Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

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. WODUP 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kajabe can can[edit]

Contested prod. Game which may by WP:MADEUP and seems un-notable. A number of mentions on Google, mostly from user-generated content sites. When YouTube and MySpace are excluded, less than 20 hits, none of which more than mention it in passing. No verifiable information. kateshortforbob 23:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability here. Kevin 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kajabe Can Can is mentioned on the Hume Lake wikipedia page. It is a real game that has been played by many high schoolers who have attended Hume Lake Christian Camps. It has been around for a very long time. I dont know what other evidence i can provide except the pictures on the Hume website (If you go to any Ponderosa week for Tuesday you should see some pictures) and the many sites that discuss its origin at Hume. Also in the "Can You?" video on the Ponderosa page of the Hume Lake website Can You? there is footage of this game being played. Also on this Chiang Mai site it talks about Hume Staff playing Kajabe Can Can with missionary kids in other countries. Putting on Camps for missionary kids outside The United States is something that Hume Lake Christian Camps has been doing for a long time. SyrupisSweet 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get to evidence that it exists, there needs to be evidence that the subject is notable, which in general means that it has been written about by someone independent of the organisation, and published in a reliable source, ie a book, magazine or newspaper. The references you have provided do not provide this. Kevin 05:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there seems to be no doubt that the game is real and is really played by some people, however it doesn't meet verifiable notability. -- Roleplayer 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use of first person pronouns is usually a good sign of non-notability. JIP | Talk 10:02, 4 September 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 04:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Install (Unix)[edit]

I don' t have a crystal ball, but I don't think this page will ever be more than the stub it is. non-encyclopedic topic. Delete Man It's So Loud In Here 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) edit To clarify my point, I think one-sentence articles don't belong in wikipedia, so I nominate every one I randomly come across. I'm sure there are a million software guides that give more information on the install command. Man It's So Loud In Here 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As much as I may personally disagree, the current consensus is that core linux commands are automatically notable. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). spazure (contribs) (review) 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The example afd discussion that you cite did not meet consensus. Do you have another that did? -- Roleplayer 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin closed it as no consensus, but if you read the actual discussion, it's clear that I was the only one who wanted it deleted, and everybody else voted "automatically notable". See also Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(software). spazure (contribs) (review) 03:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add to List of Unix programs. What can be added to make it more robust and interesting? Any "how-to" content should go to Wikibooks. Dreadstar † 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having created the article I see no point in voting otherwise, but am not emotionally attached to Unix utilities either. But Man It's So Loud In Here et al., please do whatever you feel would make Wikipedia complete and informative, whether that implies deleting all unix utils or just a couple here and there. Regards. -Unconcerned 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki is open-source, linux is open source, why not support it ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.182.82 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Unix commands should be covered. JIP | Talk 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But do they each deserve an article or should they all be covered in one article? If the second is the case, is AfD the wrong route to take? Man It's So Loud In Here 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A single sentence article is never going to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. I know Linux is important, but this article has no context or meaning outside a discussion about the operating system itself. A single word cannot inherit notability, no matter how much esteem the Linux community can hold to it. --Gavin Collins 10:09, 4 September 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 --Haemo 01:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brindleyplace tram stop[edit]

There is no clear evidence that this proposed tram stop will actually be built. WP:CRYSTAL notes that events should be almost certain to take place. The 2 references from 2003 do not show this. Kevin 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jakew 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dot on a map and an inspectors report which merely says "Another at Brindleyplace would serve the development area." do not satisfy WP:N. Too speculative at this point. Edison 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The centro/network west midlands map shows this as the stop and info on route will be avilable before christmas when funding of line is annouced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucebaggie (talk • contribs) 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You can always write a new article once it gets built, Ucebaggie. --SolidPlaid 08:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until notability can be proven -- Roleplayer 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The NCAA is surely a reliable and authoritative source on the question of whether ND State is a Division I or Division II school, and it says Division II. I'll do a temp undelete if someone wants to merge, but there isn't much there. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota State Bison baseball[edit]

College baseball from a Division II program, fails WP:N. Merge somewhere or Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the article closer, this is a Division I program. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok from a minor Division I confrence, unless sources can be provided for why this baseball program is notable other than playing college sports my vote is merge or delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MatthewUND is completely right here! Politics rule 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All he did was correct me and a keep without an explaination, AFD isn't a vote. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He did give an explanation, It's Divison I, Getting a little picky are we? If stuff like this should be deleted then some of these pidly defunt sports leagues and teams that have a page on here should be deleted too. Leopold Samsonite 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NPA Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. May be a DI program, but that in and of itself isn't notable, as there are over 300 DI programs and each school has an average of 6 mens and 6 womens sports. Perhaps if they had won a national championship they would be notable. Merge into North Dakota State Bison. Smashville 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Minor division 1 baseball school... the page really has little information on it that couldn't be mentioned on the main page. Spanneraol 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to North Dakota State. I have no doubt that their baseball coverage is covered by reliable sources, but there's not enough content in the article to let it stay in the current form Corpx 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable college program. HERE are quite a number of sources that discuss the subject. This more than satisfies WP:N as "Significant coverage" and "Reliable" sources. Kinston eagle 01:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all trivial coverage, like team A is playing North Dakota State today or game recaps Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are all? You've read all 396 articles? Kinston eagle 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read the NDSU Baseball Media guide from their website. If any source was going to establish notability, this one would. It didn't. Other than the fact that all-time, the school is 162 games below .500, they have only won 38 games in 3 years of DI. Smashville 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to several in random pages, some of them doesn't even talk about the baseball program there, and non of them tells why this is notable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One has to wonder about the motivation behind nominating just the baseball article while ignoring the men's basketball, women's basketball, football, soccer, softball, volleyball, and wrestling articles from the same school. This seems to be one more example of Project Baseball's elitest prejudice against all baseball articles that aren't directly related to the majors. Baseball does exist outside of major league ballparks and wikipedia should reflect that. I find the pointed suppression and exclusionary tactics to be very disturbing. Kinston eagle 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not prejustice, WP:AGF, I nominated several college football and several North Dakota high school articles as well at the same day. This article was mentioned on the proposal of the new sports guidelines, and I placed a AFD tag on it. If this article gets redirected, I'm going to redirect the other articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaranda (talk • contribs) 01:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are we deleting based on proposed guidelines now? Where are these proposed guidelines you speak of? Do you have a link? Kinston eagle 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe he is referring to the proposed guideline that he is writing here on a user subpage of his. He appears to be the only major editor of the proposal. --MatthewUND^(talk) 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yea that, I asked all the sports wikiprojects to contribute though and many did or are actively discussing in their talk pages. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I applaud your efforts on trying to get better guidelines established, especially for baseball, but the proposed guidelines you speak of concerned the notability of athletes (now termed "sportspersons" I guess to include owners, managers, etc...). It does not address the notability of teams or college programs at all. Just because most of the players would be NN does not mean that the team would be NN. For example, Rookie League teams are considered notable while most of the members of those teams would not be. The articles to establish notability are out there. Baseball America, for example, routinely covers college baseball, and I'm sure that there have been times when they have had an article or two exclusively on NDS. And I'm sure that a statewide newspaper has had to have written articles on the program. If a dedicated individual in ND close to the sources were to do the research, I'm sure those references would be added. The problem is across the board on baseball pages of players and teams alike. There are very few editors who bother to add verifiable third party sources. Would you propose that we delete two-thirds of the baseball articles until sources can be brought up to snuff? Or, would it make more sense to let them stand and assume that at some point someone will source the articles? Kinston eagle 12:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think he's bored and is trying to cause a fight, other colleges have there separate pages for separate sport, He has several ND sports articles up for deletion. Wikipidedia has it's rules and used to be a fun place to work on, now it seems like certain people are getting a little too picky. Leopold Samsonite 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Leopold Samsonite[reply]
        Other schools have pages for individual sports, but they contain much more than a table of head coaches. Corpx 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Material can and will be added. You have to start somewhere. --NDState 05:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is just as valid as many other articles. Adding a little more information can bring this article a long way. Next we are gonna hear that the football and basketball pages are not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndstate (talk • contribs) 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these are propose guidlines, then they aren't offcial. It seems to me he's being a bully, and trying to get his way. This has said before North Dakota is a small place but the residents take pride in ALL there high school and college teams. If your gioing to get rid of one just get it over with and get rid of all of them. Leopold Samsonite 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Leopold Samsonite[reply]
- Comment I think we need to remember that this is about the proposed deletion of an article and not about our personal motivations. We need to assume good faith and not get bogged down in petty criticism of each other — that gets us nowhere. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NDSU is a Division I athletics institution on the same level as all the articles here. It does not matter if the article is a about a bad baseball program. It's not Wikipedia's place to distinguish between universities within Division I. The fact that the nominator could not get the Division of the team the article is about is enough for me to think that not a lot of thought was put into the nomination. X96lee15 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, according to the NCAA's own website, this is a DII program. So finding accurate sourced information on the status of this program is proving a little iffy. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. There are over 300 DI schools. The fact that 20 or so of them have an article is irrelevant, as most of these are perennial top 25/national title contenders. - Smashville 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not saying otherstuffexistssothisarticleshouldexist. I'm saying that all articles about Division I baseball teams should be on wikipedia and you cannot say that one is more notable than another. They are all within the same division. X96lee15 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you in some cases. College Football, for instance. Or basketball. You could even argue hockey, considering that hockey has been determined to be the NCAA's third largest breadwinner. However, when it comes to NCAA track, baseball, bowling, soccer, volleyball, golf and so forth, these teams are not inherently notable and need to actually have accomplishments to branch out from their main pages. Smashville 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with smashville, that team didn't do anything of note, and while they are all in the same division, (I want a link that proofs that it is division II) they are in different confrences. Most of the schools listed are from the major confrences like the ACC and Big Ten. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You want "proofs that it is Division II"? I take that to mean you want proof that it is actually Division I. You're still questioning if NDSU is DI or DII? As far as links to prove this, search for "division I" "north dakota state" baseball on Google...are 28,900 results enough proof? --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The official source, the NCAA, lists this school as DII. [1] - Smashville 04:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NDSU athletics are in Division I, so this meets WP:N. Just because you're not familiar with it, it doesn't mean it doesn't meet notability guidelines.--milk the cows (Talk) 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- milk the cows you are correct it does meet the WP:N, but his panties are in a wad that it doesn't meet his special unapproved rules that he is trying to get passed. NDSU is DI, but they are still listed as DII becuase they are still under their probation period from their switch.Leopold Samsonite 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Leopold Samsonite[reply]
  - Please comment on the content and not the contributor. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Smashville 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you make one more personal attack, I will block you. Also it's a minor Division I school, so WP:N is a factor, I again recommend a merge as this is so little useful content. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a very weak attempt at a catch-all athletics subpage, North Dakota State Bison which may be a good location to merge the baseball article. --Midnightdreary 13:39, 4 September 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 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic shower[edit]

