, and I think his significant online presence tips the balance in favour of notability. EALacey 07:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ^^James^^ 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this meets any sane interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. RFerreira 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ervin[edit]

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

Non-notable person - surely we don't have a Wikipedia entry on the General Managers of every major radio station Richard 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by non adminstrator, Tellyaddict 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

740 Park Avenue[edit]

740_Park_Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I originally prod'd it. While quality of article has significantly improved, it still has too many opinions (5th vs. Park Avenue for example) and what seems like fact is not referenced. Yes, books and articles have been referenced but they are not linked to specific facts such as it allegedly having the highest ceillings or who the architechts were. This article need not be written more than once to be properly written and readers need not go through all the listed references to verify the alleged facts. Postcard Cathy 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, even speedy keep, quick Googling confirms the general claims (but the article needs a rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV). [14][15][16] (including paysites). A notable building from construction to present day. --Dhartung | Talk 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, Postcard Cathy, the quality of the article is not a rationale for deletion. It needs cleanup and other attention, but the topic is notable. This wasn't the proper route to getting it fixed. AFD is not for content disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - listed as one of the most significant buildings by architect Rosario Candela, and article establishes notability. The article probably needs some cleanup, but that's not a matter for AfD. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I live 4000 miles away from this building and I'd already heard of it. Postcard Cathy's reasoning seems like a (inadvertent) bad faith nom. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as mentioned, AFD is not the proper avenue for cleanup requests, and the article proves notability. JavaTenor 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable, AFD is not cleanup. --W.marsh 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the other speedy keeps. Acalamari 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day[edit]

Abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unnecessary article on one aspect of a book that has yet to prove lasting value. Abstruse topics within a work of fiction should be included in that book's article, they do not require a lengthy, separate article. Ipsenaut 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge; this article was split out from the main article on Against the Day after considerable debate. The material should be kept; much of it is quite useful, and comparable to other efforts such as the featured article on List of cultural references in The Cantos. I am neutral as to whether it is maintained separately or as part of the article. A Musing (formerly Sam)
  • Strong Keep Nominator is wrong on every count. When a book garners as much serious critical attention as this one does (see the looooong list of reviews at the bottom of Against the Day) from just about every major publication that reviews books), the book can well deserve more than one article about it. This has been happening with all of Pynchon's books for decades, and hardly any of his books have gone out of print. In fact, not only are they reprinted -- books are written about them, as the Amazon list I just linked to will show. Abstruse topics in the book are hardly just "one aspect." The nature and meaning of the abstruse topics is intimately connected with the themes of the book, and there is no settled consensus opinion among the critics so far as to how the book's themes and abstruse topics fit together. So this has become the primary topic of most of the reviews. This novel is one of a relatively small number (see Category:References in literary works) that are both of proven importance (as well as we can prove any contemporary novel -- by citing the enormous attention it has received), that are widely known to be difficult to understand and where understanding the abstruse references is key to understanding the novel. I don't know how you could adequately cover this encyclopedic subject without this article in addition to the main article on the book. I initially opposed splitting this article off from the main article on the book, but both articles are valuable and could not now fit well into one Wikipedia page. Nor should they be shortened. They will both change in time as the critics eventually form something closer to a consensus on the book. Noroton 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the literary merit of this book. However, this article is nothing more than a depository for links to related articles. Readers can research these subjects on their own. This may not be Wikipedia policy, but I believe we agree that Wikipedia is not Cliffs Notes. On a more serious note, could you show me another article that is solely composed of links to others, with no explanation given? I have never seen one before and I don't see why this should set the precedent. Ipsenaut 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Readers can research these subjects on their own" applies to everything in Wikipedia. Readers sometimes use lists for easier research. If the article were renamed "List of abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day" that should completely satisfy your objection to it being nothing more than a "depository for links" (which in Wikipedia are usually called "lists") but it would make the lengthy title even lengthier to no useful purpose. I can show you dozens of articles composed solely or almost solely of links to others, usually with the two words "List of" as the first words in the title. There's List of school districts in Connecticut. Want more?
If these topics figure into the plot of the book, they can remain in the book's article. The items on this list share no common ground. Honestly, just linking a bunch of years? Does that do anyone any good? Simply enough, if these topics aren't abstruse-- Colorado?-- then they don't belong here. If they are so unique, they surely merit inclusion on the novel's page. Ipsenaut 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "plot of the book"? The plot of the book is a labyrinth, extremely hard to summarize and impossible to summarize with the details that would be required to include this information. Really, the plot summary would be longer than this article is. Please read through to the bottom of this discussion, because you're making points that have already been answered (concerining year links, for instance). Noroton 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even were the book never to sell another copy, the stature of Pynchon in 20th/21st century literature ensures that it will be the subject of study for many, for a long time. Part of the nature of the writing is the often seamless merging of fact and fiction. The article provides a single point of reference for readers who wish to investigate topics in the book, many of which fall well outside the category of general knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.84.57.149 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep– I doubt this could fit within the Against the Day article itself. After more of the literary types have written about the book, it should be possible to craft an encyclopedic article about it which satisfies WP:NOR and incorporates references to these "abstruse topics" in a more natural way. Anville 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Among the "abstruse topics" are 28 places, including New York City and Paris, The 30 individual years when the story takes place, 15 historical events and people, including Pancho Villa and the Mexican Revolution, 35 scientific theories and scientists, including Marco Polo and imaginary numbers, and 23 other topics, including poison gas and Buddhism. This is self-evidently nonsense. As for the content of the article, the topics are merely listed. A reader of Pynchon wishing to find out more about World War I (near the top of the list) could go to that article just as well directly. If kept, a title change will be proposed--and an edit made.DGG 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling "self evidently nonsense" what other editors have discussed and thought over probably a lot longer than you have. A reader of Pynchon that wants to look up one topic here would likely want to look up many topics here. Clicking on them here is more helpful than forcing the reader to type them all in. Also, it is much easier for the reader who forgets a topic or can't think of just the right subject or doesn't always know the Wikipedia name for the subject, which is occasionally different from Pynchon's reference. Please see the very, very extensive history and discussion on this article and the related one. It's all been discussed before. Please review WP:CIV. Noroton 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect to be able to give my own opinion here, independent of what others may have said, and even if I know myself to be in a very small minority. if we come to opposite conclusions it does not imply that either of us is uncivil. DGG 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said precisely what I thought was (mildly) uncivil and put it in quotes, and it wasn't the fact that we disagreed. You are, of course, entitled to reinvent the wheel as many times as you want, but you'd save us both trouble if you bothered to see the past discussion in the talk pages of both articles about the book.Noroton 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like References in Pynchon's Against the Day. With all due respect to the compilers, it really is absurd to label Paris, Colorado, Marco Polo and the year 1900 "abstruse topics". That's more a problem with the title than with the content, though. The article would also benefit from some trimming -- rather than listing every single year covered by the narrative, it could simply give a range and let people follow the links from year to year if they want to -- but that's an editorial matter that doesn't require AFD. —Celithemis 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very open to a name change and to a different way of presenting the years. The only reason there are year links in the article is to help readers who may not be familiar with the fact that Wikipedia has year articles and to make it as easy as possible for people to get to them. I'm putting that suggestion for a name change on the article's talk page. Noroton 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day#Changing the article name. Noroton 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems it would be quite useful for a reader interested in researching the relevant topics in depth, and it's long enough to suggest that it's better as its own page than remerged into the main page for the book. Not every book should be treated the same, and it seems this particular book has a unique need for such a page. There are reasons why such a page should be edited, and improved upon, but not deleted or merged.zadignose 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, meets WP:BIO. Majorly (hot!) 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Phelps[edit]

Chance Phelps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Being killed in action does not make an individual notable.--Looper5920 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally put a notablity tag on the page and the nominator is correct, being killed in action does not make a person notable.--Joebengo 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Simply non-notable. Ale_Jrbtalk 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he meets WP:BIO, per [17]. Doesn't matter why he got non-trivial news coverage. --W.marsh 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does seem to meet WP:BIO as per W.marsh. Davewild 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he in particular was the subject of major media attention he's notable. In this case, far more than the two mentions. There will be many more besides those in Google News. DGG 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this person meets qualifications in WP:BIO. He has recieved significant awards, is the subject of several media articles (including PBS), and two creative works. I'm also pending permission from another newspaper to reference thier articles. --Bahamut0013 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7 by RyanGerbil10. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Beaumont[edit]

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

Seems to lack so much in notability. The place seems to be, after a bit of research, pretty minor. I don't see any obvious place where this can be redirected to either. Maybe into Chailland, although it isn't clear if the place is in the region of Pays de la Loire or in Normandy. Botley Crew 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce (University of Toronto)[edit]

Commerce_(University_of_Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Reads like advertising for the University in question. Also does not adhere to the Nobility criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celendin (talk • contribs) 2007/04/08 11:59:03

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dufferin Mall[edit]

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

NN example of the many medium size, non distinctive malls in Toronto, lack of any special features in its stores and otherwise; no sources of any sort and no reason to think there will be. DGG 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep 567,000 sq feet isn't small by any means of the imagination. However, the article does need significant improvment to justify notability and history to make it acceptable to remain. Thewinchester (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems to have meaningful third-party coverage [18]. Some seem to be about the mall in a non-trivial way. I think we could write a decent article here. --W.marsh 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, in its present condition, the article is useless, but the information and notability is there. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having gross leasable area less than 800,000 square feet means it is not a superregional mall, so it is primarily of local significance. See also WP:MALL which has been tagged as rejected and historical, but which discusses the different recognized classes of malls. Edison 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has less leasable area because it is an urban mall. Though, I agree this article is weak. I think we can increase the value of the article if some attention is paid to it. This is a major mall (second largest in the old city of Toronto). This is definitely worth keeping.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffersonian Model[edit]

Jeffersonian_Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • No citations for information included in the article. --Stingray23464
  • Delete as original research, the words "Jeffersonian model" are used to describe very different and disparate things in the literature (e.g. "a nation of yeoman farmers", for one). If this is a primary meaning of the phrase, Google isn't cooperating. There may be some merit in the concept per se but from what I see this isn't even a consensus view of the Jefferson presidency, let alone a widely accepted "model". --Dhartung | Talk 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Stingray23464
  • Delete, or merge usable information into Jacksonian Era. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep James MacGregor Burns is probably the leading historian on (US presidential) leadership and this usage of Jeffersonian Model seems similar to the one in his Presidential Governance (which I haven't read) and the feel of the hierarchy in the article is similar to his work in Leadership (which I read last year but don't have with me). There are lots of other meanings for "Jeffersonian Model" as you can see in Google Books, but I'd listen to Burns before any other presidential scholar. I pulled up an article from The American Historical Review on Roosevelt which included quite a bit on Burns' idea, and I put that into the lead. This clarifies which meaning is used in the article. If someone has any relevant Burns book, they will be able to verify that the usage in the article is the same as his, and if possible add citations to other parts of the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless Burns has posited a "Jeffersonian Model" specifically, then your linking of these two concepts is synthesis. We should be reporting on presidential "models" only insofar as they are widely accepted and widely taught, not because somebody put together their own interpretation (as far as I can tell) and we can find some quotes that sort of fit. --Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I'm not sure where synt comes in and I'm not sure what you are looking for when you say that it should be "widely taught" (or widely accepted, for that matter). If you want to see what is widely taught, here is a collection of syllabi to look through, I never took such a class. I understand what you said about when somebody puts together an interpretation of another scholar, but here they've published it in The American Historical Review. Like I said, I don't have Burns, but I can read Dallek's paper online, which uses that phrasing ("Jeffersonian model") to describe Burns' position, as does Hart. I looked at a couple more references via google scholar and added them to the article. Umm, so the usage of Jeffersonian to describe a president who tries to expand his powers is something we can cite, perhaps it belongs under a different title, and isn't the only meaning. But it isn't really "my" article, so maybe I'm off base. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I'm saying is that this article articulates a personal interpretation of Jefferson's presidency. It does not articulate (and certainly does not cite) the "Jeffersonian model" articulated by Burns -- in fact, Burns seems to closely associate Washington and Hamilton with the "vigorous executive" model, rather portraying Jefferson as a middle ground between that and the Madisonian model. So whatever this article is, it is not the Burns theory, so using Burns as support is synthesis (I hope you see). By way of analogy, it's a bit like taking an article on astrology that says "the movements of the planets determine human existence", and supporting it with evidence that the planets move. So, nothing against your taking this article in good faith, but I think you've erred in assuming it dovetails so neatly with Burns. I am not opposed to an article on the Burns models, but they would need to be rewritten from scratch, from what I see here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see. Like I said, I don't have Burns with me. I read the article, and it sounds like Burns, looked it up, and the Dallek paper seems to match with the article nicely. If you have Burns, and his writing doesn't say what Dallek says that it says (or if I've misrepresented Dallek) great. User:Nuvious has a note about where he got his idea on his page (Ted Jelen at UNLV, a religion and politics guy), but I couldn't trace it any further than that. We could email professor Jelen if we really wanted to. Otherwise we could probably stub it to capture what I cited), or even merge it with Jeffersonian political philosophy (which wouldn't be as hard to cite, I think), taking out the expansive powers stuff. This would leave us with one article about two different interpretations of what it means to be a Jeffersonian president. In any case, I do feel like Burns' (and Neustadt's, but I've never read him at all) ideas about presidents are quite notable. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 05:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - I brought my additions to my page, and might make a stub later. I have no problem with the rest being deleted as Jelen's notes aren't online and so we can't see his sources or if this represents what he was teaching correctly. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how about we delete all the information that has not been referenced or recently added. Any thoughts? --Stingray23464
Unless someone has Burns' Deadlock of Democracy and can verify how he defines his models, I don't think that even that material is WP-worthy as a stub right now (I've changed my mind from above, when I was a bit too defensive, anyway). I put the article in my userspace, and I'll pick the book up from a library eventually, but my suspicion is that if Burns' says this, the article will be more fitting merged with the other presidential models he gives (again, if he actually does this). If you think the lead makes a sufficient stub, though, we could just go with that. We could merge it with other presidential models later, if the Burns thing pans out. But I'm still very weak on my earlier vote until I know for sure. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Litter Cake[edit]

Kitty_Litter_Cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Thank you for cleaning up this article but I suspect it will continue to be a source of vandalism. And do we usually keep recipes or not? I am not sure. Postcard Cathy 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trust me, if you follow the link in the article, you see a picture and it made me almost throw up. Not a good idea! 172.134.126.84 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a slightly notable gag, if only by memetics. Clean it up, and please clean out the cat box. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since when has wikipedia been a place for "notable gag" articles? Then any joker can come in and write anything they want saying it was only a gag. 172.134.126.84 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can be the one to keep cleaning up the vandalism. I found it once as have others, IIRC. I don't want to keep cleaning up the vandalism. So I nominate you to watch it and clean it up. 172.134.126.84 03:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't my job, man, it'll just work itself out. And to note, vandalism magnetism isn't a reason for deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese inventions[edit]

List_of_Chinese_inventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The List of Chinese inventions article has not only become a source for ethnocentric propoganda but also has evolved into a reference guide for the ethnocentric enthusiasts who use the article as a source to create "ancient history" sections and mention China at the very beginings of the articles which, if dealt with completely, will also have mentions of ancient Greece, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia etc. prior to China in most cases.

Articles such as these are being used as a guide for polluting perfectly good articles such as restaurants with propoganda such as this (see details here).

In this version, I tried to assemble a list of inventions that were generally thought to have been championed by the Chinese people. The result was a quick response and reverts which were knee jerk to the extent of repeating Chinese calendar, Acupuncture, Chinese calendar, Chinese food and Chinese clothing in the same article.

Kindly delete as a severest violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT policies has been done here, with an intention to make claims such as "China is said to be the source of some of the world's great inventions" when most of it had already been done in ancient Greece, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia etc if you take a look into the wikilinks of the inventions in question.

