Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biolytix[edit]

This article appears to be spam and not notable. --Alex 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V, WP:SPAM and WP:NN, no assertion of notability. Ravenswing 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn. `'mikka 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, and entirely free from any context that might establish what makes this process different. Possible speedy delete candidate, WP:CSD G11 (spam) and A1 (very short article with little or no context). - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not-notable and spam. Acalamari 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 15:33, 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 delete. --Core desat 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabirock[edit]

Er... an article about a "mysterious man in the Greater Manchester area, who walks around all day... wearing a sandwich board". Someone else tagged this as a speedy A7, but another editor removed it on the creator's behalf. The CNN link is more trivial than it might look, it's just a blog for Manchester that accepts reader submissions. Every city in the world has characters that are known locally. They don't get Wikipedia articles. Crazysuit 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial person. JuJube 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. WLD^talk|edits 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the BBC link is dead, the CNN link is a trivial mention. If more sources can be found, I'll change my mind. J Milburn 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without further references for notability. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and the links provided are about trivial, if that. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous violation of WP:BIO and WP:NN. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though this article appears to be notable, but somebody need to provide the references for notability. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriously delete - OMG! Attention all Wikipedians, BIO writing has hit a new low. The first line cracks me up... Delete outright. Spawn Man 05:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only marginally notable, with insufficient sourcing. --Cheers, Afluent Rider 06:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Please DON'T Delete. I put the article on originally and I must confess I am new at this so it isn't very well written. I accept that there are not sufficient references and I accept it is baddly written but to delete the article because of my inability would be wrong. I put it up as a framework for other people with more sources to edit and improve, not to just delete straight away. This man is not just a 'well known person' in Greater Manchester and he is more than a local celebrity. Mike Toolan is a radio presenter in a local radio station, but he gets a page and he has much less of a story about him than Sabirock does. Please do not delete this page, please help me add more references! (Mawkish1983 08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
By the way, the CNN link is not just to a blog, it is an article written by Badly Drawn Boy (i.e. the band) and they recognise that Sabirock is more of a landmark and a must-see attraction than a nobody. (Mawkish1983 08:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS. Terence 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another important thing to remember is that this man is notable for being an enigma. He is notable because so little is known about him and the fact is that he keeps it that way! Around Greater Manchester, when this man is spotted, it is like a ghost sighting and people get very excited about it. To have this page deleted on the basis that he is not notable only works if the test for notability is the paper-trail a person leaves. What makes Sabirock special is that he leaves no trail!!! I have read the arguements above and I still say please DON'T delete. (Mawkish1983 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In fact, Wikipedians define notability to be "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice" and specifically state that "it is not synonymous with fame or importance" (See WP:N). I think everybody in Greater Manchester would agree this man attracts notice and is worthy of being noted! After all, he HAS attracted notice! I am argueing this a lot because whilst this article is about a real person, the person keeps himself as an enigma which adds to his notability! As a global encyclopaedia, wikipedia is for people who live in Greater Manchester as much as it is for people who live elsewhere. Greater Manchester itself is a significant place with a significant population, and absolutely everybody I have spoken to agrees that Sabirock is a notable local celebrity BECAUSE he is such an enigma with so little information about him! Please Don't delete this article! (Mawkish1983 10:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, Wikipedians define notability to be "The subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject". Which this isn't. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no verifiable, sourced information. If/when such information becomes available, recreate the article. --Ashenai 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its obvious self promo--Zedco 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't self promo - it's not about me! (Mawkish1983 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete All I really needed to read was the first sentence. A mysterious man that wears a sandwich board sign around Manchester... But, he's also a freelance builder. Okay, clearly not notability. Being mysterious or crazy does not make one notable. --Cyrus Andiron 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have missed the point, the builder part is just a bit of backgroun and the only background anyone can find on him. He's not a builder now. (Mawkish1983 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do not delete I don't think this page should be deleted because I live in Manchester and he's become a local celebrity...just because we don't have a lot of information on him, doesn't mean the page should be deleted, this page actually has the most information on SabiRock than any other webpage I've come across...the article is lacking on info for a reason....and that's the reason why everyone likes the man! The mystery behind him is what's getting people talking about him. His music is really good too...so he should be known for that as well...if CNN mentions him, I don't see why Wikipedia can't. If anything, this page is an informative tribute to the local legend :) (UniqueKiwi 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC))— UniqueKiwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. _{How is this 'spa' relevent?}[reply]

It's relevant because UniqueKiwi is obviously a sock-puppet. Crazysuit 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CNN doesn't mention him - a user on a chat page hosted by CNN mentions him. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response comment - the user was Badly Drawn Boy, a famous musician from Manchester. Also, the chat page was not contributable by the public, only by accredited reputable editors (of which Badly Drawn Boy is one). To disregard this reference would be as unjust as disregarding ANY reference, as they are ALL written out of the public domain by a an accredited person granted special permission. Yes, even a news reporter for a news paper fits into this catagory. (146.87.255.19 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NN, WP:V. "just because we don't have a lot of information on him, doesn't mean the page should be deleted" is exactly why the page should be deleted. RGTraynor 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's delete stonehendge, crop circles and Jord then shall we? Using that logic, we could strip away a LOT of wikipedia pages, RGTraynor. I don't think it's a good idea to use that arguement. (Mawkish1983 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's an excellent idea, actually. Equating internationally well-known subjects for which thousands of references exist with some local character unknown beyond the Manchester city limits for whom no reliable, independent, published sources exist is what isn't a good argument to use. RGTraynor 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep argueing, RGTraynor, but I feel it is important Sabirock is included on this encyclopaedia. If it was true that local only subjects were not allowed to be included here, Mike Toolan should have been removed. He hasn't. I still fail to see why Sabirock should be removed when I compare the article about him, the references to him and the number of people who know of him to another pseudo-celebrity (like Mike Toolan) who remain on here without arguement. You accept that this local character is known within the city limits of Manchester (actually the county limits of Greater Manchester, but we shalt be picky), so why should he be removed when other local characters remain? Again, I am sorry for continually argueing about this, but this seems like hypocracy to me. Perhaps it is victimisation, so what is Sabirock's crime exactly? (Mawkish1983 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And I am sorry, but I still disagree with your statement that there are no reliable, independent, published sources. I have listed pleanty of independent references (from the public). One reference points to a page of pictures taken of Sabirock (providing reliability of the statements given in the aforementioned sources). As for being published, the CNN reference is more than a blog (as I have said many times). In order to add an article to the particular page, one must be endowed certain privelages by the CNN Website Admin. Badly Drawn Boy was endowed such privelages because of his fame. I do not see why the reference to the CNN Website is any less notable than any other reference that can be given. Please do not take this arguement personally, I simply believe strongly that Wikipedia needs a page about Sabirock, as he is a Manchester landmark and a local celebrity. Any arguements that he is not a Manchester landmark are false. Any arguements that he is not a local celebrity are also false. So, why should he be removed? (Mawkish1983 20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I don't accept that he's well known in Manchester; I'm simply not a Mancusian myself and lack the standing to comment on it one way or another. But first off, let's review your sources. #1 is a blog. #2 is a blog. #3 is a blog. #4 is a blog. #5 is a Yahoo message board. #6 is a list of addresses. #7 is a bulletin board. The final two are posted song lyrics. I strongly urge you review WP:V and WP:RS, the relevant policies on reliable sources, which hold:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

and

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

We're not talking blogs and bulletin boards, we're talking published books, newspapers or TV shows with available transcripts. None of your sources remotely qualify. Aside from anything else, the simple fact that the unanimous consensus of every editor but yourself who has commented on this article is for deletion should be telling. RGTraynor 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for record, because Mawkish1983 seems extremely confused about the CNN blog, and the fact that anyone can add information to it. Firstly, he's claimed at least four times that the blog was written by Badly Drawn Boy. Wrong, it just has a picture of Badly Drawn Boy because there's a clip of him in Manchester on the same page. Secondly... oh who cares - this article is doomed anyway. Crazysuit 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but I do have to thank Mawkish, because I've just filed a prod on the Mike Toolan article, agreeing with him that the subject is non-notable. RGTraynor 07:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO. This is clearly an A7 violation and should have been Speedy Deleted. Kntrabssi 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO, do not pass go. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else who said to delete. Acalamari 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a bandwagon approaches there will always be those who chose to jump. This page is not meant to be a Sabirock Biography. It is not promoting his music or himself. It is not advertising. This page is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article about a landmark in Greater Manchester. The user who commented on Sabirock on the CNN reference is Badly Drawn Boy, a very famous and sucessful band from Manchester. Sabirock is a moving landmark, and as such should be included in an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia. Rather than joining in the witchhunt that this page has become, think for yourself whether Sabirock should be removed. I maintain that Sabirock should not be removed from wikipedia. I vote again, DO NOT DELETE. (Mawkish1983 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - nn. Also, a lot of it is original research, with no real prospect that that can be fixed by using reliable sources. Metamagician3000 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Start the Discussion Again[edit]

Having read what everybody has said and what responses people (mostly me) have given, can we start the discussion again? Please don't just say 'delete' because everybody else does: be unique and see that Sabirock NEEDS to be on wikipedia, as he is an important local landmark! So, let's start the discussion again:

Do not delete for all the reasons I have been going on about above (Mawkish1983 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Do not delete as per Mawkish1983. Nswinton 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowing Down to the Majority Vote[edit]

I've reviewed the wikipedia rules, and tried to manipule them to keep Sabirock's page here. I have tried to validate and justify my sources, despite the fact that they are nothing more than blogs. I have even tried the underhanded tactic of 'well if this person has an article, why can't Sabirock', but in the end it is absolutely clear to be that an article about Sabirock is not suitable for wikipedia at this time. To all the people who have taken the time to argue with me, thank you - this was my first article and I have learnt a lot. I am sorry to have wasted everybody's time. This article should have been speedily removed, it is an A7 violation. I won't put up a fight. To the wikipedia-overlords: I am happy to see this page deleted and I am sorry for attempting to polute wikipedia (even though my intentions were good).

Thank you for joining in the arguement, and I am sorry for wasting your time. (Mawkish1983 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's not a waste of time; gauging whether articles meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability is what those who tackle AfD discussions do, and if the task wasn't important to us we wouldn't do it. The best way to move on, if you still wish to write articles - and we encourage you to do so - is to apply Occam's Razor: if after digging you can't find reliable sources for a subject, the subject almost certainly isn't notable. Come to that, that's exactly what we do here in AfDs. RGTraynor 13:22, 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. Sarah Jane Coker is under the scope of a different AFD. --Core desat 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Harrison Coker[edit]

Original Research, unverifiable sources, source to school history does not provide sufficient information to substantiate a full article WLD^talk|edits 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may want to examine the following articles made by the same author (not necessarily in this AfD):

See also my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Autry. Tearlach 02:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm looking to see if anything is salvagable - any help gratefully received, as I'm not too familiar with all the relevant policies and processes. It's possible they all fail the notability guideline (although that may offend Texan sensibilities), and the sourcing may all be inadequate - I'm not really qualified to say. Thanks for commenting though. WLD^talk|edits 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable; article is unencyclopedic original research; author is a Billy Hathorn in the making. Mwelch 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. The american-indian part smells of WP:HOAX. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not of hoax, but of family legend. NN in either case. But since all named places are considered notable, the best place to merge any usable content would be into the article for Coker, Texas. There is no reason not to do so now. Obviously, it must still be in proportion to importance and the material in this article is way out of proportion. so

Merge into town DGG 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attribution, Notability, whatever you want to call it, this guy doesn't fufill it. Kntrabssi 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Coker, Texas and put a brief note under "history" there. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April is just a bad month[edit]

Sorry if I was gruff or rude with you before. You see it was on this week a few years ago that my 8yr old son died in my arms from cystic fibrosis. And just one year ago my best friend of over 20yrs died during the first week of April from a heart attack. This is just a bad time for me. Do whatever you want with the articles. They don't really matter.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!) 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Ramarthnam's Reminiscences[edit]

This CD does not appear to be notable. Salad Days 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not seem to have an article on the musician himself, and if he is as notable as tis aticle indicates and if there is sources, that might well be appropriate. DGG 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DCG:

The article on the musician himself is at V._Ramarathnam. By "this CD and its greatness".. the speaker is describing the CD that contains concerts of Prof. Ramarathnam most of which are available online at www.mysorevramarathnam.org. Please let me know I can reword the text.. Thanks and I appreciate your help.

Adding comment below, which was wrongly placed in the AfD log --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the best to reproduce the speech from the live recording. I need help and tips on how to improve this article. Please let me know how I can improve the article.. Kssrinivasan 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, unless sourced. This is not intended to be of disrespect to the contributor or to V._Ramarathnam, but in wikipedia there is a rule that article content must be based on reliable published material. If you can provide references to musical critics who comment on this book, the article will have rights to exist. `'mikka 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the comments from one of the musical critics, by Sangeetha Kalanidhi Nedhanuri Krishnamurthy. It is located at: http://www.mysorevramarathnam.org/NKM.jpg

I am currently working on a online version of the book that will go live on http://www.mysorevramarathnam.org/ one of these days. This online book will include all these information from the critics as well new info.. Currently I do have an online version of the book in draft form for your information at: http://www.mysorevramarathnam.org/books/Ramarathnam_biograph_Version_Final.pdf I am currently in the process of converting this pdf to a truly online version..

Also the video that I have uploaded to youtube and google is another reference to critics from a music festival organizer. It is located at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqaX5NlsBnc

Kssrinivasan 17:18, 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 Speedy Delete by NawlinWiki. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer-sands band[edit]

Grossly not notable. Salad Days 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This had been replaced with an obvious hoax by a vandal; it was originally about a band, not a softball team. I've restored the original text, but it still lacks any sources and has minimal context: "my father, Steve Sands, was the lead guitar. I don't know who else was in the band." Delete. —Cel ithemis 00:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Major COI and NPOV issues here ("i currently am living with Steve, and i still think he's one of the greatest guitarists ever to have existed.") No notability, nothing apparently known about the band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:03, 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. --Core desat 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pas (musician)[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly notable. Indie artist, only released one EP. I suppose the interview in Stylus could be seen as a notability claim, but this falls far short of meeting WP:MUSIC-EMP 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability from a third party. YechielMan 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BAND. Kntrabssi 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, fails WP:V. The only notability claims are of articles in magazines, but no link to such articles exists, which is too bad, because I did find one to Stylus magazine [1]. That's about it, though, and he only has 89 hits on the Australian Google [2]. RGTraynor 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't notable. Maybe at a later time, but not now. Acalamari 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jumped the gun on notability. If/when notability is properly established an article would be in order but we're not there yet. A1octopus 18:04, 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. --Core desat 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel A. Charles[edit]

Delete: Unreferenced article about a murdered police officer. Was tagged for speedy delete for quite a while. The hangon comment on the talk page claims that references are difficult to find because of the time since the crime. I wanted to bring it here to see if anyone can find anything to save this. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. In any case, it's such a specifically regional piece of news, unlikely to have hit internatioanl press, that local paper archives or library would be more likely to come up with the details. I'll suggest this. Tearlach 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete police officers, soldiers etc unfortunately die in the line of duty all the time & there's nothing to indicate anything unusual about this one other than it happened on an island. If there are sources to indicate anything above-and-beyond, they'll presumbly be in Dutch so I'm not in a position to dig them out. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tearlach. Kntrabssi 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. That references might be difficult to find only underlines the premise that the subject, is, in fact, non-notable. RGTraynor 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad story, but no assertion of notability and a complete lack of referencees.

'Retain' for reasons laid out in extensive argumentative piece supporting Ms. Charles' argument of notable firsts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Che's girl (talk • contribs) — Che's girl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fasile[edit]

A constructed language that is a derivative of Esperanto, but fails WP:N. While this gives some hint of credibility, notability is not asserted in the article, and a JSTOR search yields 0 relevant hits, while a Google Scholar hit does make one small mention of the language (but on what appears to be a non-scholarly website www.danielclemente.com). Only reference cited in the article is the [www.fasile.org language's website]. prod removed without comment by anon IP. Aagtbdfoua 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning above. - Aagtbdfoua 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's going to be very hard to find good references for this. I think it's not worth the bother. YechielMan 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete complete lack of sources & Ghits, and the liberal use of WP:AWT, make me strongly suspect this is someone's pet project. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:20, 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.

Do not delete, please![edit]

Oficial site is under updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.225.176.251 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Hawkins[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - individual is mentioned in the sources given, but is certainly not the subject of any of them. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notabble Pleclech 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no earthly reason this should have stayed up a year. "He has bought stock in General Motors" - probably half the people in the US have at some point. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per iridescenti. If we listed everybody who has bought/sold stocks we would literally drown trying to sort it all out. --Helm.ers 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iridescenti; otherwise, Wikipedia would be filled with people who have bought and sold stocks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business list. Acalamari 17:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no different than thousands of other investment managers. NawlinWiki 15:46, 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. Majorly (hot!) 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maitland-Lewis[edit]

This guy, despite all of the claims made in the article, doesn't seem to have anything to verify it. The book he had published only produced a few amazon.com reviews when searched for, and the 'miniseries' seems to just be speculation by a reviewer. Overall, the guy gets around 600 Ghits, and nothing to support any of the notability claims made in the article-EMP 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think he might be notable-- however there is no way of telling from this article. I think there would be no objection to rewriting one that is sourced if this becomes possible. It might be easier after another book is published and reviewed. DGG 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a resume, and the subject appears to fail WP:BIO unless reliable, independent sources confirming his notability are produced. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 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 speedy deleted by Darthgriz98 as repost. (non-admin closure) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 05:05Z

Eighth-generation video game console[edit]

It's too early to talk about these newly proposed video gaming consoles. Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. This might actually be considered a fourth nomination, because a prior article similar to this, History of video game consoles (eighth generation) was AFD'd three times and deleted three times; the article in question may, then, be a Speedy G4. JRHorse 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt, going G4 since the article has already been recreated and AfD'd successfully another four times. Enough is enough, already! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say when it's too early to talk about these consoles? They have been mentioned by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo several times already, so I think it's fair to have an article dedicated to them. I am not predicting anything; I know Wikipedia is "Not a Crystal Ball". I simply stated the obvious, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. That article will need to be there eventually, so why not start it now in its basic form? Why is it that we have articles describing technology that will not be available for many years to come? Such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeraDisc

Why not simply put one of these things on the page: {{future product}} Please consider it. Alex 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't keep articles like this around because nobody has made announcements to when they are to be out. It is not a future product at this time. Read WP:CRYSTAL. When they come out or the maker has actually made the announcement, then we put the articles up. Now, if either Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft have made announcements, please, provide them. Until then, this is not only deletable, but this is probably speedy-able under WP:CSD#G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum, here: the first link you provided is well cited, and meets verifiability guidelines, has information on this from reliable sources, and is well attributed. As such, it seems pretty notable. For the second one, a {{notability}} tag does the trick nicely, since it's out there and announced, and somebody is working on it. It may get deleted, though.
Comment - Interesting tidbit, the page as titled was moved to History of video game consoles (eigth generation) on April 7 by Akb4, where it was subsequently deleted from by the looks of things, and it looks like Alex had added the page shortly thereafter on the 9th. This is definitely a speedy, if that's any indication. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt There won't be any concrete info for at least 2 years. Just confirmation that the next gen systems are in development is not enough and this article had already been deleted multiple times by AFD. TJ Spyke 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until at least one such console has at least been officially announced. The present stub is pure speculation. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:55, 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. --Core desat 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi timeline[edit]

Delete Unnecessary cruft and unattributable; also, per the AfD discussion over the GTA III canon timeline, which is incredibly similar to this. Now, if you could so kindly bring on the "I like it" arguments. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. NOT! Delete because it's just too specific even for a popular fictional series. YechielMan 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my opinion of fictional timelines' appropriateness for Wikipedia is on record. Strong delete for all the same reasons as given in the Harry Potter AfD. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments above. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iridescenti. Kntrabssi 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as Iridescenti.
Delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:33, 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 Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote Pea ceNT 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izumo: Takeki Tsurugi no Senki[edit]

~~Not notable anime - completely unsourced Addhoc 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - persuaded the external links are viable references, accordingly the article should be kept and cleaned-up. Addhoc 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and add cleanup tags Television shows are inherently noteable. Jtrainor 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above it have very good soucres already what do you wantOo7565 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't have any reliable sources, however there are two external links. Addhoc 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i know what you mean but i do consider the link to anime news network site as a source because they do keep track of all anime plus other things there do me thats a good enough souce i know it not great but it still a souce right? or least it could be a souce not a primauie souce but none the less a souce right?Oo7565 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've labelled them 'References'. Addhoc 23:26, 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 after several hours and 0 delete statements this is being speedy kept per WP:SNOW. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Alliance[edit]

This article was originally speedy deleted on 30 March because of BLP concerns. A DRV consensus overturned, saying WP:V questions for articles on organizations are best evaluated at AfD. The version now present is the originally-deleted, expansive one. An alternative, stubbed from exists in the edit history at 12 April for consideration also. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. Lexis-nexis produces a couple dozen stories in Canadian newspapers about Ms. Guille and the CHA, mostly the London Free Press and Kitchener Record--both serious, non-trivial publications. Most of the stories describe Ms.Guille as the group's leader, founder, and/or spokesperson, as well as characterizing the group as being white supremist (or sim.) Bucketsofg 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be possible to source all of the specific points--and indeed it is necessary, or they will have to be removed during editing. DGG 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and improve. If we have to remove certain details due to BLP concerns, then so be it ... but deletion would be an absolute overreaction. CJCurrie 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some improvements (many of the external links are dead, for example) but like the Marc Lemire article there's a lot of good information there already. AnnieHall 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per buckets. Ground Zero | t 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with sourced material. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up of all unattributed political epithets (doing in now).`'mikka 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several references in the article, and more available.Spylab 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything sourced to this site should be removed from the article. The slogan of the site is thoughts and rants from the inside out. That does not pass WP:RS. Just look at their submission policy. If this is kept, anything sourced there needs to go. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article. Acalamari 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion one way or the other on the significance of this group, but I find "keep and improve" a bit hollow without the backup of actually adding credible independent sources to the article. I have just removed a bunch of claims which are unsourced and vehemently denied by Guille, it would be good if we could make this an article about CHA rather than an attack on Meilssa Guille. And preferably an article backed by neutral independent sources. The British National Party is an extremist group in the UK, the article on them is, for the most part, pretty good, because they have attracted sufficient attention that there is critical review from major newspapers across the political spectrum. Here all we seem to have is some trivial mentions fomr people who basically disapprove of the group on principle. As, of course, do I, being a liberal Brit, but that's not the point: we need to make an article which, if it must be harsh, is harsh but fair. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bucketsofg, but only if the citations to the London Free Press and Kitchener Record are restored. It's unclear from looking at the restored history whether material cited to those publications was removed (which it sounds like it should not have been), or whether nothing was actually cited to them. Can someone clear that up? --MCB 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We have the London Free Press cited for the fact that Richard Warman describes the CHA website as "a collection of material that encourages vicious attacks on the Arab, Jewish and black communities." Without the full text I have no idea whtehr this is a passing mention, a para in respect of another story, whether Warman is the kind of guy who takes action against hundreds opf websites, most of which actions fail, or what. Lack of context thus far, still digging. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could email you the articles, if you want. CJCurrie 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I'd be interested to find out what the real story is some time. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Never heard of the group or the lady in question but after a few searches I'm satisfied as far as notability goes. As for the nom, well as the article stands now, there should be no complaints about BLP violations as there's virtually no content left. Right now, it barely even qualifies as a stub. As I said, I don't know anything about the subject and don't really care to change that fact, but unless some adequately sourced material is added we might just as well delete the article. I'm voting keep since I don't see a good reason for deleting it but there really isn't any point in keeping a stub around if there's no way to actually turn it into a useful article. -- Seed 2.0 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is sufficient evidence to support all facts stated in this article. If people don't want to end up on Wikipedia they shouldn't associate with Hate groups in the first place. Knowing is half the battle against ignorance; the other half is acting, hence this vote. Apatride 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but be careful about BLP. If that means having a stubby article, let's have a stubby article, because stubs are still useful. CWC 01:22, 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 keep, almost no consensus, not that it matters. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Füritechnics[edit]

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD G11. A DRV consensus overturned, finding that the content might be salvagable, and the company might meet WP:CORP. This matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is salvageable, and does meet criteria of WP:CORP. It has independent media releases.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]--KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. The knives are not particularly interesting to me. I cannot comment on the corporation that sells them. YechielMan 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep I am very puzzled about the sources. ipaustralia is an official government site, but it seems devoted to publicizing local inventions. Possibly this could be taken as an indication of what the australian IP office does think is important and therefore can be considered N--but it seems very strange to me that a government organization should actually do this. Most of the refs given are derivatives of the same government press release. If a government body acts as an advertising agency,do we treat its productions as advertising? DGG 04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some more. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] If we are talking about the person in charge of that company, notability is assured... The first two sources aren't very reliable and the others aren't really specific about the company, but I still think that there is notability in that company. The last source is particularly interesting, despite the short mention. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable within its (quite narrow) area. `'mikka 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also lists some sources in the website [19]. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source in NYT. [20] --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this government source[21], Furitechnics is one of the most important innovation in Australia --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has sources from multiple independent sources. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the number of sources seems to indicate notability. Lankiveil 07:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, external non-primary sources. Rimmeraj 10:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While it may meet WP:CORP, the article fails to assert the notability of the subject beyond celeb endorsments and use. If the company has made notable advancments in it's area of operation, then it may be worthy of a keep if such information was added there. I personally feel that the CSD G11 should be upheld as the entry looks nothing more than an advertisment in it's current form. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:07, 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 Nomination withdrawn --Aarktica 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolly Burkan[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Very spammy claiming the creator "cutting-edge methods for developing human potential." Around 800 ghits. Created by article's subject Tollyburkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without sources.[22]Arbustoo 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. The article asserts importance. AFD can be done in the near future if article doesn't continue to improve. Arbustoo 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. 408 unique GHits, but the author of referenced works, at least one of which [23] appears to be somewhat notable. Article does need some work, admittedly.EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity publisher? At amazon.com I get the author of 8 "books" (plus one audio tape), six aren't available. Only two are in print. Of those one is only cowriten by Tolly, and both are published by Council Oak Books and isn't anything special. If this is a notable author, I don't see WP:RS to confirm it. Arbustoo 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment major news sources are claimed in the article; if real, they would seem to show him as notable. Butt hey aren't provided. let the supporters of the article show them during this discussion if the article is to be kept. DGG 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the claims in the article are true: he appeared on talk shows, in the WSJ, etc., then he's indeed notable. However, none of these claims are actually backed up with citations, and the page was largely written by User:Tollyburkan (a clear conflict of interest). If actual citations are added to back up these claims of notability, change my vote to a keep and cleanup. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. `'mikka 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO and promotional unsourced content - unless reliable, independent secondary sources confirming notability and some of the more ambitious claims can be provided by the closing of this AfD. Otherwise, delete, and the article can be recreated if such sources exist and are found. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep A google search turns up less than 1000 hits, but pages such as this one support his notability. There is a decent amount of evidence pointing to the fact that he helped start the firewalking trend in the USA, and he has published over 30 books. However, I could not find any archives of his Wall Street Journal appearance, so I'm not completely convinced. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has not "published 50 books." The article claims he is mentioned in 50 books. It is uncited. I removed uncited claims as it seems to be confusing people. Arbustoo 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, yet I still contend that his appearence in the published publications, as well as Wall Street Journal, an established paper source, makes him notable. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Wall Street Journal article? When? About what? It isn't cited. Arbustoo 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look at the links I provided above. In any case, I can't find a copy of the article itself online, as Wall Street Journal won't let me access their archives without having an account with them (which I don't). However, he has been published in the media elsewhere (see here). This leads me to believe he meets the suggested criterion of under special cases of notability. One of them mentions he appeared on a TV show on the Fox Family channel called Exploring the Unknown. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article would benefit greatly from revision and expansion to include some of the 17 sources listed at this Google News Archive search. Alansohn 06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Why don't you use those sources and include them? Some of them are very trivial however. Arbustoo 00:46, 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. --Core desat 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Beaumont[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Less than 550 ghits including wiki mirrors. Arbustoo 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't hit WP:BIO. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `'mikka 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seed 2.0 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, self-promotional. NawlinWiki 15:47, 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. --Core desat 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing puppets trick[edit]

Previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing puppets trick) closed on 8 March 2007 with No consensus; renom in two weeks if no WP:RS added. It's been over a month, and no-one has added any. Tearlach 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. YechielMan 03:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; This should have been deleted first time around. But delete this time as no sources added after previous nomination (as well as the OR problems stated in previous AfD.) Crazysuit 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete. Fails WP:ATT and WP:V, which are core policies. Also fails WP:RS. No sources have been added because the authors of this article have obviously written it based on their own observations, so there are no sources for this material. Pufnstuf 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article has had more than two weeks to cite (it's been over a month now since the first AfD), and nothing has been cited. However, I will change my tune if citations are added in the next five days while this AfD is still open. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very thoughrough (London, July 1986 (Covent Garden)), but we hardly need to know where a trickster was selling paper puppets over 20 years ago - basically this is NN, non encyclopedic & has no sources. May be suited for WikiTravel, or being merged into a related article on Wikipedia (If sources can ever be found... which I doubt). Also has hints of OR. So that's one delete from me. Spawn Man 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I provided the only ghost of a citation at the last AFD and nothing else, apparently, has turned up. Lack of being noted equals lack of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources seem to be impossible to find, will change to keep in the unlikely event of the article being reasonably sourced.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted the first time around, but the authors were given a second chance with it and nothing has been since done to address the concerns. Still no sources, still nothing to verify this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very POV and unencyclopedic essay which fails WP:ATT and WP:N due to a lack of references. It reads like one person's grievance against a street vendor because they could not get the gimmick they bought to work at home. Edison 20:59, 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!) 11:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians opposing cults[edit]