Original research-laden article that lacks reliable sources or even an assertion of notability. EEMeltonIV 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite From the top, the concept of a sonic shower is not limited to Trek, but rather a common enough bit of speculated technology. I think George Jetson said he used one too. [2] is the closest thing I can find so far, but that might be because I'm being drowned out with requests for B'ellana in the sonic shower. FrozenPurpleCube 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Even in full Google Books search about 2/3 of the results are Trek-related, but there are enough by non-Trek authors (and here's a Jetsons confirmation) that it could work. Interestingly, the term has been taken up by the advertising industry to refer to small spaces where you hear a specific ad; step away, you can't hear it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per examples above, definatly noteable, but it needs a rewrite and expansion to include non Trek info. Fosnez 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as notable, but needs cites. Can you pelase cross-list this to the Science Fiction project, so as to get more input? Bearian 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have reliable secondary sources. The current sources are both wikis, which don't pass WP:RS. Jay32183 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable Star Trek concept. JIP | Talk 10:04, 4 September 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 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Welcher[edit]

Disputed prod. Junior hockey players with no other claim of notability. Fails WP:BIO, as well as the Ice hockey project's notability guidelines. See also discussion at WT:HOCKEY Also nominating:

Matt Fillier (7th round NHL draft pick)
Taylor MacDougall
Luke Adam
Pat O'Keefe
~~Nicolas Bachand~~
~~Scott Brophy~~
Timo Pielmeier

No objections to recreating any of these articles should any of these players gain future notability, i.e.: playing in the NHL. Reso lute 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed two, as separate AfD's were already created for those players. Reso lute 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All fail to meet WP:BIO & Hockey project standards for notability. --Djsasso 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Djsasso. Skudrafan1 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BIO ccwaters 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all New notability criteria will be proposed, which will keep some of these articles.Bradn87 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This notability criteria was almost unanimously accepted in the past. It's unlikely to change in the next 4 days just because the creator of some articles up for deletion want them too. --Djsasso 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Why is it unlikely to change? Are people around here so opposed to new ideas? Nobody's asking for the notability criteria to be drastically rewritten or anything... it's just the addition of a new, completely reasonable ammendment. Bradn87 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Because people didn't want /any/ major-junior players considered notable. It was quite the fight just to get ones who has won awards considered notable. Every major-junior player is not going to be considered notable because it is extremely easy to become a major-junior player compared to becoming a professional player. --Djsasso 14:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment extremely easy? Yeah, go to a QMJHL training camp and tell that to the players. Let me know how long they laugh at you for. Is Wikipedia running out of space or what? What's the big deal with trimming absolutely anything that's not the best of the best or the biggest of the big? So they're not Gretzky... but they're still players of legitimate franchises and deserve to be treated as such. Not just "nobodys" that don't do anything.Bradn87 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment When there are 400+ new players entering each of the 3 major-junior leagues each year. Then yes compared to joining the professional leagues it is relatively easy. And yes wikipedia is for the best of the best so to speak. Wikipedia is not for just anyone. No one has said they don't play for real franchises or that they don't do anything. Just that they aren't notable yet, doesn't mean they won't be in the future. --Djsasso 14:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment No it is not relatively easy. I'm trying to make it to the QMJHL, and have many friends who are too, and it's anything but easy! And these players are very notable in their team's city. It's not like articles were made for all of our players, just the one's that are notable to the fans! FogDevil 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Compared to the NHL yes it is much easier. 2700 players make the CHL each year compared to only 900 in the NHL. And in the NHL alot of those 900 are the same players year after year. Whereas of the 2700 CHL players every 5 years they are completely different players due to age limits which make the number of players who ever play CHL hockey extremely high relative to professional hockey. --Djsasso 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. If Bradn87 wishes changes both in WP:BIO or in the criteria of WP:HOCKEY, he ought to take his argument there and see if he can get consensus to change in his favor. Until then, we're far more likely to gauge the notability of articles in light of the notability criteria, rather than to rewrite the criteria every time someone comes by with an article he wants to push. RGTraynor 14:21, 4 September 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 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart_Browning[edit]

The only references I can find on Stuart are the 4 opinion pieces he has written, with two newspapers copying/publishing reprints and a couple of short videos which are essentially youtube quality productions. GaryLambda 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an IMDB entry and has been covered in the National Review, Weekly Standard, New York Sun, and Health Care News. Also by the left-wing Working for Change. 1880 Ghits for "Stuart Browning" + documentary. National radio coverage and national television coverage. He's a thinktank fellow with more publicity than another thinktank fellow who's getting a "Keep" !vote. The article has substantially more sourcing than most film-producer articles in Wikipedia. THF 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Browning's current notability seems to stem mostly from his complaints about the number of uninsured in America and his short videos about poor care in Canada by the Canadian health care system. If the movie Sicko didn't exist, Mr. Brownings opinions would be just more net blog stuff. Those opposed to a single payer system have been looking for an advocate of the private insurance business and found Mr. Stuart. My issue with Mr. Stuart, is that what he has actually done is a very small part in this. He articles have been copied by the noted references above but not by the mainstream media. Is a single issue person who finances some short videos which only appear on his own site justify notability? In addition the lack of other biographical data makes this article a candidate for deletion. I did find a dead web reference to a purchase of a home in the Miami area, but that's it. Trolling the google/groups page came up with only a few emails promoting his product and a few questions directed to the Oracle team for database access questions. No innovation, nor any unique insights. Ted Franks has become notable from a similar controversy, yet there is quite a bit more material which is independent of the healthcare discussion. GaryLambda 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that Browning is only noted for healthcare film work (though that would be enough to satisfy WP:BIO) -- 733 Ghits for "Stuart Browning" + Indoctrinate, his movie about education. THF 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am very curious about this anon remark (and this one), which are made by the same anon who brought the AFD (and who appears to be GaryLambda), and seems to express a position opposite to that of the nomination. Given the obvious notability of the subject, I have to wonder what WP:GAME is being played that the same user who did not want the pages merged now wants the resulting combined merged page deleted. But it is entirely possible that there is a good-faith explanation for these actions that I do not immediately notice. THF 19:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Game. I made an honest attempt to flesh out the article, without signing in, because I don't really care if I mark my edits or not. I did notice that [[User:THF] created the page but there was a dearth of actual information about Mr. Browning other than his production of the health care videos. If User:THF or someone else can find more things notable about Mr. Browning I'll gladly withdraw my request for deletion. But I couldn't as you can see from the number of edits, and the time intervals between them (spent researching) there isn't much available material. Therefore my request for deletion should be based on the content of the article. Please show that he meets the notability requirement, I've done my best to meet that standard and failed. GaryLambda 20:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was previous nominated for deletion. [[3]] and the nomination was removed by [[User::THF]] after a minimal addition and re-work. GaryLambda 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll assume good faith that GaryLambda does not actually know the difference between a prod and an AFD, and thus made an honest mistake when he falsely said that the "article was previous nominated for deletion" and that I removed the notice. Lambda also doesn't explain his motives for arguing that the unmerged Uninsured in America article satisfied notability by itself and is now arguing that the merged article is no longer notable. THF 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I thought I would find more information about Mr. Browning and therefore thought that the deletion of his film page was premature. Now that I realize that the films are essentially home made videos, I agree that it should have been merged into the main page. However the current status of the page on the films is immaterial to whether there is sufficient information on the main page for it to remain. I have made an honest attempt to flesh it out with anything relevent to the life and times of Mr. Browning. The result is the current page, which I still contend is insufficient to remain on wikipedia. Apologies for the confusion in the previous comment. GaryLambda 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other minor nit, in the sentence above, nowhere does the wording "ADF" or "prod" exist. The statement "proposed for deletion" can refer to either AFD, or "prod", as the effect is the same. The obvious difference is that with "prod" no discussion is required. But in both cases, the compliant is a lack of content. But that is a total side issue to whether current article can stand on its own. GaryLambda 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as founder of Embarcadero, as well as film and other creative activities. Here are some additional sources I found from New York Sun, Chronicle of Higher Education, University Wire, Irish Independent, Wall Street Journal, and Data Based Advisor. - Crockspot 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... if kept, this article needs a rewrite and a serious de-WP:COATRACKing. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nomination for deletion there have been no additions made to this article. It is as you say a coat rack article for the health care issues and not a biography of Stuart Browning, an otherwise unnotable person. (sorry forgot the sig... 207.171.180.101 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)) 207.171.180.101 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as notable as Ted Frank --Tbeatty 06:08, 1 September 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 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Bad Day Syndrome[edit]

Article on a phrase originating from Batman: The Killing Joke. Currently, the article is barely more than a restatement of that comic's plot, and calling it a "psychiatric disorder, similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" is original research. Even if the article is expanded to include other comic book villains, this article should not exist unless "One Bad Day Syndrome" is actually commonly-used comics terminology; a Google search on the phrase suggests it isn't. Enok^talk 21:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; if this had more use outside, I would possibly suggets a redirect to Batman: The Killing Joke, but as it stands, this is really a protologism. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's just a fork of Batman: The Killing Joke. Sxeptomaniac 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT, as this is a fictional disease lacking any real world coverage Corpx 00:35, 31 August 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. Could be recreated after the album comes out and is supported by independent, reliable sources - assuming this is in fact the album title. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Comes Fast[edit]

Google results show nothing for this. Completely unsourced. Metros 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also per results of Google search. Even the American Idol message boards on the search haven't heard of this album. Smashville 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Jordin Sparks album or something. Everything but the name is referenced. DCEdwards1966 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that. What about Jordin Sparks Debut Album and remove the unsourced info? Smashville 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Crazytales talk/desk 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and uncertain. I might have suggested merging with Jordin Sparks, but all the known info is already there.--Kubigula (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Untill the album is officially named, there are no sources for this name --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:09, 7 September 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 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Drivers[edit]

Aside from its lack of sources, categories, introduction, infobox or proper article formatting, this is a non-notable Duran Duran album track that hasn't even been released yet. Leaking to the internet is hardly out-of-the-ordinary anymore and that info can easily be placed in the album article. - eo 20:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is gossip. It has no sources; no verification; and the song is not yet released. On top of that, everything mentioned in the 5 brief sentences amount to trivia--Cailil ^talk 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as no solid information is avaliable Corpx 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the proposed guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I do not believe that individual album tracks are automatically notable. Kevin 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Franklin Park, Boston. WjBscribe 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Crouch Woods[edit]

Non-notable. This location is an unused corner of a public park that has fallen into disrepair MarkBul 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put a Merge tag on this page, and no one has responded. This area is an unused corner of Franklin Park in Boston. The material may be worth a paragraph, but it belongs on the Franklin Park page. I doubt any of the people who live on the adjacent streets have ever heard the name Long Crouch Woods. MarkBul 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Franklin Park, Boston and redirect. Deor 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Franklin Park, Boston as suggested above. Also, someone needs to get in motion and clean it up (the area of the park, not the article) since it's a Frederick Law Olmsted-designed park. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Franklin Park, Boston, per MarkBul. Edison 05:56, 31 August 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 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Socialist Front[edit]