Regards, Moerou toukon 15:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prob is that these users follow the work of Joseph Needham who, beside being certainly a great researcher and scholar, was unfortunately also quite obsessed with establishing technological 'firsts' for China. For example, a Chinese guy jumping down a wall with two parasols constituted for Needham "the invention of the parachute" by the Chinese. With that mindset now a few users roam Wiki and try to put China on top of every list. A few weeks ago the introducing phrase was even that "China is said to be the source of many of the world's great inventions"... Regards Gun Powder Ma 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pardon, is this a content dispute? Shenme 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the inventions, i.e. the content, in the list were initiated by civilizations other than China. The list is not only based on incorrect content of claims of inventions when they were already invented by the Greeks, Mesopotamians and the Egyptians etc. but also serves as a guide for propoganda as mentioned in the section above. I have tried to correct that but the ethnocentric bias resultes in complete reversions, even repititions. During the short time I have spent on this encyclopedia I have yet to come across an article as misleading, incorrect and unencyclopedic as this. I can assure you this; "content" such as this will never find it's way into respected sources such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, another encyclopedia which I hold in high regards.
Moerou toukon 13:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article may well need improvement, but should certainly not be deleted. The nominators edits to Papermaking, which since he has removed all references to Chinese paper was apparently invented by the Maya, do not inspire confidence in the accuracy of his remarks above. Johnbod 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod's ethnocentric and disruptive conduct can be gauged here. Moerou toukon 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. LionheartX 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've never edited it Johnbod 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put it on close watch. Is there a WP policy for putting a page on close monitoring? I am for it. To be honest, Johnbod, your inclination to put speculative material all over the place does not inspire confidence in your remarks, either. The page certainly has a right to exist, but it must be recognized that quite a few of these claims are disputed or altogether rejected. In fact, the page represents only the opinion of a single scholar, Joseph Needham, and should be marked as such. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am glad we agree the page should not be deleted. What speculative material? You have just reverted a referenced addition (at 4 Great Inventions) re the Chinese invention of Woodblock printing which you know perfectly well is completely valid. Please stop being silly. Are you saying that only Needham claims the Chinese invented anything? This AfD process should be resolved as a speedy keep - it's a POV content dispute that has spilt over (not that I am endorsing the current state of the page. Johnbod 01:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you gave two totally contradictory viewpoints with reference to one and the same source (from 1935...):

Contra diffusion:History of typography in East Asia :But historians of the Western prints themselves see no need for such a connection, as they see a clear progression from patterns to images, both printed on cloth, then to images printed on paper, when it became widely available in Europe in about 1400.[1] Text and images printed together only appear some sixty years later, after metal movable type [2]

Pro diffusion:Four Great Inventions of ancient China :Woodblock printing, initially for textiles, reached Europe by the 14th century or before, via the Islamic world, and by around 1400 was being used on paper for old master prints and playing cards.[3]

That IS a contradiction, hence your second edit was correctly reverted. Gun Powder Ma 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction as I have explained there; here is not the place. Johnbod 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Kindly read the statement that I've made in the opening lines for answers. The article actually claims to have invented restaurants. Have you come across a List of Chinese inventions on Brtittanica? Why take up precious space when the excellent History of science and technology in China article will do the job admirably in all events. Moerou toukon 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm surprised you regard that article as excellent; on a first reading it also seems to contain dubious Needham-type statements. It also references the List we are discussing as a main article. Just because an article is in dispute is not an argument for deletion. Johnbod 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Invention of China does not deserve an entry into an encyclopedia nor is most of the content on the list an invention of China. Even if I assume the best faith the mere existence of such an article will be one step further into turning WP into a soapbox. I tried searching Brittanica for List of Chinese inventions and found out that they don't carry articles such as these. Ethnocentric chauvinism is one thing we should best leave at home when we start typing on Wikipedia. Moerou toukon 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is you logic? Brittanica misses a lot of knowledge

Comment: I am against deleting under the condition that the article is somehow closely monitored. Otherwise, I am for deletion, since it is better to have no article than a platform voicing the opinions of a single scholar, and since there is already a qualitative History of science and technology in China. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This item does not seem to have been listed properly, and does not appear on the normal AfD deletions list (should be April 6). Johnbod 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it should be in cat T (science and technology) not S (society-related), which I have changed. Johnbod 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You logic is obviously flawed. We didn't have anything like wikipedia before, so we should delete the whole wikipedia? Some people have no sense of innovation at all. Even worse, they want to delete anything new. Ridiculous!--Leo 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hardly that. They are, rightly or wrong, in Needham & many other sources. Johnbod 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
while true, compling such list could be considered OR, IMO (Don't get me wrong, I am a chinese). SYSS Mouse 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; most of these inventions are shared by various civilizations including Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Claiming exclusive Chinese inventions is a violation of WP:OR and WP:Undue. Moerou toukon 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the nominator's initial comment, this seems to be a content dispute, and not criteria for AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Iridescenti. Acalamari 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be more of a content dispute than anything else. Could be useful list if properly referenced. Davewild 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so far from the editing representing a single particular scholar's POV, Needham is essentially the inventor of the subject and the editor of the standard encyclopedia.The most recent articles I could find reviewing his work, "From the History of Science to the Science of History: Scientists and Historians in the Shaping of British Marxist Theory" in Science & Society, v.69 p 529 (2005) and "Between Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism" v.65 p 428+ (2001) in the same journal, give no indications of lowered stature.
The details of the diffusion of each invention, and the possibility of multiple independent or partially independent inventors, is almost always complicated, and there are brief (and usually very controversial) discussions in the WP articles for each. Some eds. here --and some people outside--take a position in favor of a great many different inventions coming from a particular national or racial group, and some denying that most of them do. I cannot really understand either position. DGG 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the parachute, explain to me exactly which item/items on that list need removal. As far as I can see, the Chinese were able to dabble in many of those inventions as original makers and innovators. If there is a feeling of sino-centrism because of the vague description of background for each invention (leaving one with the blind assumption that each was wholly invented in China and no where else), then maybe someone should add another section at the bottom giving various descriptions for the bullet points. I already added some info to the bullet listings themselves, to make things more clear. And another thing, it is no surprise that restaurants in at least somewhat of an early modern sense would have been an innovation of the Song Dynasty. For God's sake, read the article on Society of Song Dynasty, very impressive stuff that we now know about Hangzhou during the period.--PericlesofAthens 10:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article will not be found in any respectable logbook of knowledge. I can create a List of Japanese inventions but I doubt that such an article deserves an encyclopedic entry. Secondly, the List of Chinese inventions title is misleading as it would lead one to assume that China's entire chronology has been presented here instead of the Sino-centric Han chauvinists claiming technological advancement of Imperial China. Also, the inventions mentioned here were made earlier by ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, Mesopotamia etc. in most cases. Why not have a List of achievements of ancient Greece, List of inventions of Mesopotamia and List of early Egyptian inventions as well then? and why not mention those lists on Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iraq, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece as well? Where does this ethnic chauvinism end and how does it aid us in the making of an encyclopedia? Moerou toukon 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: An article of anybody's interest could make a way into wikipeda. There are so many articles about individual movies, video games, movie/porn stars....... none of them could ever be found in any respectable logbook of knowledge. But so what? Even your voice here could never have a chance to be presented in any respectable books. Why don't you keep silent then? But the spirit of wikipedia is opening and tolerate. You can argue the facts of an article. You can dislike or hate the piece of information in one article. But you could never argue the merit of a particular article and to judge if it "deserves" of anything. I have seen enough people interested in this article. Deleting anypage only if somebody dislikes it is ridiculous. Keeping the respectable stuffs in mind is a good habit,but using it as a boundary of doing things is anti-innovation and self-confined. --Leo 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that would be pretty cool to have lists for Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Japan, South and Central America, Rome, England, etc. Only problem is, does anyone feel like creating all of those articles? That's a bit of work. I think in that case (and in the case of a professional encyclopedia), you are right, it is better that this article is deleted, since the articles on individual inventions themselves should have descriptions about Chinese origin in their history sections anyway.--PericlesofAthens 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep : Chinese people invented something. So give them a list. What is wrong with that? You can argue with the accuracy and reliability of certain items listed. But deleting the whole article ? It is purely a jealous to me . No Way! --Leo 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a list needs to provide sufficient context, the current text provides none. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of wikipedia is not to delete something if it is not perfect, but incrementally improve it by volunteers during the time . Nothing would exist base on your logic. --Leo 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alternatively, integrate the material on J. Needham's page to make clear that this is his opinions (and, more importantly, his definitions with which he works and which are often idiosyncratic ('gunpowder' for one). Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only does Wikipedia have a policy discouraging articles consisting of nothing more than a list, but looking at a random sample of listed items, it's factually wrong to put them in an article that claims to list Chinese inventions (parachute, for example). The article seems like a collection of opinions. -Amatulic 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a collection of opinions, there is a factual basis and explanation for each item listed. What if someone made bullet points (or footnotes) below describing why each item is listed? Would that help?--PericlesofAthens 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be referenced, certainly Johnbod 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the policy discouraging a list page? It would be pretty dumb to restrict the format to delivery knowledge. List is an effective way to share knowledge in fact. Even if there is a such policy. The fact is that there are already thousands of articles beginning with "list of ...". Deleting them all? --Leo 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a collection of opinions, the AfD tag has been removed from the page and these tags have been attached to the article : 1) All discussion including deleting request MUST go to the discussion page. Polluting the main article during discussion is again the NPOV view of Wikipedia. 2) This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. Kindly take that into account; the article in this form violates more WP policies then any other I've come across. Moerou toukon 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this could probably be turned into a summary of The Great Titration by Joseph Needham, which is a summary of the encyclopedic Science and Civilisation in China or even an article on that encylopedic work. 70.55.85.75 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like many lists, this one might be much better if converted to category. The fact that something was invented in China does not preclude indepedent invention elsewhere, so the fact that something occurs earlier in Mespotamania or Egypt, does not preclude it being a Chinese invention. For example, Paper is a Chinese invention that was transferred to the West. On the other hand, the blast furnace was certainly invented in China before it was used anywhere else, but no one has succeeded in establishing a link between China and early furnaces such as Lapphyttan in Sweden. The list might be more useful if it distinguished between Chinese inventions that were transferred to other regions, and Chinese inventions that were invented independently elsewhere. In the West, we are inclined to look back to our own past, and ignore the remarkable achievements of the Chinese. Referencing of a list is difficult. Its function is usually to point readers to main articles on each subject, which is where the references should appear. However, a sentence or two about each invention would be useful. This may serve to expose items that should not appear for weeding out. Peterkingiron 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this deletion request?When should this deletion request be closed? I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure and found a 5-day time frame for discussion before closure. It seems we have had enough opinions in this page and enough votes already. Should we try to make a decision and close this request? Here is the voting result so far: 

Delete: by 6 persons
---------------------
Moerou toukon 
iridescenti
SYSS Mouse
Acalamari 
Pavel Vozenilek 
Gun Powder Ma 
---------------------
Keep: by 7 persons
PericlesofAthens 
LionheartX 
Liao
Johnbod 
Peterkingiron 
Hong Qi Gong
DGG

Both sides have enough people to treat this as a draw, if the keeping side is not winning. My understanding for AFD is that this article should be judged to keep, at least based on "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to keep. " --Leo 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this article, but Leo, why don't you just let the AfD run its course and let the admins handle the conclusion of the AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am following the AfD policy right now. When are the admins supposed to handle the conclusion? What should we do it no admins are aware of this discussion? It passed the 5-day window already. --Leo 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana[edit]

List_of_churches_in_Fort_Wayne,_Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana

List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:NOT 63.101.179.35 08:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a directory. If a list of Megachurches around the nation and world whose impact is great is not encyclopedic, then certainly this is not.

  • Strong Keep -- First of all, no reasons are given at the page for the proposed deletion. Second, this page is a spin off the Fort Wayne, Indiana page, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. The information is of very practical use to people visiting Fort Wayne and looking for a place to go to church. It is also an illustration of Fort Wayne's vibrant religious culture, which goes back to the very beginnings of its existence. Finally, it is no different than many other lists in Wikipedia. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep -- I see this as an extension of the Ft. Wayne Article is is a list but not a directory per se'. I am not sure about a non-registered user or anon nominating an article for deletion either.M-BMor 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why, in the light of my arguments above, you think the list useless. It illustrates the nickname for the city, "city of churches" and represents its heritage going back to its founding. It provides a way for people to see which traditions are represented in the city and so provides a reference function. Finally, it is no more or less useful than the thousands of other lists on the net. Are you suggesting they should all go? I believe that it fits well within the criteria of wp:lists and fits the procedure of wikipedia:Summary style.--CTSWyneken(talk) 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly on this one I can see both sides. As a list ... a stand alone article it may not be. However as a tag or sub article maybe under the heading "City of Churches" with explanation as to why the list itself is important it could be useful even enclyclopedic. When the list of Mega-churches was deleted and posted as a re-direct to the article it made sense. Each church could be a stand alone article if it is of note. Each church in Fort Wayne may not be on it's own but as part of a unique, distinctive, and (here's the important part) notable local culture .. then yeah a list illustrating the point is good if it has some summary as to its uniqueness. If the claim "most per captia" is sourced and validated I say go for it expand and maybe rename the article. As a stand alone list I am still a very weak keep. If only as precident the megachurches on the mega church list hit at a much broader cultural phenomenon.M-BMor 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that you are wrong. Churches are very much a part of the culture of this city. It influences much of what happens here, with a cathedral, a seminary and three Christian colleges. Attendance rates are at least 40% of the city (if I remember correctly) attending once a month or more. So, it is your right to recommend deletion, but please find another reason to do so. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT Johnbod 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will prove a useful alternative to having articles about all the churches, most of which will be of borderline notability at best.DGG 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it may prevent un-notable articles ... but honestly that is not a sole reason to keep. If the articles about the individual churches are not rated or adopted by a wikiproject, or nominated for deletion as non-notable -- the articles will not be here to make that much a difference. On the other hand if each church on the list meets the notability criterion then hey they should have their own article. I think an expanded article that shows the UNIQUINESS and NOTABILITY of religious culture in Fort Wayne noted by the volume of faith communities per capita is the way to go. A list just doesn't seem to have much merit on it's own. I reffer back to the precident on the List of Megachurches Talk:List of megachurches.M-BMor 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 action. Majorly (hot!) 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri University of Science and Technology[edit]

Missouri_University_of_Science_and_Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

We need to delete the new article and move University of Missouri–Rolla to an article of the same name

The name change isn't effective until Jan 1, 2008. No move should happen until then. ENDelt260 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Missouri–Rolla until the name change is effected. Once name change has become official and used as the public name for the entity, move the content and set a re-direct on the old page. No need for this to be at AfD. Thewinchester (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Main article has been updated with correct information and is pending a citation for the name change. Please close AfD so redirect on this article can take effect. Thewinchester (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Against the Monarchy[edit]

Movement_Against_the_Monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

DELETE - seems un-notable, although it maintains a website this is NO evidence of notability in itself. Anyone can establish a "movement" and start a website. Non notable and with no need to be here. --Counter-revolutionary 12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just discovered it doesn't even exist any longer! Even if it was notable in the past it certainly isn't now!--Counter-revolutionary 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources available with coverage of their protests, although somebody needs to add some of them to the article. I'll do so later in the day if it hasn't yet been done. JavaTenor 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: "Even if it was notable in the past it certainly isn't now!" isn't a valid assessment; see WP:NOTE#Notability_is_generally_permanent. JavaTenor 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe someone needs to add the references to the article because at the moment it fails WP:V.--Vintagekits 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs work but sources as demonstrated are plenty so it shouldn't be all too hard. Lord Metroid 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of media coverage, obviously plenty of people want to write about a group campaigning for the monarchy to be abolished and/or executed. One Night In Hackney303 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and you talk of "in step" --Counter-revolutionary 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In step" - ONiH is stating that it should be kept and I am saying that in its current state should be deleted! Baffled!--Vintagekits 19:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. Apologies. I presumed....--Counter-revolutionary 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7. Veinor (talk to me) 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normandoo[edit]

Normandoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Proposed for deletion. Seems to me to be blatant advertising for the person in question. A Google search does not seem to indicate that he is notable, and the text is written in an unencyclopedic style, with multiple mentions of the subject's own website and exhortations to visit it. -- TinaSparkle 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom, and would have been easily dealt with via CSD A7 Thewinchester (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 and G11 Rackabello 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 26 (U.S. series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 26 (U.S. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's too soon to have this article up. Chris9086 07:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too soon, no useful information. Dar-Ape 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing in WP:MUSIC agrees with a justification for removal, and it's common practice for spectulative information to be placed in preperation for a pending release as long as the relevant template is placed at the top of the page. Thewinchester (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All right, I have two problems with this article. The first one is that right now Now Volume 25 still has not been released. What is the hurry to post an article about 26? Do we need an article on a music compilation that may not be out for another year? Also, where is this information coming from? There are not any sources listed. I would say delete because of WP:VERIFIABILITY, but eventually the article will have to be written. It will be released someday. But, I do have to agree with Thewinchester nothing in WP:MUSIC says that there cannot be an article about a CD that will be released. Perhaps next time we could wait until closer to release date before creating the article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator; it's too soon for this page to exist. As Cyrus Andiron said, Now That's What I Call Music! 25 isn't even out yet; I don't think this article is needed yet. Acalamari 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, and the very nature of the article's content - I suspect "These tracks are songs that are speculated to be on this album by fans" fails WP:A at most levels. Bob talk 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People[edit]

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

The article has no useful content (although it was created in December 2005) and is more suited to a dictionary entry. There has already been a discussion to this effect on the article's talk page Old Moonraker 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment / Question I'm sure there must be some way to expand this topic - perhaps something about different ethnicities, or the distribution of people across the world? Or are things like that already present in other articles? -Panser Born- (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In that case, I guess it should be deleted as a dictionary definition. Perhaps it doesn't have much of a basis for expansion after all. -Panser Born- (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the rewritten page, I'd have to change my vote to a Keep. -Panser Born- (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that such article should be in WP. This is different from Human or Nation. However, the article must be improved. For example, it claims: "Religion, philosophy, and science do not show or represent modes and aspects of inquiry which attempt to investigate and understand the nature, behavior, and purpose of people." This is wrong. Some sources are certainly needed.Biophys 06:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General articles are also useful in WP. --Moumine70 14:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this stage, the page has been almost entirely rewritten. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an 'enhanced' disambig page with brief descriptions of what it's redirecting to, as (sort of) per Smerdis of Tlon. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with disambig page to Human and People Magazine meshach 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has been improved a great deal since I started this process and no longer merits deletion. Thanks to all contributors! --Old Moonraker 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Planet (Course)[edit]

State_of_the_Planet_(Course) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article has been improved since it was first written but I still believe it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Also, you can make the argument that it is spam if the course is available on YouTube, or will be... Postcard Cathy 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this stuff about a single course at Cornell, speculation about its adoption elsewhere, and such risible content as Notorious scientists and academics have agreed to lecture, including Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine, and Theodore J. Lowi, notorious political scientist (my emphasis). -- Hoary 10:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete single courses are not notable enough for their own pages. What's next every English 101 course in the country?--Cyrus Andiron 18:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete and salt (4 previous deletions) Orderinchaos 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.M.Sandeep[edit]

L.M.Sandeep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO and WP:COI, author removed CSD/A7 tag, but there is some assertion of notability so here we are. EliminatorJR Talk 10:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sourced assertions of notability, and some quick Google queries were not promising. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and SALT I've seen this article or variants of multiple times while on new pages patrol back in February 2007. Each time the article was a clear CSD A7/G11 and was deleted (Logs for article). Each time the article violates the Biography policies, fails to demonstrate notability, and to the casual observer seems to be written by the subject or someone close to them creating conflict of interest (The contributor's username for the article is a dead giveaway). Despite multiple warnings, and two blocks, the user fails to learn. Having now been created for the forth time with no improvements against the reasons identified for CSD, this page is a clear candidate for removing and SALTing. This is not withstanding all the other self-promoting articles the user continues to create, another of which I have just slapped with a CSD. -- Thewinchester (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Temple UK[edit]

Shaolin Temple UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for a single martial arts school (WP:SPAM). Despite the weasle words ("Turn of the millenium") it is young and non-notable. Peter Rehse 11:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Close AfD, Article tagged CSD A7 per nom Thewinchester (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep to see if the article can be improved--I rather doubt it, but it claims notability as a regional center, and I do not see why uouth is an obstacle. . And , frankly, I do not altogether trust speedy deletes requested during an afD discussion. The point of AfD is to let other people see the article for a consensus decision.DGG 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the school is notable since it is one of only 3 emissary schools in the world of the Shaolin Temple in China, which is the major historical place of Chinese Martial Arts. As an emissary school, it is an important element of the current day Shaolin Lineage. The founder of the UK Temple is the most noted fighting monk to come out of the Shaolin Temple in many decades, with a record as Chinese National Champion (in hand to hand combat) for 15 years. Thus the school is of special interest within Chinese Martial Arts.

I am very keen to discuss how the article can be improved, however I disagree that it should be deleted.Lionel Ward 08:34, 11 April 2007 (GMT)

  • Keep. There are secondary sources referenced in the article; copies of the actual articles can be found on the Temple's website. I'm a bit concerned there is a conflict of interest aspect to the article, but it does seem to meet the notability threshhold.--Kubigula (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve terada[edit]

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

No case made for notability Peter Rehse 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Purgathofer[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:A, scoring exactly 9 non-wiki ghits. Conflict of interest concerns. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Contested prod. MER-C 12:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Speedy delete. Close AfD per nom and let CSD process take over. Thewinchester (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be a claim of notability. I'm going to do some research on the subject but I don't see what the rush to close the AfD is. I don't think it's a speedy candidate at all, but it's possible to have a speedy and AfD open at the same time; the closing admin will handle it if it gets speedied. Leebo T/C 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has a fair number of publications (unless there's another "A. Purgathofer" working in astronomy), but I'm afraid I'm not qualified to assess whether they qualify him under WP:PROF. Would appreciate comment from someone better-versed in the field. Certainly not a speedy candidate, though. JavaTenor 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. His papers Radial velocities of planetary nebulae (third of four authors, 148 cites in GS) and UBV sequences in selected star fields (solo author, 48 cites in GS) would seem to satisfy WP:PROF #3 "An academic work may be significant or well known if ... it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". ISI Web of Knowledge doesn't list the UBV paper but otherwise looks very similar (an identical 148 cite count for the radial velocity paper, not high for any other paper). The number of publications in Web of Knowledge (12) is not high but Google scholar lists a more respectable 41. —David Eppstein 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS. Perhaps these two papers should be emphasized in the article, more than his work on 51 Nemausa. I started to add the cite for Purgathofer's paper to the Nemausa article, but then I ran a Google scholar search on Nemausa and could find no reason why Purgathofer's work on it could be said to stand out among the 112 papers it found. On the other hamd, the two papers mentioned above are much more widely cited. —David Eppstein 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Namesake of both an asteroid and the second-largest private observatory in Europe (from the German article on the observatory) seems enough for notability to me, regardless of the unsourced nature of the other claims for notability in the article. And those claims for notability are clearly there, in the phrasing "well known and respected Austrian astronomer" and "knowledge of astronomical instruments was legendary" — they need better sourcing but their presence makes any attempt to use the speedy deletion process for this article inappropriate. —David Eppstein 21:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Speedy would have been in direct contradiction to the letter and the purpose of the policy, for a claim to N is unmistakably asserted and nobody could have though this uncontroversial. As others have already show above , notability is obvious from the publications as well as the other information. . (It would seem that putting in a speedy during the course of an AfD discussion is like the Queen of hearts, conviction first and trial afterwards, but it seems to be technically permitted here. I can't see why.) DGG 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the original author of this article. Maybe I misunderstand Wikipedia, and I certainly do not insist in keeping this article. I found the line <<5341 Purgathofer 6040 P-L Alois Purgathofer, Austrian astronomer*>> with an empty link to the name of my father under the listing of asteroids on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meanings_of_asteroid_names_%285001-5500%29 and clicking on it invited me to create a new article describing the name in more detail. Actually, as a user I would wish to have a link to every asteroid name explaining the background of that name. So I tried to fill a gap, not promote anyone or anything. During the next days, I also wanted to create a new short article on the Purgathofer observatory, so that there are several cross links explaining the interconnections. From the scientific importance, Alois Purgathofer was one of several hundreds of equally important people during his period of life, no Nobel Prize winner or anything similar, but he was world-wide well known and respected in the community. He died before the Web had any significant importance and so the number of Google-hits is very low (as opposed to example the number of Google-hits for my brother and me – although we are far not so important :-) Summing up, I believe that keeping this article is justified.

—Werner Purgathofer 08:00, 11 April 2007 (CET)

  • Comment Others have found your father to be notable, Purgathofer, but please note that many users feel strongly that conflicts of interest should be avoided when editing articles. I would recommend not editing anymore articles related to your father, and allow other editors to do it. Leebo T/C 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refer to the astronomy Wikiproject for urgent and substantial cleanup. COI is a standard newbie error, fogivable in the son of a clearly-notable father, but still a pressing problem for neutrality. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense (the references to Cocoa Puffs gave it away). NawlinWiki 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gillet[edit]

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

Totally non-notable possibly a hoax Peter Rehse 12:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum solos[edit]

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

Absurd list topic. Drum solos are recorded every day. This is indiscriminate info. Pascal.Tesson 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as indiscriminate collection and directory of non-associated topics. Otto4711 13:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and ors Thewinchester (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. Also, this is completely OR as none of it can be verified.--Cyrus Andiron 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I have no especial objection to the list's deletion, but I should hope that those taking part in this debate are aware of the historical context. This list had been part of an article called "Drum solo". You may wish to go to that article and read in its discussion page the comments pertaining to this list.

I originally considered deleting the list altogether and subsequently decided that separating it would sufficiently improve the "Drum solo" article without frustrating (very much, anyway) those who had collectively put in considerable work to make the list, whatever its worth.

Re: "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists.":

When I clicked on this highlighted phrase, I didn't find quite this proscription. I found instead: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information....Wikipedia articles are not simply: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions". Whether or not they are discriminate, whether or not they are proper, it so happens that there are quite a few lists (other than "Lists of Frequently Asked Questions") floating about in Wikipedia. TheScotch 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of lists are created as a way to escape problems with the main article but this is an undesirable solution. If the content is unfit for the main article because it has no encyclopedic value, spinning it off just pushes the problem somewhere else. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That may be, but, as I pointed out, this particular list was not "created" separately, and there are many more living parasitically inside other articles. Lists seem to be highly favored here, and it is easy to see that this is likely because lists are among the things that can easily be made by committee. It is much more difficult to make by committee a consistent, well-written, and accurate article--and when one, by some miracle, is made, someone inevitably eventually comes along and sabotages it. TheScotch 05:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I find this list interesting but the best idea would be to merge into Drum solo with headings and encyclopedic discussion such as "Drum solos in rock music" and/or "Musical content of rock drum solos" (i.e. Guitar solo), something like that. Cricket02 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. anthony[cfc] 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Jasper[edit]

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

Delete - there do not appear to be the requisite independent reliable sources establishing the subject's notability. Article is sourced by Chamber of Commerce ad/listing and blogs. Otto4711 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom, not a notable person and could easily be handled by a CSD A7 Thewinchester (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actor's only claim to fame was being the villain in Vision Quest. The article does not assert his notability. Also there are not any verifiable sources listed (blogs definitely don't count). --Cyrus Andiron 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it's not in the newspaper or an easily accessible Internet source doesn't make it any less true. Do a little research on the subject and you'll find that what I sourced is 100% accurate. This individual played a major part in a story beloved by thousands of American High School wrestlers who grew up in the 1980s. Ask any of them to tell you about their favorite movie and they'll almost unanimously say "Vision Quest". There is really no source of information for finding out about Frank Jasper outside of a Wikipedia page. The rest of the information is spread out over various areas that a person would have to track down themselves, and only if they knew where to look. I happen to know a little about Frank Jasper and created the article so that the information would be centrally located. As long as you've got information on Wikipedia such as how many different hairstyles Madonna has had, there should always be a niche place for information like this - even if YOU are not personally interested in it. Leave well enough alone, why don't you? Mister Jinxy 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a primary source. If the article can't be attributed to reliable sources then the article has no place on Wikipedia. Verifiability is the standard, not truth. If you're a Frank Jasper fan, you might want to look into creating a tribute website of some sort. Pointing out that other articles exist (I don't think there's one on Madonna's hairstyles but I could be wrong) is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Otto4711 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider a Chamber of Commerce Listing to be fairly reliable. Mister Jinxy 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a directory of businesses in the area, not an independent reliable source substantially about Jasper. It does not establish notability. Otto4711 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- there are articles for far less notable things on Wikipedia, and it's a bit of a waste of time arguing over this particular one. This time would be better spent improving this and other articles. Just my two cents. --Lukobe 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it does not justify keeping this article. If you know of other articles which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, please feel free to nominate them. Otto4711 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Undecided Comment Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), Jasper potentially gains notability by having a significant role in a notable film (which is confirmable by IMDb). Thus, I find this hardly speediable. The lack of coverage by independent third-party sources, though, swings the notability debate the other way. Which trumps which? --Tractorkingsfan 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to Wikilawyer, but WP:BIO states the actor should have significant roles, plural. Further, I wouldn't necessarily say that his role in Vision Quest qualifies as "significant," given his total screen time was about eight minutes and he had like three lines of dialogue. Shute was by and large a Macguffin as opposed to a character and I can't see that Jasper's appearance in that film is sufficient to confer notability, especially in light of the apparant total lack of sources of which Jasper himself is the subject. Otto4711 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on WP:BIO Be careful when citing WP:BIO. It does not say that an actor "should have significant roles, plural." Instead, it says that "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles" - and significant roles is only one of those. Another criterion is "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Mister Jinxy has certainly alleged that the article does have a cult following. If sources to that effect are provided, then the article would meet WP:BIO regardless of the number of significant roles Mr. Jasper has had. Also, remember that WP:BIO is "is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability."-Fagles 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Alleged is precisely the problem. --Tractorkingsfan 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on speedies at least it demonstrates that this was not a reasonable speedy. Speedy is for incontestable deletions. And "assert" includes giving any evidence that a reasonable person might possibly think notable,such a starring in a movie. There is a real need for speedy for the true junk, and it should not be overused when it is not obviously applicable.DGG 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is still in the beginning stages of being created. It needs work. I say keep it and expand upon it. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Otto, it seems that you're the only one really pushing for deletion. What's your agenda? Besides, Shute was not the McGuffin. You've watched too many Alfred Hitchcock movies. Rather, Shute was the villian of the movie and the entire reason for Louden's quest, and thus, the entire driving force behind the whole story. The fact that the actor who played him basically fell off the Earth and was never seen again on film for all intents and purposes makes him noteworthy. Top that with the fact that he ended up becoming some type of jedi herbalist kung fu master, and that's Wikipedia at its finest. What is the harm in having this article about him? Surely there are worse articles to go after. Sorry if that doesn't conform to your tortured definition of what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, but when I was a kid, this place used to be a fun and interesting cavalcade of information where you could discover and be astounded by facts like that. Mister Jinxy 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well of course my agenda is to roam Wikipedia deleting the most delightful of all the articles, all the while twirling my moustache while intoning "Muah-ha-ha-ha!" WP:NOHARM is not a convincing argument. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a convincing argument. "Wikipedia at its finest" is not a convincing argument. I have no objection to an article on Jasper or any other subject, provided that it is sourced according to the requirements of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Dig up some sources. Otto4711 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In light of Otto4711's comments, I must reluctantly change to delete. Though I am oddly compelled by Mister Jinxy's argument regarding Wikipedia. Truth be told, however, the subject must be covered significantly by independent, third-party sources or he doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Tractorkingsfan 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your high horse and check your condescending attitude, Otto. And while you're at it, don't presume to start barking orders at me, either. Last time I checked, you're just an editor with the same rights and priviliges as the rest of us. No more. No less. Mister Jinxy 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like you; you're silly. Otto4711 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing. Mister Jinxy has canvassed many talk pages to ask people to keep this article. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] — coelacan — 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that not allowed? Many when articles I care about are up for deletion, people inform me via the talk page. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Canvassing is a very thin line. The main concern is with the messages; they should be as neutral as possible. Saying You participated in similar discussions, I would value your input as long as it is sent to all who participated in the discussion, would be fine, as would sending messages to the creator/major contributors of the article. However, sending messages to all fans of the subject, asking for their support is blatant canvassing. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a matter of whether or not it's disruptive. Asking people to vote support, to sway the vote against a disinterested consensus, that's disruptive. — coelacan — 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This deletion proposal seems premature. The article is still quite new. If an article doesn't make a claim of notability, and you are not able to add one, it is usually best to notify the creator of the article and give them an opportunity to improve the article. This guideline on notability explains a good process to follow; as it explains "Often, the author is able to add a claim, but didn't know one was required." I have added the notability tag to the article. Please keep in mind the Guide to Deletion's admonishment: "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." -Fagles 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say give the "delete" voters a bit of credit. The responsible thing to do before voting delete for reason of lacking sources is to look around for some sources. I don't see how you can say we haven't. And it's difficult to demonstrate the absence of something. So far, and I could very well be proven wrong on this, they simply aren't there. --Tractorkingsfan 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? Aren't we really just talking about sources on the Internet that YOU are able to find readliy accesible without having to engage any effort such as getting off your posterior and doing any kind of responsible investigation? Let's be honest here. That's really what you're saying.
Sorry to butt in in the middle of your train of flawless logic here, but you have got to be kidding. Considering your inability to read the guidelines and policies regarding notability and references on this website, your accusing me of being lazy for not searching the library for the undoubtedly easy-to-find 700 page tome regarding the exploits of Frank Jasper the bit-actor/hero to high school wrestlers/kung fu herbalist is just hilarious. But you're right, that chamber of commerce thing does go miles. I'm done, no more arguing. --Tractorkingsfan 04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, I have given you Imdb. I have given you his Chamber of Commerce listing. This individual is who I say he is: A once semi-famous actor who disappeared for a number of years and turned up in some completely incongruous place - an f'ing jedi herbalist master working some clinic out of Big Sur.