Delete - rather indiscriminate list with rather vague inclusion criteria. Any politician who's "taken a prominent stance" against "cults" can be included. The definition of "cult" is problematic and plagued with POV issues. One man's "cult" is another man's "religion." The definition of "taking a prominent stance" is also subject to improper POV interpretation. Politicians take stands on any number of issues and generating lists based on each position seems completely unnecessary. Otto4711 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- List has been stable for a long time now. User:Jossi was the one who originally had proposed moving this information to its own article, DIFF. The list currently is sourced with 10 citations. If need be, the inclusion criteria for the article can be tightened. Similar lists exists that are stable, with tight inclusion criteria, such as List of groups referred to as cults, which survived several AFDs. Smee 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is the objective definition of "cult" for purposes of this list? What is the objective definition of a "prominent stance" for purposes of this list? That another list exists doesn't justify this one. Are there, by the way, any politicians who support cults? Otto4711 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All very good questions, and I thank you for asking them. However, these would be better put on the talk page, where we could have a prolonged and healthy discussion about definition criteria and perhaps also tighter inclusionary criterion. Smee 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The answer to the questions are: there is no objective definition of "cult" and there is no objective definition of "prominent stance." Otto4711 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why each entry is backed up by multiple citations. Smee 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

troubled keep the list was moved from List of cult and new religious movement researchers, another page that will have problems of scope and documentation similar this one. in that list, and in this, all the entries are either links to WP articles with sources,or have sources listed. But in that list , the researchers can --at least in principle -- be people who researched and supported the cults, though I have not checked to see if any are. In the title of this one, the term "opponent" is used. I can see why a politician might object to being listed as one who supported cults, but I can also imagine people who have become involved in such questions and are not necessarily opponents. In other word, I think the title and inclusion is POV, but can't think what to do about it. DGG 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, if the title and inclusion criteria are impermissably POV, then delete. Otto4711 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, if the content is not salvagable, then delete. Any editor has the ability to rename the article or redefine the inclusion criteria to be a better article; its a wiki world. John Vandenberg 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, and the content is not salvageable, for the reasons laid out in the nomination. Otto4711 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people on this list have been very active in defining laws against cult-like groups, so I doubt they would take offence. The word "opposing" isnt ideal, but I think it is acceptable provided the list doesnt become filled with any politician that has noticed they are not on this list and shouts "down with cults" from the floor to rectify it. John Vandenberg 05:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Otto4711 has pointed out the obvious weaknesses of anything to do with cults, but this is an encyclopaedia, so a broad definition is acceptable, and this list is just an extension of our coverage of that subject. A politicians "prominent stance" is more difficult to pin down as they often change, but so far Smee has done a reasonable job in isolation. I personally dont see much value in this list as Cults and governments covers the same territory, but lists are useful for quick access and to assist in further developing a subject, so we should err on the side of keeping lists where good faith says the contributor is going to keep it under control. John Vandenberg 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- so far Smee has done a reasonable job in isolation -- Thank you! That is truly appreciated. Smee 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Possible keep? - I'm not too sure what to do with this one. It has sources on one hand, slight POV, NN & shortness in the other. May change my vote if other voters provide swaying arguments, but for now I'll assign myself to a keep.I agree with Otto though, the difinition of cult is problematic. The inclusion guidelines for this list need to be defined more, as any religion could be a cult (At the time of Nero, Christianity was considered a small cult, & look what that's become...) -- Spawn Man 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A big cult? :-) John Vandenberg 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha ha... very funny... ;) Spawn Man 07:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the word "cult" has quite a negative connotations politicians won't hesitate to take an opportunity to oppose something like that. Yet another list of every politician is not needed here. (Germany and Scientology would make a really good battle zone here.) Pavel Vozenilek 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the definition of cult is subjective, emotive and POV. I really don't see this an encyclopedic at all. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Are you kidding me? How about List of politicians who don't kill babies. Sheesh. IvoShandor 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This sets an awfully bad precedent it would seem. There could theoretically be a list based upon every political stance ever taken by more than one politician. These are not defining characteristics of the lists members and if they are, it belongs in the article about the person not on a list. IvoShandor 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree with you: first of all this info must be found in persn's bio, for the high possibility of verification. But first, "defining characteristic" is a criterion for categories. Second, If it is in the bio, then no reason not to have a list. ""Opposing cults" is a notable stance, unlike logical fallacy of "killing babies". `'mikka 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. ;). Seriously though, there isn't anything particularly notable about opposing cults, are their politicians who endorse cults, or support them? Try to make that list, that might be a bit more encyclopedic. IvoShandor 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Partly per Pavel. This is a strange case. I really don't think it's appropriate to have lists characterizing the stances of politicians one way or the other: for most political stances, it's very touchy (say, pro-tax or anti-tax, for instance) and it's the kind of thing politicians do in campaign ads, can be very POV. In the articles on individual politicians, okay: we can assume the POV issues will be handled carefully there, but not on a list. Here, it may not be so controversial but I see no compelling reason to have such a list. On the other hand, an article about proposed anti-cult laws/legislative actions would have definite merit. Mango juice^talk 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A "list of people (politicians) who support/oppose x" is generally a bad idea to begin with, and while some might actually have some value I fail to see how a list of politicians based on their stance on cults is of any encyclopedic value. I certainly can't imagine any politician coming out as pro-cult so ... anyway. WP:NOT, loosely related topics. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Verifiable. Cleanup. Only politiciad that persistently oppose cults, not just mumble something in a n interview, must be included. In particular, only those for which this fact is mentioned in the bio as a notable fact, for verifiability reasons. `'mikka 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a rare case where inline citations do not really cause me to lend support. I don't see the encyclopedic value. WP:NOT. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List cruft. What's next List of politicians who support apple pie? --Duke of Duchess Street 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interpretation of political comments, definition of a cult, and changing political opinions are only some of the things that make this list original research. Listcruft, indeed.Ezratrumpet 01:06, 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 merge and redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oberon Middle School[edit]

no assertion of notability Chris 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notabiity or what makes it stand out from the thousands of other middle schools. TJ Spyke 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. No assertion of notability, and no citations from sources independent of the school itself. Unlikely to ever meet the primary notability criterion. A Train^talk 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pinball22 below, but with a prejudice against future article recreation unless something truly noteworthy happens to (or at) the school. A Train^talk 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Redirect per Pinball below. Just another non-notable, unsourced middle school article. RGTraynor 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado), where it's already listed as part of the system. Pinball22 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any facts that actually appear on the school website to Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado) and Redirect per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per reasoning above. LordHarris 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am starting to source up this article but what I have found so far makes this School notable. TerriersFan 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado) per WP:LOCAL guidelines, I believe we have consensus to do this now. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:56, 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. --Core desat 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Coker[edit]

Subject is not notable. Article is original research and not encyclopedic. Mwelch 02:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the Coker family history website. Mwelch 02:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local history based on primary genealogical sources. DGG 05:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and a poor argument for notability. A Train^talk 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as everyone else. Fails WP:BIO.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listed above. Jokerst44 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Coker, Texas and put a brief note under "history" there. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darfield Upperwood Primary School[edit]

small non-notable primary (US=elementary) school, financial scandal in and of itself does not make the school notable Chris 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School is not notable. Scandal is ho hum for the world we live in. YechielMan 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article because this is a Beacon School, the highest UK status, it has two significant aspects of the academic work have been rated as 'Outstanding' by the independent inspectors, a notable feature in itself, and the school meets WP:N by both having a feature on it in the national press and being mentioned in the British House of Commons. This is a significant scandal that is still running and people reading about it may well come to WP for information on the school. Having background information to newsworthy events is an excellent way to attract new readers. TerriersFan 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I think this school is just about notable, I would be careful about claiming notability on the basis of Beacon School status, as this programme was scrapped two years ago; this means that the status is no longer being renewed for each school & so a school that had Beacon School status in the past may no longer warrant it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With two independent sources, it appears to meet the primary notability criterion. A Train^talk 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be notable enough. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article meets notability (beacon school, media/parliament coverage etc) and contains several references. LordHarris 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note the comment above by EliminatorJR-Beacon School status was scrapped two years ago. no longer a criteria for notability. Chris 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the school became a beacon school it obtained notability. Whatever happens next does not detract from that. People and places don't go in and out of notability or we would delete articles on sportspeople when they retire, sports stadia when they close down etc. This school fully meets WP:N for the Hansard reference, media mentions etc never mind beacon school. TerriersFan 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes and no - while notability is generally permanent, schools can be an exception to that. For instance, a school might have some of the most outstanding examination results in the country (and therefore good secondary sources) in one year, yet five years later for one reason or another their results may just be average. Does that make them notable? It's a similar thing with Beacon status. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I see no reason why the bar should be set higher for schools than for other pages. If we accepted that notability was not permanent then we should be in a difficult, arbitrary situation. A school gets an article because it has the best results in the country, next year the results are poor - does it lose its article or perhaps it needs 2,3 or 4 poor years? If it then has a good year is the article recreated? The secondary sources remain extant even if its performance drops off so, in my view, the only practical way forward is for the article to be kept. TerriersFan 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably phrased that badly. I was using the exam analogy to refer to the fact that because Beacon status has lapsed, it may be difficult to prove schools notable any more purely because of that status. It was probably a bad analogy though :) I'm not trying to prove this particular school NN though - I think it has some notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N and WP:A. And a primary school at that! Also, a short article at Beacon School would be helpful. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Butseriouslyfolks said "Let there be an article at Beacon School . . ." --Butseriouslyfolks 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified that article a bit to bring in Specialist Schools, which are closely linked. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than enough reliable sources provided within the article which demonstrate that this Beacon School is notable enough for inclusion. RFerreira 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External links show the school easily meets notability. Noroton 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media coverage of the scandal certainly makes the school notable. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alkivar, et al. --Myles Long 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above, beacon schools such as this one are indeed notable. 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 keep, early close per WP:SNOW. A Train^talk 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerist (blog)[edit]

Was originally nominated for Speedy deletion using db-web by RHaworth on March 27, 2007, but this was improperly removed by the article's author within one minute of the speedy tag being placed. The article remained untouched until today, when the subject in question encouraged readers to expand the article. Article reads like an advertisement, and borders on self-promotion. WP:CSD A7 still applies to the article in the current form, and it still fails to adequately assert the notability or importance of the subject. The only possible notability of the subject is that they have been interviewed by the New York Times on consumer topics, but even then it's a thin assertion of notability as the paper would no doubt interview or talk with thousands of people each year as sources for it's editorial content. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYT interview is enough for notability right there, but the 14 Google news references over the last month alone expand on that quite well. Easily meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. definitely notable website, at the top of it's niche, has influenced the corporate policy and effected change in countless small companies/situations, and in several higher-profile situations (such as the Wal-Mart Totenkopf). Definitely a strong keep AdamJacobMuller 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Definately notable blog. Some cleanup and additional referencing is required, those self-references just don't cut it. Luke! 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in spite of extreme dislike for its method of editing WP. If its N after all, so be it.DGG 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sources, if desired, to be found in this Google News archive search - there appear to be plenty. JavaTenor 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and that expansion request seems a) good faith and b) lighthearted. As the subject is clearly notable expansion is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Computerjoe 's talk 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Maxamegalon2000 12:26, 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 speedy delete on several grounds. For starters, this is in part re-creation of deleted material. Furthermore: All of the sources for the content repeatedly being submitted by 3mgworld (talk · contribs) and xyr various sockpuppets are derived either directly or indirectly from the subject. Several of them are the subject's own press releases. The news coverage of the collapse of The Toledo Ice, and its reincarnation as the Toledo Royal Knights, is enough to convince me that this is controversial information about a living person that is unreliably sourced — It is Chris Dotson's autobiography, sourced from Chris Dotson's press releases, which independent sources and past events indicate we should regard with grave suspicion. And that's in addition to the history of wholesale revisions of the "facts" that occurred at Chrishan (AfD discussion) and He Ain't Gonna (AfD discussion), both written by this same editor. Finally, there are the implied legal threats from 3mgworld

Therefore, under a combination of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons I am speedily deleting this, and under a combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:No legal threats I am blocking 3mgworld (talk · contribs) and four of xyr additional accounts. Uncle G 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dotson Inc.[edit]

No evidence that he contributed to the Keith Sweat album outside of Wikipedia. Owned minor league basketball team very briefly before it was forcibly taken from him. Google search on "Chris Dotson" copyright "Capitol Records" = no matches. Compares his children to "Prince, Howard Hewett, Stevie Wonder, and Michael Jackson". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 (Chrishan album) and various others. Richfife 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator / subject restored old version, removed AFD link and falsely added a Protected header to the page. He then pretended to be an admin on the talk page. Reverted. - Richfife 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never presented myself as an admin. I stated I contacted administrators. Please read what I say, stop leaving out details and end your biased scheme. Obvious use of "Out of context" thoughts to prove your POV. Please Read again: WP:IDONTLIKEIT - 3mgworld 00:19, 18 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. Any rename proposals should be discussed on the article's talkpage. WjBscribe 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People wrongly convicted in the United States[edit]

POV including the title of the page - what is "wrongly"? An exoneration based on actual innocence (ie: DNA reversal) is very different from a case being overturned for legal reasons. Also, many entries involve standing convictions which simply state "conviction disputed" with no other information. Violates WP:L "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." Tufflaw 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep On the surface the title seems POV, but look more closely. The term "wrongful conviction" is commonly used in the United States. I don't know whether it distinguishes between procedural errors and new evidence as reasons for overturning, but I don't think it should matter. As for the statement "his conviction is disputed" for people who are still in prison - good point. I think those cases should be removed. That's a talk page issue, not an AFD issue. YechielMan 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the term "wrongful conviction" has no real meaning. If someone is convicted of a crime and later found to be actually innocent, through DNA exoneration, or in some of the cases listed where a murder victim is later found to be actually alive, clearly the defendant was "wrongly convicted". However, some people are convicted and their conviction is later overturned for legal, not factual reasons. Was that person "wrongly convicted"? Sometimes a case can't be retried due to witnesses dying/disappearing/whatever, or for various logistical reasons. That doesn't mean a person whose case was overturned was "wrongly convicted". What if there's a conviction which is later overturned, and then the defendant is retried and convicted? Was he "wrongly convicted" during the period between the appeal and the retrial? I think the phrase is extremely problematic and POV, and the way it's used here in particular is troubling. Tufflaw 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IF this article is kept, all those entried that say the conviction is "disputed" (but hasn't actually been overturned) would need to be removed since that is obviously POV to say that they are wrongly convicted. TJ Spyke 04:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this is kept, the title needs to be changed to refer to "overturned convictions" instead of "people wrongly convicted". --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not POV to say some disputed convictions are wrongful. Mark Kirk of Delaware was convicted of starting a fire using 70 proof alcohol. The conviction is wrongful because 70 proof alcohol will not burn. It remains disputed because he still remains convicted.--Danras 04:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the jury didn't think so. ALL convictions are disputed, every single trial starts with a not guilty plea, and many convicted defendants continue to proclaim their innocence and appeal. Do we list them all? Tufflaw 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tufflaw is right, just people they dispute the conviction doesn't mean they have been "wrongly" convicted. I think Mary has a good idea, make it "Overturned convictions in the United States". That is still a problem though because how do you determine which ones are worth noting? Convictions gets overturned all the time and most aren't notable. TJ Spyke 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but it must be limited to those where there was an official finding of some sort. That would appear to be about half the list. As mentioned, the problem will be when someone is exonerated legally but some official nonetheless consider him still guilty. A common US phrase is "actual innocence". DGG 05:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. "Wrongful conviction" is a broad term but it is common at least in the US. It may be useful to list separately those exonerated by evidence and those whose convictions were overturned and not further contested (note that in most such latter cases the individual gets a new trial, not a get-out-of-jail-free card). But in a legal sense there is almost no difference -- that is, the new evidence, however damning DNA may seem to the public, is merely a technicality calling into doubt one aspect of the prosecution's case. Under an adversarial system of law it can only be so. Additionally, the presumption of innocence means that someone whose conviction is overturned is presumed innocent -- their guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying they were wrongfully convicted is saying that their conviction was based on an error and should not have proceeded. The article should probably be retitled, though, as "wrongly" is not the same as "wrongfully". --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment U.S. courts, especially appeals courts, do not maintain that legal convictions are synonymous with actual guilt. They often refuse or are legally prohibited from considering new evidence. See Leonel Torres Herrera. Some here want use courts as authorities to determine wrongfulness, but courts themselves disavow that they are such authorities. I would suggest that determining “wrongfulness” based on overly strict criteria is conservative or ultra conservative, and that a neutral POV is by definition moderate. Common sense indicates that some convictions are wrongful, whether or not some court has overturned them. Also, “wrongful” does not mean absolute innocence, it only means that a conviction is not supported by known evidence.--Danras 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From a standpoint of American jurisprudence, at least, any conviction that has been overturned, whether by new evidence or what is demeaned as a "technicality" (such as an illegal search), is wrongful. A person whose conviction has been overturned by a court is legally innocent. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine actual innocence or actual guilt. In any case, this isn't a place for disputed convictions, which would practically be all of them. --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete on the basis that I believe this is simply too broad a topic for a useful, concise list, and as such would almost violate the WP:NOT provision regarding directories. I get the rationale behind it, and I don't have a POV issue. A better way to approach this would be to create articles strictly based upon the crime: ie. People wrongly convicted of murder in the United States; ... of treason; ...of armed robbery; etc etc. And even so, such lists will need to be monitored constantly otherwise people with agendas could add names to the list making this a WP:BLP and libel nightmare. My first instinct is "don't go there" which is why I vote to delete, but if people want to have these lists, then let's at least make them more specific otherwise there could potentially be thousands of names listed here. 23skidoo 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework. The title needs to be changed as mentioned above, to better match proper legal definitions, and a lead paragraph needs to be written to provide some context and inform the reader as to precisely what is meant by a "wrongful conviction" assuming that is the inclusion criteria, so as not to confuse this with a list of people who were later proven innocent. Or, if consensus is to make it a list of such people, rename the title accordingly and clarify that with a lead paragraph. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move persons not legally exonerated to "People widely believed to have been wrongfully convicted in the United States" or some such (unwieldy, I know). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That becomes a problem in terms of what does "widely believed" mean? Scott Peterson is on that list and I've never heard anyone claim that he's innocent except for him. Tufflaw 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But remove any names for which there are not solid findings (multiple reliable sources) that they were actually innocent. A guilty person may be "wrongly convicted" by a technical fault in the prosecution, and released when the death of witnesses has made a retrial impossible. I would include such cases as rapists freed when DNA analysis showed they were innocent, such as Gary Dotson. Other good entries are those in which the "murdered" person turns up alive somewhere. Do not broaden the list to everyone whose conviction was overturned on a technicality. Edison 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The American Bar Association published a 2003 study on wrongful convictions. Obviously the definition of wrongful may vary based on any given observer's point of view. The study's criteria limited wrongful convictions studied thus:

a new trial was granted and the defendant was acquitted;
a pardon was granted due to new evidence;
innocence was established on the basis of overwhelming evidence (and the defendant was freed);
appellate court review proved innocence.

I think it's clear that "wrongful convictions" realistically include only persons whose conviction has been removed or who have been freed (sometimes clearing the conviction is a separate legal proceeding). Otherwise this is just a POV list. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove anyone who is still convicted. It's not wrongful until a court agrees. Do NOT remove people whose were "overturned on a technicality". That will lead to endless arguing over what constitutes a "technicality", AND it's just as likely to exclude the "innocent" as the "guilty" (technicalities don't play favorites). The law has declared these people not guilty; it's preposterous, and a violation of WP:NPOV for us to claim differently. Even if "everyone knows he did it"; heck, even if he later admits he did it! "Convicted" is a legal term, and it's silly to use anything but the legal definition in an article on this topic. (I might suggest moving it to People wrongfully convicted in the United States, though, as "wrongful conviction" is the most commonly used term for this.) Oh, and the bloody thing needs references and citations, of course. As it stands, it fails WP:ATT/WP:V completely, but it's a clearly notable topic. Xtifr _tälk 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My major problem with the term "wrongly" or "wrongfully" is that it appears to make a value judgment about the conviction, whereas there's a significant difference between a conviction set aside due to actual innocence, and one set aside for what is, for lack of a better word, a "technicality". An example: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of Rape and Robbery. The Rape charge is set aside by the Supreme Court in the case that created the term "Miranda Warnings". The Robbery charge was not set aside. Was he wrongly convicted of Rape? He is later retried on the rape charge and convicted. Was he wrongly convicted the first time? Or did his wrongful conviction become valid again on the retrial? And who was wrong? The court? The prosecutor? The police? The jury? If this article survives the AFD, which looks likely, I suggest that it be retitled as suggested above to something about "overturned convictions", if we're going to include cases which were set aside due to actual innocence. Otherwise, the term "wrongful" or "wrongly" makes it appear that a position is being taken about the validity of the underlying case, which is not true. Tufflaw 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tufflaw, again, I remind you that in the United States and other legal systems derived from English common law, we have an adversarial court structure. There is no legal differentiation between actual innocence established by DNA, and "technical" innocence due to improper prosecution. "Overturned on a technicality" is a political term, not a legal one. The case you cite would not be a "wrongful conviction" in the strict sense used by the ABA study above. To alleviate concerns about whether "wrongful" ascribes a POV to inclusion, the term should be properly defined in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a practicing criminal law attorney for 9 years I'm familiar with the adversarial system. That has nothing to do with my arguments. That there is no LEGAL differentiation between a conviction overturned for actual innocence as opposed to a legal reason does not mean that the title of the article is not misleading. In furtherance of this problem, many of the entries in the article claim that a person was "exonerated", even in cases where the case being overturned had nothing to do with innocence. A person is exonerated when it is determined that they are innocent (see exoneration). If the article remains it should be renamed, all "disputed" convictions should be removed, as well as claims that everyone else was "exonerated". Tufflaw 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we do agree, as I have stated above that I do not believe this article should contain "disputed" convictions, and additionally all entries should be properly cited. If someone is formally "exonerated" we should be specific -- 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside her conviction, for instance (see Georgia Thompson). If someone is exonerated by DNA evidence that should be cited. And so forth. That is, the only cases that we can truthfully say were wrongful convictions are those where there was a formal finding. That finding should be in the article, or there is no point in having the list. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we do agree :) Tufflaw 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wrongly convicted is susceptible to too many plausible meanings some (but not all of which) have been hashed out above; the one that is not mentioned but is currently common is that someone who has broken a law that is disagreed with (these days, protesting outside the White House or Bush's ranch, assisted suicide, pot possession even for medical reasons; in the 50's and 60's: people convicted of draft evasion, miscegenation, not going to the back of the bus when Jim Crow laws were on the books, etc.). Too many meanings and too POV, do we dare have a People wrongly acquitted in the United States, and why not, because just the overturn of a conviction in the US means nothing, most people are just retried and reconvicted statistically. Remember Ernest Arthur Miranda for whom the Miranda warning is named, conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court because he didn't know his rights, guess what happened on retrial: convicted (but wrongly the first time? let the POV flow...) Carlossuarez46 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove references to cases where convictions have not been overturned. Perhaps the article should be renamed/moved to Overturned Convictions in the United States Fixer1234 10:49, 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 both. Majorly (hot!) 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lunan[edit]

Delete Non-notable part-time footballer. Fails WP:BIO. Forbsey 02:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am adding the following two players to this nomination because their stories are substantially similar:

YechielMan 03:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tosh as article states that he has played for Dundee and Hibernian who are both top-level fully-professional teams (soccerbase confirms this). Conditional keep Allison if it can be proven that he played first-team football for Dundee (soccerbase does not confirm this). Delete Lunan who has not played professionally ChrisTheDude 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Tosh will be kept as a former Scottish Premiership and English Third Division (as it was called back then) player. The debate continues for the other two. Punkmorten 09:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I have found this which implies that Allison never started for Dundee's first team. TerriersFan 02:13, 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. --Core desat 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride Of Japan Is Tied Up In Giant Robots[edit]

Doesn't appear notable; importance tag removed without comment (hence no ProD). Sneftel 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do I even have to explain why? YechielMan 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NFT. Delete -- Selket ^Talk
Delete. The line "supergroup formed and terminated in 2006" says it all. The bands these guys come from aren't even notable. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 04:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Pride Of Wikipedia Is Tied Up In Giant Deletions of unsourced articles like this one. Delete. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 05:12Z
Delete; unsourced, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NFT. Sr13 (T|C) 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced. Outstanding band name, though. A Train^talk 13:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded sufficiently to establish notability. This is one of my all-time favorite Wikipedia article titles, though. 23skidoo 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Formed and Terminated in one year? C'mon, how notable can it be? SpeakoutLOUD 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be mentioned in article on bandmember Schmidt. NawlinWiki 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 04:54, 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 a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel mark griffin[edit]

this article fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC prod was removed without significant improvements to the article. Jeepday 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom voting speedy delete (most of the text was removed after I posted the AFD [24]) please check the history there is a SPA and two ISP's playing with this article. Vandalism templates might also be in order. Good Night Jeepday 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, A1. So tagged. Sr13 (T|C) 07:18, 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 to Abita Brewing Company. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Haze (Beer)[edit]

It's a purple beer. That does not make it notable, and I do not feel the manufacturer qualifies it as notable by default. Prod removed without comment. FrozenPurpleCube 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Adding this other beer by the same company:[reply]

as its notability is equally questionable. FrozenPurpleCube 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...with only links to the brewery, it's more or less spam. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is one sentence long, appears non-notable and there is absolutely no reason why this one sentence merits an entire page, could easily have been included on the brewery article. IvoShandor 12:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect at Abita Brewing Company. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abita Brewing Company, merging any usable content. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Goodnightmush^Talk 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all beers are notable! Ok, maybe not, but a guy can dream, can't he? :) Merge seems like a reasonable option. Xtifr _tälk 15:04, 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!) 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handbra[edit]

Unsourced article that is pure original research on a non-notable topic. No significant reliable sources to provide verifiability. Fails all standards for inclusion, including WP:V and WP:RS, and also violates WP:NEO, WP:OR, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 April 2007

Delete per WP:NEO at the very least. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but copy any useful content elsewhere beforehand --Lukobe 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never heard this before, and as any woman will tell you, hands can't perform the key function of a bra. Deb 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' - The referenced article in The Guardian, if you read it, should resolve any questions of reliable sources, verifiability, and original research. I've also seen the term used in lad mags, but a citation from the The Guardian should be sufficient. True, handbra is a neologism, but WP has many articles for neologisms (e.g. going commando, upskirt, badonkadonk, cameltoe, ad infinitum but I don't want to give you to many AfD ideas}. WP is not a dictionary of neologisms, but often these terms warrant a discussion of their significance in popular culture as well as photographs. The examples of pop culture significance (especially in the Janet Jackson example, the #1 cover of Rolling Stone) and the number of articles that already link to this one show why it is a worthwhile addition to WP. H Bruthzoo
Weak delete or merge but I'll say keep if multiple reliable sources can be attributed.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article could use a few more citations. A quick google landed on a few riskee, but interesting links [25] and [26]. The term is real and interesting. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When I saw the nomination, I was actually half-expecting the novelty product. Anyway, the term might be real but the article really needs more sources. The Sarah Michelle Gellar picture, for example, has nothing to do with the term. I actually remember the sketch and I ~~don't believe~~ just went back to verify that the term was never used. I also think the article still has a problem with WP:NEO and therefore it's even more important to place an emphisis on good sources. If those are provided, I'll gladly change my vote to keep though. Seed 2.0 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add two more references --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Sarah Michelle Gellar Saturday Night Live appearance was a memorable illustration of the technique, although I do not recall her using the term "hand bra" when she did the parody of a "Holding your own boobs magazine," even though she was in fact using her hands as a bra. That parody was in turn a reference to several then-recent magazine articles with female celebrities maintaining a shred of decency by using their hands as a bra. One of the references in the article uses the term explicitly to refer to a celeb doing the same thing in a photo shoot. The article should include the novelty bra which consists of a pair of plastic hands forming a provocative novelty bra. "Hand bra gets over 9,000 Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Edison 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a reference from Online Press Gazette. Finding other citations from lad mags would not be difficult and finding examples easier still. Judging from the number of articles linking to it, it seems useful. Ghosts&empties
Keep - two sources, not the best article but it does have enough to hang on by its fingernails. WLU 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources discussing the topic are found before the end of AfD. No, those two don't qualify—they're passing mentions in op-ed pieces. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Google hits are not a very good argument, and what I'm seeing on Google is A) products named "hand bra" (which is not what this article is talking about), and...blogs. There may be more in there somewhere, but I didn't find it. I will happily reconsider if more and better sources turn up—I have no personal convictions one way or the other about this one—but right now, I'm just not seeing it. Xtifr _tälk 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't understand why you all find references so titillating, but here's another from the 12 April 2007 issue of Nuts (it's not the Encyclopedia Britanica, but it has a bigger readership and you don't need to look past last week). This reference wouldn't add anything to the article, but it does establish that handbra is a widely used term for a body position, not just glamour photography jargon.Ghosts&empties 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We find references "titilating" (sic) because of fundamental core Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability which states, among other things, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Anything which is challenged and for which sources cannot be provided will be deleted. Beyond that, Wikipedia is about notable topics (as defined in Wikipedia:Notability), so we need evidence that this is a notable topic, and references are the only way to provide that. Note that references showing that several people use this term does not demonstrate notability. You have to find references showing that the term is widely used, and that, I'm afraid, is much more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. What you've got so far might be better suited for Wikitionary, if anywhere. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an AfD debate or a purity test? As far as wide usage, this article already has three references, two from very large circulation print periodicals. Some wikipedians may not have heard this term because it is used chiefly in the U.K. (all three references) and Canada, but compared to many neologisms in Wikipedia, it has a very large audience as demonstrated by the fact that the large circulation references cited use the term, often without needing to explain it. In terms of notability and usefulness, the current cover of Rolling Stone (19 April 07), last week's cover of Zoo, the "Most Popular Cover Ever" of Rolling Stone ... this body/photography position is undeniably widespread and notable. The significance of the term in pop culture is one reason the term belongs in Wikipedia not (just) Wiktionary.

This term is analagous to barechested. While barechested photos of male models are very common, they are usually not documented in print as barechested because it's obvious. The same is true of handbra. Ghosts&empties 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — The Storm Surfer 07:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- This can be sourced, it just hasn't been done properly yet. MrMacMan^Talk 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you've got to be fucking kidding me... we have an article on how to cup your breasts with your hands?!?!?!?! whats next How to wear a fig leaf ?!?!?!? ... nuke it. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's no actual rational for deletion there, unless you are stating opposition based on lack of notability. WLU 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating delete on the grounds of common sense. Last I knew it was possible to state delete and not have to cite policy. Then again i've only been an admin for two and a half years (longer than you've been editing wikipedia). ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:30, 18 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. --Core desat 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queerious[edit]

Transwikied dictdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition, neologism. —Cel ithemis 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as transwikied dictdef, neologism, unsourced original research with very little likelihood of finding multiple non-trivial reliable sources on the term.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seed 2.0 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a real word--Sefringle 22:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Collin[edit]

Foreign language vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment He may be a notable broadcast announcer. Can't tell without refs. Is there a specifically québecois WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

No there isn't a Quebec-specific WP, and fr:Carl Collin doesn't exist. MER-C 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 308 ghits for his name, and is written in French on the English Wikipedia. Says it all.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Per nom. Also fails WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS and judging from the editing history also WP:COI. -- Seed 2.0 19:53, 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. --Core desat 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haluskein[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing WP:MUSIC. It's amazing that so many people do not understand what Wikipedia is not on a daily basis and that they're wasting their own time working on articles like this one, because if they're anything like this, they will be deleted.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I'll replace the AFD tag when I'm finished typing this, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have also been deleted at this spot as an A7 previously, and likely at Haluskein(band) back in January. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generic band vanity Guy (Help!) 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt and then hopefully it won't come back again. Article fails WP:M and WP:V. A1octopus 11:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 21:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Staveley-Taylor[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as an actress without widespread recognition, has only 299 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Far from being a "minor character actor" in Grange Hill, Leah was a major protagonist in the three series she appeared in, and a popular character with a noteable fan base. If the absence of an article on Jessica's "single film" credit is a problem, I will create one. It seems to me that this article is being singled out because, before I rewrote it, it associated Jessica's name with a made-up soap (namely "Hilden Way", article since deleted). As the article's author, I can assure you that all the information in the article as its stands is correct and can be verified at the external site jessicastaveleytaylor.co.uk. That this article remains on the deletion list for no valid reason smacks of sheer bloody-mindedness. Bidefax 01:28, 15 April 2007 (BST).