This political party seems to fail our notability guidelines, specifically those outlined at WP:ORG. The United Socialist Front claims to have over 3,800 members worldwide, but this cannot be verified. More importantly, from what I can tell the USF has received no coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. A normal Google search for "United Socialist Front" has just over 1,000 hits, only a few of which relate to this organization, some from their web site. Google News has no hits, and a Lexis/Nexis search for the past five years for all types of publications--including blogs--for the phrase "United Socialist Front" comes up with exactly two hits, neither of which refer in any way to this organization. I'm happy to reconsider if someone can establish this group's notability, but otherwise based on our policies I think we need to delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eleland 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing beyond their own website on the United Socialist Front, no books, no articles, no journals. Unless somebody can verify this article with relibale and independent sources it fails the standard for organizations' notability. There are references to the term "United Socialist Front" as a cominterm tactic during the cold war but nothing about this organization founded in 2003--Cailil ^talk 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable third-party sources can be found. Jakew 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People's Front of Judea! Nick mallory 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the People's Front of Judea is not-notable, but it's shameful we don't have a full article on the Judean People's Front.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitter! Delete - no verification of notability. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ORG. No sources have been provided other than the group's own web site, and their web site does not even indicate that the group is particularly active. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG as the above notes. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with firsthand knowledge of the workings of this organization I was suggested to create a wikipedia article by someone interested in the group. The wikipedia article contains verifiable truth and doesn't harm anyone having a bit of information on the internet such as that.(ImmortalTech 04:48, 3 September 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 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association Flipper[edit]

Game made up by some friends on a football tournament last year. External links provide no information of substance. Google search provides only Wikipedia mirrors and little else. Only link to this page is the disambig page Flipper. Suspect non-notable. Delete. Roleplayer 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP shoots, scores, wins. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:47, 31 August 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 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonfoey Gallery[edit]

No evidence of notability provided; a quick Google search doesn't turn up any sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few news sources, but I'm not sure whether there is anything substantial in there. Jakew 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad for an old but not really remarkable art gallery. Fram 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant copyvio of http://www.bonfoey.com/aboutus.htm -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I edited out the copyvio and added a couple of references. Not yet enough to convince me that it should be kept, though. —David Eppstein 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 08:01, 4 September 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 (CSD A1) -- Karada 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blu xpress[edit]

One of several (I suspect) made-up airline articles created by this user. See also Ledenair and Air rouge listed below. Once again, no trace of this on Google (note, there is an italian airline called "Blu Express". No content in article other than infobox, once again with poor-quality logo. No record that it ever flew out of any of the listed airlines and I can personally guarantee that it never flew out of Belfast International. However, AFD rather than PROD to request other opinions. kateshortforbob 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Said user has released presumably self-made logos to the public domain. Axem Titanium 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Since neither of the websites offered exist this is an obvious hoax - and besides, as Axem points out, no airline would ever release its logo under the GFDL. Since the article consists of an infoboz and nothing else, can it be speedied under A1 (no context)? Iain99 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as hoax - absolutely along with the other two. --Rocksanddirt 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A1 as stated above, the subject is a hoax and the article consists only of an infobox with links elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged as A1 speedy as someone agreed with me. As an obvious hoax it probably falls under G3 as well. Iain99 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax as with other articles created by User:Metquarter and probably associated IP 90.195.36.127 which is seeding links to these articles. MilborneOne 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is a hoax. Blu Xpress does not exist. Iain99 & Hersfold are spot on it is an A1 speedy delete--Cailil ^talk 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - See [4] and [5]. It is a fantasy airline. - Spryde 22:21, 30 August 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 per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreation is welcome once the film is released. Xoloz 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paperboy (film)[edit]

Article is for an alleged "future film"; I requested speedy as non-notable, as there are no IMDB or AMG listings and no relevant ghits. Was contested, and "sourced" with two links that are for a different film of the same name (n.b. there are three "notable" films with this name, from 1994, 1998, & 2005). Still no proof of existence, let alone notability. SkierRMH 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig this should probably not go to any one film, since there are at least three. I'm not seeing any reliable sources for this film yet, but it may have been officially announced somewhere. It doesn't get [6] nothing, and many of the sites aren't in English, so for all I know, there's something really convincing as a reliable source to be found. FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sites are in Dutch... There is a newsarticle about this film on the 'biggest news-site of Holland': Click

It says Paul Verhoeven hasn't contacted any actors yet, but he's almost got his €20,000,000 budget.

If you want to know more, you can always use babelfish on the article ;-)

Vinniebar 19:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your sources work for me. Thus I agree with 'keeping an article on this subject, as it can be adequately sourced. I don't know what the appropriate title will be. FrozenPurpleCube 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig note: There is already a disambiguation page Paperboy (disambiguation) that includes one film already. Would it be redundant to have two disambig pages for the same (minus the "the") word? Also, if this is made to a disambig page, the correct title would be either The Paperboy (films) or Paperboy (films). SkierRMH 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can decide where to disambiguate in a lot of ways. Probably The Paperboy should at least redirect to the disambig page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreate the page when there is more info. Man It's So Loud In Here 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When the film is released or more specific information is available, it can be recreated as "The Paperboy ([year] film)" to distinguish it from the other films and listed at Paperboy (disambiguation) (where the other films should probably be listed too, as redlinks if there aren't articles for them). Deor 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Crystal (1) applying, this event is notable, and even if it doesn't take place, may be notable anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films notability is pretty clear on this, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles."SkierRMH 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the next sentence says "Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material" which happens to be well, an existing book. Perhaps that book should have an article, and the content here merged there?FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now. I didn't know that the same was used for multiple films. This film-to-be still seems to have attracted a fair bit of attention, but nothing very significant. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more info about the filming(-locations) of this film...
Why delete it if it's for sure this film will be produced? You can always edit the title later to put the release-year in it.
And for example; shooting of Azazel also didn't start yet ;-)
Vinniebar 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 04:18, 7 September 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. Initially closed as "no consensus". After discussion with another admin who was about to close the article simultaneously, close has been amended to "delete". MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airline Holding Companies[edit]

If we really need this aticle, it could be a small section of holding companies. Article contains at least one copyrighted picture. Without references likely is WP:OR. No support for keeping the article on WikiProject Airlines. Also duplicates, in a very reduced form, material already contained in the articles on the US holding companies. We already have a category that covers the US holding companies so a list is not really needed especially if it simply duplicates material in other aricles. Vegaswikian 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not every detail needs a list to document it. I like how most of the list is just the airline logos plastered everywhere at like 1000 pixels. Axem Titanium 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must say I have to disagree with you.

This article has a need for so many passengers and wikipedians seem to be confusing airline marketing brands with airlines.

We no longer no who we are actually flying upon any more and what company owns what. This article makes the information concise and could benefit from other people imput, for it is quite a large topic. For one person alone to cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.146 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is clearly already covered in the airline articles and the holding company articles. Why do we need a partial list to cover in less detail what is already covered in articles? The category we currently have also simply lists the holding companies and can be expanded as needed. Wikipedia is not a travel guide where there might be more interest in travel related topics. Vegaswikian 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's an appropriate fork from the US holding companies list, and if it's globalized it can stand on its own since airlines are a major worldwide industry. Once the introductory OR is cut I think it'll be OK. Wl219 23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and limit the logos to a standard size, its an excellent navigational aid. Lack of references isn't the same as OR, and I don't see any pictures, just logos. Calling this a travel guide is a stretch of the imagination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The articles on the airlines and/or their holding companies are a better place for this information. -- Hawaiian717 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a tiny amount of information in the prose belongs at holding company as it applies to all types of companies. The rest, delete it, information is amply provided by the use of categories, in addition to it being in violation of WP:V and WP:OR, which is evident in the inclusion of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. as the holding company for Great Lakes Airlines, whereas in actuality, it appears that Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd is d/b/a (trading as) Great Lakes Airlines, and this does not fit the definition of what a holding company actually is. I believe that the inclusion of Southwest is also dubious, as again I believe it is Southwest Airlines Co. d/b/a Southwest Airlines. Additionally, Category:Airline companies of the United States should be renamed to Category:Airline holding companies (to take in the entire industry on a worldwide basis), as it is somewhat erroneous as the airlines themselves are companies also, and are not included in this category. --Russavia 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable companies into appropriate articles. Some are verifiable, but to put all airline holding companies (which are not notable enough for their own article) into one huge article is unmaintainable. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that all of the listed holding companies are already covered in an article if they are notable or mentioned in an airline article. So for the companies, there is nothing to merge. Vegaswikian 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a great visual representation of the companies, as a whole. If you wanted to view information about different airline holding companies, you'd have to read each article, and do a lot of research. But this puts it all on one page for you. As for those who think it's WP:OR...so add your own info to it, edit it to make corrections, and provide refs if you have any. It's not an essay of original thought...just a collection of information without references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotboi (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may put it one one page, but it also is not complete and there are errors. Having the data in two articles means that the information will not be updated in both places on a timely basis. Most airline article editors are not likely to spend time finding this article simply to update it. The intro is purely WP:OR and very inaccurate. The category is a better place to find these. That will get you to complete and current information for each company. Also, how large would this article become if the missing information was added? It is already larger ten recommended for a single article on this wikipedia. Vegaswikian 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that the separation into basic and complex holding companies is apparently totally arbitrary and OR. Vegaswikian 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a valuable resource that could just use some cleaning up. There doesn't actually appear to be any violations in the current article. If any come to being, why not discuss those violations and change them via proper protocol. Deletion of an article that is appropriate because of want of corrections is not warranted. Alyoshka 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the article contains is very informative and interesting, the problem is that it is a serious mess Childzy ¤ Talk 22:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This would have simplifed wikepedia if kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.148 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A1)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karada (talk • contribs)

Air rouge[edit]

Associated with my AFD nomination of Ledenair, not a single result for airrouge toulouse or "air rouge" toulouse heathrow, no relevant results for "Air Rouge", no mention of this airline flying from these airports on their sites, website provided doesn't resolve, no significant mentions on google.fr. Last but not least, the article spells their address wrong, spelt "Bordeaux" wrong (before I corrected it) and has no content other than an infobox which includes a rather poor quality logo. kateshortforbob 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Said user has released presumably self-made logos to the public domain. Axem Titanium 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Since its website doesn't exist this is an obvious hoax - and besides, as Axem points out, no airline would ever release its logo under the GFDL. Since the article consists of an infobox and nothing else, can it be speedied under A1 (no context)? Iain99 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as hoax - certainly as the below example is the same. --Rocksanddirt 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under A1 as stated previously in related nomination. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged as A1 speedy as someone agreed with me. As an obvious hoax it probably falls under G3 as well. Iain99 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax with no context. Delete it however you want to, just delete it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:30, 30 August 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 early closing per WP:SNOWBALL, delete as apparent hoax. -- Karada 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ledenair[edit]

No airline of this name flies from Heathrow or Although clever they are seeded comments all round the internet including entries in the romania wikGatwick, the website provided doesn't resolve, the only trace of a website is on this freewebs page. Mentions are scattered across the web, but nothing authoritative, and they frequently bear a variation of the "chief executive"'s name like this review. This page (WARNING:Attempts to load malware) mentions the chief exec and appears to be a site for people to design new airlines - I suspect this may be a project which hasn't gotten off the ground yet (sorry!) but I'd like other opinions (hence putting it here, rather than prodding) --kateshortforbob 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC) kateshortforbob 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Said user has released presumably self-made logos to the public domain. Axem Titanium 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deleteNon existant website - obvious hoax, and besides, as Axem points out, no airline would ever release its logo under the GFDL. Iain99 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as hoax - full hoax if "one of the largest airlines in teh UK" and doesn't fly to two of the largest airports. --Rocksanddirt 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, I'm quite certain this is not a member of the Star Alliance, and sure enough they're not even listed as Regional Members on their website. Hoax. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. MilborneOne 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most probably a hoax. Even if not, and is a startup company, fails WP:ORG. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also delete Air rouge and Blu xpress by the same author. £3.5 bn turnover, no press coverage, and a spelling mistake in their logo? C'mon. -- Karada 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - See [7] and [8]. It is a fantasy airline. - Spryde 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax - Obvious hoax - doesn't google with e.g. Reuters which basically means it don't exist. Ttiotsw 14:15, 31 August 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. Nomination withdrew by nominator with no suggestion for delete present. Non-admin closure. KTC 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curie Metropolitan High School[edit]