In my view, either that is sufficient enough to warrant an entry or it's not. I can very easily contact Mr. Jasper and ask him point blank whether the information is true or not. If I did, would that be a sufficient source for you doubters?

However, what I really need to understand what is the basic underlying problem behind this post. Either he is not "notable" enough for a Wikipedia entry (though everyone knows there are worse subjects out there on these hallowed pages - and please spare me your recitations of the codes and penumbras of the Wikipedia laws) or there is not sufficient supporting evidence to sustain his claim that he is a person of noteworthiness. Either way it's simple: Either he is who I have said he is, or he is no who I have said he is. The evidence points out that he is. Therefore, the problem seems to be is he eithe noteworthy enough for Wikipedia or he is not.

I think it does.

I started editing Wikipedia because I thought it was a fun place to bring information that nobody knew about. Now I find myself arguing with people wrapped up about specific rules and regulations and what can't go up and what should be deleted. It's depressing.

This is one simple stupid article. Why get wrapped around the axle about it. Perhaps in the future there'll be more to share. But why delete it now? Give it a chance to flourish and blossom. Like a small fungus. Not a weed. 

I think Wikipedia is a worse place when we start deleting silly but meaningful articles like this. The bandwith is not costing you anything. Besides, there are certainly worse subjects we could be talking about, though for some I'm sure that it doesn't meet their tortured and restrictive definition of what's appropriate and what is not.

Let freedom ring, for Pete's sake. God bless America and all that jazz. Vote for Opus (I'm drunk),

Mister Jinxy 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject is simply not notable. Sources include blog entries from his patients? I appreciate the effort made in keeping the entry up, but this just lacks justification. janejellyroll 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here suggests notability. IMDB strives to have an entry on everyone who's ever been on film, so they are no indication of notability. A chamber of commerce entry exists for every business in any nation that maintains such records; obviously not every business is notable so this is no indication of notability either. Blog mentions are not considered reliable sources and are not usable for meeting notabilty criteria either. This article appears to be factual, but that's not the same as saying we ought to have the article. This falls well short of the bar. — coelacan — 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made your feelings on the subject abundantly clear, Coelacan. Let the others *burp* speak. Tractorhead, you disappoint me. Check in the library under "A" for "Frank Jasper is AWESOME". That's where that 7 volume set of his "AMAZING" exploits can be found.

Mister Jinxy 16:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Compatability With Windows Vista[edit]

IPod Compatability With Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research, no attribution or sources to back up the claims. Also, goes against wikipedia is not a manual. Does not conform to WP:MoS. soum (0_o) 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I personally know the person who made this article. he is new here, and he is trying to learn the ropes. before deleting, could the nominator please explain to User:zanorath why it is being deleted. I can see the sense in removing the article, but please wait until he can at least defend himself. --- ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already did. See his talk page. --soum (0_o) 07:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My claims are backed up, if you dont beleave me go and speak to the head of tech suport for apple conputer inc. he is the one who told me how to fix my iPod. This aricle explains in symple words what the problem is and how to fix it. It is not a manuel. It states the problem, then explains how to fix it, is this that bad? And to those who said it should be in the iPod or Windows Vista articles, I have tried putting it there, but it has been deleted. And one other thing people will look here rather than on apples website, because there is nothing about this issue on apples website, even though the tech support guys told me they would make a post about it on there website. And the reason I put it on Wiki is beaucse it is a very popular means of getting information and I personally can not put a page about it on apple's website. Those are my resons, and think about it, iPod is the most popular MP3 player in the world, and Windows the most popular OS, how many people do you think will be affected by this problem? I had to spend three hours on the phone to apple and microsoft before I finnaly got it worrking. If this article had igsited when I first got my iPod all I would have had to do was type in 'iPod Compatability With Windows Vista' into Google or wiki and I would have found out what the problem was and how to fix it and been up and syncing in under 5 minutes!

Dosnt this warrent keeping the article? Zanorath 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Zanorath[reply]

    • I'm not sure Sam. I'll see what i can do to fix it up and make it more formal and less like a manual, but I think the main problem is the actual importance of the article. While you may disagree with this, many others will support it. Unless you find more info on the subject, many will say the issue doesn't warrant an aticle. So 1. find more information. 2.make it more inline with the MoS 3.Convince the others on why to keep and 4. Fix up the lousy amount of spelling and grammar problems that somewhat lessen the quality of the article (this is very important, even for people to believe your credibility on talk pages.) I really think that you may need to look at these things Sam. They are the The five pillars of Wikipedia that usually accompany a welcoming message that I'm surprised you haven't recieved on your talk page yet. Please read them very carefully, and take in everythin g they are saying. If you put in the effort to learn the policies and guidelines, people will be more accepting of your contributions.

Also, you may want to at this. there you can get help on how to edit wikipedia successfully and make good use of your time here. --- ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete an unencyclopedic, but certainly was not appropriate for speedy. How could anyone have thought this would not be contested?DGG 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, now that we have reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baker abdel munem[edit]

Baker abdel munem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Contested prod. MER-C 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you're going to list it for speedy deletion, at least include the article number that applies. For example, in this case you would put this. Also, this not a vote. You need a reason for delete because this is a discussion. Please see WP:PERNOM. --Cyrus Andiron 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM is an essay (read opinion piece), not a policy, procedure, or guideline. Nobody else had commented on the AfD and AFAIC the nominator had successfully made the case for deletion. Nothing more needed to be said to build consensus on the issue. This is not withstanding the fact that someone left off the CSD point they thought applied to the article in question (which last time I checked isn't something which deserves comments which fail to keep a civil tone). -- Thewinchester (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and blatant demonstration of Geogre's Law. Orderinchaos 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Ph.D.(Engineering),Ph.D.(Economics),Ph.D.(Political Science) Palestine Ambassador to Canada This is certainly worth a discussion. An article about a notable subject written incompetently and sounding like PR justifies only editing; it only justifies deletion if an articles cannot be reasonably made out of it. And certainly not a speedy. The very idea that an ambassador from one nation to another would be incontestably un-notable, and that it would be totally uncontroversial, does not make sense to me. DGG 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The state of the article is quite poor, but that alone is not a reason to delete. I have cleaned up the most obvious problems, so that it is no longer spam or advertisement. With a little more work, any COI issues can also be resolved. (What the hell does "cruft" have to do with this?) His education and diplomatic appointments suggest to me that he is probably notable. A "speedy deletion" in light of that seems, no offense, less than serious. The article has multiple external links which kind of establish notability. An article on an international diplomat hardly falls under WP:VSCA (meant for speedy deletions mostly) and the only real reason offered for deletion, "Wikipedia is not a resume service", has already been mostly corrected. -- Black Falcon 06:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I detest autobiographies and vanity spam on wikipedia, the subject does seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY.--Kathy A. 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed. Politician, diplomat and author. This would need a serious working over by somebody with knowledge of the subject/experience in writing political bios but I think it passes the standards. It is unfair, in my opinion, to class this as spam simply because it doesn't conform to WP:WPBIO norms. Even it it was spam it could still be turned into something good. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS--Sefringle 09:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC1's Daily Schedule[edit]

ABC1's Daily Schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The creator of this page claims that because there are other TV schedules, this justifies the breakdown of the daily schedule... I think this is a bit much to have the DAILY schedule for a full channel. Wikipedia is not a TV times or a TV guide. While I can see how pages like 2006-07 United States network television schedule provide non-trivial information, how is a full television schedule remotely notable or encyclopedic? Sasquatch t|c 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the article needs doing is to be broken down into table form for each section (ie - morning, daytime, primetime, graveyard). Because this is a UK channel syndication doesn't exist and so it is unlike the US practice of just having the primetime hours in a listins table. Also not everyone in the UK can recieve the channel from 6pm-6am (Freeview viewers). I would happilt put the data into a table but I don't really know how to! Tomm123messenger 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire Sunday League[edit]

West Yorkshire Sunday League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I do not believe this League is notable enough to be on here. It is amateur, and a quick google search shows very little to do with the League. I believe it is unnecessary to have an League that isn't notable on here. Asics talk Editor review! 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
  • Delete - if we set a WP:WAX precedent for every sunday league to have their own page we're opening a horrible floodgate. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is a recreation of a page previously deleted under a slightly different name ChrisTheDude 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I can't in fact find a previous deletion, so I may have been mistaken on that front. Delete the article anyway, as a wholly non-notable parks league ChrisTheDude 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Rackabello 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party sources. Abeg92contribs 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, it is only a different version of another previosuly deleted page. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable football/soccer league, likely an amateur rec league. Caknuck 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable in the slightest, as per above comments. Qwghlm 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom User:KRBN 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3D Architectural Solutions (3DAS)[edit]

3D Architectural Solutions (3DAS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company; 266 hits for "3D Architectural Solutions" isn't a good sign. 3DAS turns up a lot of unrelated stuff, such as a fraud prevention system. Veinor (talk to me) 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - Its notability is somewhat questionable and its only source is rather "promotional" in nature. Adrian M. H. 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at this stage, article provides little evidence of notability, although I'd of course be open to change this assessment if external coverage can be provided. JavaTenor 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's spam, it isn't notable and it fails WP:COI and WP:CORP. Last time this article was created it was speedied. OTOH, with 3rd party verifiability I could be persuaded to change my mind. --Richhoncho 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of 3rd party sources really does make this look promotional rather than educational. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be unverifiable. Addhoc 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PeaceNT 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free energy suppression[edit]

Just tagged [31] as {Originalresearch}} by User:Perfectblue97. An article about something that doesn't exist except in speeches of Steven Greer and the like. It is a fine intention to give counter-evidence even to the most obscure conspiracy theories, but there should be a limit. --Pjacobi 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Intending to counter a conspiracy theory is not a valid reason for an article; describing a notable conspiracy theory (along with attributable rebuttals) is valid. Gnixon 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. This page does not violate WP:NOT and WP:NOR can be resolved by adding a few sources (the sources are at the bottom of the page, they just need to be moved inline). Additionally, POV pushing is not a criteria for deletion. perfectblue 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I shall take a moment out to remind editors that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is are "notability" and "verifiability", not truth. While free energy itself is complete bunk, belief in its suppression is quite real and is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. There are several valid sources listed at the bottom of the page (though not linked into any particular paragraph) which WP:V and WP:RS the ideas behind the conspiracy. This conspiracy made it to Mythbusters, so it has a following. perfectblue 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just make sure all the information is properly sourced. It's a notable conspiracy theory and was, for example, the motivation for Gary McKinnon's hacking attempts. --Darksun 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Subject is somewhat notable, but article has minimal content. No reasonable description of the theory or its history. If that doesn't improve, I vote delete. Does it have the best possible title? Gnixon 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its unfortunately as notable as similar junk, tho perhaps a variation on other similar theories. If kept, I wouldnt particularly feel any need to argue against it--a straight presentation is enough for any reasonable person to understand. DGG 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources moved inline LeContexte 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I still see a lack of secondary sources. Not a single source has been unearthed so far, which discusses the phenomenon as secondary source. Stitching together an article from primary sources only is discouraged. --Pjacobi 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried finding WP:RS for a conspiracy? By their very nature these things tend to crop up on Coast to Coast AM or on message boards and in self published works. It's not ideal but this isn't a serious scientific topic so there is some slack. Just consider it to be a page on an urban myth (thus, a description of fiction). perfectblue 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a widespread and notable conspiracy theory; there are books and movies published on it, and a community of supporters. Whether it's true or complete bollocks is irrelevant with regard to keeping the article; the nominator appears to misunderstand this point. He states: "An article about something that doesn't exist..." and "...fine intention to give counter-evidence...". There are plenty of valid and needed articles about things that don't exist. Also, articles on Wikipedia are not intended to give evidence or counter-evidence; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article presents encyclopedic information about a notable social phenomenon. Yes, the information is sketchy; but that's grounds for improving the article, not trashing it. Freederick 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. J. D. Redding 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I recently came across it and edited it with a hatchet, because it had little semblence of NPOV. Its not exactly my area of expertise though, so it'd need someone who knows about the topic to really source. Titanium Dragon 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been significantly improved since the initial nomination; it is looking a lot better now, though it still has issues. Reddi has found a lot of sources for it. Titanium Dragon 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable / important topic / AfD is not for content disputes. — Omegatron 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough to be kept. But this article needs more cleaning up (if for no other reason to avoid further deletion debates). To get it under control I suggest existing content is fully sourced before any new content is added. --Careax 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marybeth Grant[edit]

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

Contested prod, non notable wrestler. No evidence of multiple non-trivial independent sources, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney303 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Abeg92contribs 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failing the "General" points of WP:BIO ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've since cleaned up the article, the introduction has been blanked by an anonymous IP following its nomination, and have somewhat established her notability and have provided at least two references. MadMax 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The raw total is 5-4 Delete over Keep, not counting RJH's comment as either. A virtual tie, so on to the arguments. The Delete commentors mainly make the points (1) it is cruft, and (2) [[WP:BHTT. But WP:BHTT is just an essay, it has limited standing; no more standing than the argument that the article serves as a flakcatcher. I don't know which of these arguments are true, and it is likely that they are both true. I see no real advantage to either side. That leaves this-is-cruft vs. no-it-ain't, again with only a slight advantage to the Delete. The WP:SUMMARY argument is successfully refuted, in my view. There's enough strength in both numbers and argument to the Delete point of view that I don't see this as a straight-out Keep, but not enough to close as Delete either. Herostratus 03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye[edit]

Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every mention or appearance of the book in any fictional setting with no regard to the importance or triviality of the mention in the source material. Otto4711 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Deleting this page means that the main The Catcher in the Rye article will once again become a target for these cultural references. Probably not a good-enough reason to save this page though. — RJH (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not agree with you more that that is not a good enough reason and I strongly oppose merging any of this article into the main article for the novel. Otto4711 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another indiscriminate list that is full of information that cannot be verified. This is definitely OR and should be deleted as such. On a side note, what is the point of the article? There is no context given, just the list. --Cyrus Andiron 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, in fact I've stated that point in popular culture afds before, but some people claim these lists are verifiable because you just need to watch the films/TV series/read the books to verify them. Not really practical though. Saikokira 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of these examples are non-notable anyway, and the notable ones are already mentioned in the relevant articles (Lennon for example). Saikokira
  • Keep These articles operate as flack-catchers for the main article. Remarks above show misunderstanding of what WP:OR is if they mean the compilation of such a list (by one or many) is OR. It is not, although it would be if a thesis was added with unattributable (ie original)connections made between the items. Just listing lots of items is not OR if they are individually ok. So the nominator seems to be complaining that the article is not OR. Equally if material mentioning film/music/books is considered unverifiable because you might actually have to see/hear/read the source to verify it then a huge part of WP material is unverifiable. Johnbod 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flack catcher for the main article is a terrible reason for keeping an article. If the material is garbage in the main article then it's garbage in its own article. Trash should be taken out, not dumped into somebody else's "yard" by splitting it off into a shitty "...in popular culture" article. Otto4711 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUMMARY, which calls for a more detailed subarticle and a short summary section in the main The Catcher in the Rye article. The "see also" link in the main article is also okay. --Aude (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SUMMARY in no way support the existence of this article. That guideline deals with how to handle splitting off substantive sections from the main article. It does not mandate the keeping of a pile of junk information. Otto4711 03:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a single one of these entries is actually important to the subject of Catcher in the Rye. Basically, this is a reverse directory of facts relating to Catcher in the Rye. Some of the items (like Chasing Amy, for instance) are of importance to other topics and are mentioned in the other articles. Some are too unimportant to mention even in the other article, like "Stephen Colbert once described a speech having every sentence end in a quote of The Catcher in the Rye." The title of this article condemns it to permanent medioctrity: this is not even "The Catcher in the Rye in popular culture", no, the title sets up that this is for a list of examples, with no barrier to inclusion. The Catcher in the Rye is an important and influential book, and describing its level of influence is a good idea, but listing all these examples is not. Mangojuicetalk 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. Cultural references to a serious piece of literature like this are important enough to be kept (but the main article on the book is too long to stick them there). There are a finite number of such references that can be included in this article. bd2412 T 14:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete all of these references and the work put into collating them because the list has some cruft in it? No way! If someone wants to clean it up and rename it to be a better list, then the way to do that is to go work with the existing contributors involved. Afd should not be used as permission to do drive by shootings of articles you cant be bothered fixing. John Vandenberg 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somebody put a lot of work into it" is not an excuse for an article that does not meet WP policies and guidelines. Articles get deleted every day that people have put work into. Do you have an argument that relates to the objections raised to this article specifically, or just the vague "I don't like it when people AFD stuff" talk? Otto4711 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a classic indiscriminate list lacking any sources. Some of the information is also original research. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried to clean up the article by removing "references" that: one, were only mentionings of the book in otherwords; and two, original research. However, I found that I was more or less getting rid of the whole article. Rather than this indiscriminate list, the safest way to go about such cultural references is to keep them to the articles themselves: e.g., if there's an article about a song called "Random Title" that mentions Holden, put it in that one, rather than keeping this list of such references. GracenotesT § 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the reliable sources are yet to be found as per WP:NN/WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Mann[edit]

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

Artist with a single exhibition in home town, fails WP:BIO, PROD contested by author who failed to provide sources, left a long argument on my talk page about how corruption in Egypt, Library of Alexandria influence on community , and lack of human rights are the reason I wanted to delete the page, not simply the fact that he failed to provide reliable sources, This article being the sole major contribution of the author, I suspect WP:AUTOBIO, but I want to assume good faith.Shipmaster 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiki:bio .. Please read this and follow the links before voting and if you have already voted, please reconsider your vote after reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO#Special_cases ... In several of the cases on that page the Marco Mann article would qualify him for wiki:bio ... 1. Wide name recognition (among the online community related to the Arts) .. 2. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (This is definitely the case with the International group for Art and Culture: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Art_and_Culture 3. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 4. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (please check the Art and Culture group and you will find the periodical articles and reviews posted by the artist in the message archives.) 5. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance. (Marco Mann has works exhibited in public locations in both Alexandria and Cairo, and one of his paintings in the property of the Ministry of Culture, And he has sold work in 4 US states, in Canada, in Holland, in Denmark, in Spain, in Jerusalem, and of course in Cairo and Alexandria.) .. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Art_and_Culture/messages/1346?l=1 messages for [email protected] (Art & Culture) are the ongoing work of Marco Mann that date back to 2004.Jumpster 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. With all due respect . . . anyone can create a Yahoo! Group. Anyone. Having a Yahoo! Group does not qualify in the least as creating something that is part of an enduring historical record. Not even close. Of more interest is what you say about his having work publicly exhibited in Alexandria and Cairo. That might possibly satisfy 5(a), depending on the details of those exhibitions. Were those exhibitions "significant"?
wow, this is so strange!!!Jumpster 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if they were truly significant . . . then I'm left to wonder why in the world that information is absent from the article? The most direct answer, of course, would be that the information is not in the article because the information is not on the artist's website, and the article is nothing more than a direct copy of the text on that website. Which leads to two things: #1) Per Cricket02, the fact that the article is nothing more than a direct copy of the artist's website is actually another very good reason to delete the article, and #2) if the exhibitions were of true significance . . . then why would the artist not mention that on his own website? Mwelch 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article was added to the homepage after the Vfd started. It's a good article why let it go to waste if wikipedia doesnt want it? Jumpster 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, thank you for clarifying that about the article vs. the web site. If that is the case, then I would withdraw the copying argument as a reason for deletion. (The fact that you have such immediate and direct access to his personal website, certainly makes one wonder about WP:COI, though.) But aside from all of that, the rest still stands. If it is your claim that his Cairo and Alexandra exhibitions satisfy 5(a), then the article needs to mention them and (if they are not themselves well-known) explain why they are significant. Mwelch 01:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also, (and I will add this below) ethnicpaintings.com used a number of different sources to come up with their article!!! and from what I know, Marco Mann is not pleased with this, as his work is NOT ethnic, but very universal! Jumpster 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) The bias in here is unbelievable!![reply]
Comment. Yes, I agree that you do seem to be a very biased fan of this artist. Mwelch 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - only source cited is his own website, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless appropriate soures are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - Per the comments made by Jumpster on my talk page, I'm going to withdraw from this debate. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails to assert notability. Caknuck 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article is as good as other wiki articles about Artists. I suspect bad faith from the nominator who is from the artist's hometown. check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Painter_stubs and you will see that 70% of the articles there lack the kind of references that the nominator claims are necessary to establish notablility. Out of all fairness, if you want to delete an article you should delete all similar articles. Otherwise, vote to keep. Jumpster 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC) .. and while at it why not delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seif_Wanly .. after all there are no citations of references, only that those who know him will know that there is a museum devoted to his work. (I created this article too, but I lost my old username as it had no password.)[reply]

  • delete After some thought, I have become convinced that Marco Mann doesnt qualify for wikipedia. Maybe as an artist he is not yet so a clear a picture for the framed eyes of wiki to see. The fact that I know that he is notable and significant in his endeavour, doesnt mean that others here on wikipedia will know too. The whole area that I was coming from is that people who exist and are active should exist on wikipedia too .. I understood wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of the past, present and future, not just a historic document similar to the archiac paper encyclopedias it rivals. But seems to me that its just a book of History, a valuable one nonetheless, which I shall continue to use as a reference, but will refrain from editing and will try to even delete my user account. Jumpster 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that it is relatively easy to demonstrate Seif Wanly's notability, despite the article's regrettable failure to cite any sources. You can get a sense of it just from Googling him, and that is despite the fact that Google is Western-centric and he was Egyptian. When one considers what must be out there about him that's in Arabic and not so easily Googled . . . well, I don't see that there is much reason to doubt his notability (though it would certainly be nice if someone more familiar with the sources that surely must exist about him would indeed please cite them).
    • As for Mr. Mann, however . . . well, I don't see a similar indication when I Google him. Admittedly, though, Google is not everything. Perhaps he also is vicitimized here by Google's Western-centrism. So can you offer another reason reason to think Marco Mann also has such notability? As it stands, all we have is basically you saying, "Trust me, he's notable." If you have something more than that, then please do share. If not, though . . . well, so what if there are other articles with the same problem as the Mann article? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If any of those other articles are nominated, and if there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the deficiency is just in the citations, as is the case with the Seif Wanly article, rather than in the subject's actual notability, then I indeed would vote to delete. Mwelch 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are two independent sources verifying notability of Seif Wanly, and they were very easy to find using google, one is the reputable Al-Ahram and the other is a popular book by Naguib Mahfouz illustrated by him, I only asked you to provide similar notability sources as suggested by WP:BIO. --Shipmaster 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I manage to provide such after the AFD, then I will put the burden of re-writing the article in both Arabic and English on You. Jumpster 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also evidence from my discussions with the nominator, that he is active in Alexandria and takes his Alexandrian identity seriously and is active in the Library of Alexandria, so it is possible that he was personally irritated by the comparison between Alexandria and Cairo in the Article .. after all the article survived 3 months without trouble, until the Alexandrian came along and paid us a visit. I think personal attitudes should not be basis for nominating articles for Afd and that is why I think that this nomination is Invalid and should be called off. In fact I think that wikipedia should put limits on who can use the Afd tool, possibly only sysops. Jumpster 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on dude, that's pretty lame, if I thought that phrase was offensive I would have edited it out instead of an AfD, I suggest you focus on providing said sources as I mentioned here and in our discussion instead of attacking me, that will get you nowhere.--Shipmaster 12:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems it will get us no where anyhow. I dont think I should focus on what you Said should be done, but rather focus on the Legitimacy of your nomination, which I find to be very illigitimate, especially since the article has been in place for months before you attacked it, and it is very likely that you attacked it for Personal Reasons, you have failed to provide a good reason for the attack!! Are there any other articles that you attacked for the same reasons you stated above? or is your attack limited to Marco Mann? Jumpster 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Voters are encouraged to follow the discussions on the nominator's and author's pages to get further insight into the personal nature of the nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shipmaster#Marco_Mann
Fine ,dude, whatever, your alleged insights into the intentions of an article nominator will not have any effect on deletion of the article if you dont provide credible sources, I am not biting your bait anymore, have better things to do...--Shipmaster 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence yet offered of notability. Mwelch 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto. No reliable sources to establish notability. Probably should have been speedied in the first place for copyright infringement from the personal website. Cricket02 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person who votes for removal of an article just coz they haven't heard of an artist doesn't justify that the artist has no talent, and commercial exposure of art does not add any value to it, as it simply depends on whether the artist expressed him/herself or not. Art is about expression not about how many people have seen it, nor how many times it was exposed to the public. Moreover, critics are there to only critisize, that's where the name stemms from. Yet, whether they critisize or not, it does not add nor remove value from art. I vote to KEEP the article, as I don't see a point in removing any information from any encyclopedia... information is information... Plus, I've seen some of his work, and it does express points of views and concepts. I also am surprized to have someone vote for removing the article... coz, I do think that this is narrow mindedness and maybe even irrelevance. —Djehanne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete It is precisely because there are many artists. notable and not notable, that many of us have not heard of , and because most of us do not set themselves up as a judge of artistic merit, that we rely upon secondary sources such as reviews. An artist who produces work that is thought by the professionals in the field to be worth renewing will be reviewed, and the artist's work will be accepted into juried exhibitions. DGG 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-said DGG. Yahoo Groups is not by far a reliable secondary source. As said, any Joe Shmoe can post on it. If indeed this artist were notable, there would be something out there printed about him and his work other than self-published/self-promotional writings. So I've spent the better part of an hour giving an honest effort to searching for such secondary reliable sources, insofar as translating foreign pages, and have come up with nothing. I did, however, come up with EthnicPaintings.com but I suspect it to be self-published as well. I'm sorry, but I have no choice but to stick with delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cricket02 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Cricket02 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ethnicpaintings.com used a number of different sources to come up with their article!!! and from what I know, Marco Mann is not pleased with this, as his work is NOT ethnic, but very universal! Jumpster 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) The bias in here is unbelievable!![reply]
  • delete. no reliable sources, no mention of him except for the "Yahoo group" and his website. fails WP:BIO. Also, I'm from Alexandria (studying in the fine arts field) and never heard about him --Mido 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of making assumptions ask direct questions!! Is there something out there printed about him?? The Answer is yes. Provide a mailing address and I will happily provide you with a copy of each! Jumpster 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpster, the sources you have don't HAVE to have an internet link. But that is about all reviewers have to go by, an internet search engine, to look for sources if none are provided. If you, indeed, have written sources that will indeed establish notability, by all means, please list them in the article, any and all information you can, i.e. title, date, author, page #, etc. Also, you really must assert more notability in the article than you have, like the exhibitions you claim, write that in. I as well don't understand why you state it here in this debate but not in the article. Because really, the Yahoo group he runs might be popular, but I run one too, but that doesn't make me notable either. Lastly, the article must be rewritten because as it stands right now it is a copyright violation of the website, a no-no on Wikipedia. Reword it. Make these changes and I, for one, will reconsider. Oh, also, I don't believe there is any bias involved at all, so making accusations will get us nowhere. The nominator had just cause to send to Afd and so far there is consensus to delete only according to the notability guidelines set forth by WP:Bio. All we're asking is for you to further establish that assertion of notability. Cricket02 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Fails the WP:BIO and of course Yahoo! Groups are not to be used as a source in a living person biography. Yamaguchi先生 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — CSD G11 - advertising for harrison's business. — ERcheck (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chance harrison[edit]

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

Poorly formatted; non-notable ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy Delete as advertisement.JavaTenor 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 as non notable biography. The article also unsourced and very possibly autobiographical. --Cyrus Andiron 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. Belovedfreak 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD G11 - Article written as an advertisement for subject's business. Caknuck 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now, needs to be sourced and rewritten. Nominator should wait for a while and renominate it again, if good sources are not available. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian pride[edit]

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

Though a recognizable term, the contents of this article are all original research. The concerns were raised approximately three monthes ago via the talk page and the appropriate notices were added. No significant revisions have been made since then. I have tried looking for reliable sources to no avail. Luke! 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - only two sources are cited, and on cursory inspection I can't tell if they pass WP:RS. Although the term may be in widespread use, the current article looks like mostly OR. Delete unless rewritten and sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete unless an argument can be made that the current contents would be useful to preserve. I don't think those Angelfire citations are going to cut it. But there might be enough legitimate sources for an article here: [32] --W.marsh 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewriting. –Pomte 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it is probably sourcable.DGG 05:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keep appears to be some sources--Sefringle 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suffers from all the problems mentioned on the talk page, especially original research. It looks like someone has written an essay here, and posted it as a mainspace encyclopedia article. zadignose 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 just isn't any convincing proof offered that it wasn't made up the same day as the article appeared, or that it's actually in use at any significant level. If it becomes popular and proof to that effect is offered, the article can be recreated, although it might be just a DicDef. Herostratus 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfing[edit]