Delete. Article does not assert noteability. Furhermore, her name appears on the cast list in the Grange Hill article, and this article adds no further information except for mentioning a single film that does not have its own article. Dr bab 10:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor character actor in Grange Hill with no other work is anything but notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rewrite still fails WP:BIO The globetrotter 19:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etnika[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more reviews and sources asserting noteability can be found. Dr bab 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The article has been greatly improved since being nominated for AfD. I also found plenty of sources on Google (even after discounting plenty of false positives). -- Seed 2.0 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FD: I have nothing to do with the band and had never seen the article before this AfD (ie. I'm not biased ;). I'm just doing some cleanup. -- Seed 2.0 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the rootsworld and maltatoday links convince me that they're notable enough for an article. Corvus cornix 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient media coverage to substantiate claim of notability and create well-referenced article ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems worth enough for inclusion, meets WP:Music. A1octopus 18:25, 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 in some shape or form. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz on television[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of the film, any line from the film or any image that reminds an editor of the film. Otto4711 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge on the first section, as I do think the television career of this movie is sufficiently notable to belong in its main article, at least in part, (See [27] for a page that shows somebody has collected clippings about it) but the rest is a bit of a different story. FrozenPurpleCube 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This list was split from the main article on purpose[28]; if you think it has attracted some cruft, then fix it! John Vandenberg 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off garbage from the main article is not a good reason to have an article. If the information is garbage in the main article it's garbage in a separate article. All splitting off garbage does is transfer the problem from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, if it can be agreed that the article will be restricted to the approprietely referenced broadcast history of TWOO and all trivial refernces to the film in other TV shows will be deleted, then I can support the article. But the "a guy on this TV show said 'flying monkeys'" crap needs to go. Otto4711 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that it was "better here than there", but that this Afd was inappopriate because the subject matter does warrant being covered (as evidenced by the material being split from the main article, and the main article including a link to this sub page at the top). As a result there are only two alternatives:

the subject warrants a separate article but it is currently full of cruft, in which case you should have helped clean it up or at least voiced your discontent on the talk page, or
the subject only warrants a section on the main article, in which case you should have proposed that it should be merged back on the talk page.

Afd is intended to deal with entire articles that are not salvagable (lack of notability, sources, full of tripe, etc); problems regarding content within an article should be disputed on the talk page. John Vandenberg 06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, first off, I don't need a lecture from you or anyone else over the appropriateness of an AFD or on the role of AFD. Secondly, I find it bizarre that you would criticise me for nominating an article that's full of tripe when you note right in your criticism that "full of tripe" is a legitimate reason for an AFD. Third, the fact that this was split off from another article does not in any way, shape or form prove that the subject deserves its own article. That's just ridiculous. Anybody can take any stack of shit from one article and stick it in its own article. Arguing that the article should exist because it was split off from another article is a horrible argument. Regardless, as I've said, take out the trash and keep the article about the broadcast history, assuming that such an article can be referenced, and that's fine by me. That's not what this article is, though, and in its present form the AFD is still legit. Otto4711 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please folks, remember, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. There's no reason to get into a dispute here, and it's important to keep tempers cool. Yes, I do think it's better to consider cleanup first, but I also recognize that sometimes that cleanup just doesn't happen. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep AS ABOVEDalejenkins 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first part per FrozenPurpleCube. Sourced information regarding the televion career is notable and useful to the main article, but the laundry list of pop-culture references is unencyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But, as others said, make it specifically about the history of broadcasting the film on television, and leave out the "Oz in pop culture" type information. (There's a references section in the main article if any of them are actually notable references and not just one-liners.) I think the importance of the annual broadcasts of Oz to the culture of the 50s-80s, and the importance of the TV showings to the status of the film, merit enough coverage that it's too much to keep in the main article. Pinball22 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unlike many other "in popular culture" articles, this one doesn't seem to be abandoned, and is in pretty good shape. It would be a shame to lose the well-written top material; a merge may be wise, but I'd rather leave it up to those being WP:BOLD than try to dictate by committee. As for the "references" section: like it or not, this film has had a very major impact, and an article covering its influences may well be appropriate: even a list of significant examples may be appropriate. I removed references where the only connection was a quote such as "and your little dog, too" or "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Mango juice^talk 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added several references specifically about the unique career of this film on TV: the film has been shown more times on prime-time network TV than any other film or program, with 49% or better audience share for the first 8 showings. Its annual showing was a unique cultural event before home video recordings were around. Editing can trim away any cruft or trivial cultural references. The showing of this film on TV from 1956 to the present is unique and encyclopedic, and has multiple independent references with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N and WP:ATT. Edison 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "TV history", delete the trivial references in TV shows. Something as iconic as this film has had thousands of references in TV shows, so trying to list them is pointless. This is two completely different articles on one page. Masaruemoto 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per pinball and masaruemoto. --woggly 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison.Ezratrumpet 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information could be of value to some people. It was originally in The Wizard of Oz page. I posted a suggestion in the discussion page to open a separate article on it since the Oz page was enormous. I got no responses either positive or negative so gave it a page of its on. I personally think anyone looking for information about The Wizard of Oz film would not find much value in the television information. However, a fan interested in the film's history would most likely appreciate it. I am not sure who the original contributor of the information was. Philbertgray 21:24, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambros ballas[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. ElKevbo 04:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might qualify as a speedy G4. I didn't notice that the page was previously speedily deleted. --ElKevbo 04:26, 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. --Core desat 03:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Monponsett[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't assert notability, fails WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 07:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --Tom 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. RGTraynor 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly non-notable, under 50 Google hits minus Wikipedia and its mirrors.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable blogger. NawlinWiki 15:53, 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. --Core desat 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hisdarkmaterials.org[edit]

Non-notability. Reads like an advert! For an example of what a potentially decent encyclopedia article could look like, see Tolkien fandom. Even that's a bit iffy. Whamilton42 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a fandom section the His Dark Materials article where fandom can be explored. --jess 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nomination. --Old Moonraker 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individual fansites are very rarely notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I have no objection to the site having an EL at the appropriate place. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 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. There was no consensus on the merge as not enough people commented on it, or its specifics, so if anyone still wishes to merge, feel free to nominate the articles involved in this AfD at your own discretion. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4[edit]

I am nominating this page, and several others with it because they are little more than short guides to the game with barely any notability beyond some chess grandmaster playing it. I am not nominating the entirety of the Category:Chess openings (Or the subcategory for ECO openings) at this time, but I do think some action is needed on this subject and I have been concerned about it for a while. FrozenPurpleCube 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional pages nominated:

Keep Danish Gambit at least, since it seems to have notability as it references an entire book about it (and the German page lists one in German, by a different author, implying multiple independent sources exist). Not sure about others. Perhaps some that are variations can be merged into the parent opening articles. Rigadoun (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the existence of the book has contributed effectively to the article. Is there anybody who owns a copy and can relate its contents to the rest of us? FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel obliged to note that my nomination is not disputing that these articles could be referenced, but rather that their content as such is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, since they are effectively guides to certain playstyles which are in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO criteria 4. The usage by certain grandmasters or history is minimal in comparison to the space devoted to covering the opening itself. FrozenPurpleCube 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Danish Gambit and Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack. The Danish Gambit is a (fairly) major chess opening, often treated separately in opening references. The Danish Gambit article has been in good shape since 2005, including references and a history of the opening. The Marshall Attack is a very important variation of one of the Ruy Lopez, one of the most important chess openings. The Marshall Attack has an interesting history as recounted briefly in Ruy Lopez#Marshall Attack. Since this could be expanded fairly substantially and the Ruy Lopez article is already rather long, Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack should be kept. I don't really care about the others (merge might be appropriate). Quale 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's worth keeping about these two articles? Most of Danish Gambit is lengthy description of the opening, the bit about the history is minimal. It could be merged into a page describing notable chess openings with minimal trouble. Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack is not much better. What could be added to it at all? What could be added to any of these chess openings even? Though I can accept that the opening may be notable, the article on Ruy Lopez is mostly recounting variations after variations, and that's with about a dozen other pages on variants for it. And most of them don't do anything but describe a series of moves. Possibly valuable if you're writing about chess, but how important is all of that for Wikipedia? Are they really desirable? FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Marshall Attack is a very important variation of the Ruy Lopez. But I think it is telling that the current coverage of it in the main Ruy Lopez article is better than the coverage in the individual article we have on the opening variation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrozenPurpleCube, it's clear that you don't like articles on chess openings, but it isn't clear that there's really any point in trying to discuss it with you. I don't think that your ideas about which topics are encyclopedic or which articles are too technical have much in common with the consensus views on Wikipedia. This AFD discussion will provide you an opportunity to see how much community support your views have. Quale 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, WP:NOT#IINFO does say "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." and I think it's pretty obvious that most, if not all of the pages in the category for Chess openings do constitute how-tos. Given that, and the fact that after months of inaction, nothing was done or changed about these pages, I decided seeking a wider consensus through AfD was desirable. I neither like nor dislike the chess openings, I think they are difficult to understand and may be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that is not a question of animosity. Your hostile attitude is not conducive to communication or development of consensus though. You have effectively just said "I'm not going to bother trying to convince you" . I suggest you review WP:NPA, and remember to comment on content, not the contributor. FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly. I quite well aware of what WP:NOT says. The problem is that you don't seem to understand what WP:NOT means. Far below you say in response to yet another person who disagrees with you, "To get my support for the article ...". To be honest, I don't care to get your support for any chess articles, since winning your approval would make the articles worse (or go away completely) and would make Wikipedia as a whole worse too. The only thing of importance to me is what the Wikipedia community supports. So far this AFD seems to demonstrate a total rejection of your views by the Wikipedia community. Quale 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I feel obliged to remind you of the WP:NPA policy. Your comments are addressed to me, and not the subject at hand. This is inappropriate, and uncivil. Please stick to the subject at hand, and refrain from comments about me. It does not contribute to the development of consensus at all. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor on Wikipedia is entitled to express their own opinions and expects it to be respected. Asserting "I don't care to get your support" because it "would make Wikipedia as a whole worse" is extremely rude and violates WP:NPA policy. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're worried about developing consensus. Based on the comments made to date on this AFD I'd say consensus is already clear. By basing his arguments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Manticore made this about himself. And to AQu01rius I would point out that if Manticore is free to express his opinions, then I should have that same freedom too. It's clear that Manticore feels strongly about this—he's responded to nearly every comment on this AFD, repeatedly rehashing the same arguments that seem to be nearly universally rejected. I expect him to respond to this comment too. That's fine, and I encourage it, but I really don't think I would do anyone any favors by continuing to engage Manticore in the war of attrition he seems anxious to wage. Manticore can have the next to last word. AFD participants and the Wikipedia community will have the last word, and we'll move on from there. Quale 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, once again, my argument is not based on whether or not I like the pages, but upon the concept of indiscrminate info. This is at WP:NOT#IINFO and the specific problem is that these pages are instruction manuals. I do not know why you fail to understand my position, but I have done my best to explain the difference. In any case, I am unconvinced that the consensus is clear. I don't see any of the arguments to keep these pages as addressing my primary concern that these are simply instructions, and several of the remarks have indicated support for deletion of several of the pages, or simply wish to review them individually with no real support for keeping. And of the keep votes, I notice that several people, including yourself, are members of the Chess Wikiproject. This represents a potential for a conflict of interest that leads me to weigh any responses by them very carefully. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, while you are welcome to express your opinions on these pages, there is a difference between that, and a personal attack. If you noticed, I have made no comments about you other than to request you refrain from personal attacks. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect you may be troubled by my numerous and perhaps lengthy responses, but I felt a need to speak on several of the issues raised in order to get people to either clarify their position, or address why I don't feel their argument in favor of keeping is effective. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how being in the Chess Wikiproject is a "conflict of interest". The chess project goal is to improve articles dealing with chess. I think the chess project is the best place to deal with these articles. That being said, I think that some of the sub-sub-variations do need to be merged back into a parent article. Some of the major ones are OK. Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the conflict of interest concern is that some of the persons who have argued to keep are responsible, if not for these articles, than creating articles just like them. Since conflict of interest is such a deep and abiding concern, I feel it is important to weigh the remarks more carefully. It's one thing to be a strong advocate for something you support, it's another thing to let that advocacy lead you to ignore problems relating to the subject.

In any case, I think it would have been valid in the interests of full-disclosure to declare one's membership in the project, or substantial contribution to such pages. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the Chess WikiProject just means that we are interested in covering the game of chess in the best possible way on Wikipedia. Members on the project don't always agree either, although the tone among us has always been very polite and constructive. We have not even endorsed keeping all chess articles either. I am on the chess WikiProject, and I have nominated quite a few of them for deletion myself, and merged most of the articles on Nimzo-Indian variations in with the main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the hope, but if you are not aware that in practice, members of a particular group can be biased, even in subtle ways that they don't realize, then I suggest you deeply examine your actions. Unconcious bias can creep in easily, leading to many problems for users. This is not something I'm making up, and I'm sorry, but the tone has not always been polite and constructive. You can see several personal attacks right here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep whats the point of mushing them together? This what a reference work is for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT#IINFO for a discussion of the various arguments that apply to Wikipedia not covering "everything" as well as numerous discussions to be found on AfD, but in short, it's because there isn't much to say in most of these openings except "move this piece here, move that here, person x does this" which in effect is not providing much in the way of general-purpose content. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all There is no shortage of specialized literature, and the technical analysis of the game play is appropriate. They are not how-to-do-it , no chess book beyond the most elementary is in that category.DGG 06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tell me how they're not how-to-it equivalents telling you how to play the opening, typical responses, and the like? And please, note, once again, I am not contesting that they can be referenced, I am contesting the nature of the content, not its ability to be attributed. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - some are very notable (e.g. Marshall Counterattack is mentioned even in many introductory courses and has already a vast literature) but even the less important openings are verifiable and can be sourced. WP is not a paper encyclopedia, we have place enough. The nominator says somewhere, that the articles are stubs and were not changed for a long time - OK but this is not a deletion reason I think. It is a reason for improvement only.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not so much concerned that they are stubs, so much I am concerned that they are substantially instructions to certain openings, and nobody has demonstrated any attempt to fix up or clean these pages despite my requests that something be done. While simply being a stub is not a problem, a complete lack of improvement over several months has convinced me that something needs to be done to bring the wider consensus into the picture. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think collecting these in a group nomination was ill-advised, because it is not at all obvious that all the articles should receive the same treatment. First off, that there is room for coverage of chess openings in Wikipedia can be illustrated that my paper encyclopedia ("Aschehougs konversasjonsleksikon") has a short article about the Caro-Kann Defense, although strangely, nothing on the other openings. Two of these articles, Staunton Gambit (a major variation of the Dutch Defense) and the Danish Gambit (pretty much an opening in itself) have plenty of content and should be kept as is. Two of the others, C93 (chess opening) and D59 (chess opening), just have the defining moves, and are just technical terms representing a classification system used by Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. Most chess players don't refer to openings by those codes in casual talk. We rarely talk about the "C93" opening, we just know it is a variation of the Ruy Lopez which has its own chapter in ECO. (Game collections sometimes use these codes so that referencing the myriad of opening literature is easier, on Wikipedia there is little need for that.) I think those can be deleted. (List of chess openings is a better place to define the moves of each code if we want that, but there is not a pressing need.) The others which are nominated are only a paragraph long and are best merged into the article on the opening which is easier on the reader. I merged a number of similar articles a month back. There are some chess opening variations which deserve separate articles, for example Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation is a major variation in a giant of an opening. Tons and tons of literature has been produced about chess openings of all shapes and sizes so the articles which have some real content should be preserved in some form. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to pick a variety of pages so that I could get a picture of where folks drew the line as to what's a good chess opening article and what's not. I felt that would give folks a chance to examine the pages, and give me some feedback so I'd be able to at least be more selective when I went throught the category for another pass. However, I am still wanting to know exactly what real content there is. Could you relate to us exactly what the content of your paper encyclopedia has for that chess opening? FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It defines the moves, says it has a solid reputation, and mentions a few top players who have played it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the content is as minimal and spare as as the articles here? Oh well, then I'm still unconvinced of their value if that's all an article provides. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Even the minimal stubs, C93 and D59, are potentially subject to expansion, and Wikipedia is still not paper. Chess has an extensive enough literature to merit fairly deep coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What expansion would you suggest to those articles that would make them more than the how-to guides they are now? FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion on Talk:WP:NOT about how it applies to game rules, but as far as I can tell no real consensus has formed about them. For card games played with identical decks, describing the game means describing how to play it, and the same holds true for chess openings, I think. The only articles nominated in the group that have any support for deletion here are the stubs with very little "how to" information added to them. If they are expanded, they are mostly expanded with information useful to chessplayers. I think that life is too short for a war on "chess cruft", whatever that is. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, I do not consider this a war on "chess cruft" and I strongly disagree with the use of that term. (both in general and as applied here). I have expressed my concerns with regards to the nature of these pages as specifically as I can, namely that they are instructions to certain playstyles, with only the barest modicum of reference to any other kind of content. I do not mind describing the rules to chess. It seems fundamentally obvious to me that a good article on chess will include coverage of those rules. I don't even mind talking about certain theories and even openings. I am concerned that there seems to be no work whatsoever done to limit the coverage to truly notable openings, and that there doesn't seem to be even a consideration that maybe, just maybe, there should be some sort of standard for chess openings to have articles. So far the inclusion has been open-ended, which creates a bad situation. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and your link was broken, I hope you don't mind me fixing it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) But I think you are mistaken about the depth of coverage available for chess. Somewhere around here I have a book on "Unorthodox Chess Openings." It covers just about every legal opening move for White that isn't a major one, most of the legal responses for Black, and in some depth. All of the ones it discusses have names. (My favourite is the American Attack in Alekhine's Defense, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8.) You can find published commentary and analysis for just about every legal opening in chess, in other words. IM Michael Basman is the guru here. This makes them all verifiable and reliably sourced, within the words of actual policy. They are also notable, within the meaning of the guideline: they are subjects of multiple, non-trivial, published works; the ECO is one, the book I have around here is another. In short: all chess openings are notable within the meaning of the only guideline that applies. What you are proposing is a new, exclusive notability guideline applied only to chess, and I don't think any such can be generated by analogy from existing ones. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there seems to be a disconnect in our communications here. I am, once again, not arguing that the problem is simply lack of references, (though there are a large number of these pages that do lack references) but rather that the content is non-encyclopedic in nature. I'm sure many of these of these openings and variations can be referenced to some book somewhere. That doesn't change their content, which is frequently nothing more than a listing of the moves and the occasional mention of some player of it. That is not any kind of encyclopedic depth at all. Given that there doesn't seem to be any kind of standard as to including a chess opening or not, I consider this a problem, as it's very indiscriminate. And this is also not a standard exclusively applied to chess. Please review WP:NOT#IINFO which is policy, and which says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:" (and I refer you to entry four for instruction manuals, which is what I'm applying to this page. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can think of a similar subject which has pages on Wikipedia, I'll be quite willing to apply this same standard to them. the closest I can think of would be sports games (many of which are documented, the vast majority of which should not have articles) or TCG cards and combos (which in general only have articles based on their sets). Might also consider programming functions to be similar, since I have some books with them documented in it. I wouldn't imagine adding any of them to Wikipedia, even though they can all be documented. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while this isn't exactly the "same" situation, you might want to look at this AfD: Matthew Fenton AFD. I am sure every single one of the three thousand or so servicemen killed in the current Iraq conflict can be verified.

I am also fairly sure this can be applied as far back as World War II, or even World War I in some cases. Maybe further. I would not support articles on them even with that being verified. FrozenPurpleCube 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all on procedural grounds. I think the group nomination is too broad. Some of these I think are keeps; others are too narrow to make an independent article. Please renominate as necessary. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what procedural grounds are you referring to? While certainly there can be problems with mass nominations, this is less than a dozen articles, all on the same subject, each of which can be reviewed and considered together. If necessary, I can nominate individually, but I am not seeing your problem as being very clear. Is there some reason you can't comment on the individual pages here? Was it too many? Would 5 or 6 be a better number? FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds, and too broad a collection of articles. An AFD nomination should not include the baby along with the bathwater. Nominate selectively. Edison 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why is this too broad a collection of articles? What would constitute a more selective nomination? FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that these articles aren't really instructional; they are, rather, technical descriptions of the game of chess. The Wikipedia articles about Monopoly and poker both contain technical explanations of how the games are played. If these games warrant such descriptions, than chess—with its long, storied history and complex strategies—certainly does as well, especially since chess strategy has been a subject of study for a long time. (On a side note: it would, perhaps, be advisable to put all of the chess openings in one article and redirect searches of the individual openings to it.)Fixer1234 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I hope you don't mind that I moved your reply to the end here, since your comment was in the middle of a thread there, and I think it'll be easier to read if moved to the end. FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, while monopoly and poker do contain technical explanations of how the games are played, they don't contain descriptions of every game. Even poker only has one page for the various hands in the game. There's a few other pages like Dead Man's Hand and List of slang names for poker hands but in comparison, there's over 100 articles on chess openings. I have no objection to Chess opening being an article. I'm a bit concerned that List of chess openings is nothing but a directory, but while I think that might belong properly elsewhere, I'm not terribly worried about that. My concern that these "technical descriptions of the game of chess" constitute the how-tos or instruction manuals is another issue though, and while Chess, like many things is the subject of a great deal of study, not all things that are studied or referenced deserve individual articles. If all that an article has is a bare description of the moves, and maybe a brief mention that some grandmaster played it, is it really appropriate to have an article? FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point that I am making (and one I don't mean too press to strongly—I'm not emotionally tied to these articles) is that chess is somewhat more technically complex than poker--an adequate description of the game would require such lengthy description. I see your point, however, regarding the volume of information on the subject—some of the openings may not be as important as others. Perhaps the best option is to pending a closer review as is suggested by someone below. It is also worth noting that the deleted material need not simply disappear. This seems to be a great subject for a wikibook. Perhaps a general (but detailed) article on chess openings could be maintained on Wikipeida along with article about the most important of the openings (the sort that are used in analogies in political science and economics classes), while the rest of the material is turned into a Wikibook on playing chess. Just an idea. (The comment move is no problem, btw. I'm still somewhat new at this stuff.) Fixer1234 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see what's stopping people from giving it a closer review right now. There's only nine articles, which I thought was a reasonable number for people to look over, being large enough to offer a fair variety of different pages in the category, but specific enough that it wasn't too much of a burden to examine them all. Apparently it's too many though. Could you give me an idea how many would be acceptable for you to review, or is it going to be necessary to nominate them individually? I can do it, but I'm reluctant to do so since that can create more problems. (trust me, it's annoying to have to comment in so many different places.) FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while Chess is certainly a sport with exhaustive analysis and detail, that doesn't give it a free pass for every possible article on a subject somebody can cover in their book. If somebody wanted to transwiki all or most of these pages to a specific wikibook for chess openings, I'd be fine with that. Chess opening is already on Wikipedia, and I have no inherent objection to it. It might need some work, but in principle I accept that it belongs. I don't object to this being covered at all, it's neither false nor libelous. It is, however, of dubious encyclopedic worth when a page is nothing more than instructions on a given opening with maybe, maybe, an offhand remark about somebody playing it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All pending a closer review. While there are certainly opening articles that could profitably be merged, nominating what appear to be a selection of random pages for AfD seems like a dubious idea at best. What rationale was there for picking these eight out of all the chess opening articles? Also, I have to disagree with the "How-to" claim - how else can you define a chess opening other than by listing the moves unique to it? Since when has definition and analysis been a "how-to"? Yet even an encyclopedic and well-written page like Sicilian Defence now has a how-to tag plastered over it. Well, it did until I just removed it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I picked them because they represented a variety of the pages in the category, which while they are not all completely the same, are not significantly different from each other, and I felt that a review of the various pages would be more helpful in establishing a baseline so that on further passes through the category I would have more of an idea about what should be kept and what should be considered for deletion. And I don't have a problem with articles on notable chess openings including descriptions of the moves. My problem is that so many of these articles don't get to anything beyond that, and I don't see much chance of that happening either. I don't see that Wikipedia is about teaching people how to play chess and that's the only thing I can get from these pages. FrozenPurpleCube 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the articles that I suggested could profitably be merged; however deleting them seems illogical, like deleting an article on a single episode of Star Trek and leaving all the other intact. I notice you've put the how-to tag back on Sicilian Defence; well, I'm not getting into an edit war there, but I'd be interested to see what you would do to that article in order to cure this - how about doing it in userspace? I've also put forward an idea at the talk page. EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this was clear from my nomination, but based on the results of this discussion, I intended to go through the category and propose further openings for deletion. There are 196 articles in the category. Proposing them all at once would have been a bad idea, but to go through that number of pages, I felt the need for some criteria to have before trying an extensive review. This is not the equivalent of Star Trek episodes, but more the equivalent of Star Trek characters or space ships. Captain Kirk has an article. There is a category for ships named the Enterprise. Category:Enterprise ships (Star Trek). That's a valid choice. So is the Excelsior. But many other Star Trek ships are only in List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. (in fact, there were several recent AFDs on that). Now it might be reasonable to create redirects for most of the chess openings to say List of chess openings but given the large numbers, I am not sure of that.

But the problem is still knowing when to do that, and when to leave the article as it stands. This is not always obvious from the article itself. Thus this proposal. FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this example merge page for irregular openings in my userspace. I think we're actually on the same page here, except that I believe merging rather than deletion is the way to go. Note that the suggested merge page only describes the openings briefly, in order to distinguish them. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we're on quite the same page. We might be getting closer together though. I hope we're at least reading the same book. To get my support for the article, it would need to focus more on what makes the subject of irregular chess openings meaningful, and less on covering various opening descriptions with maybe a few brief hints that somebody somewhere played it. Great stuff for a Wikibook on Chess perhaps. For an encyclopedia? I'm afraid not. (I'll leave aside the problem with a lack of references since the page is incomplete). FrozenPurpleCube 17:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. Ezratrumpet 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all while shorter ones should be merged. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you suggesting be merged, and where do you think they should be merged? And what content do you think should be merged at all? FrozenPurpleCube 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge most, keep the rest. No deletes

Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4 - Merge into Alekhine's Defence
Benko Gambit, 7.e4 - merge into Benko gambit
Benoni, Taimanov variation - merge into Benoni Defense
C93 (chess opening) - merge into Ruy Lopez
Staunton Gambit - keep or merge into Dutch defense
Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack - keep and expand (there should be much more to say), or merge into Ruy Lopez
D59 - merge into Queen's Gambit Declined
Danish Gambit - keep
French, Winawer, Advance Variation - merge into French Winawer (if it exists, French Defence otherwise) Bubba73 (talk), 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to address the problem I raised with the pages being nothing but instructions on particular variants? FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that your argument has no merit. This material is derived from books about chess openings, and by-in-large they describe moves that masters have made or analysis by masters. Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, even if all of the pages were adequately sourced, they're still instructions on how to play the openings and thus violate WP:NOT#IINFO (4). It doesn't matter that they can be sourced to reliable sources by grandmasters, at most such coverage would be appropriate in the grandmaster's page, not a separate article of its own. This is the equivalent of taking Linux Source code and making it an article because Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox wrote it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These openings are not played by any one chess master. Why don't you start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Bubba73 (talk), 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? Does being played by more than one master really make a difference? Most chess masters play dozens, if not hundreds of games in a given period of time. The number of different openings they might play? How many do you think that is? It's too vast, the specificity might be useful somewhere, but I don't see why Wikipedia is it. FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be very familiar with chess. Of the millions and billions of possible openings, only a relatively small number are played. Bubba73 (talk), 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood the question I asked, which was about the number of games Chess masters play and what the number of different openings they might play. This is like Baseball. While Babe Ruth is notable, not every game he plays get an article. Besides, I'd like you to define relatively small number. Yes, I'm sure out of the millions of possible combinations of chess moves, there are less than a few thousand even named, but so what? If the only content that can be added is how to play it....that's not an encyclopedia article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go up a level from the #4 you keep citing, and there is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These openings are not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list of every possible opening four or five moves deep would be an indiscriminate collection of info, but these openings are not. To use a baseball analogy, an article about "how to" play is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list of the line score of every major league baseball game played would be. Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for two problems. The first is that no matter what you say about some of the articles in the category, there are others whose only content is a description of the opening and instructions on the value of the play. This may be valid content if you want to teach someone how to play that opening. That is, not, however, the point of Wikipedia. The second problem is the current open-ended standard which allows any and every named opening to have an article, regardless of putative merit. Don't get me wrong, I can conceive of some of these openings having articles, but let's see, the ECO is a five-volume set, correct? Sorry, but if all the content you can provide on an opening is a brief mention of a few games played and a dab of history...it's clearly not for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you can find articles on Wikipedia that come close to teaching one how to play Baseball, I'd be much surprised. Even if you do, I doubt you'd find close to 200 such articles. Let me know though, I'd be glad to suggest them for cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I tried getting comments, I tried approaching the Wikiproject. The result? Nothing. Thus this action. FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that you are pretty much alone. So the AfD should suffice to clear up the situation. Newton's law of universal gravitation gives "instructions" for calculating the gravitational force beteen two objects. Should that be eliminated because it can be considered a "how to"? Bubba73 (talk), 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. Sorry if this offends, but I don't see much in the way of actual, informed consensus from a wide perspective being truly developed here. This has devolved into a trainwreck, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to continue to work to fix the problems I see. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I attempted to close the AFD early and was reverted. This is what I wrote in my closing statement, and it should be considered by whoever does actually close the AFD:

I have a few comments to add:
I am an experienced student of chess (see my user page), so I understand the substance of this discussion.
FrozenPurpleCube makes a fundamentally mistaken assumption in saying that Wikipedia articles on chess openings constitute a game guide. These articles are descriptive, not proscripitive. They inform about what opening lines have been played by grandmasters and canonized in the standard literature.
There are literally thousands of books about chess openings in general. Major openings, such as the Ruy Lopez, have entire books devoted to them or to subvariations within them.
I recommend that some of the smaller stubs, such as C93 and D59, be merged upward. In general I do not see the need for individual articles for this level of specificity. The larger articles, such as the Danish Gambit and Staunton Gambit, should be kept as they are. I leave it to the judgment of User:Sjakkalle and User:Bubba73, who are both experienced writers in the chess section of Wikipedia, to execute the mergers in practice if they agree.
The nomination did expose one major flaw in these articles: the linkage between major and minor opening articles is often missing. For example, I found that the articles on Benko Gambit and Benko Gambit, 7.e4 do not have reciprocal links. This might be an issue for the Chess WikiProject to work on. YechielMan 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - The problem with your argument about those books is that there is nothing in the way of encyclopedic content to them. Those opening books don't contain a long, interesting history of the opening. They primarily contain instructions on play of the openings. Exactly what these articles contain. If it's in greater detail, the distinction is minimal. There is no significance to the vast majority of the descriptions, with barely a few even claiming as much as some game somewhere was played using it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apparently notable as per comments above, can't see any benefit from a merge. Matthew 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since this AfD has been prematurely closed twice, I have asked that a non-involved, neutral admin take responsibility for closing this AfD at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner. I request that if anybody else feels a need to close this early, that they refrain from doing so. FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Wikipedia is going to have coverage of chess at all, it has to say something about chess openings. In general the articles listed above seem harmless. Variations and sub-variations get harder to justify, though if good third-party sources were provided, this might be OK. The level of coverage provided here is nothing like the amount of detail in a book like Modern Chess Openings, so these articles are nothing like a handbook. The illustrative games in the Staunton Gambit I could do without. I see that some kind of database pointers have been provided for those games, and I would retain the pointers. The two articles on C93 (chess opening) and D59 (chess opening) I could do without; they don't look like real encyclopedia articles, they say so little. EdJohnston 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of these openings are of historical interest.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please describe that historical interest, and if possible add the information to the page? FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and the other pages listed abv for suggested deletion!! Encylopedias are NOT generally 'in-depth' sources of info, rather broad general sources of info. This article give a good general overview for those non-serious players of the game or for those just starting out. Serious players will get there "Grand Master" comments about this opening and its variations elsewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.68.195 (talk • contribs)
Merge minor openings into a list. Let major openings have their own list. Need chess players to decide which is which. I volunteer. Carcharoth 17:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good suggestion. Are you willing to start on a couple of articles right away? The AfD still has another day to run. The AfD participants would have a chance to comment on your work before the debate closes. EdJohnston 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already started. See this work in progress for minor openings and this example merged opening article (both in userspace), and discussion at Wikiproject:Chess. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before the AfD closes, I'd like to bring up two points:

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - the key word is "indiscriminate". I fail to see how chess openings could be considered an indiscriminate collection of information. The selection is not indiscriminate.