~~Delete~~ Neutral WP:N not established. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a mainstream Chicago Public High School! There are plenty of newspaper articles available as sources: [9], [10]. (And these are just articles that have Curie in the headline or byline.) I would volunteer to clean up the article myself, but unfortunately I've recently lost my free access to the Tribune archives. Zagalejo 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo. Apparently we don't have a firm policy on school notability, but given that the Chicago Tribune has published multiple articles about it I think it clearly passes. Also in Lexis/Nexis there was an old article mentioning a teacher from this school who received a national teaching award (Laura Bush was at the ceremony). Anyhow it seems we allow most articles on schools to exist, so I don't see why this one would be any different.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the general consensus on high schools (if I recall correctly, I know there's nothing "official" and so such assumptions are going to be shaky at best regardless of who makes them) seems to be that they are inherently notable, and the newspaper articles above certainly allow it to pass. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though only directory information is now present. I think that's enough for a a valid stub, and that almost all high school articles will be found notable when sufficient work is done. I think there is a growing consensus to that effect, and also that the the practical thing to do is to simply say so, and stop wasting time at AfD with these. This is a change of position of mine--I have come to think it unproductive to try to remove the few high school articles that are not yet fully written on the chance that some will be non-notable. DGG (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not entirely convinced that the sources above constitute the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. Jakew 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is another instance where a distinction should be made between the present poor state of the article and the notability that can be established from available sources. TerriersFan 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because the article on a notable topic hasn't yet proven notability from sources doesn't magically make the topic non-notable. --Oakshade 03:19, 31 August 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 01:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ning[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB inclusion criteria. No WP:RS to indicate notability. Only one review, which states the website is a flop, and the other is a trivial quote from one of the site's founders. Leuko 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no view either way, but the site relaunched in 2007 as a customizable social network 1 and I seem to remember it received more favourable coverage (although I'd have to check for sources). There could be more to write about, but on the other hand, it could just be another social network. --kateshortforbob 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is what Marc Andreesen, Netscape brazillionaire, is doing with his cash and goodwill. Coverage by CNET, BW, WSJ, Globe & Mail, Mercury-News, etc. etc. This is a case where a Google search might have saved everyone the trouble of an AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received quite a bit of media coverage. Shalmanese 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can this entry be considered for deletion? It plays a major role in online social networking and is one of the top sites in the world [11].Johnalexwood 09:38, 4 September 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 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Chart (height 150 to 174 cm)[edit]

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason.

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ~~"Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource."~~ See previous AfD. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: this page has already been through a "request for deletion" process and there was no overall majority, so it was kept - see the template on the discussion page. Please note the previous discussion. Keep the other two nominated tables for the same reasons. The information is relevant. Snowman 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, WP:CCC. Axem Titanium 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, consensus can change, but at the present time you have no evidence that the previous people who voted to keep these pages have changed their mind. At the relatively recent previous AfD the wikipedians who voted to keep this page included eminent members of wikiproject medicine (you only have to view their user pages to realise this) who help to maintain the medicine portal, and they may not know about this AfD request. I think that it would be polite and respectful if these key wikipedians were informed about this AfD at an early juncture, or perhaps by the administrators who make the final decision. Snowman 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The decision of the previous afd was not "Keep", it was "No Consensus" based on the fact that the many of the deletes said to post it on Wikisource. And even if it were a "vote", the "votes" were 10-6 in favor of deletion. Nevertheless, "Keep" was not the outcome. Smashville 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Textbook example of WP:NOT#INFO. --Hnsampat 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As the previous deletion nomination established, this page does not meet the criteria for Wikisource. If that's the basis for the afd, then it has to remain a keep. Smashville 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the main basis for this afd is WP:NOT#INFO --דניאל - Dantheman531 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per nom in that case. Isn't this more suitable for the Body mass index page, anyway? Smashville 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The pages are all interlinked to the BMI page. Snowman 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm aware of this, but there is already a chart on the main article. Being linked to another article isn't reason enough to keep an article. Also, the previous decision of "no consensus" was based upon the fact that the proposals were to send it to WikiSource. The result of that discussion should have no bearing in this discussion. Smashville 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In-the-round, I think that the previous decision to keep these pages is somewhat relevant, particularly as there were quite a lot of votes overall. Snowman 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There was no previous decision to "Keep". The result of the "AFD" was no consensus. And the majority of the "votes" - 10-6 were in favor of deletion. The only reason it was no consensus and not delete was that one of the first debaters proposed a move to Wikisource and many subsequent debaters reasoned "per" him. Smashville 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dantheman - not all information is worhty of a Wikipedia article. MarkBul 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was it kept after a previous AfD? Snowman 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you would read the previous AFD, you would see that the page was not deleted due to a no-consensus because a few people had said that their Delete reason was "per" another user who later changed his reasoning. Since it probably could have been overturned in Deletion Review due to that fact, the result was a "no consensus". Smashville 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information, which is redundant to "BMI=weight/height^2", and also to the perfectly good graph that is included in the Body mass index article (the lack of a public domain graph was a factor in the last AfD) Iain99 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A graph is not the same as a table. Snowman 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it's not. A graph is a far more concise way of conveying the same information. Iain99 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made the tables because I think that extrapolation can be more accurate using the tables than the graph. Someone said at the previous AfD that there are no other tables like these in the public domain. Snowman 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that it doesn't exist in the public domain is irrelevant. WP:USEFUL - just because something is useful doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. You're ignoring the fact that the page is nothing BUT a table. Smashville 21:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It was pointed out on the previous AfD that there are some tables on the wiki. Snowman 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a pretty poor argument at the best of times. But in any case, Table of prime factors, which was the one referenced last time, is rather different; it's information which could not be equally well conveyed by a graph or a simple formula, and which cannot be quickly worked out by anybody with a calculator. This, on the other hand, is just a data-dump. Iain99 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nevertheless, I feel that wikiproject medicine and the wiki would be degraded without these tables. Some people may be good at language but not good with maths or a calculator. Snowman 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        People not being good at math is not a reason for a Wikipedia article. I repeat, Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. If someone wants to know their BMI, they are going to one of the thousands of BMI calculators online, no to an arbitrary metric based table buried within Wikipedia. Smashville 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The table can be printed out and shared. You are making assumptions about the availability of computers and calculators. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And you appear to be playing the part of Advocatus Diaboli. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No assumptions made. If they can access Wikipedia they have a computer. Therefore, they have access to the thousands of BMI Calculators located online. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. "It's useful because some people don't have computers" is not really a logical reason to publish something on a website. Smashville 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per what Wikipedia is not. Axem Titanium 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - there's a chart in the main article now, which seems to fulfill the need just fine. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is a graph and I asked an eminent wikipedian to make that graph. Nevertheless, I think that the raw data, the tables, that form the graph are needed. The tables would be useful for accurate quick extrapolation by anyone who uses such data on an almost daily basis at work, or anyone using the data occasionally. Tables like these are used in hospitals. Snowman 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a reproduction of what exists on the web. These are just charts. Resolute 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are charts with a copyleft. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the interesting info about the BMI is in the article - these appear to be someone showing off their perl scripting (see the talk) and don't really provide anything of value to an encyclopedia.--Peta 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I included the perl script on the talk page to show that the charts were not copied and that their copyright was appropriate for the wiki. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki per "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource " in WP:NOT Corpx 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently Transwikiing not an option, as Wikisource doesn't want this sort of thing either. [12]. WP:NOT probably needs changing in this regard. Iain99 07:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do know much about wikisource or transwiki, but if the tables could have been moved they would have been moved after the previous AfD. The previous decision was not to delete the tables from the wiki-world. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was not the result of the previous AfD...it was merely "No Consensus". Smashville 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, we don't need these charts when the article about Body Mass Index already contains the BMI formulas. JIP | Talk 10:05, 4 September 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. Carioca 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Park High School[edit]

Delete WP:N not established. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Tons of newspaper articles available as sources: [13], [14]. Again, I would clean it up myself, but I don't have free access to the Tribune archives anymore. Zagalejo 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a 91 year old school with plenty of history and many sources that demonstrate notability. In addition to those mentioned above many others can be found with a Google search. We don't delete for lack of sources we tag and improve. TerriersFan 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be rewritten, but the notable alumni added in a very brief search, and teh additional materials available, are all strong evidence that this article and this school satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 03:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if anyone has access to the New York Times select scheme it would be useful if they could check the first two articles here. If, as they seem, these are articles reporting student strikes over racial issues then that would be hugely notable. TerriersFan 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access and have accessed the articles from the NYT site. I'm trying to work out how to send them to TerriersFan now. Noroton 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks - the article has now been expanded and notability is now clearly established. TerriersFan 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a large high school now a major magnet school in Chicago. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school has been the subject of multiple independent reliable-source reports, demonstrating notability. When we get the information up and footnote it to the NYT articles, that should settle it. Noroton 18:09, 31 August 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 under A7, non-remarkable band. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HypeVercab[edit]

Non-notable new band, it appears. Fails WP:MUSIC The Evil Spartan 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, unsigned, no reliable sources. Tagged for speedy. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do make vague claims of notability, but by association only and very, very minimal. 93 Google hits, no WP:RS - delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source pertaining to HypeVercabs notability

HypeVercab ranked on 8180.com

Promotion through Ladii Promoz productions

Network and support through THE B SIDE

Hypnotiq Truth 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Hypnotiq Truth[reply]

None of those appear to be independent reliable sources; one's a blog, I'm not sure that 8180 is notable, and the other two appear to be promotional. Please take a look at the music guidelines and the reliable sources guidelines and point out how this group meets notability based on those. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this one for speedy once before, it was deleted right after that. No new information has come up. All external links are either promotional, blogs from the articles author or other quite likely NN references. Currently doesn't fall in line with WP:MUSIC, also fails WP:COI as should be evident from the authors username and the blogs links referenced in the article. Andante1980 06:54, 31 August 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 --Haemo 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave pfefferle[edit]

NN minor-league baseball player Rackabello 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable player, never made it to MLB. The teams mentioned are independent minor league teams not even those of major league teams. DrunkenSmurf 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retired from independent league baseball after 2 year career. Doesn't meet WP:BIO as some independent leagues are classified as "semi-professional" due to extremely low salary. Smashville 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax.. no sources.. baseball cube doesn't have a listing on him... can't find a single Google hit on this guy. Spanneraol 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire thing seems like a hoax. I can't find more than two links about the "North Central Professional Baseball League". I found some stuff about the "North Central Baseball League" - which folded in 2003. Three years before this guy supposedly played for them. Smashville 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Hoax. 9 ghits, all for a runner of the same name.--Sethacus 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Same lack of ghits in my search, also not on the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers all-time roster on their web site. --Fabrictramp 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASEBALL --Truest blue 16:02, 2 September 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinZix[edit]