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

All Google searches [33] result in articles that were only created today. I strongly believe that this is a term coined by a journalist, pretending that it already exists. Please not that the creator of the article has contributed to a lot of journalism related articles, suggesting that he may be the creator of the word. Nphase 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wilfing is becoming a big topic. This has been in the air for several years, most people are subjected to wilfing from time to time, and the Internet does not held what it promises. I am for expansion and against deletion of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.56.100 (talk • contribs)
Please back this up by showing us a Web or print citation of "wilfing" that is older than today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.44.241 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The concept is understandable and graspable (simple case of being distracted), but the term is very much a neologism, and possibly more a sniglet than anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Don't delete"". Hello, I am the creator of this thread - I assure you I'm not a journalist coining the word, as far as my memory goes my only contribution to a journalism page is changing a political stance of one newspaper (also, one of the edits on the page) apparently is for bad grammar, another clue I'm not a journalist). I would like this page to stay as I really think this word could get into more general use (even without this page) and so it is good to have it documented from it's early usage, and have this page expanded. I have heard the phrase before today but really learnt more about it this morning. I've heard it used several times today by ordinary people (ie. not on any meda) and I have a feeling it's not going to go away. Thank you. Also you may have guessed I'm new to this whole process so forgive all my edits to this, I've tried to make it look like other people's submissions on here :)User talk:anightowl 11 April 2007 01:48 GMT
    • You might want to check for notability of the term, verifiability of the notability, and naturally, some reliable sources will help. Also, for this, see WP:DICT. Suffice it to say, we're unfortunately not a repository for new concepts or terms (yep, see that one too). I admire your enthusiasm, if anything. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know where you heard or read the phrase before today? If your friend said it because he'd just read the article, that's no good; if it was used without self-consciousness in a decent source that wasn't *about* the word, that would be interesting. As for "having a feeling" it won't go away, clearly those who voted in the opposite direction have the opposite feeling; as creator of the article, you should be trying to demonstrate its worth with objective facts! 81.155.44.241 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term was apparently coined very recently. No other notability or verifiability. Probably falls into the realm of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. JRHorse 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • I can't be sure if my friend had seen the article or not, for obvious reasons. I have heard it before today, though I can't vouch for precisely where speaker got it from. this article (http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/115508.html) claims it was coined by a money website. I understand if this article has to be deleted but obviously in these cases its hard to present objective facts - we still haven't got the precise origin of the word "gay" from when it began to mean homosexual. (and I'm not suggesting this "wilfing" is already in that common circulation!)User:Anightowl
  • Weak keep under the assumption that the use continues.DGG 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wikictionary. This is just a dic-def. meshach 05:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and probably not even transwiki; yet another dicdef for a neologism nobody ever uses. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't DeleteIt seems to fit a particular set of practices of aimlessly killing time, idly searching, relaxing, even being on automatic pilot - whatever. I like the term - anything to clarify the ambiguity inherent in surfing and searching etc., anyway what other term can be used to fit those sets of practices? anthrobfd — Preceding unsigned comment added by anthrobfd (talk • contribs)
And you think Wikipedia should contain things that you think "seem" to fit? Great. Nphase 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we're still not a dictionary, anthrobfd. Check my comments to User:anightowl above for further guidance. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very convincing argument. Reasons? Nphase 06:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that as this is getting a lot of attention at present, we should let it ride but then review it over time to see if the word sticksChronic The Wedgehog 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem still remains: we are not a dictionary. Urban Dictionary is a start, beyond that, maybe Wiktionary, but here... it doesn't work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is about explaining what a new word means, it is about the relatively new social phenomena of people aimlessly wasting time on the internets - especially here ;-) Chronic The Wedgehog 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the world of the internet, believe me, this isn't new. It's just been granted a name arbitrarily. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I needed to know what it is, and here I found it. That's just good enough for an article to be kept. No good for Wictionary, as there is not sufficient space for explanations etc. I'd follow "Chronic The Wedgehog" -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no, it's not a good enough reason for it to be kept. A good enough reason for it to be kept is if there were enoughh reliable sources to show that it was a notable term, and that said notability was verifiable. This is little more than a dictionary definition, and an encyclopedia is no place for dictionary definitions. Note also that your argument is tantamount to saying "I like it, and therefore it should be kept". I like it, too, but it doesn't meet those criteria. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hannon[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Being the great-grandfather of JFK is not sufficient reason for inclusion, and Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Asserting that a person is related to notable people is not the same as asserting that a person is notable. Thus, the article contains no assertion of notability. It was notability tagges over two months ago, leaving plenty of time for such an assertion to be added. It never has been. CSD A7 and so tagged. Mwelch 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep For some very few extremely notable figures notability does accrue to progenitors. Whether JFK's is enough for a great-grandfather is obviously a matter of dispute, and thus not suitable for a speedy. Considering the Kennedy cult, it is possible that there are sources. And afd tends to bring them out much better than a notability tag. DGG 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. I am sure it would be possible to find out the names of Albert Einstein's 8 great-grandparents, or indeed his 16 great-great-grandparents but that doesn't mean that there should be articles on them. Jll 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (original research). Nabla 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septimalisation[edit]

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

Article is either a hoax or speculation. Gerry Ashton 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septenary system really existed and was used not only for weeks. This is not a hoax. Proof here: http://www.angelfire.com/nm/YAHUAHSHUA Please rather consider improving this article than deleting, because septimalization is a very interesting approach to units from religious point of view, and should be provided for reading by Wikipedia readers. I regularly add new references for proving my article. This is not speculation, because antique units roughly matches with table of conversion of geometrized septenary unit to SI base units. Proof here:

approximate <-|-> exact from geometrization constants and multiples/submultiples of day

  • fingerbreadth 1.85E-2m ~ 1,59063203626137E-02m
  • handbreadth 7.4E-2m ~ 1,11344242538296E-01m
  • long cubit 5.18E-1m ~ 7,79409697768071E-01m
  • long reed 3.11E0m ~ 5,4558678843765E+00m
  • furlong 2.0117E+2m ~ 2,67337526334448E+02m
  • gerah 5.7E-4kg ~ 3,9579777481142E-04kg
  • shekel 1.14E-2kg ~ 1,93940909657596E-02kg
  • talent 3.42E+1kg ~ 4,65652124087887E+01kg

This proves that Biblical units are remnants of God's consistent septenary system reconstructed in article. Please rather recategorize this article to religious ones, than delete it. 83.5.48.151 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are not reliable sources and the above proof is at best original research. The Septimalisation page itself is full of non-sense such as one SI second is multipled by 86400, then 86400 SI seconds that has dimension of distance are converted to SI meter, SI grave (kilogram), and SI kelvin, which have dimension of distance, while ampere, mole and candela are omitted due to their lack of dimension in geometrized units. Lklundin 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and do major cleanup. Only problem I have here is that it is EXTREMELY POV and doesn't seem to be laid out well. What is this for, anyway? Are we doing something with eschatology here? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switch to Delete. Caknuck is right, it's a mess of OR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and back to keep and clean up. Since Wikinger is committing to a cleanup of the article, I am going to assume good faith and let him do the cleanup. Hopefully, the anon user at 83.5.48.151 can work with him and this will go well. Review in a few months, and see what happens. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Waffle vote. Just going back to Delete. Many of the POV issues remain in the article, and at this point, with the length of time the AfD has run thus far, there has been plenty of time to sit down and rework it. Noting, too, that this is WP:OR - something I didn't pick up on before casting my first !vote. Wikinger, might I suggest putting this somewhere in your user space and working on it there? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete A mess of POV OR. The Angelfire link posted above goes to a series of Apocalyptic essays. None of the links above actually directly refer to the septimal system. Add to this the bizarro conversions of unit of time to length, mass and heat, and there isn't much to save here. Show me a source (aside from the Ten Commandments... where'd that come from?) that indicates the Israelites used a septimal system, and I'll re-examine it. Until then, this mess needs to go. Caknuck 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced non-sense. Unless some real sources can be produced showing this actually exists, and providing a cogent defense of it, it's gibberish. --Haemo 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. Jimp 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expert attention needed The bulk of this is obviously trivial, and much of the rest is POV nonsense, but the basic idea of such a system is there.Those who know about number systems should see it. DGG 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea is to propose a new measurement system based on the number 7, a reliable source should be provided that proves that such a proposal exists and is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. If the idea is to describe some measurement system based on the number 7 that existed in the past, a reliable source should be provided to prove that the system existed and was notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the only apparent source we have is the Judeo-Christian Bible. I get the feeling, though, that we're grasping at straws here. You also have the keep argument below, pointing at Geometrized unit system, which I haven't reviewed. Perhaps the basis of it exists therein, and we're looking at some Genius From Mars derivation, but beyond that...well, I'm sticking with my keep above and recommendation for a review after a period, but I should emphasize my conditions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---<QUOTE>---

In geometric units, every time interval is interpreted as the distance travelled by light during that given time interval. That is, one second is interpreted as one light-second, so time has the geometric units of length. This is dimensionally consistent with the notion that, according to the kinematical laws of special relativity, time and distance are on an equal footing.

Energy and momentum are interpreted as components of the four-momentum vector, and mass is the magnitude of this vector, so in geometric units these must all have the dimension of length. We can convert a mass expressed in kilograms to the equivalent mass expressed in meters by multiplying by the conversion factor G/c^2. For example, the Sun's mass of 2.0×10^30 kg in SI units is equivalent to 1.5 km. This is half the Schwarzschild radius of a one solar mass black hole. All other conversion factors can be worked out by combining these two.

---<QUOTE>---

Converting between various quantities is not a nonsense, because tables placed there: Geometrized unit system and discussion of Pervect about these units placed there: Talk:Geometrized unit system#LUFE Matrix and unit conversion confirms dimension of distance for meter, grave (kilogram), second, kelvin, while defining dimension of ampere, mole and candela as dimension of zero, or no dimension, because they are dimensionless ratios. If you don't believe, try calculate dimensions of these relativistic conversion factors in Google. Grave is historic prefixless name of kilogram as base unit, - even there is relevant article: Grave (mass) I now added to article some Biblical archeology related sources, and even more secular ones that are thought by you as more reliable than Biblical ones:

  • Wald, Robert M. (1984). General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-87033-2. See Appendix F

Wikinger 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is not only WP:OR & WP:CB but (and yes I know this isn't a reason for deletion) is probably the worst Wikipedia article I've ever seen. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me some tips how to cleanup article? I need some advises before I begin. Which parts are in contradiction to NPOV and how to change them to be in accord with NPOV? Wikinger 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first issue is, who's idea was it to create a measurement system based on geometrized units and the number 7, which seems to be what the article is about. If it was User:Wikinger's idea to create this system, then Wikinger should publish it in a reputable scientific journal, and come back after the article has been published. I happen to think there is no chance whatsoever that any scientific journal would ever publish such an article, but I'm no expert on geometrized units. If it was someone else's idea to create this system, Wikinger should provide the bibliograpic citation to the article in a reputable scientific journal where the system was proposed. --Gerry Ashton 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (since my above comment did not specify that). Additionally I fully agree with the previous post (by Gerry Ashton) and in continuation of that I would caution the submitter of a paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to drop the above used combination of references to general relativity and the pyramids, since a new scientific theory that seeks to combine those two would likely be regarded with a great deal of scepticism. --Lklundin 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Idea of this septenary system came to me as inspiration from both Bible and geometrized unit system, and due to this original compilation I see that my article will be rather deleted. Thus do you accept at least reusing table of multiples and description of algoritm of derivation of septenary units for example in new section about Tau septenary units that could be placed for example in article Tau (Warhammer 40,000)? These fictional species used identical septenary system, and in this case scientific references are rather not needed. Even this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septenary article states this: 'The Tau of Sci-fi Table-top battle game Warhammer 40,000 use a base-7 counting system'.Wikinger 06:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only describes fiction that has been published by other publishers, and reports reviews of fiction that have been published by other publishers. Wikipedia does not create new fiction, nor does it embelish existing fiction (this process is often called fan fiction; we don't do that here). --Gerry Ashton 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you accept placing table of septenary multiples and unit derivation algorithm in this Septenary article? Wikinger 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tables and unit "derivations" in the article to be deleted have never been published in a reliable source. They do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer true. I posted this Wikinger's article to Wikinfo and Anarchopedia to save it from destruction, where it was accepted. Do you treat Wikinfo as reliable source?83.19.52.107 10:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A posting of this article at the unreliable sources Wikinfo and Anarchopedia changes nothing regarding the articles deletion from wikipedia. Lklundin 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a bunch on nonsence. Shouldn't be presented as a real subject at face value unless it has some creds with respected people. Just madness, really.

Folks, I've studied general relativity, I've made my living as an engineer, I know my math, I know my units of measure, I know about dimensionless units, converting between units, you name it. This "subject" is all just a load of crap. Lets not give the impression of respectability by argueing this point or that, lets not be give these guys any more attension than they desive, which is NONE. This is a made up subject. This is post-modern liturature meets the decimal system. The people that created it are worse than vandals. Notice, not one peer reviewed ref. Not one credible source. I know, everyone whats to be reasonable and open minded, but lets not be suckers. Steve kap 10:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, with all due respect, perhaps we can be just a wee bit more WP:CIVIL here? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete badly-sourced OR crankery. And that huge conversion table for powers of 7 between -100 and +100? Please, no. —David Eppstein 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very small part of the content (the historical part) is probably encyclopedic (and is reflected in the few seemingly reliable sources on the source list), but there doesn't seem to anything to actually justify the process of septimalisation, as defined in the first sentence, as an encyclopedic topic. In particular, I haven't found the term "septimalisation" in the sources (or anywhere but Wikipedia on Google, for that matter).--ragesoss 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As justification for septimalisation serves obtaining full consistency without breaking Ten Commandments and without making week and Sunday obsolete, as is in case of the SI. Septimalisation is the same for base seven as decimalisation for base ten.83.5.11.79 08:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point about 10 users are in favour of deletion while 4 oppose deletion. Of those four users one is the article's author, Wikinger (which means Viking in Polish) and the three others are IP-users (in the 83 A-class used by Poland). Of the three IP-users one writes only a very short comment, while the two others write enough to make the same grammatical errors as does Wikinger (and this kind of error is common among native speakers of Polish). With this linguistic fingerprint I believe it is justified to point out that Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in a show of support is forbidden, and can ultimately lead to suspension of all involved accounts. If Wikinger has indeed engaged in sock puppetry (possibly due to ignorance rather than malice), I think his/her best option is to come clear and state exactly which of the IP-users are indeed sock puppets. Lklundin 09:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be engaged in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, because in Poland various Internet users doesn't have static IP, but have dynamic one. Really I emailed to my internet friends to stop supporting my point of view, and due to this, all Wikipedia:Sock puppetry-like behavior ceased now already on demand. Thus suspending account is not needed. In the 83 A-class are at least some hundred thousands of users with dynamic IP. Not only I make such grammatical errors as you see. This is very common in Poland.Wikinger 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're counting me in the list of four that oppose deletion, but you might note that I am in Seattle - which is quite far from Poland. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, my allegation concerns Wikinger and the three anonymous IP-users posting on this page. (I erroneously counted Dennisthe2 as pro-deletion, due to the changing opinions of that user). Lklundin 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dennisthe2, apart from the author, you are the only user with an established edit history (see 100-edit rule at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) in favour of keeping this article. Would you care to elaborate on your opinion taking into account that the author freely admits (above) that the article is OR (and thus can cite no reliable source)? Thank you. Lklundin 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In review, I can only say "at the time, it seemed like a good idea". =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • change to Merge any usable content (not those tables!) to Septenary. Much to my amazement, on digging around I've managed to find hard sources showing a septenary calendar was in partial use in Jacobean England & the 19th century US (including a mention in The Long Winter, a very lengthy discussion in the Pseudodoxia Epidemica and an entry in my favourite-title-ever book, The First English Dictionary for Ladies and other Unskilled Persons), but keeping both articles up is a pointless content fork. And strip out all the OR and religious gobbledegook. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German-Russian pidgin[edit]