Ok, then please do inform us as to the exact criteria which was used to select the chess openings that have been given an article. Furthermore, note, the real problem cited in WP:NOT#IINFO is with the content, which is that of an instruction manual. FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the problem; obviously in your opinion the articles are those of an instruction manual - however giving the defining moves for an opening and a little strategical and tactical background is not instruction. You would need a novel-sized book for each opening in order to do that. I own a book for a very minor opening (Grob's Opening) and even that is 105 pages long. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette: "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: ... A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar... " Bubba73 (talk), 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I'm unfamiliar with the subject? I've been looking into this for several months. I may not be a chess enthusiast, or a professional chess player, but accusing me of unfamiliarity is hardly convincing. Or are you saying only chess experts are qualified to make decisions on articles and that there isn't even a desire to try to explain why those decisions were made? You may wish to look at WP:EXPERT which says "In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise." thus If you truly believe I am mistaken, inform me, don't just call me ignorant. That's not persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could User:Bubba73 be implying that the nominator is pursuing this too aggressively? Though I voted keep (at least for most of them) I don't object to him asking these questions. (Though he shouldn't badger all the Keep voters; he has made 42 edits to this AfD so far). Some of the opening articles *are* of pretty low quality, and I do have an (old) copy of MCO on my shelf. IMHO, the nominator should re-submit an AfD for the worst opening articles, and meanwhile we should hope that the people knowledgable about chess would work on quality improvement for the articles on major openings (including proper sourcing)... Does anyone from the Chess Wikiproject want to offer a different plan for what to do about these articles? EdJohnston 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to your comment, above. Also, I am also starting to slightly lose my WP:AGF as regards User:FrozenPurpleCube, especially following this edit where he removed Garry Kasparov from a list of Baby Boomers, claiming that he wasn't a Baby Boomer (he is) and that he wasn't born in the US (Baby Boomers don't have to be born in the US, and many on that list weren't). All seems a bit petty to me. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of being part of the Baby Boom being applied to countries of the Soviet Union, and List of important and famous Baby Boomers? Furthermore, after reflection, I nominated the page List of important and famous Baby Boomers for deletion anyway, so accusing me of pettiness because of that is rather strange. But if you believe it's a serious problem, bring it up at the AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a serious problem - as I said, given your Chess-related AfD's it just seemed a bit odd. Since you AfD'd it anyway (and it looks like it'll be deleted) it hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The work that EliminatorJR linked to in his earlier comment looks very good. Would you all be in favor of extending this AfD for another 5-day cycle so that this approach could be discussed further? I see that the nominator, FrozenPurpleCube, has actually joined in the discussion at the Chess project and I surmise that he filed this AfD because he observes no progress on the thread EliminatorJR cited, which began in December, 2006 and has had no updates since 5 January. This could suggest that this AfD, while contentious, might actually be beneficial. So please respond on the issue of extending the AfD... If you don't want to extend it, do you have another idea for fixing the articles? EdJohnston 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there's a more recent thread here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See EliminatorJR's drafts of new pages here and here. Personally, I think the outcome of the AfD is pretty clear. The community seems to have presented arguments to the effect that material should stay. There is no need for an extension. Let the editing process take its course. Fixer1234 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think an extension of this discussion is still necessary. It doesn't have to be in AFD, but it's obvious to me that the problem remains unresolved. As I said when I first brought this up back in November 2006, I don't want to disrupt Wikipedia, but I believe something ought to be done. So far, the Chess Wikiproject has not demonstrated that they are doing anything. FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person so far in this AfD has disagreed with you in one way or another. You honestly think an extension will change something? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several people have agreed with me on the substance of the issues I have brought up, which is namely that there is an issue regarding these pages. Note the people who have said they would merge or delete several of the pages involved. I don't expect perfect agreement with me, and since I have not developed a firm position on anything but there is a problem, I'm open to change. Disregarding the folks who recognize there is a problem in an attempt to single me out as a trouble-maker is not appropriate either. Working to develop consensus is not a matter of who you can bully by saying "everybody else thinks you are wrong, wrong wrong" but rather trying to convince someone of your position by explaining it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a position. And I'm sorry if you misunderstood the meaning of my post because I was unclear- I meant that nobody has voted delete, as you did when creating the nomination. Either way, it's a keep. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:21, 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 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Humor (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. No outside references either on the page or available, per a quick search. Released albums on non-notable internet-only label (neither Dead Puppy Records nor Antidote Records are notable). Notability is asserted ("largely known in the online indie music scene"), so page cannot be speedied. However, per all counts, this band fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Dead Puppy Records seems to be a completely non-notable record label.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable band, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 15:54, 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 Samir 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TITSA[edit]

This article has been speedily deleted 5 times [29], on the grounds of spam and lack of notability, and recreated each time by the same editor, so bringing to AfD for further discussion Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per nom-EMP 05:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) On second thought, I think some sources (and a proper article) could be obtained, so I'm neutral for now-EMP 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to be quite a few sources available, but they're generally in Spanish - not sure what the policy would be on using them. Could simply redirect to Tenerife for the time being, of course. JavaTenor 05:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep if there are sources--The articles in en WP must be in english, but the sources may be in whatever language is appropriate. DGG 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tenerife#Transport which already has a couple sentences on TITSA. Buscruft. Herostratus 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect from re-creation as advertising. I'd say merge/redirect to transport in Tenerife, but given the same editor has recreated it five times, this is the only possible solution.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second . . . I see that it has been deleted 5 times, but looking at the company history, it seems that this is a government agency (although the English is so poorly written, it is hard to understand; it says, "Later in 1986 the heading of the company action is passed over the Canary Government, situation that stays at the present time."). The article also has a link titled "Tenerife goverment take over TITSA assets (spanish newspaper)", although this is in 2007. If it is government-owned, then I think by definition an article about a government-owned public transportation entity can not be spam and does not fit WP:CSD#G11. Why do so many admins think that it does fit G11? As for WP:CSD#A7, articles about government agencies also automatically fit notability criteria, do they not? Although I can't seem to find the word "government" anywhere in WP:N, common sense alone implies sufficient notability for government agencies to be included in an encyclopedia. That is what we're here to to do, write the world's most comprehensive free encyclopedia, right?
I agree that this is not an acceptably well-written article right now, but if this is a government agency, then there is no reason to keep deleting it and absolutely no reason to salt. However, if it is in fact a privately-owned, for-profit company, then I would agree with both deletion and salting, as it would then fit WP:CSD#G11. Can someone verify the status of this company for certain? Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it is a government agency or not is rather irrelevant to whether a proper encyclopedia article can be created about it. Salting just prevents the person from repeatedly re-creating it. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite with something worthwhile. It's a transport stub at the moment. The author seems to need to read WP:5 as to what makes a good article. Just because the bus service saves whales and rescues kittens, it isn't excluded from the review process - Tiswas^(t/c) 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been partially rewritten. The company is a highly regulated, governmentally controlled corporation, like the U.S. Post Office. The sources need work. Some are contained in the External links. --Bejnar 03:32, 18 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. --Core desat 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jesus[edit]

There already is an article titled Death and resurrection of Jesus, and that article covers all the material this article covers. In addition, this article contains no reliable sources and is all origional research after being tagged with {{unreferenced}} for over a month. There also appears to be POV problems. Sefringle 05:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trivial summary article, without even references--and on a subject where there are thousands. Not encyclopedic.DGG 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant article, non-encyclopedic. Sr13 (T|C) 07:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely redundant content fork. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content and then redirect to Death and resurrection of Jesus, as it is a plausible search term. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Goodnightmush^Talk 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Ezratrumpet 01:11, 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 merge and redirect. I am performing the redirect, people should feel free to merge whatever, as the history is preserved behind the redirect. -- Y not? 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

This article violates NOR (no sourcing for third party sources or assertions of notability of content), and is a possible attack page. There are no citations to any third-party sources whatsoever for the majority of claims - the links that are in the article are to excerpts or official statements rather than sources of notability for the February 16tcontroversies. In general it seems these things are controversial only for non-Mormons, and not to the LDS Church, the same way Jesus isn't a savior for non-Christians (which doesn't make that a "Christian controversy"; in short, it requires a value judgment on the part of the reader being made for the reader, which is not what WP is about. A "Criticisms" article already exists. MSJapan 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Sr13 (T|C) 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Mormonism- perhaps merge anything that can be salvaged. Thunderwing 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment- there is a merge discussion here [30] Thunderwing 10:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Thunderwing. Not much to save though. NeoFreak 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's not waste time by only redirecting the problem. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is sufficient. Duplicated topic that isn't treated very well here, looks better over there. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT in general, and WP:NOR. The whole premise seems like an axe-grinding page, not an encyclopedic entry. There are so many"words to avoid" and Weasel Words there's not much valuable to merge into another article.--TrustTruth 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saying that an article is unsourced is not grounds for deletion, unless it was tagged for months and never improved. Instead of deleting the article, why not just tag it for sources/references and see what happens? And, this article should stay for the same reason Scientology_controversy should stay. Just because its only found "controversial" by "non-Mormons" doesn't mean it ought to be deleted. Surprise, the vast majority of people in the world are non-Mormons! Also, criticism of Mormonism is a different topic. Mormonism ≠ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mormonism is a religion. A Church is an organization.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to say that the article needs to have paragraphs, not this current amalgam of lists.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so it doesn't seem like this was out of the blue, it did sit for months - the last meaningful non-vandalism related edit (either way) was on January 20th, and the merger discussion has been open since last October with no apparent result. If sources were forthcoming, you would think someone would have gotten to it by now. MSJapan 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKirby, I certainly support your comments, but there is a discrepency between the this and the other article. This is essentially a Category parading as an article. There is not article to it; it is a list. It should be deleted and if someone wants to pen a controvery article, then first look at Criticism of Mormonism, Anti-Mormonism, or Mormonism and Christianity. The article that this is trying to be already exists. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Criticism of Mormonism. These are duplicate titles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Criticism of Mormonism per Matt57. Ezratrumpet 01:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page serves a data list function, and has been previously linked from several articles that don't have the space to devote to a list of controversies when those controversies are mentioned as a whole. Regardless, this page will always be attacked by some Mormons who see it as threat their own biased claims although the word "controversy" is neutral. The other problem is that the criticism page is just as vulnerable to deletion and mob POV edits, so merging is nonsense. What it needs is a simple category page. Anon166 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that a similiar category page is under attack[31] for the implied reason that it disturbs a true belief to assemble Wikipedia articles under a common theme to address controversial historical claims that come from the same source. "Controversy" is a neutral and valid category that addresses disputed historical claims, not purely religious ones. It would be both POV and anti-historical to suppress it. Furthermore, controversies are established by linking the dispute itself, in whatever form it finds itself. Mormon editors here should state their potential conflict of interest, since some of them have implied that addressing a historical controversy tied to a religious belief is somehow in error. Anon166 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you are talking about a Category, not an article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful information that could be diverted to other pages as it is enlarged - for example by proponents or detractors of the controversial claim adding sources. Pbhj 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Thunderwing. BRMo 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Criticism and controversy are not synonymous, and lack of sourcing can be fixed. - grubber 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious Wiki OR. --Blainster 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged and Redirect to Criticism of Mormonism. There is interesting information there, but the way it is presented needs significant work to make it salvagable. However, I believe it could be done. Turlo Lomon 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mormonism has many questions to be answered. This page is a guide to those questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefsalsa (talk • contribs) 22:48, 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 No consensus. --Aarktica 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belegarth Medieval Combat Society[edit]

Only a single independent, reliable source, failing criteria laid out in WP:ORG Eyrian 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:ORG. The Rambling Man 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Far more than one independent reliable source now. Relax guys. Sentineneve 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough sources now provided to pass WP:ORG. Hut 8.5 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another boffer LARP. Do we have any sources that aren't student newspapers? "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found."

Ravenswing 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the organization appears to have existed for some time, and has been commented on from various sources. Both are good arguments for a keep. Maury 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources added seem to consist of those that do not possess the kind of fact checking required by WP:RS, such as student newspapers. --Eyrian 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belegarth. This is not a G4 candidate, however. --Core desat 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- With all due respect, articles from Illinois, Minnesota, Tennessee,Ohio, Iowa, and Idaho is not exactly local in scope. Further, at the very least, the Daily Chronicle is not a student newspaper. In addition, there is video footage of Belegarth as the Nashville Kats arena football game. It can be found at http://www.cherrytap.com/stashEntry.php?stashId=227833. I don't think most boffer Larps play as halftime shows. Finally, Belegarth was recently published in Games Magazine on page 65 of their April 2007 edition. It is my understanding that Games Magazine is a heavily subscribed physical magazine. You can at least see Belegarth is listed at http://www.kappapublishing.com/games/indexApr07.html. If I knew how to cite a physical copy, I would. Sentineneve 07:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There. Also added a link from Fox news. They may not all be reliable, but surely are enough sources to at least get past a notability claim. Sentineneve 07:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a search of the google news archives, http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=belegarth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn, shows citations in Fox News, the Plain Dealer, the Hartford Courant, the Tennessean, and the Salt Lake Tribune, which clearly meets WP:ORG and WP:RS. Blurble 15:51, 19 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. --Core desat 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. Lynn Bishop[edit]

Only seven appearances according to IMDB, and is a filler character. Being in a major position in L&O does not make them a major character. A Link to the Past (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, recurring guest character for about 1/4 of a season doesn't seem significant to me. For instance, Michael Tritter was a central character on House for about 7 episodes but his name redirects to List of House characters. Goodnightmush^Talk 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the character turned "uninteresting" into a viable character trait. That doesn't mean she should have an article, though. JuJube 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would require a secondary source establishing notability in the real world and encyclopedic treatment to have an article. --maclean 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character, no real world context. Jay32183 01:00, 18 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swordmaster (Fire Emblem)[edit]

A class that isn't particularly notable among the series; I mean, look at Black Mage and White Mage, very well-known classics, which do not even have their own articles. A Link to the Past (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an indiscriminate collection of information and Original Research, which violates WP:NOT and WP:OR, respectively. SuperDT 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SuperDT. YechielMan 16:05, 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 no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Townsend[edit]

His notability hangs one thing alone: ran (unsuccessfully) for Congress on the Republican ticked fifteen years ago. As for the rest, he's just another accomplished person, one of many. Does running for Congress on a major party ticked == notable? Not in my book it doesn't, and if it does we have many thousands more articles to write. His foundation bluelinks because he wrote the article himself, today. Obviously there are WP:COI issues here, if he and his foundation are so dang notable why does he have to write the articles himself. Herostratus 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hard name to search for but seems to meet WP:BIO. Any serious candidate (this guy lost narrowly) for US Congress is nearly always going to have enough sources if you dig them up. [32], [33], [34]. We dont like him because he spammed us, but the sources seem to exist for meeting WP:BIO. --W.marsh 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W.marsh whose comments I can only second. Not a particularly great article, obviously, and a great example of why it's important to familiarize oneself with the rules before writing an article but he does seem to meet WP:BIO. Seed 2.0 15:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He probably meets WP:BIO per W.Marsh, so the article probably can be cleaned up. But, while in most AfD's we should evaluate the potential, not the current, state of the article, in a case of conflict of interest concerns I feel the article should be deleted even if the article has potential. Article creators are explicitly advised on the edit page boilerplate not to "write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend." It is not appropriate for single-purpose accounts to shoehorn articles about themselves into Wikipedia by creating an article and then having other, disinterested, editors bring the article up to Wikipedia stan dards. Pan Dan 19:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This user's motives seem to be other than NPOV. I'm looking through his other contribs also, and may nominate some for deletion. YechielMan 04:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The losing congressional run is a footnote and if that was all there was to him, I would easily vote to delete. I would hang his notability more on being a co-founder of Lycos [[35]] than anything else. Its unfortunate that Bill Townsend feels the need to spam WP. Actually its borderline pathetic. I would think if his organizations were notable someone would go ahead and write an aritcle about them. Montco 05:14, 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 redirect to Mathematical markup languages. Majorly (hot!) 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet shorthand notation[edit]

No sources, no clear focus. $\neg \exists$ a clear definition supported by reliable sources $\implies$ $\neg$ article. —xyzzy_n 01:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
$\neg$ Article - patently impossible to categorize or standardize, by its very nature. Not an encyclopedic topic, and will always be WP:OR. --Haemo 04:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is 'widely used' then source it and I will change my vote. Until then the burden is on the creator, not the reader.--killing sparrows 05:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've never heard this called 'internet shorthand', and a quick search confirms that it may not be in any sort of wide use. All it appears to be is using the computer programming notation for things requiring superscript, subscript or other non-standard ASCII symbols (IE SQRT() as opposed to the square root sign carrot (^) for exponent, and so on). Wintermut3 06:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "^" is a caret not a carrot. Uncle G 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oddly this was used (showing my age here), when computer programs only coped with text. Appears to be a topic that is completely unsourceable to any reliable sources. Definately original research by our standards - Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These notations are well-known, but somehow it seems strange to me to write an article on some kind of mathematical "Internet shorthand notation". The real source, such as it is, is the Internet, or more properly, Usenet, where this notation is used all the time in newsgroups such as sci.math. One will also see it on web math documents written by old fogeys. But there really isn't a a name for it per se, and I think these notations can be rather ad-hoc. I've always referred to it as ASCII math notation and had no problem being understood. There's also a fairly typical way people use ASCII art-like commutative diagrams and such, but again, it would be strange to have an article on that. --C S (Talk) 09:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has never been named or documented, then Wikipedia isn't the place to be the first to name or document it, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy. It should be first named and documented somewhere else. Uncle G 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep, this is usually called ASCII math notation and should be so renamed. Google results Google Scholar results --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to ASCII math notation per Dhartung. I did a search for that phrase and found two relevant links which I added as references to the article. But the current name is no good. —David Eppstein 22:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This falls under the realm of a slang dictionary, which Wikipedia is not Adam McCormick 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ASCII math notation per Dhartung. Jmath666 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mathematics in e-mails or on Usenet is often written in ASCII. Everybody has their own ad-hoc way to do this. Some websites have attempted to formalize it (the "references" mentioned by David Eppstein), but none of these attempts has taken off and a short study of the Google Scholar results mentioned by Dhartung indicates that there are no secondary sources about such attempts; those article that do talk about ASCII notation only say it's ad-hoc and ambiguous. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it ;) There is a potential article here, on what some mathematicians (including myself) call "pigtex". Mathematicians frequently use TeX source notation to communicate with each other in emails, although this source is usually not parsable: for instance, dollar signs are often omitted, and undefined but common macros (such as \R) are used without comment. It might be nice to document this phenomenon in WP. Geometry guy 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but, as with any other kind of slang, multiple people must have done research on this before we write an article. Somehow I don’t think mathematicians find TeX so fascinating as to waste time on documenting other people’s use of it (in the best case, they document their own macros). Neither of the two links added so far to the article does this, anyway. —xyzzy_n 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My impression is that there isn't a single standardized usage, but that there are some widely used common usages. So I think the article should make clear that this is how mathematicians often communicate electronically, and that it isn't standardized, but that (starting with eqn and TeX etc) there exist systems for converting this kind of ASCII simplified math notation into something more formal. I think the references I included support that and that plenty of other references could be found stating similar things, both in printed books such as Knuth's and in online documents. —David Eppstein 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've used Kernighan & Cherry's EQN (which I liked), Knuth's TeX (which I liked less), Lamport's LaTeX (which I liked better than TeX), W3C's MathML (which is absurdly bloated to mark up), and Jipsen's ASCIIMathML (a tolerable crude way to produce MathML via JavaScript). (To write the number "1" in MathML, we must write "<mn>1</mn>", so clearly no one will use that informally!) I've also used Macsyma, Mathematica, Maple, and MATLAB, among others. The notations in the article seem ad hoc and arbitrary, not necessarily based on a study of formal syntax for equation processors nor a study of informal syntax employed for communication in ASCII. An article comparing formal syntaxes used for typesetting and for manipulation would be of interest, and well-founded material on informal practice might also be of some interest. The present article is useless, or worse. --KSmrq^T 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not sourceable, and not very encyclopedic even if sourced. WP is not a guide to notation; rather, we use notation to get the content across. --Trovatore 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to new article Mathematical markup languages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 07:10Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs to be sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has potential. just needs a bit more information and expanding —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Devil (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to new article Mathematical markup languages, this new article covers the same as this but in a much more encylopedic style. --Salix alba (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Changed from keep, above. It may be (though it seems unlikely) that there is enough material on the ASCII notation alone to split it out of the new article Mathematical markup language, but in the meantime that is a good place for this material. —David Eppstein 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical markup languages. (The corresponding content there is still unsourced, but that can be sorted out in situ.) —xyzzy_n 15:38, 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 delete.-Fuhghettaboutit 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACASC[edit]

The organization does not appear to be notable. Google hits are only 526. Splintercellguy 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Atlantic Canadian Anti-Sealing Coalition for stylistic reasons - an acronym should redirect to the full name. Keep and stubify otherwise. I'd like to give this one a chance. --Dennisthe2 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For notability reasons. Could've been a good article with some cleanup.--Ng.j 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too promotional, group not notable. Realkyhick 17:23, 3 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, Daniel Bryant 03:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without predjudice if recreated with more independent reliable sources. Also, note Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-03-19#Atlantic_Canadian_Anti-Sealing_Coalition The Rambling Man 11:07, 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!) 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puffle[edit]

Unsourced and non-notable virtual pet cruft. Somewhat resembles a game guide. Contested prod. MER-C 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin Timeline and The Penguin Times Gwernol 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia not being a repository for instruction manuals and this includes game guides... The Rambling Man 11:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the article should be kept. Puffles are Important in Club P. Even though it sounds like a Game mag, I don't think it should b deleted.Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I agree with Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here.... Puffle can always be corrected and fixed up. Since other Club Penguin related article such as: Club Penguin Locations and Minigames (Club Penguin) have already been deleted, I think that we should try to work on improving this article instead of deleting it, which has happened with other pages. --Coin945 09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no sources so not verifiable, probably contains significant original research. Gwernol 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think we should kepp it it is one of the first things that wee in Club PenguinRatónbat 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above, we can surely improve it instead of deleting it! ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as above. --Defender 911 01:15, 18 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Elementary School[edit]

Nothing in the article shows why this school is notable. Maybe a merge to the district article instead. Vegaswikian 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the interlude program is major and can be found in multiple reliable sources, we may have an article. Otherwise it fails notability.--Wizardman 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:A. That program is merely centralization of special services, which is common to a lot of districts and suggests no notability. I'd say merge, but none of the asserted facts are attributed. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Theres quite a lot of information there, including an external link and an info box. Ideally however the article needs one or two references to establish its notability further.LordHarris 17:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, alternately, merge and redirect to Arlington County, Virginia as suggested by WP:LOCAL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:57, 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 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snug (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. Only claim of notability is that supposedly Ed Harcourt was a bass player. CloudNine 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as problematic unreferenced, unverifiable stub that makes claims to having supported notable bands but does not cite a thing. Google doesn't reveal much either.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not verify any of the claims. I don't feel any of the claims would be enough to justify an article even if references could be cited. - BierHerr 17:09, 19 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 -- Samir 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game[edit]

Individual football games are non-notable. Regardless that this was the first meeting between the teams and the article is well referenced. Nearly any article about any major pro or collegiate athletic competition would have reliable sources available due to the overwhelming number of sports publications in the world, this doesn't make a game notable. Early season, little impact, little coverage=equals non-notable, not even a title game of any sort. Other than it being the first meeting betwen the two teams, (this happens all the time because of the sheer number of universities in the United States) there is no assertion of notability here. Basically a game review. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IvoShandor 10:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an assertion of notability, and it certainly is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Johntex\^talk 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow, a good piece of journalism (more independent citations than all the other AFDs listed here put together), but as stated in the nomination, setting an unhealthy precedent for reports on first-time match-ups in any sport from now to the start of time. Really not notable other than for the meeting being the first one, so fails WP:N and WP:NOT. The Rambling Man 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you for remarking on the number of independent citations. I think that is a valuable point to consider.

-You link to WP:N, so I would like to quote from it

"The primary criterion for notability, and one shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is that: A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

With 53 in-line references, this seems to me to pass WP:N with flying colors. There are also more notable things about the game beside that one fact. Several are mentioned below.

-You also link to WP:NOT. That policy covers a lot of ground.

I assume you are not talking about "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" or "Wikipedia is not a dictionary".

Perhaps you are thinking of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"? Even that secion does not seem relevant here, it lists things like "travel guides, instruction manuals, sprawling lists of statistics".

This article is none of those things. It is a prose article about an event that was witnessed and read about by millions of people. The event has an impact on the national championship picture of one of the most popular sports in the US.

Could you please explain more precisely how you think this article violates any policy or guideline? Thanks, Johntex\^talk 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Dalejenkins 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, and neither is it WikiNews, so delete. >Radiant< 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah. I felt kind of bad putting it at AfD but I consulted with another user, who concurred (the huge number of refs threw me off) but I also saw this as a very unhealthy precedent. Better to head it off now. IvoShandor 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't made my decision yet on this AfD (leaning towards keep) but I just wanted to point out that this article was created because a GA review suggested that the original article is too long for GA and that some of the longer game summaries (like this one) should be separated into a separate article. So, it appears to me that this article was merely created as a way to appease the GA reviewers now it is up for deletion. ↔NMajdan•talk 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I suggested (another reviewer did so on the article talk page before me, as my comment was originally at WP:GAC) the original article was too long but was not the reviewer who suggested that the article be created about a football game. I wouldn't do that as I do not think that every individual football game is inherently notable. Just FYI, if anyone cares. : ) IvoShandor 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would a remerge into 2005 Texas Longhorn football team be a sufficient course-of-action?↔NMajdan•talk 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lengthy article about a non-notable event. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an avid college football fan, I believe this article is notable. It was a non-conference matchup between two top five teams, which is very rare. Texas won and went on the win the national championship that year so it was a very important game. It was the first matchup between these two tradition-rich teams. It is a very well-written and well-cited article. I see no reason in deleting such an exceptional article. Why delete the article when it is a very real possibility that someone who wants information on this game may come to Wikipedia looking for it. I know I wish there were articles like this on some other games of the past. This is a valuable article and I see no reason why these types of articles should be deleted. Now if this article was 1983 Middle Tennessee State vs. Rice football game, then I would be for deletion as that game would be non-notable. But, as I said, we're talking about two top five teams here and one was that year's national champion. ↔NMajdan•talk 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per NMajdan 216.56.61.66 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably voting with my sports heart. This template was made for big games. I think it should mostly be used for post season and rivalry games, but this is not a bad use. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep as one of the original article authors. I say "one" of the authors becuase even though I started this article, I created it with content that already existed at 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. Please read this before making up your mind about this.

Notability of the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team

The 2005 Texas Longhorn football team went on to win the national championship in college football. In doing so, they set numerous school and NCAA records.[36] The, team, their season, and their ultimate bowl win have been called by numerous national media outlets as "the" or "one of the" greatest of all time.[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

How the main article grew to be long

The 2005 UT football team article is partly maintained by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, which aims "to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football". In improving the article on the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, I have gotten help from numerous contributors and reviewers.

The first attempt at a GA nom failed partly because of things not included in the article of that time. That caused me to add a roster, information on training regimines, and information about the off-season, all of which lengthened the main article of course.

I then took the article to a peer review. This peer review resulted in comments by several people. Many of the points including covering additional aspects of the season. Addressing all their concerns caused the article to continue to grow, naturally. This is especially true because of requests for coverage of the on-the-field action. On-the-field action takes a fair amount of text to describe. It could be put into a more succinct form in a table, perhaps, but then there would probably be people who say that prose is preferred over tables.

How this article got created as a spin-off of the main article

As the article grew from addressing all the points raised at the first GA attempt and in the peer review, the article was evenually tagged with a template called Template:Verylong, which states "Please consider summarizing or transferring content to subtopic articles."

I decided to go ahead and try again for GA, and at that time I got multiple opinions that the article was too long. Two of these comments specifially mentioned to consider splitting the main article into summary articles:

- "This article seems unusably long, consider breaking it up per WP:SUMMARY.IvoShandor 08:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

- "...It seems to me like the notes on individual games (game notes) is the primary culprit here, which could be better summarized or moved to child articles about the game...Dr. Cash 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)"

So, that is exactly what I did, in keeping with WP:SUMMARY, I began to break out the more lengthy game descriptions into their own articles.

Some precedents

There is plenty of precedent for this. In fact, the 2006 Rose Bowl already exists as a break-out of the very same 2005 UT football team article (the 2005/2006 discrepency is because some bowls are played just into the new calendar year). There are other single-event articles that are not bowl games also. Please see 2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game and 1967 USC vs. UCLA football game for two examples. Others are 2006 Asian Womens Volleyball Club Championships (an international event, but probably watched by fewer people than the game in question here - ditto for 2006 World Women's Boxing Championship),

Notability of the game described in this sub-article

As to the notability of the particular game in question, there is plenty about it that is notable. For example:

- It was a meeting of 2 top five teams in the second week of the season. This is very rare. The article explains this and attributes that fact to reputable national sources.

- Both teams had national championship hopes, and one did go one to win the national championship, as noted above. The national championship is very difficult to win unless the team is undefeated (again as explained and cited in the article) so this game was very important in that regard.

-It was the first ever meeting between the two teams. That is actually somewhat rare, especially for big name programs that have been around for a long time. These two teams had 227 seasons between them. The total number of games they had played prior to facing was the second most for any two college football teams to have played before meeting each other. (The record is Texas vs. Michigan from the prior year - see 2005 Rose Bowl).

-The game was one of the most anticipated games of the early season (again as explained and cited in the article) and afterwards was called one of the best in the season (again, cited in the article).

My summary

The article complies with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I understand them. It came about because the main article needed to be rewritten into summary style. Please note that the nominator of this AfD, IvoShandor is one of the very people who suggested I re-write the article in summary style, and this is what I have done. . It follows the format established by the WikiProject for a single game article. It is cited with more than 50 reputable in-line sources. It is a valuable article for helping people to understand college football in general and this season and teams in particular. I think this article shoould be kept. Johntex\^talk 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johntex's long discussion here. Also, I think the page should be nominated for GA status. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even with Johntex's long discussion. You in no way can compare this to the Rose Bowl in your discussion. This was just a game that was played, was this for the national championship? No? Then it is no big deal. This wikipedia is suppose to have notable events in it, which this clearly is not. What next, should I include a game between two high school teams that are huge rivals?--Kranar drogin 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The team could not have won the Rose Bowl if they did not win this game first.

We have lots of other articles on individual games that were not for the national championship (E.g. 2007 Outback Bowl, 2007 International Bowl). I list more examples up above that were not even bowl games (there are lots of others, see 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game)

There are also examples I list above in Women's Volleyball and Women's Boxing that are not as well referenced and probably were not seen by as many people as this one football game.

You talk about 2 high school teams - were they covered by the national media? If so, maybe we could have an article on them if anyone cares to write it.