Un-notable compression software. Page seems more like an attack on the software. Even if the software is a virus, I could find no good sources for it, again seems to push the notability scale even as a virus. I removed some sources as most were from a forum. Spigot Map 18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply: The problem is not that the software itself is a virus, the makers of that software try to fool as many people as possible to install their software so they can get advertising revenue through (hard to uninstall) adware. The proof here is that v1 of their file format did not compress anything. This wikipedia page is usefull to warn other people about this obviously bad piece of software, only aimed at easy money for the developers. The software has no added value for users at all. Sucker_pvn 23:06 30 August 2007

Comment, Wikipedia is not for warning people of malicious software. It's an encyclopedia consisting of notable articles. Can you assert the notability of the software? Spigot Map 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply 2: Wikipedia is an objective encyclopedia, and there is not one reference I find online praising the wonders of the .zix file format and the winzix program. Everybody is discouraging it's use, just like this article claims. It is an objective representation of what it stands for. The fact that the article describes the bad features of this software does not mean that it's intended as a cheap shot to discredit it, it's just the reality. Not agreeing with this notion does not advance this (still correct) article on wikipedia.Sucker_pvn 00:40 31 August 2007

Do you care to point me to a reliable source that says this? Other then virus reports, which don't make it notable, there's millions of viruses. Spigot Map 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply 3:
Again, ignore the virus reports. These are not relevant at all! Please stop using this virus reference as an argument.
"Once WinZix is installed on your computer, it can be rather difficult to completely remove, as uninstalling WinZix through your control panel will still leave the adware on your system. Our advice is to not install the WinZix software. If you know how to remove the adware, please let us know below." http://www.dotwhat.net/lang_eng/files_z/extension_zix/id_8674/
"Warning:: WinZix has been known to install spyware on computers and may not compress files. Therefore, using WinZix is not recommended and you install it at your own risk. If you receive a "compressed" ZIX file you are advised to warn the sender and ask them to resend the file in a more common format (for example ZIP or RAR archive file format)." http://www.file-extensions.org/zix-file-extension-winzix-compressed-archive-file
"WinZix is a potentially unwanted application that may download another programs or rogue security software on to the computer." http://www.precisesecurity.com/blogs/2007/07/13/winzix/
"Winzix is a potentially unwanted program that may download other programs on to the computer. It may track online habits." http://www.emsisoft.net/fr/malware/?Adware.Win32.Winzix
Sucker_pvn 01:20 31 August 2007 (located in Belgium, which explains the different timezone)

You still fail to assert the significance of this software. There is malware all over the internet. Where are the newslines, reviews by reliable critics, etc, that will show that this program caused a notable impact on the world? Spigot Map 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply 4:
The problem here is that this 'new' compression format is being used in a lot of p2p download networks (such as bittorrent), many users doing this are being vulnerable to this deceitfull practice. (Many of these users download illegal software/movies/music, but does that mean this wikipedia article does not have the right to exist?)
Are you saying that this winzix article is a lie? Because it urges people to be wary of it, this article needs to be deleted? Can you prove that the info mentioned in this winzix article is false?
I see no reason to delete this wikipedia article, since it objectively mentions the commotion about this 'revolutionary' new format.
If I didn't know better I would start to think you have some interest in keeping the commotion surrounding this file format hidden from the general public. If the article is completely wrong or totally useless I would agree to delete this article. This does not seem to be the case, so can you please leave the article as it is right now? Sucker_pvn 01:40 31 August 2007

You have STILL failed to reference how this software is "revolutionary". Wikipedia is not here to warn people about viruses. Please provide a source to assert the notability of this software. A source to show that it is indeed revolutionary and notable. The fact that it is used in P2P and potentially is a virus does not make it notable. Also, sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, to stop sinebot from signing your posts.Spigot Map 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply 5:
I told you before to ditch the 'virus' remarks, as these are not relevant.
Who decides what information needs to be inserted into wikipedia and what does not? I can not give you a notable reference to the information in this article. Why do I need to?
Many users (see the history of the winzix page) felt a need to document the information regarding the winzix software and the .zix file. Is is not so that wikipedia lives from these contributions to gather as much information about various topics in the world? Why must this page be deleted, because you think nobody cares or is involved?
You have thus far not been able to discredit any information mentioned in the article, and yet you insist in getting the page removed. So what if it might not concern 98% of the population? Do I need to search for articles which are 100 times less popular/relevant/... ?
Or does wikipedia only allow revolutionary and/or notable information to be added? The article contains usefull information for people who run into the winzix software andd .zix files, if anybody has more positive reflections they can add those to the article (such as it is accustomed with the entire wikipedia philosophy), so I do not think deletion is necessairy.
Sucker_pvn Sucker pvn 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "Does Wikipedia only allow notable content to be added?" is infact, yes. Please see WP:NOTABLE for the guidelines. As far as who decides what goes in to wikipedia? The editors. Editors just like me and you, which is precisely why this AfD is here, so other editors can see the article and make a concensus. Spigot Map 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply 6:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTABLE:
"Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media" => I gave you plenty of sources, and the article itself has some as well.
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." => I guess all those independent links I gave are good enough for you?
(I could go and try to give examples for all the details on the notable page, but I'm not interested in doing this right now.

Bottom line: The winzix software and .zix files do exist in the real world, information can be found on multiple sources.
Somebody might come into contact with .zix files or the software itself, they might 'google' it and find the wikipedia entry about it. It gives the person some usefull information. And there we have a reason to leave this page right where it is.
If the page would be deleted this user would find no information regarding this subject at all. I just did a google voor 'winzix' and I got 190.000 results. Therefore I see a reason to keep winzix as an article on wikipedia.

I believe that keeping this article is more beneficial for wikipedia (and the general public) than deleting it. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be covering everything usefull in the world that other people might want to find out about? (Even if the information about it seems to be negative?)

This seems to be a battle between us about this (even before this deletion page, which can be seen on the history page of the article), but an independent reviewer should aid us here and help with this discussion. This is going nowhere.
Sucker_pvn Sucker pvn 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you must have not even read WP:NOTABLE. I'm not going to read it to you word for word. It's not "Satisfy one guideline and it's okay". It's "Satisfy all guidelines, then it's notable". Ready WP:RS While you're at it as well. Spigot Map 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (although it appears to need significant cleanup and editing). Symantec recognizes this software as a problem and appears to be including it in their virus definitions. There are quite a few Google hits which seem to attest to some level of notability. However, I would not shed any tears if this article were deleted as the notability is definitely borderline at best. --ElKevbo 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm sure it's a problem if it's on your computer, but I'm not sure it's in fact notable. Symantec lists a large number of things as problems, but unless they're more significant than just being a problem then they're not really notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I do a google search for 'winzix', the wikipedia page is the 4th link that's presented to me. (I'm located in Belgium so google also presents some local findings in dutch.) This means that a lot of other sites on the world link to this article, and so it seems the article is relevant to quite a lot of people. Therefore I would be dissapointed to see this article go. Sucker_pvn Sucker pvn 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it actually means that. Google works in a more complex way, at least as far as it's ever been explained to me. Secondly, there are only - in raw numbers - 186000 pages which Google throws up when I type that word in, and a handful on the first couple of pages actually seem to be people meaning to say "Winzip" and just not looking carefully enough when they type, so there's probably a fair bit less that's actually being said about it. Thirdly, while Google hits are an interesting statistic to play with, are there any non-trivial mentions establishing notability? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be expanded and re-writted. Noteability established here by p2pnet.net. example of where this article is being used. Reference to warning/Malware [15] [16] Fosnez 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable product. There are thousands of malware programs in the world. --Agamemnon2 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the product certainly exists and is referred to as malware or spyware by various reliable sources, I would expect to see articles on internet news sites, online security alerts, and so on, for any notable virus-type program - and I can see no assertion of notability for this particular one. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's existence and status as possible malware is not in doubt, but it does not meet notability as there are no reliable sources. No coverage indicates nothing significant to distinguish this malware from others. Contrast this with Comet Cursor. -- Whpq 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from 15 mins of google searching, it looks like the security companies are starting to keep an eye on this[17] and our entry is probably accurate. However we dont have good secondary sources, and this is not a novel piece of malware. This would be a really interesting WikiNews article. John Vandenberg 04:46, 7 September 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 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel line[edit]

(Note: I am a Preds fan) The "Vowel Line" was a cute media story during the 2001-02 season, but considering it only lasted for part of a season, was usually the second/third line, and the Preds finished 15th in the conference that season, this lacks any historical notability other than being mentioned as a footnote in the 2001-02 section on the Nashville Predators page. - Smashville 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for its own article. I believe there is a list of famous lines. Perhaps a small note could be added on it, if it is not already. --Djsasso 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention could be added to 2001-02 Nashville Predators season when it gets created, but doesn't seem to have the notability to stand as its own article. Reso lute 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The mania for creating "line" articles (when very few have genuine notability beyond their players) boggles my mind, and I grew up in the era when forward lines comprised of great stars were paired together for several years at a stretch. An ephemeral grouping consisting of third-liners who've failed to win distinction either as a group or as individuals? No. If the editors on the Predators' article really think this novelty name is one of the highlights of the 2002 season, to be memorialized for all time, I'd really like to see the argument, but a standalone article? Fails WP:NN. RGTraynor 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and agree to User:Resolute's suggestion -Pparazorback 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. Xoloz 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darkbattle[edit]

No assertion of notability, possible A7. Previously deleted through PROD, contested, and restored. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertation of notability--indeed, much of the "community" section text is an assertation of non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an active Wiki for the web site www.darkbattle.com. This shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.43.44 (talk) 20:06, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Here are some mentions of Wikipedia at darkbattle.com. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The DRV request states "has a large fan base." However, that is not enough to satisfy the "assertion of importance/significance" criteria of WP:CSD#A7. Story.darkbattle.com does not give any idea of its importance/significance. I found no independent reliable source material on the topic, not even a mention in passing. I was going to search some of the alternate newspaper sites, but could not figure out where Darkbattle was based. Only seven blogs even mention darkbattle (see Google blog search). Speedy delete seems appropriate. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly understand everything that is currently happening, although it seems that there is a popular choice among the advanced users who have contributed to the discussion. Thank you for alerting me of this Jreferee. Emerlock 07:14, 31 August 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. @pple complain 09:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hague Justice Portal[edit]

Promotion for website. Ilse @ 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, seems high-profile enough to be sourced, and it isn't easily merged with any single entity that it covers. The only thign I found in Google News Archive was this (from apparently tr. "Dutch Legal News"), which is pretty thin. If reliable sources could be found, this could be modified from its brochure status. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as I have found and, being bold, added some cites and wikified the article. I think it now meets the Heymann standard. Bearian 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. There is never anything wrong about improving an article under discussion at AfD. A better article and a keep is the ideal conclusion. DGG (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved and sourced. Well done.--Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not often that a website is opened by a royal. John Vandenberg 05:10, 7 September 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 castrate. DS 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testicular akathisia[edit]