German-Russian pidgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This supposed 'pidgin' does not seem to have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by any published works. I can't find any references to this language on Google, Google Book Search, or JSTOR, whether under "German-Russian pidgin" or "Quelia" or "Qweля" or "Deutschrussich", except for a single website. Ptcamn 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This is an English tranaslation of a German article that has German sources. Need to clean up not delete RaveenS 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By "sources" you mean "two external links", one of which is the website I mentioned above, and the other of which is this short article (also available in English), which only briefly mentions it (and seems to say it's slang rather than a separate language or "pidgin"). You'll have to do better than that. --Ptcamn 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per updated references section, which includes print references and online articles from reliable sources such as the Goethe-Institut. It's clearly a contact variety documented by linguists, but since the status of the variety is unclear, suggest moving article to German-Russian contact speech or something similar. Also suggest adding more info from the German version. It's not clear in the English version that the contact variety developed among Volga German communities and was later transplanted to Germany as a result of German Right of Return laws, which is what I believe the German and Russian linguistic studies indicate. Unfortunately, I'm not up to the translation right now though. Aelffin 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... those are some very different phenomena. Russenorsk was a pidgin developed for communication between groups that didn't speak each others' languages, Spanglish is an English-influenced variety of Spanish spoken by bilinguals, and Engrish isn't a variety at all, but a term for errors produced by people who do not speak English, often with the help of machine translation. Exactly which of these is Quelia supposed to be comparable to?
I would suggest moving it to an established name rather than neologizing. --Ptcamn 02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like this article, each of these articles documents a product of language contact. Quelia is a contact variety of Russian, under the influence of German and it is at least as well-sourced as the other articles I linked to. The term "pidgin" has a very specific meaning, as does the term "slang" and neither really applies here, but pidgin is closer. Aelffin 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tacos al Pastor[edit]

Tacos al Pastor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been around for a few months with little improvement. There's really nothing in this article that isn't covered by Taco or Al pastor, it's just that this is what you get when you combine the two. I can go either way if we go redirect (and if this becomes the case, where do we put it?), but for now I'll ask for discussion for deletion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eat the Tacos, per nom. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grea-a-a-at, now I wanna go for Mexican food. Just one problem - can't seem to find a taqueria in Everett, WA. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Al pastor, in my opinion, although deletion would probably be acceptable as well. Mmm, tacos. JavaTenor 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article also has WP:OR problems. --Dariusk 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or if redirect is deemed to be necessary, it should be redirected to Al pastor. --Entoaggie09 05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Way to Happy (song)[edit]

Long Way to Happy (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a single, nor has it been confirmed as a future single. The chart information in the "article" is completely false. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the last time I checked there was more than one "United State". - eo 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starmen.Net[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and reads like a fan-listing ^demon[omg plz] 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. The article is also on the verge of violating WP:SPAM. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fan site. Caknuck 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Starmen.net is actually very well-known to anyone who has played Earthbound and has done great things for the community around the game; however, I don't think it's notable enough for WP. --Dariusk 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's actually a highly notable fan-site (it's been mentioned in gaming magazines several times, well known to many gamers, including those that haven't played Earthbound). I also don't see how it's on the verge of violating WP:SPAM. Besides, if you find any unsourced information, then get the sources, or contact the writers of the article and ask them to find sources. --Kurotsyn 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) • contribs) 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from the fact that this article has been unsuccessfully VFD'd in the past, no one seems to recognize or respect its cultural significance. It has made multiple petitions to Nintendo, the petition in 2003 having had a large response, and has been mentioned in multiple popular offline and online publications and blogs. If you have a problem with sources, then like Kurotsyn said, you should ask the writer of the article to give you the sources. This page is not an advertisement, and it's not a fanlisting. --Numanoid 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is definitely a notable site. It has been mentioned in many places and magazines, and is relatively well known. --Grilox
  • Keep. As others have stated, it has been mentioned by many publications, Hyper (magazine) for example has mentioned it atleast half a dozen times throughout it's 150 or so issues.Atirage 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - seems to have enough notability. Article could use a little cleanup. Metamagician3000 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquila Polonica[edit]

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

Minor publishing house. With 8 Google results seems like an attempt for promotion. Out of 3 elinks, 1 is organization homepage, second is advertisement for their book, third doesn't mention the organization at all. Prod removed by creator who hasn't expanded the article or addressed the raised issues since then. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious wikipromotion. Appleseed (Talk) 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very short article that fails to assert notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This is just another song on Unk's album. It doesn't have a music video or has anything else that would make it notable. The Heated Supersonic Storm 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete — G3 - silly vandalism. — ERcheck (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molaki[edit]

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

Contested speedy and Prod, though no reason given. A likely hoax (corn grows in Sweden in mid-winter when the sun is at its highest? I think not). In any case no ghits for this Prof Thompson and Molaki corn, nor Molaki corn and Sweden/Swedish, so not verifiable or notable. Molaki is a Hawaii island and fish, though, so you learn something new everyday. Slp1 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and I forgot to mention that the web references given are fictitious and go nowhere useful.--Slp1 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the monkey[edit]

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

An unimportant minor character in a series of three movies. This is some of the worst character cruft I've seen on Wikipedia; delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs deposed before the 17th century[edit]

List of monarchs deposed before the 17th century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete list with arbitrary inclusion criterion (before 17th Century). Doczilla 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in some form. List of monarchs deposed in the 19th century shows how the list could be developed and improved; the information on the list could be useful. Only concern is the date which seems to have been chosen in order to ensure reasonable numbers on each list, but a better format - either per millenium or each century would be preferable to establish a uniform format. Davewild 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the dates should be better chosen. I'm not sure centuries is the right unit 1789 is a good cu-off, as is 1848 and 1919. I note that any delimination can be called arbitrary. DGG 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 19th Century list covers the entire 19th Century. No reason is indicated for why the entirety of human existence "before" the 17th Century is historically unique instead of also breaking down by 16th, 15th, etc. Therefore this division in history is arbitrary. Doczilla 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Similar list discussed here. Historic list of encyclopedic interest to those studying political history and royalty. Article title may seem arbitrary, but it is a way of keeping the list of reasonable length. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Lists (and articles) broken up for reasons of length should be treated together, and sneaky attempts to pick them off one by one should be resisted. Johnbod 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY VERY VERY VERY STRONG KEEP!!!! I dont know why they keep on trying-the "Lists of Monarchs deposed etc." have been targetted several times and always kept.I im the one who created 19Oth-before 17th century,though under another name,so I have say.And to Davewilds complaint:well,ive been losing,originaly,sources that told me DISTINCTLY if that and that ruler was deposed or not,so,feeling that not enough data can be provided for the 16th century alone (and earlier epochs) to stand independantly,I chose to track them down since before the last plain "century" page,ergo "17th century".

However,if enough data comes together,ill split the article into other sub-sections for other centuries.(Gotta go,im on the PC secertly,so I dont want to be discovered) New Babylon 16:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (based on sublist for Bohemia): neither monarch or being deposed is the correct term for early Premyslids and their mutual struggles for power. The list is copied from the List_of_rulers_of_Bohemia#P.C5.99emyslid_dynasty, w/o any outside reference, w/o any context. Charles V and couple of others abdicated voluntarily (abdication != being deposed), being killed in a battle (Roderic) should not be labeled as deposed, etc etc. Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this sounds poor, inaccuracy in a particular part of the list is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps you could correct them. The English list is ok except Richard II was deposed rather than abdicating, which I have corrected.Johnbod 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not much of a quorum, so maybe it should be relisted, but I think it's avoidable in this case, as the close is No Consensus with no prejudice against a renomination. The question of whether large malls are inherently notable is fraught. Basically, not enough weight in the Delete camp for the article to be destroyed. Herostratus 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Landmark (Toronto)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, prod and notability tags put on page were removed without addressing issues. Seinfreak37 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is the objection the future date of opening, the size (unstated) or the general lack of notability>? In any large constrution project there are usually local newspaper articles. DGG 05:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern is the general lack of notability. -Seinfreak37 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--This is the forum on how to begin an Afd; not by slapping a "prod" without any time for further research...Bacl-presby 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP; this posting was created (I'm not responsible!) to note a new "mega" development in the "vacant" NE Corner of Toronto, that isn't part of the Rouge Park. I'll be noting some further input in the article's discussion.Bacl-presby 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP; If Lake Ruth is notable, The Landmark certainly is. ;) EagleFan 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the info. I was aware of that, but just being a smart ass. Obviously Lake Ruth's notability was never explained but the article survived AFD because it was yours. As for The Landmark, I do not believe most shopping centers need an article unless there is something historic or notable about them. Largest in country or world may be notable, largest in Toronto, not so much, IMHO. Otherwise, it appears to be just an advertisement. EagleFan 14:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral party unaware of prior discussion on the subject, I have just nominated Lake Ruth.
While a speedy tag is not the way to question something of dubious notability, but a prod tag allows 5 days for improvement just like an AfD. A prod followed by an afd allows 10. DGG 00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Glaze[edit]

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

Spammy article on a zero-budget film from the Michael Legge walled garden, kept by VfD back in the days before we had clarified the WP:N criterion that articles should be the primary focus of multiple non-trivial sources. This has not, apparently, been the focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. IMDB, for example, is user-submitted, most indie film articles are uploaded by the makers. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems notable enough for multiple sources: [34], [35], [36]. Fine for a stub. - Denny (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independence of those sources? Guy (Help!) 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of them have anything to do with Legge or Honey Glaze. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen a request like this since reading/working on WP--is this standard? - Denny (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for what its worth, they look like they're not even from the same country: [37], [38], [39]. I would like a clear answer on the nature of this request, though. - Denny (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the links? How do they assert notablity? In your [3] link, the review refers to the director as "Michael who?" and talks about how horrible it is. So how do you get your work reviewed by that website? Mail it to them (For what its worth, a South African address-- so its international postage). The other b-independent.com is "is committed to helping the Ultra-independent distribute his film free of charge". We need WP:RS to prove notability. Not a website where anyone can mail a copy of their movie to or get it distributed. Arbustoo 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the external links provided in the article, only the ones to IMDB and to B Independent contain any information whatsoever, and both of those sites rely on user-submitted content. They're not by any stretch of the imagination reliable sources. Regarding the previous vfd, of the two users opining for retention, one turned out to be a months-long breaching experiment voting keep for articles that should be deleted and delete for articles that should be kept, and the other is beyond any reasonable doubt one of the actors/directors/whatever involved with these movies. It's entirely possible for micro-budget films to become notable and attract third-party attention, but Honey Glaze is no Primer. —Cryptic 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tough keep. Low-budget indie films mean low-budget indie reviews. Denny's links show the importance for the genre, and Legge's statue within the community are enough to make any of his works notable anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is the movie or even the director notable? You mentioned his "statue within the community" when both the links supplied above refer to him as "Michael who" (anyone can submit their movie) and his bio mentions NOTHING.[40] As for his single award. According to its website, currently the festival is hosting Syracuse Teen Idol for $5 a ticket, and anyone can submit their films as long as they pay $30-40.00. Hardly impressive. Arbustoo 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep if there are more reviews. DGG 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of a wide ranging campaign by JzG and others to remove certain articles from Wikipedia regardless of whether they meet the notability standard or not! Keep as per Dennycolt and Badlydrawnjeff and the fact that this and other movies by Legge are notable in the field of cult cinema. Billions 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is the 12th day the above user has been active. He also votes on afd's related to this "director". Importantly, he has given NO reason for WHY it is notable. Arbustoo 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proof of importance. Arbustoo 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment director, and massive redirects up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Legge (filmmaker) (third nomination). Arbustoo 23:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - No vote yet, but this movie is apparently in the Blockbuster Video database: [41]. Also, Legge has a box at VH1.com [42]. I'll look for a review somewhere. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources seem to be trivial or user-submitted ones, movie fails to demonstrate notability. --Minderbinder 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no comment - The review Arbustoo refers to above that says "Michael who?" nevertheless is a review of the movie. I was under the impression that a third-party article doesn't have to assert notability, but the fact that there is a third-party review proves notability. Please clarify this for me. (If WP articles needed external articles to assert the subject's notability, we'd be in the process of deleting 1000 articles on Simpsons episodes, wouldn't we? Or is every single Simpsons episode notable?) I really want to vote keep, but I'll stay out of this - though I sincerely hope that the criterion to keep an article on a low-budget movie isn't the same as for a major release. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Serpent[edit]

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

Non-notable music group fails WP:MUSIC Stoic atarian 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, admitted hoax. NawlinWiki 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sapenem[edit]

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

0 google hits on any of it. No cite of any kind. Has been tagged for speedy and not notable author removed without doing anything much to article. Looked up books authors names, nothing. Title - nothing. Book company - nothing. Looking like its not a real book Xiahou 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spoof article - book does not seem to exist. Davewild 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any reference to it; it certainly lacks notability. --Stormbay 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete articles author just admitted on the articles talk page its made up. Is there a way to close this and restart the speedy process? --Xiahou 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied this one. Author admits making it up. JBEvans 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with MasoniCHIP.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOCHIP[edit]

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

NN and violates WP:NOT. Only one of many programs run in various states in different ways. Author of article is a Program Coordinator in his area, and seeks to use WP as an informational source for his state's program (advertising), and has apparently run into issues posting this before as per the article talk. MSJapan 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. Who are you to say I am using this for advertising. It is a real and important program, and just because I am involved in it doesn't mean I am advertising. I see many people on WP post atricles of things they are familiar with. MSJapan has had an issue with this since the start and has made it a personal decision to do away with it. Jokerst44 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Vidkun and Grye both saw issues with it before I ever weighed in on the situation, so that is an unfair characterization. MSJapan 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks like a valid topic for an article to me. Should simply be edited to be objective and accurate. Jefferson Anderson 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only violation is WP:COI and that is not good reason to delete. Improve the article.--Masterpedia 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It seems it could be merged into a larger article but I don't think it hurts to have its own space. There is no doubt that is violates WP:COI. Notability could be established fairly easily I would think. No question that CHIPS programs are notable but is the mere existence of one specific program sufficient for notability? Maybe, maybe not. But in the end, the encyclopedia is not harmed by its inclusion. JBEvans 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't know why you would like to keep this, but it's non-notable. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having this information widely available could end up saving a couple of kids' lives a month. Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pure speculation and your own OR ,as there are many other ways. Now if you can find an RS saying so, that would be worth doing. DGG 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge into a larger article on the program nationwide, when such an article is written. WegianWarrior 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: This program already has an official website located at mochip.org, which is hosted by masonichip.org, which hosts six programs on its server (the six referenced by the author): CT. MO, ME, NJ, RI, and MI. Add to that list (from Google) PA, NE, NB, MA, IN, TN, and IL, and there are likely others not online. So MOCHIP is not "one of six", but rather one of at least 13 programs in the United States, which I think reduces its notability even further. What I also noticed (and which can be checked via that search link)is that MO is the lowest-ranked set of hits for the CHIP program out of any state. MSJapan 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or create as subsection of article on Masonic CHIP programs in general (as was suggested before, and taken as a personal insult by the original author of the MOCHIP article.--Vidkun 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a less location specific article on Masonic Child ID programs in general... you can add NY to the list of states that have similar programs. I do agree with Matthew Joseph Harrington's statement above, that having such information on Wikipedia could well save a child's life... and so I think an article on Masonic Child ID programs in general would be a true public service... but the Missouri program is not unique or notable in and of itself. We should discuss and provide links to all such programs (even those not run by the Masons). Blueboar 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - A program run in a specific state. Nothing notable about it, the same program is run in many states. I am sure there is an article on child id programs, where a mention may be appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - A MasoniCHiP article should be made that encompasses all the CHiP programs. Although there are slight differences between the state CHiP programs, most are extremely similar, going so far as have exactly the same website template between GLs, such as [44] and [45]. They are partically the same, but with different colors. Chtirrell 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Purely local organizations are usually not considered notable unless they get a lot of press coverage or have some discernible national impact. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):
  1. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
  2. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.
EdJohnston 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASDA Smart Price[edit]

ASDA Smart Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This should be a trivial entry on the ASDA page, not a full encyclopedia article. Neither Tesco nor Sainsbury's comparable Value or Basics brands have articles. And where do we draw the line?? Tesco Finest, Sainsbury's Taste the Difference... at some point we're just advertising. Mark83 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge into ASDA I largely agree with Mark83. It does read like an extended advert, [although I am happy to assume created in good faith]. I see no precedent for creating articles for own/sub brands of supermarkets, and I feel that so far this article has done little to assert that it's significant in its own. Suncloud 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, let me take the opportunity to say I too assume good faith. Mark83 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Suncloud. Jefferson Anderson 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly merge. Advert and needs to go. JBEvans 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to main article. Abeg92contribs 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied this first time it was created, although I would accept on reflection that an AfD might have been better since this is not really blatant advertising and is good faith. Merge jimfbleak 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and trim The subject is probably notable--some of the cntents is not, and thereshould be reviews from Which? andsimilar magazines. DGG 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - if George Clothing doesn't get its own article (the market leading brand of school kid clothing in the UK by financial volume sold), and is merged into the main Asda article; then why should ASDA Smart price have its own article? More of an advert than an article. Rgds, - Trident13 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was written in good faith, I assumed since there were article's for other private labels such as Duraband that this would be OK. However having read the article back I can see the point about advertising and agree with the rationale for its listing and have no problem with either deletion or merging. Gizmosarmy 11:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kingboyk 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow[edit]

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

This article is a dual violation of WP:NOT. First of all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (the lead of this article). Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (the horrendous "References in culture" section). Furthermore, I can't see any potential for this to expand into anything which is more useful, in an encyclopedic sense, than a dictdef.