Can you please point to any specific policy that this article violates? Johntex\^talk 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Ok, I had to wait until I had talked to an admin who's opinion I trust in these matters to see if I had made the wrong decision. Upon his recommendations, I will not change my vote, and here is why (I am going to copy his response to me):

Personally, although the article is indeed verifiable and well written, I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion. You see, a subject needs both verifiability and notability in order to become an entry in Wikipedia, and while this one is verifiable, is not really notable. If during the game lightning killed a player, in example, it would be a notable match, but as far as I see, it is not really notable.

Oh, forgot about the rationale. I would say Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as this specific match is not more notable than the match they played the week before, nor the match they played on the week after, and therefore, allowing a match without notability to be in Wikipedia will allow any of the ten of thousands of matches of different sports played every day around the world to be included. Of course, people will usually claim that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which indicates Wikipedia has no limit regarding what to cover and what not. I guess the closing admin will choose a "No consensus" verdict.

And also, note that there are not guidelines for "notability of matches", the closest one would be Wikipedia:Television episodes, but it is a proposal and does not target matches really.

So, going by all this, I will have to continue with my delete. I see that the article has been canvased to the Wiki Football group, so I am sure it will pass this time, but I am thinking that any non-notable football games will be up for deletion in the future.--Kranar drogin 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nicely written article, but it was just a regular season football game, and as a matter of principle I do not see these as belonging in an encyclopedia, any more than we need a play by play description of each and every other college or professional football, baseball, basketball or soccer game. It violates WP:N with its "sprawling list of statistics." Too much information. The article has lots of references, but many of these are about a former Ohio State coach, or the band traditions, or the histories of the schools football teams etc. When you get to the actual game, there is ref 31 and ref 32 cited repeatedly. Having several papers carry stories based on the wire service coverage of a game does not add up to the degree of notability the bloated reference list implies. Edison 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point to the "sprawling list of statistics"? There is not a list of statistics in the entire article, other than the score by quarters.

As for certain references suporting the band or the historical records of the program - what is the problem with that? Those facts are in the article so they are cited.

In terms of the game action, I can certainly use other/additional references besides 31 and 32. Many of those same events are mentioned in the other citations as well, but certain reviews actually don't like it when too many references are cited, so I just stuck with two main sources for that. Johntex\^talk 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is an article about either team's season. Many teams have their season's documented here, I bet one of these teams has a document of their 2005 season.Mastrchf91 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that this article is well-written and thoroughly referenced, and the season articles are already too long. Merging would decrease the quality of all of the involved articles, whereas this could easily become a GA. Is there a rule against nominating an article for GA status while it's under a deletion debate? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to non-notability, despite being a well written article. I hope the main author goes on to write well written articles that satisfy notability guidelines. LuciferMorgan 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that articles about specific games are rare and rarely notable, but I feel that the reasons presented are a strong (or at least, significant) assertion of notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The editor contacted me, and I'm now aware it set an all time attendance record in the stadium it was played at. Mostly based on this, alongside one or two other things, I'm gonna change my vote. LuciferMorgan 09:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but there should be further discussion about articles of this kind, next to the articles listed above by JohnTex. This is a very interesting article, imo, and certainly has enough refs and is well-written enough. Also, definite assertion of notability. This will require far larger discussion on the notability of individual games and whether we should have articles on individual games. – Chacor 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Chacor. I think articles on individual games are certainly warranted in the case of particularly notable games, but I'm not sure I would consider this game notable enough for its own article. I'd like more discussion on the notability requirements for articles on individual games. If determined that this isn't notable enough, the info should be merged, there is no reason for someone's hard work to go to waste when the info could be included in the season article. VegaDark 06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the bases are covered. The discussion on article types should not be done on an Afd. Bad form. CJC47 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have opened a discussion about questions raised above at WP:N, it can be seen here. IvoShandor 13:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual games can be notable, see Fifth Down and The Play. This is not indiscriminate since it involves the eventual #1 and #4 teams in the country at the end of the season. If it were UTEP vs. Baylor, that would be indiscriminate. MECU≈talk 14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johntex's discussion. Article is very well-sourced and nicely written.BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per JohnTex and MECU's discussions Seancp 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Thanks to advice from LuciferMorgan, I expanded the lead to make clearer some of the reasons the game was an important event. Johntex\^talk 05:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. When notability is the *only* criterion used to support deletion of a well-referenced article at afd, I expect to see a pretty damn good explanation for why the subject is non-notable, even more so when the article is as comprehensive as this one. There hasn't been such a convincing explanation here (though the article's defenders have presented an excellent case for keeping). Let's not overuse notability as a criterion for deletion, please. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable by every guideline on notability; multiple independent sources, citations, the whole 9 yards. C'mon, folks; more notable than 99% of the schools that are "notable". Carlossuarez46 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm kind of on the fence about this mainly because of the precedent (How would this fare if it were a mid-season blowout by Texas versus a weaker team?). But this event is notable. Quadzilla99 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still say delete. This is going to set that unhealthy precedent. There will be articles about individual games of all sorts after this AfD. Just because there are refs doesn't make it notable. Maybe this game is, but every game in that season, not in my opinion, I won't be changing my opinion. IvoShandor 02:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say delete, because a lot of effort was put into this. But in the end, it was just a game. Not a bowl game; just a regular season game. It belongs as a summary in each team's season article, nothing more. Fantastic work. This is just not the proper forum, though. —Twigboy 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Jersyko. Basically, nobody has given a sufficient explanation as to how this article doesn't meet the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (which is a guideline anyway). --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Football game. Herostratus 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a comment provides no sufficient explanation as to why the article should be deleted. --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fascinating article, and extremely well-sourced. I'm not a football fan, but now I'm more interested in reading some of the related topics. Ksheka 11:26, 18 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 fucking delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation has only 2 entries, and they already are in fuck (disambiguation) , I say Delete and Redirect to fuck (disambiguation), and no, I'm not gonna speedy remove tag it, or redirect it myself. Because I need opinion from other Wikipedians first. TheBlazikenMaster 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used, no loss. Pavel Vozenilek 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one's going to type "Fucking (disambiguation)" in the search box. Maxamegalon2000 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did it sometimes. Well, some people do in fact search for it. But it's too rare search term, but why the hell can't it be a redirect? TheBlazikenMaster 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No inbound links, not a very plausible search term, so no need to change it to a redirect - just get rid of it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I object to deletion, but a disambiguation page shouldn't have any inbound links anyway, right?Chunky Rice 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't, my point was as there are none it will not create any redlinks by deleting it rather than redirecing. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Okay, I get it. Thanks.Chunky Rice 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above deletes. Acalamari 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 04:54, 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. Redirecting is optional. --Core desat 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ambrose[edit]

Delete Not appropriate to suggest leave it and see if this character becomes notable! Surely delete for now then contribute later if time proves him a suitable subject. I live in hope that my pet gerbil may be of global interest at some point in the future but it would counter the purpose of an enclopedia if I submitted an article about him in anticipation.Asnac 10:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not noteable, only reality TV winners and other succsessful contestants recieve their own articles. Dalejenkins 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Main contributor to article seems to be a single-purpose account for advertising Mr Ambrose. I wonder.... The Rambling Man 11:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true - See American Idol (season 6) - wherein people still in the competition and those who have been eliminated both still have pages e.g. Brandon Rogers (singer). I don't see why different rules should apply to a primetime US show and a primetime UK show. Also, it seems a valid argument that we should wait to see who is successful before deleting articles. Interested in your thoughts. Not a single-purpose account, just a new one and certainly NPOV and not advertising. aewain 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ronbo76 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability, being on TV doesn't automatically make one notable. As for the other articles on American Idol contestants, just because there are others like it doesn't mean there should be (this is my way of saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, because that is just way too harsh). IvoShandor 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - One of the criteria of notability for Entertainers is "Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Simon as one of the 12 remaining candidates clearly fulfills the criteria for being notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DELETE - This is an unsourced, badly written article. For all we know it just could be a load of rubbish. If someone (preferably the creator) comes up with sources and other references then maybe it will be kept but from my point of view the single purpose account made this non-wikified article which could be considered as vandalism.
Okay. That sounds a little far-fetched. Number 1 - every account starts out with a first contribution or edit. Number 2 - articles that do not have sources are neither necessarily rubbish nor invalid; perhaps they can just do with improvement. Take this one. Laurence Fox. By your criteria that should be deleted, but I think it's perfectly valid, in the users' interest and worthy of including sources when such are available in order to globally increase knowledge, similarly to this. Clearly people have been interested enough to read the article on Simon Ambrose, so I think refinement of the information may well be a better solution than destruction thereof. aewain 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - I hope I count as a secondary source, I went to Magdalene College with Mr Ambrose for three years. The article is certainly accurate, however as to the question of whether he is newsworthy just yet..... I say give it a few more episodes and he will be. DFitz 82.18.20.68 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC) — 82.18.20.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not Notable - if you had every person who appeared on a TV programme had an article youd have a big encyclopedia full of unnotable people. WP:BIO violates and also he didnt even win it! I was in a TV audiance once and you could see me on the TV, I think I might have an article if this stays! --PrincessBrat 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT AMEND PEOPLES VOTES - I WILL NOW WATCH THIS PAGE AS WHOEVER IS THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS ARTICLE IS AMENDING PEOPLES VOTES AND COMMENTS --PrincessBrat 14:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails both WP:ATT and WP:BIO. --Haemo 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete!!! You lot are charming. I may not have reinvented the wheel (yet) but I can tell you that all this idle chit-chat amongst yourselves, makin' out like I am some sort of piece of discarded half-hardened prosciutto parma ham puts me well ill at ease. Delete me and discard me at your peril. I don't care. Some dog will lick me off the floor. And what have actors ever *done*? But what have they actually done??? Apart from talk?? Come on, think about it. They *talk*. Is that noteworthy? If I sing in the shower and record it on Hi-8, will you keep me on here?? Please??? (That is a threat not a promise.) Simon-Le-Don— Simon.ambrose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do not delete Magdalene College Magazine 1997 -1998 confirms that Mr. Ambrose matriculated in 1997 and the version for 1999 - 2000 confirms that he graduated then. I've no doubt that a similar publication from Westminster School will confirm that he was there too. As for notability why don't we leave it a few weeks and see if he lasts long enough to make him notable.— 86.134.83.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect to The Apprentice (UK series 3), would that be acceptable? Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - A quick Google search on Mr Ambrose reveals this entry from his school magazine which at least confirms his education and job status at the time of publication: Simon Ambrose RR 1992–1997 ‘After graduating from Cambridge in 2000, I spent four months in New York training with Credit Suisse First Boston and returned to London later that year to work in Equity Sales on the Pan European desk’. Presumably if this was published it was deemed to be sufficiently verified. But as for his leaving date...?
Delete nn unless he wins or does something outrageous enough to get in the news. Per WP:CRYSTAL we have no need to hang about with this waiting to see if he does become notable. --Dweller 16:26, 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 Fzzzzzz. That was the sound of this being speedily deleted. -Splash - tk 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zzzzzzzzzzF, was the sound of me finding Trespassers William, restoring, and redirecting and still closing this debate. Splash - tk 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Williams (musician)[edit]

Nothing to establish notability, needs a lot of cleanup if to be kept, probably autobiography (only substantial editor is Jw11220000 who has made no other contributions) Lou.weird 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability and no sourcing. Self-promotion from single-purpose account. The Rambling Man 11:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No assertion of notability, no references. Goodnightmush^Talk 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 13:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:35, 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. --Core desat 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ngoha[edit]

Delete - Appears to be autobiographical. No sources. Claims to notability are "Obey your Art" contest (1 ghit, unrelated) and "World Typographic Contest" (0 ghits). Unsourced and Notability tags repeatedly removed by author and anon likely to be author. Prod removed by same anon. Onorem 10:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page by another single-purpose account. The Rambling Man 11:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:BIO.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, autobiographical, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-evident vanit spam Guy (Help!) 22:00, 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 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft Safety[edit]

This page is not encyclopedic, only cites one source, and is poorly structured. At the very least, the original source for the article should be merged into the Airsoft Article. Soniczip 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mereg or Transwiki. either as part of airsoft (definitely the absolute minimum, especially with realism, or transwiki to wikibooks. George Leung 00:49, 7 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, Daniel Bryant 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a how-to guide. Totally inappropriate tone and content for an encyclopedia or WikiBooks. Someone more knowledgeable about WikiBooks' guidelines please correct me if I'm wrong on that latter assertion. A Train^talk 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:NOT American Patriot 1776 00:09, 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codependent Collegian[edit]

No evidence that this publication is notable. Article's creator, Captaincorky (talk · contribs) and others (possibly socks) have been warned repeatedly for spamming links to it with sneaky edit summaries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The paper's website has been featured in major media such as CBS, MTV, Fark, and Sports Illustrated for its send-ups of life on college campuses." Wouldn't that be notable? --W.marsh 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might if it could be verified. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references attesting to the paper's notability as claimed are added prior to the end of this AfD debate, otherwise Delete per WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A1octopus (talk • contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for the lack of references, but it does assert notability. YechielMan 16:04, 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources, probable hoax (see last comment below). NawlinWiki 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Leinso[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Barely survived a previous vfd back in 2005, but standards have evolved. Ghits aren't convincing. MER-C 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this material is unsourced, there is no assertion of notability and fails WP:MUSIC. Got to go. The Rambling Man 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find one jot of evidence anywhere to suggest this person is notable enough to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know here: http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=112312 (third post down)172.159.189.57 17:41, 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. Sr13 (T|C) 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkyū proper[edit]

Wikipedia does not allow new terms to be defined. "Ryukyu Proper" / "Ryūkyū Proper" appears to be a term invented on Wikipedia. I requested for references in the article and in the talk page on February but no sources turned up. (references: WP:OR, WP:NEO) —Tokek 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The long debate last fall about Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu ended with the following conclusion: the Japanese term Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島; literally Ryūkyū Islands) is geographically different than English "Ryukyu Islands". (That is why it lost the crucial macrons which should be there.) Most research about the Ryūkyūs is naturally in Japanese. When I want to talk about Ryūkyū Shotō in English, the English article Ryukyu Islands is absolutely useless. As they are geographically different, they need separate articles. Notice how Ryukyu Islands includes a link to ja:南西諸島 (Nansei Shotō) while Ryūkyū proper links to ja:琉球諸島 (Ryūkyū Shotō). Perhaps the article name is poorly chosen (I did not create the page). I think it should be interpreted as "Ryūkyū (proper)", as opposed to "Ryukyu". Even better would be "Ryūkyū Islands" to supplement the existing "Ryukyu Islands". Either way, there is a need for the article. I oppose deletion, but would consider a rename. Bendono 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a long and unrelated debate about when the macroned version should be used and when it shouldn't, and I agree with your assessment on how that debate turned out. However, that was never a central issue to this AFD proposal. It is still unlikely that the term could be proven to be not a neologism, therefore the AFD proposal. Because Wikipedia is against neologisms, something needs to be done regardless. In case you missed it, here's a relevant comment I made earlier at Talk:Ryūkyū proper:

If it's worth having an article of its own, I think either Ryūkyū Shotō or Geography of Okinawa Prefecture works. If it's not worth an independent article, I think it could redirect to Okinawa Prefecture#Geography. —Tokek 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

A problem: if "ryukyu proper" is not a real term, it cannot be properly defined, since there is no proper definition. (note: this is not circular reasoning).
Content is mostly a copy of a subsection of the Ryukyu Islands article, hence nothing will be lost if this article was deleted.
If the article was supposed to be about "Ryūkyū Shotō", though, really, why not title the article as such in the first place? (Currently, a move to Ryūkyū Shotō requires admin intervention.) I also suggested as a possible candidate "Geography of Okinawa Prefecture" because by definition the territory of Okinawa Prefecture consists of Ryūkyū Shotō and vice versa, although moving it to a "Geography of" article would change the nuance slightly.
I posted requests at Ryūkyū proper, Talk:Ryūkyū proper, Talk:Ryukyu Islands for sources that could disprove my assumption that this term is a neologism, in February. (I forgot to mention earlier that I posted a request at Talk:Ryukyu Islands, too.) It innately has problems by virtue of being a neologism, for one thing. On top of that there are far more straightforward alternatives.

—Tokek 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ryūkyū Islands" is not a neologism. Here are some in print English references:

Temporal and spatial variation in the culture history of the Ryūkyū Islands, Richard J Pearson
Ryūkyū Islands (under United States administrations) : standard list of post offices, Melvin H Schoberlin
Catalog of the Ryūkyū research collection. A special collection of books, articles and manuscripts in relevant languages dealing with the Ryūkyū Islands, as of May 1, 1964, Douglas Gilbert Haring
Scientific investigations in the Ryūkyū Islands (SIRI) report, by National Research Council (U.S.). Pacific Science Board
China's quasi-war with Japan : the dispute over the Ryūkyū (Liu-ch'iu) Islands, 1871-1881, Pak-Wah Leung
Japan country map. area maps, Japan 1:2,000,000, Kansai district 1:200,000, Kantō area 1:750,000, Ryūkyū Islands 1:4,000,000 : city plans, central Tokyo 1:17,500, central Osaka 1:15,000, central Kyoto 1:15,000, Periplus Editions.
Handbook and specialized catalogue of the postal issues of the Ryūkyū (Liu Chʻiu) Islands (issued under United States administrations), William C Lassister
Specialized catalogue of the postal issues of the Ryūkyū (Liu Chʻiu) islands (issued under United States administrations), by Arthur Lee-Francis Askins
etc. etc... Bendono 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated: "Ryūkyū Islands is not a neologism", but I am proposing "Ryūkyū proper" for deletion based on the claim that "Ryūkyū proper" is neologism. Please read more carefully what you are responding to. —Tokek 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. As I said, I oppose deletion, but am open to renaming. If it makes you happy, I suppose we could delete Ryūkyū proper and then change Ryūkyū Islands from a redirect to a full article. There is a need for the article, however it is titled. Either way, it is the same in the end. Bendono 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't creating a full article at Ryūkyū Shotō avoid the confusion and controversy that would arise from creating a full article at Ryūkyū Islands? —Tokek 05:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with that:

Ryūkyū Shotō is Japanese for English "Ryūkyū Islands". It is desirable to use English when possible on English Wikipedia.
As the resources above demonstrate, there is established usage for "Ryūkyū Islands" in real, published English (i.e., non-neologism). Bendono 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Ryūkyū Islands" has been used in published English works. However, I'm concerned whether the definition of "Ryūkyū Islands" has always been the same as the definition of "Ryūkyū Shotō". By the way, for those who are confused, the terms "Ryukyu Islands", "Ryūkyū Shotō", "Ryūkyū Rettō" etc. are explained at Ryukyu Islands. —Tokek 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- The page (I'm tagging with stub, as is in need of work) is usful to make the distinction between the English usage (geographic chain of islands) and the Japanese usages (Northern and southern parts are awkward to transliterate into English, and that is complicated by the Different Political entities within Japan. As is, both as well as Okinawa need refactored, overhauled and integrated, but each has the place and prominence deserving their own pages. // FrankB 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The term "Ryūkyū proper" is not used in Japanese or English, so it would be unclear what usages we would want to distinguish under such an article title. Ryukyu Islands explains the differences between most Ryukyu related geographical names already, but if we want to create another article that does this again, it might as well be under a non-neologism title. (The situation with existing terms is already complicated enough.) The "Ryūkyū proper" article basically consists entirely of snippets from Ryukyu Islands. Unfortunately the article does not have a definition for "Ryūkyū proper" to work with in the first place.—Tokek 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Close, and Move the discussion to WP:RM to settle the correct name. Neier 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I think a delete is more appropriate than a rename in this case. I first assumed that "Ryukyu proper" meant "Ryūkyū Shotō", however, it is not clear if everyone, including the Wikipedia contributor who presumably first coined it, agrees with this definition. If we were going to rename it, we would first have to figure out what "Ryukyu proper" is supposed to mean. The term appears to be a neologism mainly invented for and used at Ryukyu Islands and Talk:Ryukyu Islands. When a poorly understood neologism such as this is used for an article title, the problem is deeper than a simple case of bad article title. At the heart of the problem is that this article is based on a neologism. —Tokek 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not based on a neologism; but, the neologism was applied to a real-world concept (what Japan calls their islands). I've tried to follow the previous discussion, and this discussion; this is my understanding: This article is about what Japan calls the Ryūkyū Shotō , which (although translated, means Ryūkyū Islands) is more limited from what is commonly called the Ryukyu Islands in English (called Nansei Shotō in Japanese). I think a move to Ryūkyū Shotō is acceptable, regardless of Wikipedia's "Use English" rules. This is a good case for "break all rules"; and, each page would of course need a DAB tag at the top to point to the other. The opening of the article can be cleaned up: The Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) is the main, southern group of islands in what is commonly called the Ryukyu Islands in English, or Nansei Islands (南西諸島 Nansei-shotō; "southwest islands") in Japanese. But, it also looks like certain groups within that chain have been shuffled in this article. For example, Miyako-jima should be a part of the Sakishima Shotō (ja:先島諸島), according to ja: wikipedia. I don't think that deleting this article and starting over would leave us in any better position than we are already. What exists can be renamed, to get rid of the neologism, and cleaned up (to either a) better match the grouping in Japanese, or b) explain the differences between the English grouping and the Japanese). Neier 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said: "It's not based on a neologism;": The same thing could be said for many neologism terms consisting of two words. For example, I don't know what "banana rhinoceros" means but it is based on non-neologisms ("banana" and "rhinoceros" are each real words). Someone else also said "Ryūkyū Islands" (the macronned version) is not a neologism. For the sake of argument: sure! But what does "Ryukyu proper" mean? The article existed since January 2006 and described "Amami Islands" as being part of "Ryukyu proper" (even though Amami Islands is not part of Ryūkyū Shotō). (The source of "Amami Islands" being classified under "Ryukyu proper" can be explained by an earlier revision of Ryukyu Islands - omitting details for now.) In Feb 2007, I removed Amami Islands from the "proper" article based on the assumption that the article was supposed to be talking about Ryūkyū Shotō. But then I realized this term seems to be made up, hence the addition of the unreferenced tag. Confusion over definition wouldn't be a big issue if a real term was used for the article title. Hence the policy against neologisms is very apt in this case. Although, I agree if this article was used as the base for a new Ryūkyū Shotō article and people wanted that ( I think it's somewhat unusual for content of an article put up for AFD to be recycled like that but nevertheless... ) sure, that can definitely work. The article so far includes:
      - Two, three sentences for introductory terminology explanation.
      - Images from the Ryukyu Islands article.
      - A verbatim copy of a section of a revision of Ryukyu Islands for the list of islands.
    In my opinion, duplication of parts from the Ryukyu Islands article is not very valuable content for now. —Tokek
- What I meant was that the concept that there is a group of islands which are a subset of what is called Ryukyu Islands in English (and, which are called Ryūkyū Shotō in Japanese) is not a neologism. Bananas and rhinos notwithstanding, the name "Ryukyu proper" is a neologism; but, the group of islands is not. We can discuss what to call them in English, but, their existence (and the island grouping hierarchy in Japanese) seems to be well-defined, without resorting to making up names. Neier 06:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of reference, I compiled a usage history for the term "Ryukyu proper":

"Ryukyu proper" was invented by Node ue on 03:24, 25 March 2005 [44]
On August 2005, I made some edits to the terms and grouping of islands. Here, I made an assumption that "Ryukyu proper" = "Ryūkyū Shotō". [45]
On 23:55, 23 October 2005, Node ue makes this statement in the edit history: "There is no such thing as "satsunan" or "sakishima"; these terms were invented by the Japanese government in an attempt to create false divisions where none exist" [46]
On 15 December 2006, a short exchange of comments on Talk:Ryukyu Islands mention Ryukyu proper: [47]. Mention of "Ryukyu proper" on the talk page was actually shorter and less frequent than I thought.
On 10 January 2006, Ryukyu proper is created mostly from copy-and-paste from Ryukyu Islands.
I reverted the Ocober 2005 edit mentioned above on 8 July 2006 [48] and added an explanative text: "This list is based on present day Japanese geographic names." The reason why I chose Japanese geographic names is because it is recent, official, detailed, easily referenced, and unambiguously defined classification of island subgroupings, making it virtually the only practical choice available, etc.
Also on the same day, I removed mention of "Ryukyu proper" from the article. [49]
On February 2007, As I've previously mentioned, citation for the term "Ryukyu proper" was requested on three different pages. No sources showed up.

—Tokek 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to something like Geography of Okinawa Prefecture, or Merge without redirect to Ryukyu Islands. The whole thing is settled by the above comment: The term was invented on Wikipedia. This is not a vote, and the above discussion points to not keeping it where it is. --GunnarRene 19:50, 18 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 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Frequency EP[edit]

This article appears to be advertising. It has no verified information, and much of the article appears to be unverifiable. This music release appears to fail most of the guidelines for WP:MUSIC. The EP had not been released at the time the article was written, and so could not have been in any chart. There is no assertion of notability. Dan Beale 12:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It doesn't assert its notability, but I was taken aback by the number of Google hits for "playradioplay"... over 80,000.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with all the google hits. Work on the page. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC and lacks the substantial secondary sources to meet WP:N - volume of Ghits is not a relevant factor. TerriersFan 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of metting WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If only because albums are not generally notable unless the artist making them is notable and the artist in this case has no claim to notability on the wikipedia because he has no page. A1octopus 13:21, 18 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. --Core desat 03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form IV: Ataru (Lightsaber combat)[edit]

Wikipedia, as a general interest encyclopedia, does not need an article on one fictional combat style with a fictional weapon in a fictional universe. As a synthesis of non-obvious observations in primary sources, the article is original research. Sandstein 12:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nom, only sources appear to be personal observations in video games. Violates WP:OR. IvoShandor 12:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lenin and McCarthy note at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Form IV: Ataru (Lightsaber combat) (yes, indeed) that the article is apparently copied straight from Wookieepedia without attribution. Sandstein 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article on lightsaber combat. Jtrainor 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The various lightsaber forms originally DID have an article for the "Seven forms of lightsaber combat", but a previous AfD [50] had it merge to the aforementioned lightsaber combat article which probably covers the material just fine (and that article is in the process of cleanup). And as mentioned above, this article has been taken-word for word-from Wookieepedia. -- GJD 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Qjuad 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. And way too many fair use images here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So divorced from reality. And being copied from Wookieepiedia without attribution is bad. Mango juice^talk 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aaron Bowen 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the non-notable, in-universe, and directly-copied article per above. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 20:22, 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 withdrawn per improvements. >Radiant< 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Rogers Fairchild[edit]

Contested prod, and in the "lacking importance" category since last June. He's an economist who's written a few articles, but appears to fail the "average professor test" from WP:BIO, and the article has no external sources. >Radiant< 12:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find a few references, and some of them are recent, so for a long dead economist, I think that indicates a certain level of notability. I think part of the problem may be that his notability was much higher at the time of the New Deal, but his influence can still be felt in economic thought today. I am not religiously devoted to this guy, but I think it might take a while to find the references that are needed for attributable notability. -- Jvv62 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jvv62; I've added some references. If you look at "Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL", there appears to be sufficient material, if thinly spread, to write a decent aticle. Addhoc 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is substantially improved since the AFD (see diff). Scholars in the early part of the 20th century were not as prolific publishers as in the latter part of the century, so the fact that he's written only "a few articles" is nothing against him. As a professor at Yale and an honorary member of the National Tax Association, I think he significantly exceeds the "average professor test". His notability has since been proven by the addition of multiple sources. -- Black Falcon 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been expanded and sourced. Named chair at Yale, secondary sources explicitly calling him an "eminent scholar", published textbooks and reviews of those textbooks — these all make it seem a clear pass for WP:PROF, especially in view of the difficulty of finding information about scholars in that time frame relative to today. —David Eppstein 23:23, 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 withdrawn, turns out he wasn't self-published. >Radiant< 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Anderson (writer)[edit]

Contested prod, and in the "lacking importance" category since last June. He's an apparently self-published writer of marginal notability, and the article lacks sources. >Radiant< 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with Radiant. --Futurano 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of the four books listed under "Works", none are self-published. The first three are published by well-known textbook publishers. The fourth is a legitimate Canadian literary publishing company. The poetry book was reviewed in Canadian Literature, Issue No. 129, Summer, 1991 (review not available online, but see the issue's table of contents at http://www.canlit.ca/archive/archive1959-1999/cl_129.html ). Even apart from the poetry, he may also be notable as an author of textbooks. --Eastmain 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, those aren't vanity, they are sourced. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks barely notable. Grue 12:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My researches agree with Eastmain and Wooyi's in that his books are not self-published. I have added some information to the article about opera librettos that were written for the Canadian Opera Company, including one for which the music was written by a well-known Canadian composer, Harry Somers. --Slp1 13:27, 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. Majorly (hot!) 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark_AleX[edit]

Spam. Non encyclopedic. Jaymac407 11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep Dark_AleX is a genuine PSP developer with great fame in the PSP underground community. His software has proven to be invaluable to millions of users, and he is features regularly on websites such as http://pspupdates.qj.net. Keep this page, and expand on it.

- Alex 4:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete does not adhere to WP:BIO. Also, only the first two sentences are about Dark Alex, the remainder of the article talks about hacking the PSP. Subject is also non notable, and only mentioned as participating. --Cyrus Andiron 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly argee with that. Jaymac407 18:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Francisco Valverde 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is very important to many people. Dark alex is an inspiration to us all!

- Sir Jenkins 8:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that notion! Agree all the way!

- Smith 1:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

- The preceeding two signatures are made-up users - tampering by Alex! (Check the history) Bad form! - BierHerr 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fall under WP:SPAM, too, which is odd for a bio about someone who seems to be selling nothing? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work but DAX is a notable person who is a VIP in the PSP homebrew community and written about in popular gaming sites such as Joystiq. - Throw 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Dark Alex is indeed a notable figure within the PSP homebrew community, but of course I feel that while he may be notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia, his achievements are far and few in between. Let's face it, he only became well known after a small BBC interview (which, no less, was conducted over the internet.) But, I feel that this article may as well be kept, although I do recognize the reasons why this article may not be kept. Weak keep here. - XX55XX 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, so he's done some patch work and is apparently pretty good at coding. Aside from appearing online in BBCNews once, I don't see anything in the article that makes this person particularly notable. The other references are simply tech blogs, and not very convincing IMHO. The article subject seems painfully specialized to me -- not much interest to a broad audience. - BierHerr 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me. Wikipedia articles have to have general appeal, now? My understanding is subjects of Wikipedia article have to be notable for something, and DAX is certainly notable within a spectrum of people. I'd like to see Wikipedia policy that states articles have to be interesting to most people, or at least explain to me how the List of Pokémon is relevent to a sane person? - Throw 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I meant that his notoriety is confined to such a small group, that any determination of notoriety should be taken with a grain of salt. One can be notorious within a college dorm, but does that notoriety transfer to the world at large? No. I don't think his supposed notoriety transfers from the PSP crowd to the general, Wikipedia-reading public, which is what we are discussing. (BTW, I wouldn't shed a tear if List of Pokémon were deleted... but that's not the point here.) - BierHerr 20:50, 19 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 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Powers[edit]

Delete - Subject does not meet Wikipedia's minimum threshold of notability. Notability is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".

The article cites ImDB as its only source and even Imdb indicates that this individual only appeared in two pornographic films and then basically dropped out of sight, a body of work hardly worthy of note.

It might even be suggested that this entry is nothing more than an advertisement for Darrin Powers singing carrer, as the article itself states, Powers was never a star in his films, instead appearing as a featured performer...