This article appears to be a hoax; the cited references I am able to access contain no reference to the subject, and the two major contributers to the article have made no other Wikipedia contributions. Besha 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can only find Wikipedia and its mirrors or other spoof sites with this description. However, it does seem like a plausible malady, I just wish I could find a source to verify. Leebo ^T/C 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending further investigation which I am attempting. Having access to a college library, I may be able to see if any of the cited journals actually exist and mention this malady. However, I also can't find anything online but mirrors, which isn't a very good sign at all. If I do find a written reference, I'll make a note here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the research: The University System of Maryland does have the first text listed, but I'd have to request it from another campus, which would probably take too long. Continuing... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found another 3, again at different campuses. I also located another text that's by one of the authors cited, but it's not cited in the article. Fortunately, it does happen to be where I am, so I can try to find it later today and see if it's got any mention. Probably not, but worth a shot. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found no mention in the textbook. Unable to verify sources, delete as hoax. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNice job running down the reference. Edison 06:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending verifiable reference as suspect hoax. There's no mention of the disorder at the NIH page on testicular disorders or the support page for akathisia. It's extremely unlikely that a disorder that has purportedly been around since at least 1992 (as per reference list) would have no references online--especially one with such a colorful "common name." If it's that rare, who is giving it this common name? (The two common names together merit 4 google hits) --Moonriddengirl 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be a hoax/joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Webmd.com contains no mention of Testicular Akathisia. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -ScotchMB 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it bollocks but, well... Delete as nonexistent. The sources don't seem to check out, and I'm sure that considering my upbringing in various locales I'd have heard one of the "commonly known" names of this particular syndrome somewhere along the way. Must be real, though, it's on Urban Dictionary... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax; upon confirmation from a physician editor that turns the 99.9% likelihood of hoaxhood to 100%, it should be speedied as nonsense. On top of all the other matters already raised, the fact that this article is the creator's only contribution is strong confirmation of hoaxhood. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Have search through academic database available online to the University of Edinburgh, only 3 results returned, none of which related to the term "Testicular Akathisia". No result returned on Google Scholar. No relevant none-Wikipedia-ripoff result on general Google search. KTC 02:01, 31 August 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 --Haemo 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Verma[edit]

unrecoverable nonsense. The only notable person by that name seems to be this guy, but the article is clearly not about him Lars T. 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IP198 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. First several pages of ghits for cricket playing Rahul Verma's don't show notability. --Fabrictramp 22:35, 31 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urla (slang)[edit]

This article is original research and slight POV. As far as I know urla is Latvian ethnic slur, which simply stands for Russian, however recently some users of this term have tried to clasify charesterics of urla and part of this research has been published in wikipedia, and because this is derogatory term, and many contributors are users of this term (unfortunately they also are new to wikipedia and their additions tend to be vandalistic) this tends to be POV. Additionaly - on Latvian Wikipedia this article has been deleted ten times unecyclopedic -- Xil/talk 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems that an extremely specific neologism. Why only people aged 17 to 30? Certainly, not WP:NPOV in the state it's in at the moment. It seems a bit like Chav, but that article is extremely well sourced and neutral. Delete barring reliable sources and more neutral re-write. --kateshortforbob 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form, the article is sub-standard, POV, and lacking in sources. No reliable evidence is provided citing this derogatory slang term's use in the manner ascribed to it in the article, and thus appears to be in flagrant breach of WP:NOR. I sincerely doubt if a re-write will remedy this. Delete. — Zalktis 06:49, 31 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mohajer[edit]

Non-notable person, apparent WP:Vanity Sliposlop 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is verified. I tried verifying the NFAA award (which could qualify as "a major music competition") since the link given doesn't and failed to do so. I'm getting a dead-end on the NFAA's past winners list. This singer may become notable, but right now there don't seem to be third party sources supporting a claim that he is. --Moonriddengirl 18:34, 30 August 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 --Haemo 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kepple Disney[edit]

Non-notable person. Notability is not inherited. This has gone through Afd (actually VfD) once, and the overwhelming consensus was delete. It was redirected to Elias Disney, but has since been unredirected and recreated. Corvus cornix 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds - I don't see how a being notable makes one's grandfather notable. However, it sounds like the article meets WP:CSD#G4, "Recreation of deleted material." —Travis^talk 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and do not redirect. Since he has no notability, there should not be a redirect, either. —Travis ^talk 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or Redirect per nom. Notability is not inherited. More importantly, if you look at the history, this article has essentially the exact same text as the deleted version. This might actually meet "db-repost" speedy delete criteria. Smashville 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a lovely genealogical entry for ancestry.com but not for Wikipedia. --Hanging Jack 18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does this really need an AfD? Why not just re-create the redirect? --UsaSatsui 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually - this is a good point. Did this need to be resubmitted? The page was merely reposted and no one caught it. Does it need to go back to afd? Notability was the reason for the close...and he's been dead for 110 years. He's not getting any more notable. Smashville 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the Disney family or merge with Walt's article per nom JForget 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not even really worth a merge as there is practically no notability; I can't even imagine this as a search term for anyone unrelated. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site and entries must have some notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since notability does not transfer to one's ancestors. Kepple Disney on his own fails WP:N and WP:BIO. A sentence or so in the Walt Disney article would suffice to cover Elias as well as Kepple. Edison 06:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he's only famous through his grandson. JIP | Talk 10:06, 4 September 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. It isn't patent nonsense, but (among other things) it used Wikipedia to publish a "declaration of war", violating CSD A3 -- attempt to contact. Usually, with junk this worthless, some speedy justification can rightly be found in the CSD. Xoloz 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martiniopolis[edit]

Contested Prod. Unreferenced fictional country, invented by article creator. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:NONSENSE and tagged for such. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense per CSD#G1. —gorgan_almighty 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it doesn't strictly meet the definitions of patent nonsense, but I'm not going to mind if there's a consensus to speedy it anyway. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as unreferenced blatant hoax that does indeed look like it was made up in school one day. —Travis ^talk 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both this and the made up flag too. -- Roleplayer 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image is now up for deletion as well. —Travis ^talk 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gosh there are lots of the hoaxes today. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Edison 06:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Speeeeeeeeeeedy Q ^{T C} 06:21, 31 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rangi Ya Giza[edit]

Pretty straightforward case. An unnotable organisation that is a clear instance of what Wikipedia is not. Disputed prod so bringing to AfD. Eusebeus 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication this organisation is notable. Hut 8.5 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the kind of organization it is, a well documented and publicized history (even current history) is difficult to come by. The university at which it is located would not want to publicize the groups accomplishments, since the organization was created in response to the school's apathy when it came to striving for equality for people of all races. Though the school has decided not to publicize the influence this group has had on it, RYG has played a large part in getting the school to where it is today. We who are attempting to document the group's history are currently attempting to search archives of the student newspaper and the newspapers from surrounding communities for references to any documentation of the group's activities. The actions of the group is extremely relevant to matters of social justice in our world, and many would benefit by having the opportunity to know of the group's chronicle. It has been expressed by early members that documentation, though it may be meager, does exist. So all that is needed is more time to discover and reference it. Vonblonderbelt 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Vonblonderbelt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak delete if unsourced, with no prejudice at all against re-creation if the sources are found, as I very much hope they will be. DGG (talk) 05:08, 1 September 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. Carlossuarez46 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid toolkit[edit]

After performing a requested history merge on this content, I realized it probably doesn't belong on WP -- no real assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Delete. Xoloz 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 04:52, 4 September 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/keep, especially as the others have been kept. Cool Hand Luke 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Chinese people[edit]