This is the second nomination; the article was nominated for deletion on 30 June 2004; the debate is preserved at Talk:Tomorrow. On that occasion, the consensus was to keep as a disambiguation page. However, the page as it stood then was in no way a disambiguation page as we now know them. Not one of the entries was in fact for the singular word "tommorow"; rather, it was what we would now term an indiscrimate list. All things considered I think we should delete this article. kingboyk 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has been here since 2004. No reason for deletion given. A significant concept and a useful place for cultural references. This is the sort of deletion nomination which has caused longtime user Joe Mabel to significantly reduce his involvement with Wikipedia. Jefferson Anderson 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This response was posted whilst I was preparing my rationale so of course the "no reason for deletion" statement is no longer correct (I use a script to nominate, which hijacks the browser window; I stated clearly that the nomination was to follow - it was just a placeholder). Anyway, I digress: the last time I checked, "Joe Mabel likes it" wasn't a valid criterion for keeping an article. --kingboyk 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Make into DAB. The article presents plenty of contextual information and links to other articles. Today is already a short definition, DAB page. The excessive definitions should be in Wiktionary though, not Wikipedia. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to mostly be a disambiguation page. I say pare it down to just that and keep. There are clearly a lot of things called "Tomorrow", classic situation where we should have a dab page. We just need to remove all of the fluff that's crept in. --W.marsh 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that it's currently in essence a dab page; I agree that turning it into one is plausible and probably desirable, provided that we actually do that and don't return to having a "list of everything under the sun which mentions tommorow" :) --kingboyk 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well maybe you're right about the version that existed when I said that, but I'm currently turning it into a dab page, check again please. --W.marsh 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still not a dab page. Every item in a dab page should be link, and it should merely disambiguate. For example, there's no reason at all to imagine that somebody looking for... oh never mind, looks like you're still trimming :) --kingboyk 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I'm done with what I intend to do for now. Hopefully it illustrates there are multiple things called "tomorrow", so a dab page is justifiable. It's not perfect yet, but perfection is hardly a requirement for keeping something, it can still be improved. --W.marsh 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Righto, I shall withdraw this nomination then but renominate if your changes get reverted. --kingboyk 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kourtney Kardashian[edit]

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

It doen't merit a footnote in Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive, let alone a whole article. You can't catch notoriety ... Pleclech 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Her claim to fame is that she has appeared on national television. I did too once (in Israel). Does that make me notable? Enough said. YechielMan 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable per WP:Bio. Cricket02 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: eh, she is related to plenty of relatively famous people, but perhaps she is not notable. Maybe a mention in Robert Kardashian would be appropriate, if not there already. GracenotesT § 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 00:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reymon 14[edit]

Reymon 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to assert noteworthiness. Only source doesn't even mention him. Aaron Bowen 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the deletion tag has been removed off that page 5-6 times now. Aaron Bowen 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment The author suggested I just google the name of the youtuber and I'd get thousands of results, well... I found 7 under the article name:[46] and 46 as it's typed in using the exact name of the user:[47] None of which are "non-trivial" or valid independent sources. Aaron Bowen 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dosn't met WP:BIO. And on a side note I doubt 14,000 views would make him "one of the most watched" when most of the popular YouTube videos I've seen have at least 100,000. Obvious promotional conflict of interest here. Danski14(talk) 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, nonnotable, fails WP:BIO ....miserably. Cricket02 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Totteringham's Day[edit]

No references to confirm Notability sounds like WP:NFT to me. Delete--Greatestrowerever 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as well as WP:NFT, it's a pretty transparent attack on poor old Spurs so that WP:CSD#G10 probably applies ("no purpose but to disparage their subject"). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Point of view, attack on spurs, badly written, offensive language, the lot. If this day had recieved any press to be noteable, the best action would probably still be to delete everything in this poorly written article and start over. Dr bab 08:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourcable nonsense essentially constituting attack page ChrisTheDude 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- it is sourcable & factual but not notable. Qwghlm 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be something made up by someone on arseweb, but I live smack in the middle of Gooner country & I've never heard anyone use the word. Not even worth transwikiing - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just an Arsenal fan using wikipedia to have a laugh at the expense of Spurs. Some Blackpool F.C. fans did something similar last year, adding the derogatary term "Knobbers" (or Nobbers I don't recall the exact word now) to describe fans of local rivals, Preston North End, citing made up historical "facts", which they all then talked about on a Fans Discussion Forum and saying how clever they were to get it on wikipedia. This smacks of being exactly the same. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is sourcable and has many references on Google, therefore does not qualify as WP:NFT. Asics talk Editor review! 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was please use WP:MFD in the future, will delete userpage now since it's minor. W.marsh 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Actually maybe not so minor. Will inform the last admin who protected the page, he'll know what's going on. --W.marsh 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:いちだ ぱねど[edit]

This user is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Durin's Bane, when all that user really did was fix a mistake on Bane's talk page. Please delete that user page. Jc iindyysgvxc 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 13:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI[edit]

St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. As I said in the removed prod tag, "junk". -Splash - tk 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or speedy-delete per WP:CSD A7. I don't see a notability claim. Haukur 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ok. I should have speedied it. I just wasn't sure it wouldn't have wound up directly on WP:DRV. Splash - tk 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you want this to be deleted? It is a real part of the college. It is not junk. Do not delete. End of discussion.
    It can be a real phenomenon without a Wikipedia article on it being appropriate. We have a bunch of guidelines on what subjects are suitable for articles. Haukur 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, along with the other members of the team and college feel it is a very worthy cause to be on wikipedia, helping to educate and enlighten others into the activites, past times and traditions that take place at one of this country's most well known educational establishments. Cambs_Parnell

Notariety: http://mens.cuafc.org/team.php?TeamID=52&PHPSESSID=126db7c4f8985ca51035255b2dd6a991

This article falls into no general catagories for speedy delete. At all. Guys just relax!

  • How do you add a notability claim? I am new to this.
    See Wikipedia:Notability for some ideas. Another problem is that the article isn't currently written in an encyclopedic style. Another big problem is that there aren't any reliable sources listed as references to substantiate the contents of the article. Haukur 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason there are no refernces and notability is becuase it is a recent development and no one has published a book on it.
  • HOWEVER, the team has appeared in Varsity, Cambridge University's weekly newspaper, on two separate occassions. Evidence of this would be sufficient notariety AND notability? Am I correct? Vis-a-vis the style of writing, yes I agree it is not too encyclopaedic. But would we have ever got rugby if everyone followed the rules. It is all part of the Johnian flair assocciated with the team, and the sport.
    Sadly, no, that would almost certainly not be enough. Look, it's not you - it's us. There are places on the Internet for your content on hot athletic college boys in pink t-shirts. Lots of places. Nice places. But Wikipedia isn't one of them. If the team hasn't got any news coverage outside of the college then you don't stand a chance. Even a mention or two in local papers still wouldn't get you very far. Haukur 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable amateur team. NawlinWiki 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete 26000 students cannot be wrong. Very notable within university.
    Yes, you don't want it deleted - we get that already. Haukur 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then. On the basis it offends no one, is notable to an extent, is only linked from the St John's College page, and is a real phenomenon, what harm is it on wiki? People who here about it and search for it will be glad of the information it provides. You underestimate it's fame within the institution. I have said all I can. Now it's fait is left to the wikipedia gods, and the sad chieftains of regulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambs Parnell (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment That the article offends no-one is not a reason to keep it. See WP:NOHARM. For a topic to be included on wikipedia, its noteability has to be asserted by independent sources. A college newspaper is not an independent source. The article should therefore be deleted.Dr bab 08:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete after merging to St John's College, Cambridge and seeing whether it survives there. As an Oxford man, I know Cambridge people do silly things, but I doubt they will put up with this non-notable stuff on the College article. --Bduke 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not an acceptable solution. If we want (or might want) to use this article's content, either in its current location, or in the main article about St. John's College, or anywhere else, we must keep the history of the edits by which the content was created, as specified in the GNU Free Documentation License under which Wikipedia's content is licensed (it's all in the fine print when you edit a page ). However, if the content in this article is not verifiable, or has other serious problems that would amount to a legitimate reason to delete it, it should not be re-used in any article, in which case we would have no reason to care who wrote it, and no legal obligation to keep the edit history. It should be easy enough for you to decide which of these scenarios applies to this article and clarify your suggestion. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not being entirely serious, just pointing out that a good test of how encyclopedic this article is, would be to ask how much of it could appear in the main College article. I doubt any of it would survive there for very long. Of course if this is stripped back to a stub and then merged, then the article should be made a redirect to the College article. However, I still think none of the merged material would be still there in a month, so it should just be deleted. --Bduke 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, then. I just wanted to clarify that merging should not be done on a "trial basis", nor in a way that is only traceable through deleted edits. As for this particular article, the only link provided as an outside source is one that asks me to register with facebook.com (no thanks), and without looking at it I can only guess that the content there (I understand it's a blog site) was probably posted by the same people who gave us this article. I can't find anything on Google either. Delete. — CharlotteWebb 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN amateur team, speedy candidate. EliminatorJR Talk 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ultra-trivial. Postlebury 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the co-founder of this football team, I feel that I should also say my peace on this matter. We have not posted this page to broadcast ourselves in any shape or form, and most particularly not as, "hot, athletic college boys in pink t-shirts". We are an official and affiliated part of the sporting scene of Cambridge University, recognised by the University football leagues and not only by St. John's College itself. I am sure that you will be able to see past the slightly humorous exterior of our, "pink t-shirts" and recognise that we have just as much right to have a place on your website as any of the Blues teams (after all, we seem to get more press coverage and have a squad twice the size of that of the Blues soccer team). Our content describes to the viewing public what has become a well-known part of Cambridge's sporting scene (which is, as I'm sure you are aware, one of the most prestigious in the world), and therefore we all feel that deleting our site would not only be a massive sense of humour failure on the part of wikipedia.org, but also totally unnecessary and unjust.

Greg Caterer (club secretary)

I wasn't disparaging you with my "hot, athletic etc." comment. I just call'em as I see'em :) Haukur 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice - current article is unsalvageable rubbish, but someone could potentially write a valid article on them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No - all amateur teams are NN except in very exceptional circumstances. EliminatorJR Talk 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I know - but given Johns' propensity for turning out notable alumni, there's a reasonable chance a member of this will go on to accomplish something & we might want this to back-fill their biography. There's no earthly way it meets the criteria now, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you all have waaaay too much time on your hands. No one needs to see it. The only reason you found it is cus I linked it to the Cambridge Uni page as a joke. It's been here two months before any of you lot found it. So carry on finding really junk filled and trivial articles. It's really quite sad you take this so seriously, I aprreciate the need for moderation, but, as this page is not linked anywhere you could all just forget it! I mean, who is just going to search for 'St Legend's College?' apart from ALL the uni students who know about it. Chillax, and don't delete it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambs Parnell (talk • contribs).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shetlink[edit]

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

This article is advertizing for a small and relatively unknown community website. The short article contains 23 links back to their own website, and little information. In my opinion it is also categorized incorrectly.

  • Delete All references of any relevance seem to revolve around the Sakchai Makao case. If this is the only case that has brought Shetlink to the limelight,a small mention of Shetlinks role in the case on the Sakchai Makao article might be appropriate. It does not warrant an article of its own.Dr bab 07:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I removed the discussion forums section; as the nominator noted that was not appropriate. I also agree with Dr bab that the notability derives mostly from the Sakchai Makao case, so this should probably be merged into that article. Gwernol 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice article as it stands doesn't say anything that couldn't be said better on Sakchai Makao; the article can be recreated if the website does something important in its own right. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the article. In retrospect I do agree that the article had too many links back to the website (I didn't set out to 'abuse' the wiki), but many of the links which have been deleted were to important and relevant discussions and information regarding Shetland which is hosted on the website (such as the current wind farm debate and the Bressay Bridge construction proposal etc). The Shetland relevant content has been deleted from the article by others, leaving only the Sakchai Makao references. While the website may be small in comparison to many other community websites, it is catering for a niche i.e. people of Shetland. The website is popular among Shetland people/ ex-pats and as such, I don’t think it warrants deletion. Over to you! User:Prroudfoot

  • Declaration - I'm a moderator on the Shetlink forums. I was alerted to the deletion status of this entry so I have tidied it up leaving only directly relevant info, removed some links back to the website, added some content and moved material to the Sakchai article. I'll add more/expand, should others think the article is worth keeping Peeriebryan 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Davis[edit]

James M. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An apparently autobiographical resume for an attorney. Major COI issues.RJASE1 Talk 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly a speedy a7. I'd normally go with a userfy in this case, but it's not appropriate for a user page, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Obviously an advertisement for the lawyer himself. Fails Bio. The creator is the lawyer himself. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. JRHorse 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep a specialist in his field,as proved by the refs provided. Its not a familiar field to most of us, but that's all the more reason for considering carefully before we delete. Free of most spam. DGG 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't agree at all with DGG above; there's nothing to indicate he's any more of a specialist in his field than any other insurance lawyer, and he's not been involved in any high profile cases etc which might make him of interest. I can't see any circumstances at present where a user would ever search for "James Davis" with the intention of finding him. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Any reader who sees his name in connection with a case might well want some background information. DGG 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That could be said of anyone who's ever appeared in court - are we going to have a page for every lawyer, police officer & criminal? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, that's what an individual's state bar is for. It's also what a personal web page is for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley burroughs[edit]

Stanley Burroughs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possibly fails WP:BIO. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have made some slight improvements; I think he is pretty notable, as an alternative health pioneer; the problem is finding material on him. (I have also moved the article to Stanley Burroughs.) Brianyoumans 00:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no view really - but the decision needs making in relation to Master Cleanse. Merging would be an option. BTW, I see that CharlieRebich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article, and a Charlie Rebich is the US distributor of the Madal Bal maple syrup used in the Burroughs Master Cleanse.[48] If they are the same person, the WP:Conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that they avoid directly editing either article or taking part in this deletion discussion. Tearlach 02:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No opinion either, but this edit is clearly a POV push on the part of User:CharlieRebich, wherein he wiped out information about a contemporary of Burroughs which was sourced from a reputable publication, along with the citation itself. Also during that edit, User:CharlieRebich inserted unsourced information about the aforementioned maple syrup. I am simply flagging this as a potential issue moving forward.BFD1 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and the only question is which way. Ai think the product is better known than the man, so would merge this article into it. DGG 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Maybe merge, but that article doesnt quite meet WP:CORP. Arbustoo 07:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ An Introduction to a History of Woodcut, Arthur M. Hind,p , Houghton Mifflin Co. 1935 (in USA), reprinted Dover Publications, 1963 ISBN 0-486-20952-0
  2. ^ Master E.S., Alan Shestack, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1967
  3. ^ An Introduction to a History of Woodcut, Arthur M. Hind, Houghton Mifflin Co. 1935 (in USA), reprinted Dover Publications, 1963 ISBN: 0-486-20952-0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_10&oldid=1081098155"