Additionally, as my colleague pointed out to me, for porn actors WP:PORNBIO applies rendering this article even more worthy of deletion.

Mister Jinxy 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:29, 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 per the arguments here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy). WjBscribe 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edd (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep as the characters are still notable enough to have seperate pages.--Piemanmoo 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one of the title characters of the show I think he is notable enough for his own article. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only needs a cleaup and some extending. The Prince of Darkness 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete These characters do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and as such, do not deserve separate pages. -- 71.138.27.12 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm kind of going to stay neutral on whether the article should be kept or not. After all, it does comply with most of WP:FICT, but it could use a bit of work (probably with tone, trivia, and in-universe perspective). On the other hand, if I wanted the admin to delete the article, much of the editors (especially Elaich and the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux) who edit List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy would be happy about it. There would be less "fancruft traps."

For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.

I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).

Finally, you mentioned on my talk page to "vote" here. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If not, you should read it. It's very useful. Squirepants101 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that User:71.138.27.12 (the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux. Mentioned above) informed User:DietLimeCola with the exact same message User:Elaich gave to me seven minutes earlier. Is this just a coincidence or is it a cause for concern? I believe it's just mere coincidence. Squirepants101 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting him to requests for checkuser for posting a reason to keep/delete twice (Even though it's not a vote it's based on the reasons brought up). He's been known to switch IPs before to evade bans (because of Linux), he could just be doing it again, but we'll find out soon. DietLimeCola 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afd is not the place to take content disputes and it's not for demanding article cleanup (I know, I've listed articles before with the comment "article is poorly written" but in this case there's a whole explanation about the dispute. Nardman1 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Characters don't meet notability guidelines; bio information on List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy is sufficient; readers would be forced to click on yet another link to read information. -- 172.190.29.107 17:45, 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. Arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) not made here are also relevant. WjBscribe 23:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the characters are still notable enough to have seperate pages.--Piemanmoo 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eddy is one of the title characters and main characters of the show. I believe he is notable enough to have his own article. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only needs a cleaup and some extending. The Prince of Darkness 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete These characters do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and as such, do not deserve separate pages. -- 71.138.27.12 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's one of the main characters of a reasonably popular cartoon series-EMP 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm kind of going to stay neutral on whether the article should be kept or not. After all, it does comply with most of WP:FICT, but it could use a bit of work (probably with tone, trivia, and in-universe perspective). On the other hand, if I wanted the admin to delete the article, much of the editors (especially Elaich and the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux) who edit List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy would be happy about it. There would be less "fancruft traps."

For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.

I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).

Finally, you mentioned on my talk page to "vote" here. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If not, you should read it. It's very useful. Squirepants101 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created by User:Bobber2. -- Elaich 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that User:71.138.27.12 (the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux. Mentioned above) informed User:DietLimeCola with the exact same message User:Elaich gave to me seven minutes earlier. Is this just a coincidence or is it a cause for concern? I believe it's just mere coincidence. Squirepants101 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afd is not the place to take content disputes and it's not for demanding article cleanup (I know, I've listed articles before with the comment "article is poorly written" but in this case there's a whole explanation about the dispute. Nardman1 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Characters don't meet notability guidelines; bio information on List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy is sufficient; readers would be forced to click on yet another link to read information. -- 172.190.29.107 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since he's a main charachter, then it should have it's own page, but it (the article) needs to get bigger.R68 2818 20:42, 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 for the same reasons that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misandry was closed. Looking at Special:Contributions/207.62.186.233 it is clear that this is a pattern of recurrent vandalism. Uncle G 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masculism[edit]

Keep: These are valid points and cited as well or better than many Wikipedia articles. Those who are opposed to this sort of information are terrified that we may actually be advocating equal rights rather than gender privilege. Males have been exploited as success objects and considered expendable soliders and factory drones for at least as long as women have been exploited sexually. Many Feminists are terrified that their campaign of propaganda is being exposed. Females are every bit as violent and vindictive as any male. Keep it if you really believe in equal rights.
Keep: This crankish, resentful excuse for an ideology has enough proponents and enough of a literature to be notable.Rorybowman 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Rorybowman - Masculism is a well-documented social movement, though it has many opponents. The article is pretty well written and cited, and many people can benefit from the information it contains. Rather than discussing why we should not delete this article, I recommend someone give us a single reason for deletion (as outlined in Wikipedia's deletion policy) that we should delete this article. At the moment it seems someone recommended this article for deletion for selfish political reasons rather than informed, objective ones. theshadymonk 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I think this article is well needed and in no way should be deletedBronayur 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Only one citation is currently given. This article would need many more citations added from reputable secondary sources, and in that case, I would probably change my mind on this. Smee 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article was tagged for Afd by an open IP [51] who also tried to speedy delete Misandry with the edit summary "Wimmin are incapable of hatred. Misandry is an artificial construct of the Patriarchy created because they hate it when feminists assert them..." [52] (unfortunately by vandalizing the Afd but possibly out of confusion.) Someone clearly misunderstands process, so I'm assuming good faith, but this is WP:POINT. I'm far from a fan of this ideology or its adherents, but the article should stay. Dina 13:25, 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 DELETE. Herostratus 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Tiferes Menachem[edit]

Procedural nomination. The article was prodded five days ago, but it has been expanded and therefore should be revisited. I do think it should be deleted for lack of notability. YechielMan 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was clearly written as an advertisement for the school. It doesn't standard wikipedia formatting guidelines. Plese delete or rewrite article with a more objective voice (Huberfamily 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think the article should not be deleted since it clearly shows why this entry is notable, rick34125

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work, but I think its notable enough for a school. It even has a little Village Voice item [53]. Dina 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insignificant school. completely not notable. Chocolatepizza 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says the most notable thing about this school is that it offered classes online. Join the club; it's 2007. No notability established if you ask me. - BierHerr 17:21, 19 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. The sources from the debate should be integrated into the article; will leave a note on the talk page. Mango juice^talk 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Stealth Productions[edit]

I deleted this on 22 Feb, with the following reason: "WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 -- article doesn't cite verifiable, reliable/third party sources, no strong claim of notability, possible promotional article; feel free to relist at WP:AFD if you disagree." I recently received an apparently good faith request from User:Andrea Parton to restore and list at AfD; she's said she believes the subject would satisfy W:CORP (or some other notability guideline), and although she hasn't yet offered any evidence to support this, the request seems to be made in good faith, so here we are. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - barely notable. If reasonable references can be found (I don't like the weasel words "has been involved in production" - a peon of an intern is "involved") I would be swayed. Otherwise, it seems like most of it can be merged into the articles of the main two people (which I assume User:Andrea Parton would be willing to do - userfy it into her space). There also seems to be some serious POV issues with the image name Image:Andrea Calpernia two of the most wonderful and charismatic women in the world.jpg — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:39, 6 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, Daniel Bryant 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deep Stealth Productions had a major role in producing The Vagina Monologues with an all-transgender cast and making the film "Beautiful Daughters" about the production. They were also consulted in the making of the feature film Transamerica. The video Finding Your Female Voice, produced by Deep Stealth, appeared in the opening scenes of Transamerica and is a widely used resource by transsexual women seeking to feminize their voices. So put simply, the company is well known among the transsexual community and has received some attention in much wider circles as well. I am giving my opinion only because this has been such a quiet discussion so far. Andrea Parton 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Had a role in producing" and "were consulted on" aren't exactly the most tangible claims to notability (though, to be fair, they are claims -- I'd just prefer something more solid). As far as I can tell, most everything I've seen written about them is self-written -- it's true they seem to have had an article of some sort in The Advocate, and that does give me pause... but it was a profile they seem to have written themselves, and I can't really find anything else, so I'm not so sure about it. I will confess I'm not "in" with the transsexual community -- if they're well-known, there, could you provide some evidence of that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep primarily on the basis of the above comment; and I urge her to edit the article to give some continuity to their apparently random projects. DGG 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been a very quiet discussion so far. Andrea James e-mailed me a list of links to websites not run by Deep Stealth Productions but where they are mentioned. Although others involved in this discussion may be aware of some of these websites, I am going to make links to all of them here, so that anyone interested in joining this discussion can look at the websites and judge for themselves whether Deep Stealth Productions is notable enough for its own article.

Links:

IMDB http://www.imdb.com/company/co0004206/
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=4510
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_July_22/ai_109270098
http://www.outandequal.org/summit/2006/2006FeaturedSpeakers.asp#Transamerica
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5246222
http://www.theinsideronline.com/celeb/3828/

I have provided these links for your information only. Hopefully we will be able to reach a consensus. And when I have time, I will work on improving the quality of the article.

Andrea Parton 04:03, 12 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, A Train^talk 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly, probably a worthy endeavour, and involving our very own user:Jokestress (one of the few "notable Wikipedians" who is actually notable for something notable, but lacking in independent non-trivial sources. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andrea's demonstration of notability is sufficient. No more is needed. - Denny ^(talk) 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But I'd like to see an editor step up and reinforce the claims of notability. If what the article says is true, there should be a way to present it more convincingly. - BierHerr 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs provided by the Andreas. The Bay Times article mentioned the company has done consulting work for CSI, but this doesn't appear in the article. I consider this a significant assertion of notability, so it should be added to the article, preferably with some specifics. Caknuck 19:16, 20 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 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover thrash, List of crossover thrash bands[edit]

There is, as we know, no end to the tendency of metal fans to invent new genres, to the point where every band has its own, but this one does not look to be one of those with supportable criteria. The occasional {{citation needed}} in an article is fine, but here the tags apply to the actual definition of the term, and the sole cited source doesn't even mention it. Looks like something made up at a gig one day. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, Collects quite a few google hits, but mostly blogs & a significant number of them are just lists, like, crossover/thrash/hardcore or smth. Not to say that the term "crosover" already actually means mix of styles, so the term is stupid. `'mikka 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of crossover thrash bands, no opinion on the other. List of [genre] bands is usually not a good idea. Punkmorten 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as failing WP:N and lacking reliable secondary sources. Move "crossover thrash" to List of purported metal genres which are indistinguishable to the average listener. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 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 -- Y not? 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike maps[edit]

Bloated with fancruft, comprised with original research, and generally an uncyclopedic topic that can easily be merged into the main article, if it's even necessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The previous discussion failed with no consensus, so I believe that the consensus may have changed enough for another decision to be formed on this. Personally, I play Counter-Strike, but I feel that this can go elsewhere. WaltCip 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale - Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRUFT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
First nom Axem Titanium 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not an indescriminate list of junk. An article on the maps of a game? This is even worse than Harry Potter. WP:CRUFT. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOT. Haven't we had this discussion before?Artw 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, per not a paper encyclopedia. We've got tons of stuff that would not be found in many encyclopedias, including seperate articles on each and every episode of many TV series. In this case, there is one article dealing with them all, which is a good compromise in my opinion. The article should be cleaned up thoroughly though, to include critical discussion of the topic, referencing and removal of the lists, as we do not need to be comprehensive in this case. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC) -- edit: merger is also fine with me, as explained below -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that an out-of-the-box gaming topic such as this one will stand in the encyclopedia. Perhaps in an FAQ or a game guide, but this really doesn't fit. It seems like that this is what is best for Wikipedia.--WaltCip 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If 'not paper' was a valid argument for an AFD keep, wouldn't that make the whole AFD process completely pointless? Wouldn't everything be a keep? --SubSeven 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me quote WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover'. Of course that is a valid argument, just as the "not an indiscriminate collection" that is used by the nominator. I think this article can exist, in a form where it discusses the maps used by this game rather then list them and can be sourced from reliable sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that form, it would be better off in the main article.--WaltCip 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but AfD is not the correct way to achieve merger. That can be done without listing it here. AfD is about deletion of articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also note that WP:NOT doesn't say "therefore, we should have articles on anything and everything" which sounds more like your interpretation of it. Again, if "Wikpiedia is not paper" is an argument for keeping any article, then there's a pretty huge loophole in the AFD system. --SubSeven 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not want to keep everything. I do not want individual articles on each and every map for example. But I DO think an article like this can be part of Wikipedia yes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - complete cruft - what on earth is this doing in a general reader's encyclopedia. WP:NOT, WP:WHATISTHISBOLLOCKS? and so on. --Fredrick day 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It clearly breaks WP:NOT.Mattyatty 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. — Deckill er 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The maps and gameplay of Counter-Strike are an integral part of the game, and their evolution an integral part of its history. However, pretty much no one can be bothered to edit the article. If I put some work to it, I could come up with something decent, the inclusion of new maps and gamemodes into the game can easily be sourced from the video game press, which could back up primary sourcing. Counter-Strike is still the professional level team game, the detonation maps are played for big money, yet this isn't mentioned in the article, nor are the specialist CPL maps. You could probably merge the official and discontinued gameplay types back into the Counter-Strike article, the unofficial stuff should just be killed anyway. - hahnch e n 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summarize within the main CS article. Zeality 03:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or merge a much trimmed version with main article if necessary. As it is there are no sources for anything. Wickethewok 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I didn't see much, if any game guide material, so I don't see anything that an editor familiar with the work cannot adjust. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt there is any research into the "most popular" maps of each category, and yes, it feels like fancruft. <3 bunny 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. Counter-Strike is notable, but the maps themselves are not. If the maps are integral to Counter-Strike history, incorporate them into the main article. There is little need to create a separate article to explain the different game types in CS and list all of its maps. --Scottie_theNerd 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Wikipedia is not paper is not a valid "keep" argument (see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING). Maps are an integral part of CS but their importance should be covered in the main article with a paragraph explaining their importance, not a game-guidey article about each map ("counter-terrorists must locate and defuse the bomb in 45 seconds"; if that's not a game-guide, I don't know what is). Axem Titanium 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am getting a bit annoyed with people telling me that "Wikipedia is not paper" is somehow not a valid argument. Any argument, which is well reasoned, is a valid argument. There is no magic list of arguments that are or are not valid. WP:AADD is an essay (which, ironically, was written for a significant part by me in its early stages), whereas WP:NOT is policy. "Wikipedia is not paper" is a perfectly valid argument in these discussions, as it means that we do not have to exclude stuff because they would not make it into Brittanica for example. I am not saying the article is good at the moment, I am saying I think a separate, sourced article can exist, next to the main article, because "Wikipedia is not paper". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have made some edits to the text to attempt to remove some fancruft, please check it and see if I have managed to improve it. Otherwise, please tell me how I can fix it. <3 bunny 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's still a relatively vague topic, and I don't think any amount of editing will be able to change that.--WaltCip 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge; the three main map types can be summarized in a single paragraph and merged into the main article, and should also be referenced. Marasmusine 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. Herostratus 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge Standard map types need to be included in main article, possibly custom types. The rest is useless cruft. SirBob42 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge, same as Marasmusine and SirBob. Some mention of the maps must be made, because this is an important and popular game, of which the maps make up a big part. But no more than three or four paragraphs in the main article - definitely not a whole article - is all that is needed. I'm going to watch this page; if consensus is "trim and merge," I will gladly help with the trimming process. Thanks, Gold fritter 12:32, 18 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 numbers are about 7-4 in of Delete, not counting "Delete only if selectively merged back, otherwise keep" either way. This is tough because there is not so much a reaching for consensus over whether or not a particular article meets a particular standard, e.g. notability; it's more a division between those who generally favor the existence of "X in popular culture" vs. those who don't. I'm not qualified to judge this larger issue, but I don't see either "side" with a decisive "win". The argument that this article can serve as a kind of cruft disposal to keep the main article clean is reasonable. It is not as strong as the Delete arguments, but it is sufficiently strong to prevent a straight-out Delete close, in my view. A larger discussion and decision on when "X in popular culture" articles would be useful here. Herostratus 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Norton in popular culture[edit]

Of the great number of "in popular culture" articles now raising concerns, this one strikes me as the most absurd. Whatever useful information this covers is already in the history of the Emperor Norton article. The rest is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and random. Delete. Xoloz 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best place to comment on his overal influence to the popular imagination. What is absurd or not-useful about that? User:Dimadick

WP:READTHENOM. Actually, that's not a real policy, but he said that all that was useful in the article has already been covered in the proarticle.--WaltCip 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in popular culture. The way to fix bloated crufty "in popular culture" sections is to prune them, not split them out into new non-articles consisting of nothing but crap. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice, wouldn't it? But I'm not entirely convinced that articles like "Isaac Newton in popular culture", where the subject is a trancendent figure not normally associated with popular culture, need to die. Xoloz 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to merge the "good" material back in, and to police the article so that it doesn't end up looking like the current "... Norton in Popular Culture" article? Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. The current arrangement is good for both the main article and the culture article.--Paul 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Important occurrences, where Emperor plays significant role in plot or topic go into main article, minor random references do not belong to wikipedia: not indiscriminate collection of info. `'mikka 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Totally agree with Guy, the way to deal with too much crap in an article is to get rid of it, not hide it somewhere else. There is a difference between an article getting too long due to useful content, and when overzealous editors tack on every vague reference to a subject in pop culture they can imagine. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires clean up, not deletion. - Denny ^(talk) 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only if selectively merged back, otherwise keep. Emperor Norton's only real claim to fame is that of being a nineteenth century eccentric whose stunts amused twentieth century imaginations. His article in chief is therefore a popular culture article, considered broadly; and his importance comes entirely from his exploits being recalled in contemporary novels and parody religions. Even if it meant anything to call this data "cruft", it's still the heart of the article; for Emperor Norton would be a forgotten madman, not an encyclopedia subject, were it not for his celebration in "popular culture". This stuff is what makes the dude famous today. It never should have been removed from his article in chief, because this material, not his nineteenth century life, is what really makes him notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "... in Popular Culture" articles provide a valuable service in providing a place where editors can add trivia without negatively impacting the quality of the main article. NONE of the material in this Popular Culture article (which is just several lists) belongs in the Joshua A. Norton article, as it has nothing whatever to do with him. If this material were in the main article, there would be 1) the continual requirement that serious editors weed out the "cruft," and 2) edit wars about what kind of material is appropriate for a biography article in an encyclopedia. The existence of this "Popular Culture" article makes both parties happy: those who want a serious article about Norton, and those who want to add odd trivia about popular culture. The comment above about Norton's only claim to fame is that his story amuses 20th century imaginations, is mistaken. Norton amused his contemporaries. The reason that it is possible to have an article about him today, is that his contemporaries wrote about him yesterday. The first important article about Norton in the 20th century had nothing to do with popular culture, it was an article (with footnotes) in a historical society journal. The idea that historical persons only exist through the lens of contemporary culture is cultural solipsism. For these reasons, this article should not be deleted. --Paul 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unsourced claims - which is to say the entire freaking article. I can't believe anyone thinks it's appropriate to have an article which has literally zero sources to back it up. --Haemo 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after selectively mergingHis only reason for being encyclopedicis his life as an eccentric figure in popular culture. Fortunately, there are several references to his notereity. Anything encyclopedic with a reference satisfying WP:ATT should go into the main article; anything else in the present article which is original research or based on someone's personal recollection, which cannot be backed up with a reliable source, could be deleted. There are many claims in this article which are speculative and do not belong in Wikipedia, such as "it is believed that xxx is based on Norton." The numerous TV Western episodes , such as Bonanza, in which his character appeared could be included in the main article as a "popular culture" section. Edison 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! something that has been a cultural phenomenon for nearly 150 years is worthy of an "in popular culture" article, if anything is. "Cruft," to me, means articles about much shorter-lived phenomenon. In this case, the lack of sources certainly isn't hurting anyone, and this sort of long-tail trivia makes Wikipedia great. Paul, above, is right that there's too much to go in the main article. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Emperor Norton?--WaltCip 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Joshua A. Norton. He was an eccentric who proclaimed himself the "Emperor of these United States" and "Protector of Mexico" in 1859. He's a legend now. Nishkid 64 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Joshua A. Norton may be notable, he already has an article. The discussion here is about the "...in popular culture" article, which I don't see as adding anything that isn't already in the person's article. - BierHerr 17:27, 19 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. --Core desat 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carter (AKA War Wounds)[edit]

Another hoax article about a supposedly upcoming album. I have been unable to find a single reference online to this - Googling for "Aaron Carter" "War Wounds" comes up with nothing relevant aside from the WP article itself. Kurt Shaped Box 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources whatsoever included. WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Kntrabssi 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did find some quotes from House of Carters here which might explain a thing or two. However, regardless of that, it's crystal balling so get rid of it. The Rambling Man 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's either fake, or not yet announced. Either way, delete until info appears to back it up. There was an episode of House of Carters wherein Aaron and Nick discuss potential future projects, and the possibility of a "Carter Bros" music label was discussed. Aaron stated he'd prefer the label be called "War Wounds..." symbolizing the brothers' troubled past (!?). That conversation also included a squabble over Aaron's desire to be recognized as a competent rap artist, versus Nick's (and their agents') apparent recognition that Aaron's fans expect Pop, and he should not alienate them. This particular on-screen exchange appears to be the basis for the content of the hoax. In summary, Google yields nothing so even if this *were* real, it has not yet been announced officially and therefore (as much as I do love my Aaron Carter) it does not belong on Wikipedia because it is not verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoyliciousDarian (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- oops.. ^_^ sorry, forgot to sign. (cut off the tildes in my copy+paste from notepad). BoyliciousDarian 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unacceptable content, crystalballing, original research, hoax, whatever.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the comments stated above. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please as it is totally false, there are no reliable sources to confirm any of this. This is a hoax, and leaving it up will only cause problems and confusion. Thank you. --Camobrat 23:35, 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. --Aarktica 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casco Bay Brewing Co.[edit]

I am concerned that this brewery is not notable, as the only thing close to a reference is a trivial mention in one article. Does this brewery meet WP:CORP enough, or should it, and others like it be considered for deletion? FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links to the official website, and as a Maine citizen I can say that we all enjoy the fruits of its labor up here ;). Kntrabssi 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are not a reliable source as to what the people of Maine enjoy, nor is the link to the official website establishing of notability. Pretty much every business can make a website, but not all businesses should get Wikipedia articles. And note, I am not questioning the truth of anything in the article, I am questioning the notability. Please consider your comments in that light. FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable, and at least mildly notable outside its community. They make the claim that one of their beers took a gold medal at the World Beer Cup. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is receiving a single gold medal out of 85 at an event of itself less than certain notability a good indicator of a breweries notability? And does this mean all the other winners of a single medal should have articles? (Assuming reliable information could be found about them, of course). I think that might be setting the bar a little low myself. FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe downgrade to {{notability}} tagging. Other articles in this category look similar (except for the one that the nominator has prodded), and I see enough evidence of notability in the local area, not less than what would be for a high school, for example. YechielMan 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this like many other smallbreweries/brewpubs has absolutely no notability within the world of beer. Granted, in its location it may be highly notable, however, not all Wikipedia users live in that area. In fairness, there are many other such articles about equally unnotable breweries and brewpubs.Mikebe 12:29, 18 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 del Improper usage of a technical page. `'mikka 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcrest (disambiguation)[edit]

Also nominating Barcrest Group (disambiguation). Disambig on two closely related pages on one corporation, and a competitor that has no reason to be disambiged. Just not a useful disambig, IMHO. PROD was removed, so it's AFD time on this one. TexasAndroid 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as per nom. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 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 deteled. --Core desat 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtub klat[edit]

This is bullshit. OK, maybe not entirely bullshit, but the claim that Aussie butchers are the only ones who kaeps sdrawkcab is skcollob etelpmoc, there was a fad for it in the 80s in the UK when it was featured on !efiL s'tahT. Since the sources seme to be slang dictionaries promoting the meme, and blogs, I'd call this if not a hoax then a protologism. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nonverifiable. The sources are not serious. Of cours, backslang is known in many languages for ages, and not necessarily among butchers. `'mikka 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per the above - protologism & kscollob. - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And Guy, your tone is inappropriate. Bullshit? Please stop for your own protection. - Denny ^(talk) 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is bullshit. Yes, entirely bullshit. In other words delete per nom. Henrik Ebeltoft 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Backslang was common in Cockney London also. Backslang is a known popular phenomenon. Anthony Appleyard 18:11, 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 transwiki. Sr13 (T|C) 06:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raghead[edit]

belongs to wiktionary, togetherw woth usage examples. Non-expandable dicdef. `'mikka 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wiktionary - the term does not warrant an article on its own merits - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4 ordinary (not talk or special) pages point to it. If transwikiing, leave a stub here pointing to the Wiktionary page, as there seems to be no way to #REDIRECT between wikis: something like this happened with Vial. Anthony Appleyard 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just delink them. And there is a way in our case: [[wikt:raghead|raghead]] in the very rare case when you really want it. `'mikka 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki not enough content to warrent an article, because it is a dictionary definition.--Sefringle 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article, but it does need expansion. Padishah5000 00:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, if you have any ideas how it can be expanded. The whole point of my nomination is that it cannot IMO. `'mikka 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I understand where you are coming from, and I do agree that these "hate" terms really belong in the dictionary, as opposed to an encylopedia. My concern really has more to do with the fact that "other" terms of similar meaning towards other groups currently have wiki's. It is probably a question of fairness, more than anything. Maybe I will give it a shot and detailing the history of the term and it's use, if you think thats a good idea. If not, just leave me a message! Padishah5000 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki and delete. Mukadderat 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. KazakhPol 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to wiktionary. Looks like just a term definition, and not a concept worthy of an entire article. - BierHerr 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Caknuck 19:54, 20 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 WP:BIO, WP:ATTACK, WP:BOLLOCKS, all fit quite well. Dakota 06:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Spittle[edit]

WP:BIO, WP:RS -- this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. I was going through Dallas AM station pages and came across this. --nathanbeach 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bordering on nonsense... The Rambling Man 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BIO, WP:ATTACK and WP:BOLLOCKS - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per virtually everything, even common sense. If there was ever an article that's a shining example of Speedy Delete, this would be it. Wyv 05:15, 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 Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote Pea ceNT 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre[edit]

Would have tagged this up as a blatant advertising speedy, but it isn't blatant advertising but rather insidious advertising. Some notablity claim in respect of the building's history, but nevertheless (a) I am not convinced that this building is in the least bit notable on its own (there are plenty of Grade II listed buildings in the UK) and (b)I do feel that this page is simply an advertisment for the hotel. A1octopus 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep but remove the commercial tone & establish more notability - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as Tiswas. I have tried to tone down some of the commercialism in the article. Whilst I believe that the Firs is certainly notworthy, (for example as the article already states it has been home to a couple of Manchester's most notable "sons"). I dont know a lot about it to add more. Pit-yacker 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Because I think that the content is of interest and worthwhile keeping, I therefore oppose deletion. However, the limited scope does make me question its status as an article in its own right, and I would support a merge proposal into a bigger article, such as Fallowfield. -- Fursday 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The building appears to have a potentially interesting social history.
Comment I now agree that the building is notable for its history and, since the article is now much less commercial,I withdraw the nomination. I would recommend however that the article be renamed "The Firs" since it is the building that is notable rather than the current users of it. A1octopus 22:32, 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. WjBscribe 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian perspectives on gay rights[edit]

Original Research Amourfou 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) This page is original research. As I commented on the discussion page (as an anonymous user at the time), this is filled with weasel words and no citing. I appreciate the effort that other editors have put into this page, but it really reads like something out of a magazine or school report and not an encyclopedia.[reply]

Keep. I think that the simple fact that the article refers to and directly cites the official platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States to demonstrate that the article is sourced, and is not based on original research. The only thing I think is missing is a comparison of various libertarian parties worldwide. samwaltz 12:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but whittle it down - it's currently an essay - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete; i think that NOR applies in this case. additionally, the goal of WP is not to repeat what can be found elsewhere. mkushnir
keep and rewrite seems to be notable and encyclopediac, but clearly needs sources added.--Sefringle 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rewrite, parring down to a stub for now if that's what it takes to remove what people reasonably believe to be incorrect or otherwise problematic. But I am not convinced this topic would be impossible to source properly... the article needs work, not deletion. --W.marsh 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate? This is not a vote. - Tiswas^(t/c) 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. Useful encyclopedic article. Should be based on referenced material. Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:39, 18 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 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deathrock friendly bands[edit]

I'm concerned that this page is a bit much. While lists of bands that play in a genre is reasonably acceptable, this is merely association or friendliness with the genre. Not to mention this page is unreferenced, and of the pages I checked, none talk about death rock at all. And that's even ignoring the pages that don't link to bands at all FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed with nom. Kntrabssi 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete crufty POV - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly pointless as well as unverifiable. Punkmorten 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a subjective list and difficult to source per WP:RS. Crystallina 17:28, 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. WjBscribe 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell High School (Florida)[edit]

fails WP:NN, page was created to trash either the town or the school, not sure. Creating user has only 2 contribs, both useless. No page for the district exists to merge. Literacola 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail Wikipedia:Schools guidelines. (The derogatory remark is in Bell High School (Florida)'s creation edit comment.) Anthony Appleyard 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, WP:N and the fact theres nothing there other than the school name. If the original user or another expands the article, adds some references etc I will change my nomination.LordHarris 01:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. even if thee was a ditrict article there's nothign to merge, it's just a "we exist" statement.--Wizardman 03:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bell, Florida, do not delete. Make it easier for the article to be restarted in the future. Noroton 03:34, 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. WjBscribe 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The roze band[edit]

Notability claimed, but none established per WP:MUSIC - www.iowarocknroll.com does not appear to lend much weight - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 34 Google hits independent of Wikipedia. There are bands with far more Google hits than this, and with semi-notable releases, that are still only borderline for inclusion on Wikipedia.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Space Research. It's almost a speedy A7 for sheer vapidity. YechielMan 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 redirect to Project HOPE (USA). WjBscribe 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project HOPE USA[edit]

Reason Me latina 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) There is a complete,correct and more reliable entry version about this organization at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HOPE_%28USA%29.[reply]

Redirect mrholybrain 's talk 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Project HOPE (USA), which already covers this subject. Anthony Appleyard 17:47, 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 all. Jersey Devil 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camino Chronicle[edit]

Books by Susan Alcorn whose article was deleted in AfD here (I was the closing administrator). They do not seem to fulfill the conditions of WP:BK. They were prodded but the articles' editor removed the tag. Yannismarou 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Delete All - They lack WP:A to satisfy WP:BK ... also serious WP:COI because they were all created by Susan Alcorn herself as Backpack45scb (talk · contribs) ... she removed one of the prods after adding "Now out of print, there are two copies available on Amazon at a starting price of $89" to the article, and then cited Amazon.com reviews and being the finalist for a NN independent publishers' award "to show this is a work of substance" as reasons to remove the prod from another ... such blatant vanispamcruftisement should not be allowed in Wikipedia, and these articles should have been included in the AfD for her article as well. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm weakly recommending delete on all of these, mainly because of the WP:COI issue. Since the AfD nom, the author has been editing the articles, trying to establish notability, but adding things like ISBNs and Library of Congress catalogue refs to do so is an exercise in futility. It seems to me that, all in all, the books barely fail to satisfy the guidelines in WP:BK. If any of the articles is retained, however, it should be Camino Chronicle; that one has at least attracted a bit of notice on independent Web review sites. Deor 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All If you delete the author as “Un-noteworthy” you must delete the books she wrote and listed on Wikipedia or you have set-up a conundrum. Shoessss 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the contributer of the articles, and I am the author's husband, not the author. My name is Ralph Alcorn. Agreed, there is a conflict of interest issue, but please judge the articles on their merit. I've only done a few edits on Wikipedia in the past, so am still learning the rules.