The original AfD on this list was improperly closed by a non-admin, a mistake which was brought to DRV. At the beginning of the DRV, an admin reversed the closure to "delete." The resulting DRV discussion overturned both closures in favor of a fresh AfD. The grounds for deletion are a failure of Wikipedia's guideline for lists, as this would be better served by a category. Under no circumstances should a non-admin close this debate. Xoloz 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xoloz. There should be a better, less time-consuming mechanism for getting rid of these clear-cut instances; that this has had an AfD and a DRV and now a second AfD is ridiculous. Eusebeus 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the mistaken non-admin closure created this confusion -- that mistake, combined with eternal (and unresolved) tension between pro-listing and pro-categorization arguments, brought this to its current state. Unless a general consensus can be obtained regarding the application of lists vs. categories (WP has a guideline, but widely-divergent applications of it continue to proliferate), I don't think this will ever be a speedily resolvable question. Maybe the PROD process could be adapted for truly non-controversial "categorification"? Xoloz 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Category:British people of Chinese descent may in many cases violate Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which specifies that a category by ethnicity is only appropriate if "this has significant bearing on their careers." I went through similar with the List of Indian Women AfD (which I nominated on WP:NOT#DIR)--and the CfDs that followed its resolution. While WP:NOT#DIR seems to exclude this list, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) might be interpreted to support it. (Under "List of People," it offers as an example, "'List of Elbonians' would include persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Elbonia." "Chinese Elbonians" is not a far stretch, even though it sounds like a loose association of people to me.) We've been trying to iron this out at On list guidelines. I hope some respondents here will join us. Especially if they can figure out what to do. :) After a flurry of activity, things have stagnated over there. --Moonriddengirl 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Americans says "This category includes articles on black people who were born in the United States who are of African descent". It does not mention that their ethnicity had any bearing on their careers. Kappa 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True enough, but that doesn't mean that Category:British people of Chinese descent could not be challenged at CfD and eliminated, which undoes the work of categorizing the people in this list. I didn't write the policy; I'm pointing it out. The guideline makes specific reference to "German Americans" in its discussion of ethnicity and categories. --Moonriddengirl 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um isn't that guideline refering to Category:German-American sportspeople not Category:German Americans?Kappa 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the example given. The policy says "Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers." Do you think I'm interpreting it too narrowly to read that to mean that categories by ethnicity or religion are disallowed when career is not a factor? --Moonriddengirl 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's talking about putting ethnicity (or sexuality) and career in one category, as the examples show: Secular Jewish philosophers, LGBT murderers, German-American sportspeople. That's what they mean by "group-subject subcategories". It needs to be clarified. Kappa 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk that up to one more thing that needs clarification, then. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extreme overcategorisation.Bigdaddy1981 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it escaped your notice that this is not a category, it is a list? Kappa 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So "the grounds for deletion are a failure of Wikipedia's guideline for lists, as this would be better served by a category". I'm confused, why would readers be better served by a non-annotated list? And what is wrong with grouping these people by profession? Kappa 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category will be just sufficent for that.--JForget 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sufficient for what? "grouping these people by profession"? Kappa 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HELP Can someone help me to understand the process? If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, an one side keep nominating this for deletion, than this page will continue be eligible for deletion, am I right? or there is a limit for this process over a fix period of time? Because as it is, I don't see how the two side will change their opinion. The discussion seems to be repeating all the points we cover in the last discussion. So it is up to the admin? How can we make sure the process is objective? I thought when there is no overall consesus, the default decision is to keep? Chineseartlover 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was renominated as a result of a DRV, stemming from a defective prior close. Normally, wiki-etiquette disallows repeated AfD nominations within a short span of time. Although it is not uncommon for content kept as a result of "no consensus" closures to see several AfD nominations over longer periods of time, eventually, community norms prevent new AfDs from taking hold. In the most extreme cases, discussions at AN/I have prohibited further AfD listings for the most contentious articles. Xoloz 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the two AfDs, I notice very little shift of opinions from some of the participants. So in the end it could boil down to who have more time to invest in the process rather than which sides have more support: if someone repeatedly delete or revert the article, I fear that at some point, some of the participants may not have the time and energy to carry on the extended and time-consuming process. I am a newbie here, I clearly find the AfD process very frustrating. Is there any process to safegaurd articles being deleted by mistake when the supporters happens to be "on holiday"? The case seems to be worse in articles like this one when the subject might be notable, but because it is of minority concern, it might not get enough people to come back and re-state their case. Or indeed even when there are materials to support the notablity of the article, they might not have been systmatically filed on internet for verification and making it appearing to be non-note-worthy. Chineseartlover 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion decisions are able to be appealed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Notability may be proved by paper sources, as well as internet ones. Wikipedians are sensitive to minority concerns, generally speaking, but it is possible that, if an article has so very few supporters that "vacations" derail it, the article may not belong on Wikipedia. Xoloz 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine an article on some obscure study of a rare animal, I think it would be important for Wikipedia to contain such article if an expert would cite the information and write it up. I fear such expert might not have the time to defend an AfD. Chineseartlover 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm generally against the current trend in mass deleting ethnicity people lists. I think the biggest complaint about them vs. categorization is the number of redlinks, but Wikipedia is always a work in progress so I don't think redlinks by itself is an appropriate basis for deletion. Wl219 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CATGRS: "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted ... Subcategories by country are permitted". Hardly "extreme overcategorisation" as the group to which list members belong is clearly notable (see British Chinese). WP:OCAT's "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers." is referring to subdividing professional categories by ethnicity (e.g. if British Chinese chefs is not a notable topic, Category:British chefs shouldn't be divided by ethnicity); it has no bearing on overall national categories. cab 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Off Topic Comment Actually British Chinese Chef is a notable topic, the last survey show that Chinese takeaway is now the most popular cuisine, supassing the previous leader, the indian cusine, in the UK. Chineseartlover 07:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep in spite of their protestations, there is no clear cut case here: clearly the comments alleging it is must be ignored. My closure was improper because there appeared to be a lot of controversy, and apparently this is considered bad form. However, my closing argument still stands: those who wanted keep established clearly that the topic is notable - notice, please, the policy forbids non-notable intersections, not all intersections. The deletionists simply voted "per nom" or ignored ample evidence of notability. Issues with content beyond notability are to be handled by editing and are not to be resolved by AfD. Furthermore, the "mess" of second AfD would have been resolved if the admin who closed would have closed as "no consensus" as his argument alleged: his deletion was way worse than my closure. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CAB. British Chinese constitute a very notable ethnic group. A category in this case would be nearly useless, as a reader could not browse the entries by career, etc. The list allows readers to browse something readable and organized. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bigdaddy1981. Lists (or categories) of this kind are essentially directories of the kind not appropriate to an encyclopedia per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Eluchil404 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we delete all lists/categories then? Because every list/category on Wikipedia is a directory of information. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed" should not be misread as Wikipedia may not contain directories of information. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Say no to the deletionists and their waste of all our time with invalid policy citations. Hmains 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The reasons to keep and delete have both been restated and neither sides have moved much on their position. A clear case of Non-Consensus, thus the AfD should be removed and allow further discussion in the TALK page, and/or rework of the page, so a more apparent aggreement can be reached before further nomination for deletion. Chineseartlover 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons in first AfD. Chinese people are a significant ethnic minority in the UK, and "Chinese" is an official ethnic category in British censuses. Qwghlm 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is indeed difficult to know what to do when the deletionists' arguments can be used without change to justify deleting each and every list article in WP. Hmains 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is certainly a notable grouping, and worth a list article. Probably the best procedure to avoid repeated deletions of list articles will be to try to get consensus on a change to the list guidelines to emphasize the sort of lists that can be considered encyclopedic, and restate emphatically that category and list are not mutually exclusive. And possibly some sort of a list project, so proposed deletions can be notified and lists maintained properly. some of the opposition to lists comes from the fact that many lists were in fact not maintained, and an ill-maintained list soon becomes much less useful. DGG (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't think there are people who made themselevs out to be "deletionist" as such, but some editors seems to be more in favours of shaping Wikipedia to a more "traditional" standard. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia adapts with time to meet the real needs of users. I am sure through regualr discussions and compromises, a balance can be achieved. But the process can be rather frustrating and time-consuming with repeated nomination af AfDs. I hope the closing admin will agree this matter have so far reached no consensus, put a time-restriction on this page for further nomination of AfD, and move the discussion to the talk page. I came across these last week: Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations, perhaps it could be a way forwards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chineseartlover (talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not to keep flogging the horse, but I hope that more people will come join in on the discussion on list policy at On list guidelines. It needs fresh input. --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An annotated list provides significant added value over a category in most cases, even where an applicable category also exists. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who on earth nominated this first time round? List of black Britons, List of British Jews, List of British Asian people were all kept. So this should be kept too. Maintired 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not meet deletion criteria. List is notable as this ethnic demographic is a designation officially used by the UK government. The article does not offer contact information or other consumer-related information, and so do not fall under WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#IINFO. It also categorises the people listed by occupation and provide information about the people, making it more than an indiscriminant list, and doing something that cannot be accomplished by a category. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As per xDanielx British Chinese are a very significant population. I do agree that the red links need to be fixed, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well organized and referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:11, 4 September 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. Carlossuarez46 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(X)HTML[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO WP:WINAD. Non-necessary disambiguation page that will surely never be expanded; the content already appears in the two lone WP articles referenced herein. dr.ef.tymac 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A1/A3. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non speedy. A1/A3 don't apply to disambig pages, which this is; but delete as redundant due to the fact it's unlikely to grow, probably incorrectly titled and redundant anyway (each has a link to the other page in the lead). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. Artw 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. ♠TomasBat 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Delete, please. • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with nominator. Carlosguitar 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This is hard, because it refers to an important term that covers both HTML and XHTML. I would personally prefer to keep it, as I can really see this being something someone would search for. ~~If not, a mention that (x)html refers to both languages together needs to be included in both the XHTML and HTML pages.~~
- Comment, it's already been merged: As noted in the nomination for deletion, it already is included in both of the articles. The searching can be handled by deleting the disambiguation and creating a redirect. dr.ef.tymac 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slaps forhead Doh. Misread the nom. However, I still do not believe the page should be deleted. Which page would (X)HTML redirect to? By definition, it cannot only redirect to one of them. i ^said 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect here would seem more than adequate, as the last sentence in the paragraph seems to sum it up completely. (I assume you meant it *can* only redirect to one of them). dr.ef.tymac 11:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on Comment: I am still at a loss for how "(X)HTML" could be considered an important term by itself. If anyone has substantiation to support its importance, please provide some.

It doesn't appear to have any standardized usage. It looks like some technically proficient people use it sometimes, just to save keystrokes. "(X)HTML" is synonymous with "XHTML and HTML", and the latter usage is less confusing to non-technical people, and also probably more consistent with WP:MOS.

Having a separate article on (X)HTML seems about as useful as having a separate article on (wo)man, (i.e., not useful at all, and in fact potentially confusing to our general-audience readers). dr.ef.tymac 11:38, 2 September 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 --Haemo 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Wukong in popular culture[edit]

Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated pieces of trivia that were split off of a main article instead of just being deleted, flavored with an unhealthy dose of original research. Seeks to capture every appearance of this entity, or a character that resembles the entity in the unsourced opinion of the random editor who spotted it, or every character who wears a hat or carries a stick that looks like the one that the entity wears or carries, in a list that tells the reader nothing abut the character, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about their relationship to each other (since there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Foo in popular culture" articles are always targets for fanboyism and original research. /Blaxthos 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more bad IPC stuff that has no place here. Eusebeus 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT, too much trivia and no sources.--JForget 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list of non-notable trivia. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate trivia (see WP:NOT#TRIVIA)--Cailil ^talk 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated items / trivia Corpx 00:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if anyone is prepared to maintain it as an article on the cultural uses of Sun Wukong (the Monkey King). Given that such a character is important in many games, it would be better to organize it as a paragraph listing the games, with a suitable reference. Alternatively, split out the game material--although not an expert, it is certainly my impressions that these are very much harder to source adequately since the game reviews tend not to talk much about the specific stock characters besides listing them. The actually more distinctive uses could then be separately discussed. The arguments for outright deletion rest again on the fact that some of the content may be unimportant, an excellent reason for editing, not deletion. The error of this argument can be seen by considering its applicability elsewhere, if we removed instead of improved every article with any low-quality content. The real reason for deletion, as Blaxthos correctly says, is that some eds. consider the use of characters in creative works unimportant as a matter of principle. That's their own limitation. I can't convince them that they ought to consider it important to them, just as nobody will be able to convince me that cricket is important to me. But I leave the cricket fans to write their articles in peace. group projects require mutual tolerance. DGG (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, at the risk of becoming less-than-civil, I am getting pretty fucking tired of these sniffy little "I don't try to delete things I don't approve of, I just leave them alone" asides in any number of your AFD comments. You don't have the first damn idea what interests me and what doesn't, and that goes for pretty much everyone else whom your comments encompass. Your assumption that we don't get the notion that how characters are used in creative works is important is nothing more than an insult. Who the hell are you to assume what I think about anything "as a matter of principle"? Have I said that I consider how characters are used in fiction to be unimportant? In fact, I have in several AFDs argued in favor of keeping articles that are actually about the use of a character or story outside the original. The problem with these articles is not that they are about the use of characters in creative works. The problem with these articles is that they are not about the use of characters in creative works. Otto4711 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's comment may have been a presumptuous generalization, but it avoided personal attack. Can this reply be either moved to a User talk page or (preferably) rephrased per WP:CIVIL? There may be a good argument in there but it is discredited by tone. / edg ☺ ★ 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionas pointed out in a number of other article discussions, having a common theme, or making use of a common character is a close association. could you explain why you think is "loose" ? To me, a loose association would be a list of list of items have numerals in their name (that was an actual list, appropriately deleted at Afd; I agree with the guideline against what are truly loosely associated items.) DGG (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mere presence of a character does not by definition create a strong association between the various items in which that character appears. Otto4711 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per per nom, JForget, Corpx. / edg ☺ ★ 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this article provides a convenient list of some of Sun Wukong's appearances in popular culture and thereby shows Sun Wukong's cultural influence and significance. I do, however, strongly agree that references should be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:47, 3 September 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. @pple complain 09:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phex[edit]