Background: I've known the author for many years, and am in a position to see her total contributions. She writes on subjects which are narrow, but of considerable interest to the thousands of people interested in the same topic. She is serious about her writing and has been writing for thirty five years. Her body of work includes some other books that didn't have lasting impact, and a number of newspaper articles. In the last twenty years her main interest has been long distance hiking, and she has been hiking three to four hundred miles every year. (I do have a point to make). She is one of the few women in the age 65 and older category that are still doing long distance backpacking. Her notability is primarily being a woman of this age still doing long distance backpacking. See here in a Trailcast podcast [54]. If you look at the other Trailcast subjects of podcasts, it is the Who's Who of long distance hiking. If you are in the long distance hiking community, you know "Squatch", who produces an annual "Walk" dvd featuring clips of Pacific Crest Trail backpackers. We are in his 2006 dvd, and I'm referencing his trail journal entry just to provide some attribution to the fact that Susan Alcorn is still out hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail [55]. I can see the question, who are these active older women? being a research topic at a high school or college level. Susan Alcorn might not be noteable enough yet to be in a hard copy encyclopedia, but I thought that was part of the purpose of Wikipedia - to include topics that might be too obscure to include in an encyclopedia limited by the weight, size and space required for paper articles.

Re: the individual book articles. I assume I should discuss them here in the delete discussion rather than each books discussion page.

Re: The Richmond book. I found three citations in a few minutes search, and added them to the article. One was 1993, one for 1996 and one for 2001, each referring to this 1980 book. Again, pointing to the durability and notability of this book. In the discussion I added the full description of this book from two independent sources.

Re: The We're in the Mountains book. Of the three books, this one has got the most attention from the buying public. Most paperback books have a short life. They go out to the bookstores, and the next year there is a 30 to 40% return rate. Four years later, this book is still selling at the initial rate. We don't know exactly who, about 2/3rds of sales are thru National Parks and outdoor stores, the rest through Amazon. Our theory is that older women are buying it because of the unique subject. No other book in the United States addresses older women backpackers. This is the book that makes Susan Alcorn known.

Re: Camino Chronicle. Of the three, this is the most well crafted in terms of layout, photos, maps, etc. The story has international appeal. Appearance plus the story are what brought it up for the travel essay award, but some of its success is because of the Susan Alcorn name. She has been writing a newsletter for four years, and has been giving slide presentations at west coast locations ranging from Phoenix to Portland, with many in central California. For outdoor people in this area, Susan Alcorn (author) is noteable.

(Backpack45scb 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've added numerous newspaper and magazine interviews to both Richmond - Windows to the Past, and We're in the Mountains, Not Over the Hill. In the process of doing this, I have found additional material for the Susan Alcorn (author) entry, which was deleted before I had a chance to respond. I will be travelling until May 10, 2007, so won't be able to respond to posts until then. (Backpack45scb 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

'Delete and possible recreate one for the author with all the books listed, now that there are apparently better sources for the others. But the reviews cited for this book are either extremely specialized or reader reviews, which don't count for notability. DGG 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Author was determined to not be noteworthy. My investigation into the book shows Camino Chronicle as Amazon Sales Rank #226,856. No major media coverage, the only Ghits returned seem to be for small websites that sell the book. That all adds up to a good candidate for deletion in my book. - BierHerr 23:28, 20 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 move Temp (disambiguation) to this title. WjBscribe 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temp[edit]

Band whose claim to notability is being popular through the internet and starting a bidding war between labels (although apparently they haven't been signed to any). Can't find anything about them through Google. Probably could have speedy deleted, but I'd like a consensus so we can replace this with Temp (disambiguation). Recury 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Similarly, Daniel Au, who's only notability would be via the band - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temp (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a primary meaning for "Temp" so the disambiguation page should be at Temp. Recury 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:18, 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 (criterion G7). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open_Mario[edit]

No longer being developed due to Copyright reasons (IP) MetaCipher 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as does not exist - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This request came from the user who created the file (and was its only editor so far, except a bot). Make it a {{db-author}}-type speedy delete? Anthony Appleyard 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per {{db-author}}. It's a shame given that this project looked interesting. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:45, 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 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Denyer[edit]

No notability bio Mukadderat 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable, with no independent coverage - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:18, 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. Away goes trouble, down the drain. Herostratus 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet tipping[edit]

Yet another unsourced article on a prank. One very short sentenc in a local news roundup, a student-edited page praising the things made up in school that day, and a lot of cruft. Fewer than 700 Google hits, quite likely this is primarily a vehicle for the "look at the real cool dudes" photo in the article. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced articles can be found on toilet tipping as a phenomena (not just as examples of toilets being tipped) - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Toilet tipping" -wikipedia got 147 entries, and some of those were about not this topic but giving a money tip to a toilet attendant. Anthony Appleyard 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this article quite amusing, but I doubt it's the sort of thing that can be adequately and reliably sourced. Maybe if you searched for the phenomenon under a name under than "toilet tipping"... if anyone can provide more reliable sources, I'll say keep. Oh yeah, and the popular culture section is entirely original research. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter nonsense. What else can be said. -- Ekjon Lok 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN I still feel a twinge of WP:ILIKEIT from my early days, when I pleaded for everyone to keep the P-P-P-Powerbook! article. Regretfully, I concede that the article fails to meet the inclusion criteria. YechielMan 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with keep on this. It's not nonsense - for starters, we have a non-fiction book which tells a story about guarding against this type of activity in the 1940s. Thus, we're talking about an activity which spans over two generations. The external links in the article also demonstrate that it continues to get attention, even though that's a pretty poor popular culture section as far as those things go. So, to recap - it's easily sourced, not made up in school one day, and can be cleaned up to be more than permissable. No reason to delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff! Keep? How unlike you :o) Please feel free to rewrite it into something more like an encyclopaedia article and less like it was tipped out of a toilet one day... Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Baristarim 04:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere existence of the activity doesn't make it worth encyclopedic entry. Not a dog 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete but I think jeff has found a lead for "outhouse tipping". I am not sure what they called it in the 19th c. which was probably its peak, but there might be enough additional for an article under that name, assuming Jeff wants to write it.DGG 19:18, 19 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ca$his[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Ronbo76 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable per WP:MUSIC - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's on The Re-Up. He came out on The Re-Up. The Re-Up went gold in its first week, I believe. Therefore the article should stay, and you two seriously need to do your research better unless this article was started before the album came out... Faseidman 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It hasn't earned a certification yet. So I apologize, but I would say the album has a very good shot on earning that gold record cert before too long. Still seems like a bad idea to delete this, to me. Faseidman 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, doesn't he already clear #10? "You Don't Know" has gotten major airplay all over the country (as far as I know), and he's on that. Faseidman 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Forks & Six Point Stars, his yet-unreleased album ... fails WP:MUSIC and totally lacks WP:A (a link to the subject's MySpace page doesn't even come close to being a WP:RS citation) ... claims of "gotten major airplay all over the country" are not substantiated by any published sources ... also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so things like "It is expected he will be featured ..." and "He is set to release an EP on May 15th ..." have no place in an article. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for many rap albums per WP:MUSIC.Baka man 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, he was featured on like six tracks on Eminem Presents the Re-Up, which debuted at 2 U.S., and I think 3 U.K., it sold 309,000 in its first week, it is Platinum, he was featured on the "You Don't Know" single, the whole album was to introduce him and Bobby Creekwater, and clearly he will be featured on other upcoming Shady/Aftermath albums, such as Curtis S.S.K., Eminem's fifth studio album, The Reformation (probably), and others, so there is really no point in deleting it. Also, he WILL release an album called Forks & Six Point Stars, on Eminem's Shady Records label later. I really do not understand why people want to delete this article, I mean if you do, you will just have to create it again later. Also, if you delete this article, you have to delete the Bobby Creekwater article too. --- Efil4tselaer 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. He appears on some songs on Eminem Presents the Re-Up. Also, he does a mix on the song "Jimmy Crack Corn". --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep signed to eminem's label passes the Major Label requirement of WP:MUSIC. Already appeared on a platinum selling album. Thats notability in my book. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:46, 18 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 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those Were The Days (Fanzine)[edit]

I don't quite feel this meets notability guidelines. There's a lack of coverage specifically on the fanzine - see WP:RS. Any relevant information could be better off merged into Ipswich Town Football Club. Crystallina 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless the fanzine enjoys mentions in other press - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pursuant to the notability concerns. YechielMan 16:12, 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 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Georgie[edit]

The subject of the article is not notable enough. 445 results for a "Diana Georgie" google search, including the wikipedias & answers.com pages. Notability of this article has been questioned before. Thiste 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless there is reliably sourced press coverage - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appers to fail WP:BIO. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:24, 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 and redirect to Ejection seat. WjBscribe 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ejectorseat[edit]

Non-notable local band. 131 hits for 'Ejectorseat band' on Google (when you go to the last page), doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, ~3,800 plays on Last.FM. Opening for a few bands and getting to 51 on the iTunes chart isn't notability. Halo 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If delete, redirect to Ejection seat (as in jet fighter). Anthony Appleyard 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per nom. Not quite notable enough for WP:Music at present unless links to several non trivial third party articles are added by the end of this AfD, in which case Keep. A1octopus 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, even if well-referenced. Myspace is the place for these lads. The globetrotter 19:47, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endsville (Billy and Mandy)[edit]

Endsville is the setting for the show The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. In that article, it is described as a typical "Anytown, USA" town. Based on the extensive coverage of the setting in the main article, and the fact that the town is likely not notable enough to sustain it's own article, I'm nominating it for deletion. There no information to merge that isn't covered in the main article and it wouldn't serve well as a redirect, since the title is unlikely to be searched for or wikilinked. Leebo ^T/C 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a disambig link from Endsville to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. Anthony Appleyard 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Consensus is still required for the assertion that we don't need a separate article though, correct? Leebo ^T/C 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect the page has limited content, I see no reason to spin it off at this time, though coverage of it is certainly important in the context of the show. FrozenPurpleCube 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a section about the setting in the show's main page, and the only way this page differs is a small trivia piece. I believe if anyone needed information about this town, they would search for the show before they searched for the individual town.Mastrchf91 19:12, 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!) 10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-Grain Diet (second nomination)[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:N. Cannot locate any reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. The only available sources and Google results are promotional and/or closely related to the diet's publicizer. Without reliable independent secondary sources, the article will always remain in its current promotional/OR state. Prior VfD is here and does not touch on subject of notability. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator; fails WP:BK. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only source cited is to the diet promoter's official website, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:N. Also reads like an advert. Delete unless appropriate sources are found by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of google hits, published book. The diet seems to have a large following, I found two independent reviews.[56][57]. Apparently a best seller, there are 13 citations for the book according to Amazon [58] It crealy passes notability tests. There is a published academic review Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 119–122, 2004[59]--Salix alba (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google hits are not a criterion. The book has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Of the sources you mention, both "reviews" are on specialty websites which advance minoritarian dietary theories. One is a five-sentence paragraph in a newsletter - hardly "non-trivial". The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a minor, non-MEDLINE-indexed fringe science publication not carried in any medical or general library I've been in, and in any case the book review is not available online, so cannot be used as a verifiable source. The bottom line is that without "multiple, non-trivial, independent" secondary sources (which appear not to exist), we can never write an WP:NPOV encyclopedia article, and the article will always be an advertisement. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let us distinguish notability from verifiability. Notability referes to whether the article should exist, verifiability referes to whether we can back up the cliams in the article. On notability the 13 citations in amazon, the first link provided and the journal review all add weigth to notability. The fact these sources are primarially in alternative health related publications does not detract - there is no mention that the book must have been reviewed in national press. To this you could add 49 amazon reviews (the most I've ever seen) and the fact it reached no 5 on the New York times best seller list. This is clrealy a book of some influance. On verifaibility we probably have enought to verify that our wikipedia page is a true and acurate reflection of the content of the book. What we don't have is anything to prove or disprove the theories mentioned in the book. --Salix alba (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Verifiable sources are required to establish notability. Again, Amazon reviews don't qualify. Plenty of books spend a week at #5 on the NYT bestseller list without warranting an article. The sources of the reviews you mention are not "independent" and don't serve a "general audience". What we don't have is any independent, reliable secondary sources. We can't build a neutral, encyclopedic article from Amazon.com reviews and a couple of brief mentions in venues that are essentially echo chambers for the book's author. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with the prev. eds. that the reviews cited are unreliable grounds for notability, But the NYT list is in my opinion sufficient. I would say that if it was at #5 one week it was presumably somewhere on the list before and after. If people buy large enough amounts of junk, the junk is notable. .DGG 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand your point, but the problem is that an NYT bestseller ranking doesn't help us build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article; we need sources to do that. Hence sales figures alone don't satisfy WP:N or WP:BK. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG and the #5 presence on NYT's list.--Chaser - T 09:27, 21 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 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yunus Hasni[edit]

no sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Yunus Hasni, Abul Lais Siddiqui, Sahar Ansari, and Moinuddin Aqeel are all equally short, unsourced, and so textually similar that it looks like they have been copied and pasted to each other. This scholar needs to be distinguished somehow from the other three in order to convince me that he is notable. —David Eppstein 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. One should amend the articles or prescribe changes rather voting for the deletion. The text looks similar as the scholars are of a same field and the works they have done are almost similar. The scholars are noted in their fields and their entries should remain intact. Yunus Hasni does not hold D. Litt. and content is different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.132.113.214 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all those mentioned by David Eppstein except Aqeel, whose books make him notable. The others are just professors. YechielMan 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability, no sources, apparent template biography, per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 19:58, 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. WjBscribe 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing race michigan[edit]

Apparently a private game among friends, without media coverage. Fails multiple guidelines and policies. YechielMan 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no sources cited, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:N. Delete unless appropriate sources (e.g. news stories about the event) are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Amazing race michigan" -wikipedia found 9 entries, given that Google searches are not always 100% reliable guides. Anthony Appleyard 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost speediable as a non-notable group. In any case, without proper sources this is MySpace material. Pascal.Tesson 16:07, 19 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Lais Siddiqui[edit]

no sources, notablility not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Yunus Hasni, Abul Lais Siddiqui, Sahar Ansari, and Moinuddin Aqeel are all equally short, unsourced, and so textually similar that it looks like they have been copied and pasted to each other. This scholar needs to be distinguished somehow from the other three in order to convince me that he is notable. —David Eppstein 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. One should amend the articles or prescribe changes rather voting for the deletion. The text looks similar as the scholars are of a same field and the works they have done are almost similar. The scholars are noted in their fields and their entries should remain intact. Books added. Abul Lais Siddiqui has much different content than the others. 14:25, 14 April 2007 User:221.132.113.214
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that these books alone establish notability without some demonstration of their impact. The subject would not qualify as a notable author, and I don't see that WP:PROF is met either. Article is unsourced. Pete.Hurd 20:03, 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. WjBscribe 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Ansari[edit]

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Yunus Hasni, Abul Lais Siddiqui, Sahar Ansari, and Moinuddin Aqeel are all equally short, unsourced, and so textually similar that it looks like they have been copied and pasted to each other. This scholar needs to be distinguished somehow from the other three in order to convince me that he is notable. —David Eppstein 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. One should amend the articles or prescribe changes rather voting for the deletion. The text looks similar as the scholars are of a same field and the works they have done are almost similar. The scholars are noted in their fields and their entries should remain intact. others are not poets like Sahar Ansari and content is different as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.132.113.214 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep, per 221.132.113.214's well-put argument. --164.107.223.217 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources, no claim of notability, and -per David Eppstein- apparent template biography. Pete.Hurd 20:02, 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. WjBscribe 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Aqeel[edit]

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Yunus Hasni, Abul Lais Siddiqui, Sahar Ansari, and Moinuddin Aqeel are all equally short, unsourced, and so textually similar that it looks like they have been copied and pasted to each other. This scholar needs to be distinguished somehow from the other three in order to convince me that he is notable. —David Eppstein 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. One should amend the articles or prescribe changes rather voting for the deletion. The text looks similar as the scholars are of a same field and the works they have done are almost similar. The scholars are noted in their fields and their entries should remain intact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.132.113.214 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. No publications? Arbustoo 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that the scholar has 37 books published. Names are missing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (talk • contribs)
Delete I don't see that these books alone establish notability without some demonstration of their impact. For example, Googling "Resurgence of Muslim Separatism in British India" generates 4 unique hits, all book vendors, no discussion of content. Moinuddin Aqeel would not qualify as a notable author, and I don't see that WP:PROF is met either. Article is unsourced. Pete.Hurd 20:09, 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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talat A. Wizarat[edit]

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - may be notable, but the only source cited is to her bio on the Karachi University website, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:PROF. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per comments made by DGG below. However, the article still needs better sourcing. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the author of three published books, which is above the average for university professors; together with her service, for which the university site is a RS, she would appear to be above the line for notability. DGG 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. One should amend the articles or prescribe changes rather voting for the deletion. The text looks similar as the scholars are of a same field and the works they have done are almost similar. The scholars are noted in their fields and their entries should remain intact. Sources and references can be clearly seen under External Links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. It's some kid who wrote a fanfic season of 24. NawlinWiki 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Season? (1)[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Author asserts that it is in development, yet it seems to be a hoax. ffm ✎talk 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Andrwsc 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious crystal issues. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An obvious hoax. 16-year-old Emma Watson plays a former first lady of the U.S... come on! --JayHenry 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "virus attack on Los Angeles" 24 found nothing. Anthony Appleyard 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious joke or hoax. -Haemo 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but probably not as a hoax. Methinks the only thing this is "quilty" of is being rather excited thinking by a fan of the show. Not that that saves it, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:53, 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.

Please allow me to express my season of 24 and i not help me get it seen!!

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

The result was redirect to 21 (game). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 the game[edit]

Strikes me that this might be made up, but knowing, as I do, nothing about Basketball I thought I'd solicit opinions Chris 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, I know something's gone wrong but can't work out how to fix it!

Comment I think the templates are fixed now. Leebo ^T/C 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 21 is a real game, at least I know that because I've played it and seen it played many times, but this is entirely original research and doesn't assert the notability of the game. Leebo ^T/C 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Variations of basketball#Twenty-one (Also Known as 33) sind that is what this article is talking about. TJ Spyke 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 21 (game) A Diambig page that refrences all games that could be considered "21." EnsRedShirt 11:33, 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 delete. WjBscribe 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo unyielding[edit]

This article has some clarity issues. Reading the article, I couldn't glean enough information about the topic to easily iron it out, or to judge whether it should be merged into another article or not. Haikon 11:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's relatively non-notable, but it can't really be merged with anything else, and it has been mentioned on other linked sites. I'd say Cleanup and Keep. Bronzey 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisted Patstuart^talk·edits 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Fan fiction and fan films aren't notable by default, and I don't see anything in this article, or anywhere else, that convinces me that it's special. Being linked from web forums and made available on Halo machinima sites doesn't count - creations like Red vs. Blue are notable because they get picked up on by significant entities (newspapers, Microsoft, etc). Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - very strange. Would be good if there were some more info. Definitely needs a Cleanup. Given some of the articles on wikipedia I wouldn't automatically assume it is not notable enough to not keep. (how's that? three negatives in a row..) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This production fails WP:WEB. After filtering out forums, blogs, and Wikipedia and its mirrors, Google returns 81 unique hits, most of which would still be unreliable sources. Given that machinima is a genre / production process that thrives over the Internet, it's rather hard to justify keeping the article at this time. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 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. Chaser - T 09:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of nowhere[edit]

Non-notable avant-garde zine from the 1980s. google searches for "Out of nowhere" and Ledoux produce mostly wikipedia mirrors. Searches on google books and scholar produce a few unrelated results. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination. LordHarris 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuart^talk·edits 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over nine years, the collective produced all of 14 works/collections. Of the members, only Igor Sekulic has their own article (which is a godawful mess in its own right, but let's look past that for now), and that barely makes mention of this group. Caknuck 20:03, 20 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 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adams (CBSO)[edit]

Lists many worthy accomplishments but none of them meet any criteria for notability according to WP:BIO. Grover cleveland 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worthy individual, but no independent non-trivial sources. I love the idea of being evicted to the Lake District, I know it's evacuated but evicted is more picturesque :-) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuart^talk·edits 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable here. Mwelch 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:22, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Not enough participation to say that a Keep consensus was formed. Herostratus 01:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koobox[edit]

I see no claim to notability here, just another product killing sparrows 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google news search found multiple independent sources describing or reviewing this system. Most are press releases and such, but there are also pieces on eWeek, PC World, and the UPI newswire. Seems to meet the requirements of WP:N. —David Eppstein 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuart^talk·edits 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an attempt by Linspire to boost its popularity, and the popularity of Linux in general. It's no iPod craze, but it's being noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorophose (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 merge. Anyone may merge any relevant info from the article's history into Brickfilm. The article will become a redirect. Majorly (hot!) 10:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman LEGO Fan Film[edit]

I doubt these are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Jake Snicket 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Brickfilm article....but only a very reduced form of the article. I'm not sure how notable it is, but it could be famous outside of my tiny little world. So maybe have a short paragraph mentioning in in the general lego films article. The bottom half, though, makes me suspicious this is advertising (per "upcoming..."). Jakerforever 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert, and lacks sources. Maybe it could be merged to Brickfilm if a few sources can be found but right now the entire thing looks almost unsalvagable. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this afd has been relisted Patstuart^talk·edits 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief paragraph to the Brickfilm article or delete. Several of the films already have articles, so there's no need to recap those here again. The "unrealized projects" don't need to be documented on WP.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 18 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. Herostratus 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage 2 classes[edit]

Fancruft exportet from Lineage II --Jestix 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lineage II and Delete Rackabello 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text from article is copied directly from http://www.lineage2.com/Knowledge/race_human_changejob.html (so presumed WP:COPYVIO) if someone wants to paraphrase it in the main article that's fine, but not in this form. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this template has been relisted Patstuart^talk·edits 19:36, 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 tending to a keep consensus, discounting partisan shenanigans, defaulting to keep -- Y not? 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowles[edit]

Delete as non-notable attorney. Two previous AfDs (1st AfD and 2nd AfD) ended in "no consensus" with the majority of the "Keep" votes being placed by previously involved Scientology critics and the majority of the "Delete" votes by neutral editors. An admin, trialsanderrors, placed the 2nd AfD and questioned the "No consensus" close of the first.

"First AfD was closed as a "no consensus" in a self-contradictory closure despite a 5/2 count for deletion and no sourced claim that the subject – a lawyer for Scientology – is notable. . ."

--Justanother 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no new argument. Bowles was Moxon's partner [60] [61] [62]. The two separated in the 90ies. Notable enough as a Moxon name partner, and who's still lawyer for scientology causes. --Tilman 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly think this qualifies for Speedy as the Delete votes in the previous AfDs outnumbered the Keep votes, especially if you count unique voters as the Keep votes were basically the same crew while the Delete voters were different in each case. I will notify all previous voters as time permits. --Justanother 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; replace with a redirect to Moxon & Kobrin. This person is just a lawyer who happened to have for a time been in a law firm of some minor importance, but not a single source has been presented that is reliable and actually says anything about Bowles (except his probably self-written profile). This guy is just some lawyer. In the interests of fairness, I want to mention I was directed to this debate, but I think Justanother has been alerting all previous participants, not just those favoring deletion. Mangojuice^talk 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, alert is all or nothing - I alerted everyone. Thanks for your input. --Justanother 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Mr Bowles activities are notable. A merge with Moxon & Kobrin wouldn't work because of his activities separate from that firm, with Narconon, CCHR, Delphi and director of Youth for Human Rights International. AndroidCat 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are those other activities notable? If so, where are the "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"? MastCell ^Talk 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lawyers, even law partners, are not notable ex officio. There is an article at Moxon & Kobrin that can take the scraps offered here. No evidence that independent sources found him notable enough to provide biographical information. (Thanks for notifying, Justanother.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Excellent points by AndroidCat, Tilman, these constant AFDs are a waste of time and disruptive, as has been mentioned before... Smee 21:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete While some of the law firms/organizations he has worked for are notable, nothing on his page suggests he is any more notable than other attorneys. TJ Spyke 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO unless some reliable, independent secondary sources are produced establishing notability. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable .Greglocock 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article describes him as a person who has lived and worked, that's it! nothing worth reading. How is he special or notable. --FateClub 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's an attorney. He's a Scientologist. That's it. There isn't anything there that makes him notable or elevates him above the attorneys in the office down the street from me. DarkAudit 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Tilman and AndroidCat. It is not Wikipedia policy to list articles for deletion on the grounds that scientologists do not like them. Bowles is notable for his current involvement with several scientology front groups, as well as being a partner in the Moxon outfit. Being a partner in the Moxon outfit is notable, as is being the business partner of the scientologist who scraped up the dead offal of the CAN after scientology destroyed it. Notable also for being the Executive Director of scientology stealth front group "Youth for Human Rights". As User:Smee points out, frivolous AfDs which do not cite any new reasons to delete the article are an abuse of process. Orsini 12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason given for deletion are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:LRONDOESNTLIKEIT. It's WP:BIO. The things you mention are not actually notable (in Wikipedia terms) unless he is the subject of some reliable, independent third-party coverage. The lack of such coverage is the reason the article should be deleted. Since the previous two AfD's closed with no consensus (not keep), I don't see how a renomination is automatically an abuse of process. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lack of coverage cited in the article to date is not a valid reason for deletion, unless the article is a "hopless case". AfD policy clearly states that cleanup tags etc should be used instead of nominating articles for AfD. I do not believe this article is a hopeless case; it should be expanded. WP:BIO is not mentioned in the nomination statement, nor does the subject qualify for A7. With regards to the subject's notability, even a fast Google search shows the case Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P. 2d 577 (1981) is one part of why the subject is notable, as it is often noted in cases involving religion. If I had more time to devote to this matter than I currently do, I am certain I could find more reliably sourced material for adding to this article. Please also note I will not reply to baiting by one editor's blantant and intentional misrepresentation of facts repeated here about another article which scientology doesn't like, and which was listed for AfD after a campaign of disruption and edit warring. Orsini 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the 3rd AfD, and still no sources demonstrate notability at the level WP:BIO demands. Without the kind of sources mentioned in WP:BIO, the article stands to be deleted. If you don't have time now, you can re-create the article later when you have the sources, but depicting this as a matter of jumping the gun when there have been two prior AfD's and still no notability doesn't add up. MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It is an "abuse of process" because a Scientologist (me) is trying to sit in the front of the wikibus with the other folk. I don't know my place = "abuse of process". Usually they ask that I be blocked for even thinking about AfD'ing one of their beloved non-notable smear pieces.[63][64][65] --Justanother 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not a single notability reason provided. An ordinary person. Mukadderat 22:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep: per Tilman & Orsini - yet another absolutely absurd AfD. Ombudsman 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge NN lawyer for some firm with low V, and the reason to have the article at all is because of association with a debated NRM? Do lawyers for the moonies have their own articles, too? Ronabop 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Moon's lawyer does have his own article: Laurence Tribe Steve Dufour 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Director of this, was instrumental in the demise of that. If that's why the article needs to be kept, then why isn't it in the article itself? If this guy wasn't a Scientologist, there'd be no first AfD. It would have been speedied the first day. DarkAudit 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No accomplishments or personal notability mentioned that would indicate encyclopedicity. `'mikka 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not seem notable enough for a WP bio. And he himself objected to it on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 04:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No new arguments proposed for deletion, and no, alleging that everyone who didn't vote the way you wanted was biased and everyone who did vote the way you wanted isn't an argument, let alone a new one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, Antaeus, but when the same crew always votes the same way and when a number of editors come out of the blue and vote a different way, that says something. And I have seen it time and again when I ask for 3rd opinions, the only notable exception being Schwarz but I never expected that to be a pushover. Compare that to how many times I have asked for 3rd opinions and been backed up by neutral editors. It says something. And it is lucky for me that the larger community almost uniformly agrees with me in my objections to the misapplication and violation of wikipedia policy that I see over and over and over in the Scientology series articles. Lucky for me because I am kinda outnumbered by Scientology critics. Luckily the critics are VASTLY outnumbered by neutral editors that just look at the merits and say "this is odd". I think some of your number are starting to smell the coffee, maybe you among them. On this one? No new argument required, it never ended "Keep" and the 1st AfD should have been closed as "Delete" or been taken to WP:DRV for being closed wrongly. --Justanother 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable.— JyriL ^talk 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just another attempt by the Church of Scientology to whitewash criticism from articles about the church and its agents. Vivaldi (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts by Operation Clambake and others to expose the criminal activities of the Scientology cult, but Tim Bowles does not even remotely meet the standards of notability I expect from an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not the place for this material, even if the subject is regarded as "fair game", to use a Scientology term against them. --Stormie 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable. --Eastmain 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a Scientologist. Never even considered it. There is no conspiracy on my part. There is nothing here that catches the eye. Nothing about any notable cases he's argued, or any litigation he's been part of. No publications he's written, or had written about him. There's no 'there' there. DarkAudit 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly visible scientologist. Actively involved in several lawsuits which recieved mass media attention. He passes the bar of notability easily. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tilman, AndroidCat, and Orsini. Robertissimo 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Justanother and MastCell -- Jpierreg 14:33, 18 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 csd a7 -- Y not? 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Box Orchestra[edit]

Contested prod. I believe this band is not notable. The article was created by the co-founder of the band and cites no sources except the band's MySpace page. Google produces trivial search results for "voice box orchestra" -wikipedia. I added a Notability template which was removed by the page creator. EALacey 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook delete as a nonnotable band. YechielMan 16:18, 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 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bass-o-matic[edit]

This was a joke product used in a 1976 Saturday Night Live sketch (although the correct name was the "Super Bass-o-matic '76"). I was considering redirecting this to Saturday Night Live, but that was tried before and someone reverted it, but I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. Masaruemoto 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad delete Although it's a classic SNL commercial, there just isn't enough here to justify its own article. If other references were produced and used to lengthen the article, I'd be happy to reconsider (but very surprised). --ElKevbo 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, but it's not notable. Delete. YechielMan 15:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if, once deleted, it will only reappear again? It's sort of a cultural meme. Personally, I'd like to see it remain (so I could send the link to someone, saying, "Here, THIS is what I'm talking about") but I don't feel that I know enough about Wikipedia policy to vote. I did some searching and added a little further substance, and didn't come up with much. The article is pretty much covered in Dan Aykroyd anyway. It'd be nice if we could get a copy of the clip in wikimedia, but it'll be copyrighted. (Eventually to wind up in a museum?) Abstain. thundt 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world context, fails WP:FICT. Jay32183 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although at my house we still call the blender the bass-o-matic. But no potential for growth, simply too fine a level of detail for an article. Herostratus 04:44, 18 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 NawlinWiki. Arkyan  ^(talk) 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamelia Malteser[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Jamelia Sandosam Malteser" -wikipedia and "Jamelia S Malteser" -wikipedia and "Jamelia Malteser" -wikipedia all got absolute zero entries. (Search for merely "Malteser" would drown in refs to the UK make of chocolate.) The page's external links section says that she appears in http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0364270/, but http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0364270/ does not seem to mention her. Anthony Appleyard 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources cited to establish notability. I suspect this is part of a hoax, along with the linked articles. EALacey 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bea Williams. —Cel ithemis 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Thiste 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Claims of her appearance in the Australian headlines are false (but then, so are the claims made about the other linked articles). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan  ^(talk) 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inzmam Ulhaq[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited to establish notability. I suspect this is part of a hoax, along with the linked articles. EALacey 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bea Williams. —Cel ithemis 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Thiste 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:49, 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 Speedy delete all, a7 no credible assertion of notability, g1 nonsense/hoax/made up. NawlinWiki 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Williams[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited to establish notability. I suspect this is part of a hoax, along with the linked articles. EALacey 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole walled garden as a hoax. Graham Harrington and Jamelia Malteser have severe WP:BLP problems if the subjects are, in fact, real people, but that's unlikely. The TV series Take Me Back somehow managed to film 78 episodes and only air one, yet for some reason it was made into a movie, which somehow is a documentary, and is BAFTA-award nomninated despite being at least a year from release. Oh yeah, and Harrington "accused the Japanese Emperor of sleeping with his wife and jay walking in Paris". Complete bollocks. —Cel ithemis 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. You put it very well, Celithemis! Thiste 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all those calling "hoax". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 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. WjBscribe 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bambuu[edit]

This seems to be a small local baseball league that hasn't been covered by any reliable sources. There are none cited in the articles and googling has not revealed anything either. I am also nominating Beantown Basers, a team in this league, for the same reasons. Delete for lacking verifiability for much of its content and for failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom as being a league and a team playing well below any conceivable cutoff for notability in this particular sport and country. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:44, 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan  ^(talk) 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Harrington[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page associates him with Jamelia Malteser, which is under AfD as non-notable and perhaps hoax. Anthony Appleyard 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ford_Prefect_2 started editing at 19:49, 19 March 2006) and Beachw started editing at 19:30, 30 March 2006. Anthony Appleyard 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would probably qualify as notable if he'd received the media attention the article suggests, but no sources cited to establish the claims made. No Google hits for "graham harrington" "take me back" -wikipedia. I suspect this is part of a hoax, along with the linked articles. If IMDB is to be trusted, there is a real person of this name, but that's all the more reason not to risk allowing him to be confused with this fictional creation. EALacey 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bea Williams. —Cel ithemis 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I might add that if you look closely at the history of this article, it was proposed for speedy deletion on February 1st 2007, as per the fact that it was already the sixth re-creation of this very non-notable article. Maybe an Administrator should be advised ? Thiste 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd zap 'em all and salt them, but having commented in other AfDs of this particular hoaxopera I really shouldn't do that. Somebody should, though - and soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:48, 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by NawlinWiki. Arkyan  ^(talk) 06:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Back[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines. There are five articles linked together and to nothing else that seem to share this lack of notability. Namely Jamelia Malteser, Graham Harrington, Inzmam Ulhaq, Bea Williams and Take Me Back. They all seem edited only by two users, Ford_Prefect_2 and Beachw. Thiste 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited to establish notability. I suspect this is part of a hoax, along with the linked articles. EALacey 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bea Williams. —Cel ithemis 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Thiste 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax (the pilot doesn't exist, much less was it well received by anyone), which seriously casts doubts on the veracity of everything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:46, 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. WjBscribe 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the hill[edit]

This is a transwikied dictionary definition, completely unsourced and consisting of nothing but original research.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge with Ageism. Anthony Appleyard 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no merge is needed. This is useless original research which the ageism article will not benefit from.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wiktionary is a good place for definitions and Wikipedia is a bad place for original research. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:16, 18 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. Jersey Devil 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mark Ramjewan[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines. Google search for Tony Mark Ramjewan -wikipedia gives 111 entries. I didn't even put quotes in the search. Thiste 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page describes events in Trinidad, and the page's creator calls himself User:Trinidadexpress. Is he writing about himself? Anthony Appleyard 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Indeed, I saw that too Anthony. Thiste 13:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear assertion of notability. Grammatically, the article is a total mess. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS. The author's entry at December 31 (since reverted) says the subject is a "Top international Model". I couldn't find anything in a quick Google search to validate that assertion. Caknuck 21:59, 20 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 all. Majorly (hot!) 10:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa State Chess Association[edit]

I believe this organization is lacking sufficient notability. The United States Chess Federation is a national organization of some notability, but do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states? It might be acceptable to merge all three of the articles I'm nominating into one article describing the various members of the USCF, but I am dubious of the value of that. Of the nominated articles, I only see the New York one claiming notability, and I am unable to confirm it (didn't even see a history section on their site) FrozenPurpleCube 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) In short, they don't meet the standards of WP:ORG which says "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." (added to clarify nomination)[reply]

Of these, New York State Chess Association has a fair amount of matter, but short stub pages for each regional chess federation branches could each be a section of one big page. Anthony Appleyard 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the New York page is lacking any kind of references to support the, not even their own site mentions it. And I don't know that the proposed combined page would contain anything other than a directory of the various members, a purpose easily filled by the USCF's own website. FrozenPurpleCube 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. FrozenPurpleCube has a strong antipathy for chess-related pages on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alekhine's_defense, Modern_variation, 4...Bg4 for another of his batch deletion nominations). Answering the question, "do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states?", I would say that they aren't needed, but they would be desirable. There's no reason to delete the ones we have and a good reason to write articles on the ones that are missing. The articles are well organized in Category:Chess organizations, and we have a clear criterion: these are the state organizations that are affiliates of the USCF, the national organization. (If we had articles on 20 or so of the state affiliates we would create a subcat of Chess organizations for them.) I don't think Manticore's complaints address any accepted Wikipedia inclusion or deletion criteria. Basically they boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE. Those aren't good reasons to delete pages. Quale 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, your comments are more on the contributor than the content, which is a WP:NPA problem, but I do wish to assure you that I have no animosity towards chess articles at all. And the problem is, what is there to say about any of these organizations? Only the New York page claims any kind of notability, and it is completely unreferenced. Sorry, but while I agree, good articles on notable chess organizations that are appropriately referenced are desirable, the current state of affairs is anything but desirable. And furthermore, WP:ORG already has a policy, which I added above about individual chapters. Other than possibly New York, I don't see these pages meeting that standard. If you believe these concerns can be fixed, then I request you do so. And no, I'm afraid I don't consider that category well organized at all. It has 29 pages, which constitutes a bare fraction of the members of the FIDE and not all of the pages in the category are FIDE associations anyway, so that number is lower anyway. Few of them have references, and even the Fédération Internationale des Échecs article is in poor shape. It's completely lacking in references and has some serious problems with organization. FrozenPurpleCube 04:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, you're right. WP:ORG is relevant and I was wrong to claim that you had not cited any applicable deletion or inclusion criteria. The problem is that the specific section you quote: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations..." doesn't apply here. These are not chapters of USCF. The state organizations are affiliated, but autonomous. If you look at the articles, you will see that the New York and Iowa organizations were established before the USCF existed. Each state organization engages in significant activities separate from the national organization. As an example, they typically host the state chess championship for their respective states. Your dispute over whether the articles are well organized seems to miss the mark. You are complaining about incomplete coverage in an area of articles that you seem to want deleted anyway, which doesn't make sense to me. The general rule for subcategories is that they should have 14 to 200 pages in them. The parent Category:Chess organizations is not large enough yet to require subcategorization, but it will be easy to do if (I hope when) that is needed. (Specifically to your point: we don't yet have a subcat for FIDE members because we don't have enough articles on them yet. That's a reason to write some more articles, not a reason to delete ones we already have.) Concerns about references are justified, but AFD is not the preferred method of resolving that issue. Arguments like "Do we need" seem to be appeals to emotion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), with no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or practice. Quale 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'm sorry if I confused or mislead you with my choice of words, but I'm afraid I do not see the assertions you made as to being autonomous as persuasive. At best, inclusion of the history in the United States Chess Federation or a list of state affliates of the USCF would be acceptable, and that's only if it's appropriately referenced. That of course, remains undone. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And furthermore, I was responding to your assertion that the Chess organizations category was in good shape. It's not. The category itself is fine. The current contents are clearly incomplete. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was nothing wrong with your choice of words, it was a pure oversight on my part. You clearly mentioned WP:ORG and I just missed it—my fault. As for the rest, if you don't see how an organization being about 80 years older than the parent organization that it is supposedly a chapter of makes it autonomous, then you might see why I think discussion with you on these issues is a waste of time. I want to commend you on taking an ethical and community based approach in trying to address the issues you (and almost you alone) see with the chess content on Wikipedia. You have posted on the talk page of WP:CHESS, the chess wikiproject, and tagged some chess articles and cats you take issue with. That hasn't give you satisfaction, so AFD was the appropriate next step. The problem is that I don't think you have any interest in a real dialog or have any intention of allowing anyone else to convince you of anything about chess content in Wikipedia. Your universal response to everyone who comments in opposition to your views are "I remain unconvinced", etc., etc., etc. It may be that everyone else at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alekhine's_defense, Modern_variation, 4...Bg4 is wrong, and every argument opposed to you is unconvincing because you are the only one who sees the truth. I ask you to consider the other possibility.... As far as organization of Category:Chess organizations, I'm afraid I think your complaints have absolutely no merit. The category correctly consists of chess organizations and is currently too small to support or require subcategorization. It itself is a subcat of Category:Chess and Category:Sports organisations, exactly as one would expect, making it easy to find. You complain that the category is incomplete yet you seek to delete the very pages that would populate it. Wikipedia itself is incomplete, and will always remains a work in progress. Quale 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't see that age as especially meaningful, no. This is especially true because simple age of an organization isn't proof of notability or demonstration of reliable sources. Not that the current article shows much in the way of covering that history. It says it was founded in 1899. Then nothing but the president and a few other officers today. Maybe, just maybe, the chess association's page can be acceptable as a source for the age, but I find it doubtful. If there aren't reliable sources for history beyond that, I'm sorry, but it's just not enough to sustain its own article. But, hey instead of concerning yourself about me, why haven't you done anything to improve the article and thus demonstrate there is real informed content to be had? The article remains unchanged. I might be convinced to change my opinions if you did some work to the article, but I have yet to see that happen. FrozenPurpleCube 04:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are talking about with regards to subcatergorization here, that's got exactly nothing to do with the concerns I've expressed, which was to dispute your claim that the category was in good shape. It's not. Why you're going on this track about subcategories, I haven't the foggiest. The only subcategory I have an immediate problem with in that tree was the empty one on Swedish Chess Clubs. I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty obvious that's getting a little too specific. Plus it was empty, so small loss anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 04:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No sources. If you add sources that show notability, popularity, importance, and so on I'll reconsider. Arbustoo 07:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Premise above "do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states?" is against wikipedia policy:Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia.Tstrobaugh 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about WP:NOT#DIR? These amount to little more than directories of state associations. Not to mention the lack of sources means WP:V is a problem. I would also say that WP:N is also a problem, and as I added above, WP:ORG does cover state-level chapters. FrozenPurpleCube 16:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These organizations are not state-level chapters. The organizations are affiliated with the USCF but autonomous, and frequently (as in the case of Iowa State Chess Association and New York State Chess Association) are older than the USCF itself. Quale 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the organizations are the main affiliate in their respective states, giving them a great deal of importance in chess organization beyond the very very local like a local chess club. Two of these organizations are responsible for organizing the State Championships, see the tournament lists for the Iowa organization, and for the Pennsylvania organization. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources for information beyond their sponsorship of these state championships? If that's all you've got to say about them, I'm sorry, but it's simply not notable or distinct enough to sustain an individual article. All fifty state affiliates probably sponsor state-wide championships. What is there beyond that? Since are are a member of the Chess Wikiproject, I suggest you take a careful look at the situation, and make sure you are not arguing keep solely on that bias. FrozenPurpleCube 13:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. State organizations are not considered notable unless they get a lot of press coverage or have some discernible national impact. The nominator, FrozenPurpleCube, quoted from our written policy in WP:ORG. Others have pointed out that the Iowa and New York chapters are older than the parent. This doesn't give them a free pass for inclusion in Wikipedia. They still face the hurdle shared by all state organizations, whether chapters or not, that WP:ORG doesn't want to include them unless 3rd-party reliable sources have commented on them. These articles have no reliable sources at all, and they contain nothing interesting that might tempt us to overlook the policy issues. EdJohnston 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I found a few independent online articles with non-directory mention of the Iowa SCA.
- [66]
- [67]
- [68]

Matchups 03:43, 21 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. Sr13 (T|C) 08:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and Saddam WMD allegations[edit]

Please see this version Russia and Saddam WMD allegations. The article was 3 times reduced by Commodore Sloat (who is AfD nominator), made extremely POV, etc. I will work with the article if it survives AfD discussion.Biophys 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable conspiracy theory associated with a disreputable character John A. Shaw and not backed up by WP:RS; all items are sourced to NewsMax and Washington Times. Most of the article is a list of items from the NewsMax article purporting to prove the conspiracy theory. Anything useful here should be merged into the Shaw article and this one should be deleted. csloat 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Marking an article for AfD is not the way to discuss merging. I think there is a violation of certain commonly accepted WP procedures here. It was suggested to merge this article with other articles just a day ago. This is great. We started discussing this question at the talk page. I suggested to try some improvements and then decide about merging. So, why not to allow me to improve this article first, and then decide? What would happen if everyone started marking articles for deletion instead of discussing their merging and working under their improvement?Biophys 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am creator of this article). According to WP rules this is not a majority vote. What are concerns here? 1. Notability. This is a notable controversy because it is widely known (including a lot of Google hits), supported by several notable people and describes a notable controversial subject (Iraqi WMD and possible involvement of Russia). 2. Sources. There are numerous sources and all of them satisfy WP:SOURCE. Based on 1 and 2 , there are no reasons for deletion. 3. Merging. The only reasonable suggestion here could be merging with Post-Saddam WMD search which includes "transported to other countries" section. However, Post-Saddam WMD search is already excessively long. So, it is simply more convenient for readers and more logical to have this article separately.Biophys 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deleting the article does not preclude merging. If there is any notable content here that is not already in the John A. Shaw article -- and I'm not sure there is -- I've already suggested that it should be merged into that article. But this article itself should be deleted. csloat 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This article is about certain allegations, not a biography of Mr. Shaw. Allegations come from several different persons, not only Mr. Shaw. So, there is no way to merge this article with his biography. Also, merging with Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is not a good solution. First, Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is already very big (maybe too big) article, and this article is also rather large. Second, this article includes claims and issues that do not belong at all to Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy: Pacepa, operation "Sarindar", claims about chemical and perhaps biological weapons, etc. Honestly, I can not understand your concerns. This is a prominent controversy described in media. Why not to have it in Wikipedia? No one claims here this story is proven or truth. See: there is a large Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. This is just one of these controversies. I guess you think it is not notable. O'K, let's see what other people think. Biophys 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Seems notable and well referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. non-notable conspiracy theory associated with a disreputable character John A. Shaw and not backed up by WP:RS. Besides, Biophys deletes insertions of sourced text, that tells that John A. Shaw brought these false allegations to support president Bush on elections. Vlad fedorov 03:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless backed up by a reliable source. Orderinchaos 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The claims by these people were made in NewsMax, Washington Times, FrontPageMag.com, CBN News and FOX News. These sources perfectly satisfy WP:SOURCE. These claims may be false or true, but this is completely irrelevant (verifiability, not truth). It only matters that such claims have indeed been made by these people (based on reliable sources).Biophys 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax, Frontpagemag, WTimes, and CBN are all one-sided politically motivated sources of questionable reliability. FOX news did not corroborate this entire story. The issue is not just verifiability (e.g. if Newsmax quoted it was it probably said) but also notability -- if the only sources treating this story as significant are extreme right wing publications, it is probably not encyclopedic. If this really is "news," surely Wikipedia can wait for the NYT or CBS to pick the story up. csloat 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all these sources are politically one-sided. But they satisfy WP:SOURCE. If there are any sources from the opposite part of political spectrum, we can cite them to make article as neutral as possible.Biophys 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Idle conjecture (and wishful thinking) masquerading as ~~plausible~~ conspiracy theory. Non-notable. smb 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You say it is non-notable. Well, the Google search makes close to a million hits. The subject itself (Saddam's WMD and possible involvement of Russia) is certainly notable. Further, claims that the story is real come from the following notable people: (1) former Deputy Undersecretary of US Defense John A. Shaw, a top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs; (2) Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War; (3) Ion Mihai Pacepa who is certainly a good expert in such matters; (4) Thomas McInerney, and (5) Kenneth R. Timmerman.Biophys 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting who believes what here -- these five sources do not all believe the same thing; if they do, that is not what the quotations say. Where are the "one million hits" coming from? What are your google search parameters? I doubt all one million are actually about this specific story. csloat 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all these sources do not tell exactly the same. It seems I cited everything correctly. Since you marked this article as AfD, I simply do not have enough time to do everything well and carefully research and read all sources. Please tell which sources you think are misrepresented at the talk page of this article.Biophys 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following search-string returns only 200 pages: Iraq WMD Russia John-Shaw -world-war -ww2 -wwii -"cold war" smb 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Article passes the encyclopaedic test and WP is not concerned with truth - just if points of view are sourced from verifiable sources. Article needs to make crystal clear what are allegations and what is more factual.W. Frank 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources making the allegations are all of dubious reliability. Quadpus 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request. Anyone who will be looking at the article, could you please take look at my last version here [69]? Vlad Fedorov deleted all reliable references from the article and transformed this article to a garbage, and now Quadpus is telling that article is "poorly sourced". Biophys 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I removed any non-dubious sources (And I don't believe I did), it was inadvertent. I only reverted the last change to the article. Quadpus 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. If you only think that section about Shaw belongs to Introduction, O'K I can instert it there, but keep all references, etc. O'K? Biophys 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or better, Merge for the reasons explained by CSloat; this is a non-notable conspiracy theory that is upheld seriously by only a guy, Shaw. Also the nature of the sources indicates that this is not taken seriously by any respectable media outlet.--Aldux 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.As clear from the text, this theory was supported by several very notable guys, and I do not know how many other people. Your second point I think is irrelevant, because all sources satisfy WP:SOURCE. Mass media at the West are very "partisan". I would be very surprised if such news were printed in "liberal" Los Angeles Times, New York Times, BBC, or Guardian (and vice versa). This is just one of numerous "partisan" topics.Biophys 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Apart from that, the title is ridiculous (Russia and Saddam? Sounds like a bad movie), so move this article to something useful to preserve history, but delete the remaining redirect. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You say:"Russia and Saddam? Sounds like a bad movie". Could you take a look at articles Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990, Iraqi State Internal Security and some others? Iraq was one of very important partners of the Soviet Union and later Russia. Those billions of Iraqi debt to Russia - where they came from? Almost all Iraqi military equipment, from tanks to Kalashnikovs came from the Soviet Union and later Russia. Of course, to address well this point, one would have to create an article Iraqi-Russian military and intelligence cooperation, which I perhaps will do if this article is deleted. As about merging, this article might be merged with Post-Saddam WMD search which includes "transported to other countries" section). However, Post-Saddam WMD search is already excessively long. So, it is simply more convenient for readers to have this article separately.Biophys 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely commenting on the title, not the content. A better title would be "Allegations of Russian WMD support to Iraq" or something to that extend. And yes, the title Post-Saddam WMD search is also a horrible title for an encyclopedia article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then you probably suggest to rename this article rather than merge? Biophys 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting a merge, but if kept, please change the title. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an interesting article, on a notable topic. The Ion Mihai Pacepa article in the Washington Times (on which this is partly based) comes from a knowledgeable observer of such affairs. The article seems worth developing and polishing, not spiking. Turgidson 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. That's not a news article, it's an opinion piece in a paper which has a reputation for partisanship and lax ethical standards. Quadpus 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Says who? Turgidson 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment pretty much everyone. csloat 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Then back it up in the respective article, instead of making unverified assertions on this talk page. And, while at it, define "pretty much everyone". That means >95% of people on Earth, or what? Turgidson 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to do your research for you. Pick up a copy of Washington Times and judge for yourself, or do some research about it yourself and figure it out. "Pretty much everyone" to me means everyone familiar with the publication, not everyone on earth. csloat 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no thanks: the burden is not on me to prove your assertions -- it's on you. And, as far as I can tell, all this talk about "reputation", "pretty much everyone" knows, etc, is just pure speculation, with no verifiable sources to back it up. Turgidson 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't assert that a well-known unreliable source is reliable. Thanks. csloat 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Well-known by whom? Certainly not by me. You have presented no evidence of your claim, which makes your claim unsourced. Vegasprof 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to accept that I'm not going to do your research for you or debate with you. Pick up a copy of the Washington Times at your leisure and make your own judgement, as I encouraged you to before. Or read about the paper on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet. Have a nice day. csloat 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The fact that there are completely alone every time they flog a story like this should be evidence enough. Regardless, the piece you are talking about is, as I said, an OP-ED piece and is therefore not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of the author himself. Quadpus 01:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SOURCE "OP-ED piece" is a reliable source, especially if it is signed and dated.Biophys 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is amazing to me that a large portion of the argument for deletion is that the political orientations of the sources are not to the liking of the the people recommending deletion. False stories occur frequently in various media, all over the political spectrum. If a story in a publication is false, then it should not be used as a source in Wikipedia. But, what reason is there to believe that these particular stories are false? Vegasprof 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would say weak keep, but a lot of the problems with the article seem to be due to edit warring. It's interesting, but the article needs work. For one thing, the title is misleading. From what I understand, Russia was alleged to have helped Iraq with WMDs prior 2002, but, although this is mentioned in some of the references' texts, this is barely addressed in the text of the article. Instead, the article is about a specific allegation that Russia hid Iraq weapons, an action I had previously only heard of Syria being accused of doing. Post-Saddam WMD search is a long article, but it should be at least the basis for the content of this article, including the title. Consider Theories that Iraqi WMDs were transported to other countries prior to invasion or Operation Sarindar. These are unwieldy and cryptic, respectively, but more reflective of content. The article could also be better organized, especially the introduction, which is far too long (though all this seems to be a result of edit warring), and the sections, which are organized by alleger rather than allegation (though, again, this seems to be a result of edit warring). On the other hand, the article is well-sourced and makes it clear that these are allegations haven't been proved. We allow articles for 9/11 conspiracy theories, endorsed most notably by celebrities and left-wing blogs, that allege that the U.S. government is lying about a terrorist attack. We should also allow an article with the more likely premise, reported by Fox and the Washington Times, that the Russian government is lying about its relationship with Iraq. If you don't like the content, just adjust it to be more NPOV and/or have more sources for the opposing theories. Though try not to degrade the article in the process. Calbaer 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You was right. It was completely degraded by Commodore Sloat after your notice. Please see this version: Russia and Saddam WMD allegations. The article was 3 times reduced by Commodore Sloat (who is AfD nominator), made extremely POV, etc. I will work with the article if it survives AfD discussion.Biophys 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable and content seems to be sourced. --Richard 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you want, but i would advise to simply merge it in. the main article. There's an appropriate place; the Shaw allegations just expand on what is already there in transported to another country., . Pacepa doesn't seem to have said they were removed, it says the Russians helped Saddam destroy them. that would be a new section there. What the truth of the matter may be is not the point. There are a number of suggestiosn reported in the press; probably only one is correct, but they were all reported and can be discussed in WP. DGG 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. There are many helpful critical comments here. The title must be changed, and even the subject of this article must be slightly different as not to overlap with other articles. None of the existing versions is really good. Not my version [70], and not the current one. But all of that can be worked out. Biophys 14:57, 20 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. WjBscribe 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids of the Black Hole[edit]

Delete: WP:MUSIC KelleyCook 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this page up for deletion? Downstream 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song by notable artist which is itself notable due to fame and multiple uses in commercials and video games. Strange nomination. A1octopus 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helped define a musical genre, makes it historically notable. -M^ask? 18:31, 19 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 cleanup, sources brought up in AfD should make their way to the article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Chess League[edit]

I cannot find any reliable sources about this page, everything comes from their own site. I am therefore dubious about this page, and it seems questionable enough that I'd like more eyes on it. It almost seems like somebody's idea of a joke. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Clean Up. The league certainly exists; it is currently in hiatus between 2006 and 2007 seasons; some of the players are notable (e.g. Larry_Christiansen [71] or Alejandro Ramírez [72]). It is however an online league played via the Internet Chess Club. Some more secondary mentions;[73] [74] [75] Notable? Just. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The league is quite notable in the US and is commonly reported on by the USCL [76] and has notable US players. --Must WIN 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant USCF instead, since self-reporting wouldn't be much in the way of notability. Though since that article was written by Greg Shahade, himself a commissioner of the league, I'm not sure how independent that coverage really is. Not to mention, the page itself says "hundreds of fans" watched the finals. I do not know that something that only attracts a few hundred people is truly notable. Still, exactly how much coverage do they get in the magazine? FrozenPurpleCube 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read about a match between the Boston Blitz and New York Knights in the chess column of my local newspaper (the Boston Globe). It's notable enough for a non-paper encyclopedia. YechielMan 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind finding that article, so that the rest of us can have something more than your bare-word statement that you read it? FrozenPurpleCube 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the premier league of US team chess, and a tournament with some very strong grandmasters. As Yechiel notes above, the tournament attracts plenty of attention in chess columns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I asked above, can you either list them here, or add them to the article? Asserting that something occurs is less effective than showing it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one for example? And more will be found if you go into the paper versions of Chess Life (which is independent of USCL, though it's affiliated with the USCF). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal coverage of a set of matches that unfortunately offers nothing as to the group's history. You still need to find reliable sources as to that. It's a start, but really, more is necessary. FrozenPurpleCube 14:57, 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 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Clinch[edit]

Vaguely believable assertion of discovering and selling a country is not a speedy to my mind. But Google suggests its all made up. Hoaxes are not speediable. -Splash - tk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax unless someone can show otherwise. —Cel ithemis 00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no WP:A to satisfy WP:BIO ... Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (creation of this article is the editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia.) —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Columbus discovered Les Saintes in 1493. And Defoe's novel is based upon a true account, but it's the account of Alexander Selkirk -- but I think hoaxes should run the full 5 days, just in case. DGG 07:32, 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 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAXCOM[edit]

This is exactly the kind of thing that does not qualify as being blatantly promotion. It's so short and dry it couldn't promote anything. However, it does appear to be largely non-notable software. -Splash - tk 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. It is possible the parent company qualifies, but I do not feel their software does. FrozenPurpleCube 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried searching for press coverage at Google news archive. After attempting to filter out press releases and the like (the Winnepeg filter is to eliminate some bogus-looking newspaper links) I mostly just found press releases and articles about things other than the software. I didn't see anything that looked like actual analysis or review of the software. And certainly there aren't any appropriate sources linked in the actual article. —David Eppstein 00:12, 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. WjBscribe 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ayumi Hamasaki songs[edit]

This is simply a big list of songs that Ayumi Hamasaki has sung. While it may be helpful to some, lists do not belong on Wikipeida, and all of the information on the page can already be found on the song's respective single or album page.ChaosAkita 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is already under the coverage of Discography section. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft since info already available on artist's page with proper context. A1octopus 11:27, 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 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.E.N.E.[edit]

A band with this many albums ain't no speedy. Allmusic is vague as to whether they were actually signed releases or not, though. This is for why we've the love and care of AfD. -Splash - tk 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete _ Ozzykhan 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Splash - tk 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't assert the notability of the 'music project' - nor of the individual members. See WP:Notability (music). As it stands right now, the article is just a list of albums (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). - Ozzykhan 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some information and links, Keep Garret Beaumain 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your information really doesn't satisfy WP:Notability (music)! - Ozzykhan 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of non trivial coverage and no verifiable information on act being signed/records not being self-produced/success of material/et cetera. If multiple links to non trivial coverage are added by the end of this AfD, however, then there may be a case to think again. A1octopus 18:30, 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. WjBscribe 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caanae[edit]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia is not a game guide Martijn Hoekstra 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Delete both per nom, unless someone can whip up an article about the MUD in question (which the article on Caanae doesn't even name, unless my eyes deceive me) which passes muster, in which case a sentence or two could be merged there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. YechielMan 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note there was an article about the mud in question, but it got deleted aswell. Therefore I think these should follow suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarty[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio, but being an elected public official is a prima facie claim of notability. However... -Splash - tk 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appear to be other Kevin McCarty's (Kevin McCarties?), that may or may not be notable, but it doesn't appear as though this man is notable, after searching for a bit via Google. Gracenotes^T § 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I think that a {{prod}} might be able to handle this. Gracenotes ^T § 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was me that tagged it. He is elected, but the article doesn't say anything about him. Most of it is copied (almost word for word) from [77]. Chris 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP What about Bonnie Flickinger in Moreno Valley? Why not has her page ever been nominated. Moreno Valley is a much more minor city, her page is one line and yet it is still there. LA City Councilman get a page. Put an appropriate tag. Put that it needs to be expanded. Sacramento is a major city, its council(wo)men are worthy of a page. PLEASE!!! Alamar2001 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:BIO says: "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Chris 08:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm here trying to start a comprehensive guide to Sacramento and like MOST major cities, it is appropriate to have profiles on councilmemebers. The only compromise I would be willing to make is to include the profiles on the Sacramento City Council page that already exists. (since these profiles DO tend to be short).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well not actually a Delete. Following the general consensus as much as possible, I pared this down to a list and renamed it to List of Indian beauty pageant winners. Technically the article was not actually deleted, but with different content under a different its basically a new article. Herostratus 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Beauties[edit]

Referring to WP:NOT this article does not seem tp be appropriate for inclusion with Wikipedia as it can be considered both opinion (in terms of selection of people eligible for inclusion) and that it is a loose repository of people. Additionally all those persons covered on this page seem to have adequate pages in their own right. I propose deletion with due care to ensure any relevant and cited information is included in the relevant individuals page. Suncloud 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if a part of the problem is the name of the article. "Beauties" sounds awful POV. Reading the article, however, it appears that what is really being presented is a set of beauty pageant winners of Indian descent, and perhaps a derivation of that term would be a more appropriate title for an article containing this information. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Beauty pageant winners from India" might be a viable category or list, but this is a collection of potted bios with vague inclusion criteria and no encyclopedic discussion to tie them together. —Cel ithemis 05:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation. May be the title Indian Beauties wasn't an apt one, but the content of the article is what that matters. Beauty is something rare that is not possessed by anyone. We should try to admire people who represent the beauty of our country on an international platform. This article was only created so as to remind that India is not just a land of snake charmers, but as beautiful as any other country in the world. The content has been presented in a critical point of view, and not vaguely. It does not direct towards racism, vulgarity and any other anti-social elements. So, I would thank everyone for atleast having a glance through my article inspite of my so called 'useless' efforts. Sorry if I had hurt anyone's feelings. —Tejas.B (Contributor of the article) 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with contributor —Cel ithemis. This might qualify as a list, but as an article it is a hotchpotch of unrelated mini-biographies. HagenUK 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I totally agree with the contributor as well as the creator of the article Indian Beauties. May be the article is not of a high standard, but it has been presented in an appealing manner. Hence I feel the article should'nt be deleted but developed and modified instead. Austin.K 19:15, 15 April 2007
- Note: the above comment was actually added by User:Tejas.B.[78] —Cel ithemis 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic tone and content. Sandtiger 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Femina Miss India covers all the titleholders as a list but this page itself needs some work. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to existing articles, if it isn't there already, and rely on the existing category structure for navigation. If desired, perhaps create a list or a new article for history of this collection of people if it can be sourced. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective list with no clear criteria for inclusion. Caknuck 21:04, 20 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 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Street Public School[edit]

No notability is asserted, other than something about their past principal. Doesn't appear that anyone else will add to the article. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I almost want to say speedy due to lack to information, it's really just a memorial page at best.--Wizardman 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for three reasons. First, the article contains almost no information about the subject of the article. Second and third, there is nothing to satisfy WP:A or WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Butseriouslyfolks above.LordHarris 17:01, 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.