This is a contested PROD. Grounds for PRODing and AfDing are a lack of reliable sources, and an advertorial tone. Xoloz 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, advertisment, BUT, the entire GNutella area needs editting and this is a useful source for those revisions. -- Apparently by User:72.244.34.50 on 15:17, 2 September 2007 (added by Bpringlemeir 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, no assertion of notability (just another gnutella client, as far as I can tell). /Blaxthos 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Xoloz; can't tell if this is a non-notable product or software developer, but lack of content means this article fails WP:CORP. Notability to come.--Gavin Collins 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable client. It is more notable than all of the GiFT derivatives. The Phex developers are active in the Gnutella Developers Forum (GDF). It is open source and does not have the backing of corporate dollars like some other projects. There are many other gnutella clients that I would consider for deletion before Phex. Also, Mike Blas has deleted links that reference the Phex article. Specifically, in the Comparison of Gnutella software article. Phex is also listed in the Gnutella wiki, although the Phex wiki article is not referenced. Non-active gnutella clients should be amalgamated into a dead gnutella clients pages. They are notable in aggregate, to showing the number of failed projects as well as to inform people that they are dead. Phex is a functional client that connects to the current Gnutella network, certainly that alone make it notable. If it is deemed insignificant, the information should be merged with other minor working gnutella clients. See also FilePipe, giFToxic, XoloX, Symella, Kiwi Alpha, for less noteworthy (or dead) clients. Bpringlemeir 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the text is not well authored. However, that doesn't qualify an article for deletion. Many outdated gnutella clients have wiki pages. It seems rather arbitrary that a functioning client of gnutella would be deleted before all of these defunct clients. Specifically, if this article is deleted, then the majority of all articles referenced in Category:Gnutella should also be removed as they are even less noteworthy. Bpringlemeir 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected FURI to Phex as well. Bpringlemeir 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, Phex is not just "another" Gnutella client basically because it's not a rip-off of anything else and an implementation that is actually fairly up-to-date and complete unlike 80% of the others. It is noteworthy for its I2P integration. Also it has been used in a few academic studies as mentioned in [18] and [19]. More can be found here: [20]. --217.87.62.239 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the original prodder. If there are other articles which you think should be deleted, please feel free to {{prod}} or {{afd}} them. Let me know if you need help. I can't imagine how simply connecting to a network makes software notable. This article presents no claim to notability and reads as if it is just an advertisement for the SourceForge project. -- Mikeblas 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited by 217.87.62.239. I am also swayed by many of Bpringlemeir's arguments with the notable exception of "other similar articles exist" which is rarely a good argument. --ElKevbo 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, that wasn't my argument. I understand the motive for removal, given the entries previous poor state (and still less than perfect). My argument is simply that there are worse (less noteworthy) clients with wiki entries. It seems capricious to remove Phex when there are many obsolete stubs. I guess I am naive in thinking that the worst should go first. I would absolutely agree that historical gnutella clients should be amalgamated/merged to a single entry. Perhaps I can have help with this? Should it be a new wiki or a section in the Gnutella wiki? Bpringlemeir 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Phex is one of the three major clients in the Gnutella network which was the first decentral network and is still running strong. Also it isn't controlled by a company and welcomes contributions from other developers. There are many clients which simply copy off LimeWire or GiFT, and there are many dead clients. Phex instead is an actively developed client, and as i2Phex shows, it encourages developers to cover new ground with it. Additionally, the Gnutella network is not just a network you can connect to. Instead there are two modes of operation: Just connecting (as leaf) and becoming part of the backbone (ultrapeer). Phex can do both, so it is able to form its own Gnutella network. Also it enables you out of the box to create private networks over the internet (as opposed to private networks only over LANs). I saw, that the article needed some references, so I added some and also enhanced the article a bit with more recent information (unsatisfying quality is no reason for deletion, but for improvement). Notability: Phex is in constant development since it forked from Furi in 2001, and the first Gnutella client was created about 2000, so it's one of the oldest clients (together with gtk-gnutella) and still active. It is one of the three major clients in the Gnutella network. It offers unique features (see the Phex article under "Features"). And it is avaible cross platform. —ArneBab (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have also redirected I2Phex here. -- Petri Krohn 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is not much more I can add and as one of the developers I'm biased anyway. Thanks to everyone who helped to improve the article. I hope it makes it a little more notable. GregorK 15:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm quite surprised I'm posting this. Had this article not been nominated for deletion, I'd certainly have not concluded it should be. It's just like any other Wikipedia article on a software program. It's informative. In fact, I found the article via a Yahoo! search (as I had read about the programelsewhere and wanted to know more about it). The is article gave me the informaton that I was looking for. I can't imagine anyone feeling the need to delete it.... --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 10:12, 5 September 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. Xoloz 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towamencin Township Strategic Plan[edit]

This article is a township's plan for future development, as created by a committee and posted to Wikipedia. According to the the creator, on the talk page, the committee created it original for Wikipedia as an example for other townships looking to create a plan. While well-intentioned, it is in violation of several policies and guidelines. Firstly, as an original creation of the committee, it is unverifiable and consists of original research. Second, it contains no references for any of the current information (some of the historical info has a source). Lastly, it is an example of Wikipedia being used as a webhost, which Wikipedia is not. This is probably a simple misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, but the creator has not shown any interest in reworking the article despite my concerns. Leebo ^T/C 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. We're not a web host. /Blaxthos 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails several sections of WP:NOT. Deor 14:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the comment that the article creator left on this discussion's talk page. Leebo ^T/C 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest this as something that would go on a site that is meant to include primary documents. FrozenPurpleCube 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material is worth including in Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania (and I think it might already be there), but the stated goal of providing a strategic plan for others to emulate isn't the same goal as Wikipedia. Delete this article, and consider telling the article creator that there are probably better places to discuss strategic planning on the township level. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails several sections of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. As the creator seems perplexed by our motivation, I suggest The Five Pillars of Wikipedia as a starting point. It's flattering that we're seen as a platform for a project of this type, but really, that's something best done through other avenues. There are in fact professional community planning magazines, for starters. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this. Would anyone outside this town care about this? It looks like this is a presentation of some kind Corpx 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a collaborative effort of a committee over a five month period. The source was their collective minds and hearts. If you read the article, you will find that those committee members are listed in the article. They are the source, as the article states; “The Board of Supervisors expresses their appreciation and thanks to the residents who volunteered their time and effort in the development of this plan. The fact that there is no existing Five-Year Strategic Plan Template for a Pennsylvania township made the task that much more challenging.” As they hunted around looking for examples to follow little to none was found; especially here on Wikipedia. The web is full of verbiage as to what a strategic plan can be, but no examples of what it should be for a second class Pennsylvania township. It is the hope that this article may serve as that template for other townships struggling to develop their own strategic plan, and that it will become a reference article to Wikipedia's article "Strategic Planning". To have a proper example, they need "the" proper example. There is no expectation that it will be copied; only emulated. All the source and reference information can be found in the Executive Summary. As for the tone and style of this article, it "exists" as it is, and it is what it is. Thank you.

leebo's comments about the, as he puts it, creator, are not true. Obviously he like the rest of you delete freeks do not understand the relevance of this article. If you would apply his standard to all his articles, they would all be deleted, and perhaps should be.

Ailde 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use personal attacks such as "delete freaks". Also, if you would like to explain how my comments are not true, that would be more constructive than the blunt accusation. I understand the "significance" of the plan for other townships, but this is not relevant to its standing as a Wikipedia article. Leebo ^T/C 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is by definition, original research. -- Whpq 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like I misunderstood what I was dealing with here. This is not a web encyclopedia; it is some sort of club. By all means don't wait delete the article. If I could do it myself, I would do it right now. Again I heartily request any and all administrators, delete this article now, I request it, do it immediately. I will take it elsewhere.

Ailde 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ailde, can you at least let us know if you understand the reasons why this isn't encyclopedia material? We have policies about no original research and verifiability. Have you read those? The article violates both. Throughout this process, you haven't tried to address any of those problems, instead accusing the users and myself of banding against you. Leebo ^T/C 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read everything and I do mean everything and have a different prospective. Again I heartily request any and all administrators, delete this article now, I request it, do it immediately. I will take it elsewhere. And for the record, not users Leebo, just you.

Ailde 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If another administrator sees this discussion, it may be closed as an author's request speedy deletion. I'll let someone else handle the actual deletion. Leebo ^T/C 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 September 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 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic: The Ride[edit]

Someone's "ride" from a home roller-coaster simulator. Not even CLOSE to notable. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by creator, who has the identical content on his user page. Calton | Talk 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by page author: This is in no way an advertisement. It was created because it is a revolutionary step in online game play and has become the most popular ride with the computer program. It has been viewed over 120,000 times. Please don't delete this thread, I think it is worth saving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottertheories (talk • contribs) 14:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC) — Pottertheories (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Hard to imagine any notability here. Someone did something. Nice effort, not notable. MarkBul 14:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per MarkBul and nom. /Blaxthos 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. I don't think this is really anywhere close to passing WP:WEB. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up at school, home, etc. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, made up one day. Nice graphics, but anyone with a bit of knowhow can produce those. -- Roleplayer 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete: I think this is legitimite and it seems like it took a lot of work to do this project. I don't know, maybe give it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonecreek777 (talk • contribs) 14:33, August 31, 2007 - — Stonecreek777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I know WP:EFFORT refers to the articles themselves, but it kind of applies here. "Someone worked hard on it" is not a reason to keep. People work hard on lots of things, that doesn't make them notable. Smashville 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning away from deletion; this is popular. I think it should stay. At the same time, it doesn't seem like something that is big enough to have it's own article. Perhaps it should merely have a mention in the Titanic (1997 film) article, seeing as it is based upon the film. EDIT: also, I keep seeing people quoting the WP:MADEUP rule, which is odd, because it states clearly in the article that it took eleven months to produce. -FiNiX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.235.105 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — 209.125.235.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment WP:ILIKEIT really isn't a great reason to keep something. And just because it took WP:EFFORT doesn't make it notable. Please see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:WEB for what would make this notable. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep i think we should keep the page, its really interesting! --Yankeesrj12 16:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a reason to keep an article. There are two WalMarts two miles apart on the same street where I live...that's interesting, but it doesn't warrant a WP article. Smashville 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for made up non-notable rollercoaster rides. Smashville 17:18, 2 September 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. Carioca 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sodje[edit]

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO: Has never played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 14:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's 32 and he's never played in a fully-professional league? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem. His article was probably only created as he's one of the "Sodje brothers". Mattythewhite 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Delete per WP:BIO —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I have to agree. He does not meet the notability criteria per WP:BIO of having played in a fully professional league, i.e. Football League Two and above. --Malcolmxl5 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there must be scope for an omnibus article on this remarkable sporting family, Sodje family?, but as an individual he fails WP:BIO. TerriersFan 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Chappy ^T_C 19:15, 3 September 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 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsson R310s[edit]

Article on a common commercial product containing no claim of notability. Prod was contested, insisting that it's only "one of three designs", but that claim does not appear in the article and is not verifiable. This sparse article reviews features of the phone and does not explain a particularly innovative design, a detailed history of the device, or its influence on the market or industry. A notable product has all of these aspects. Mikeblas 13:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we got hold of an editor who knew lots about phones, and this model inparticular, the article would definately improve by a long way? Don't just go off what a few people have put just yet. Bear in mind the article has had just 8 editors in total so far. Non of them may be experts. Lra drama 13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — notable. To be frank, it's hard for me to understand what's not notable about a mobile phone (or any similar product) which is highly unusual in that it used serious materials to offer genuine water- and dust-proofing. The article does in fact mention these, and the external link to the manufacturer backs up these claims. The other obvious models with similar features are a Nokia competitor which would perhaps not in itself be notable, since the materials were less high quality, and Ericsson's own R250, the direct predecessor to this phone (and therefore not a ubiquitous rival which might, had one existed, have made the R310 less unusual.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — notable per Kieran T. Greswik 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep - Notable for "ruggedised" design, if nothing else. -- Petri Krohn 01:49, 1 September 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. —Crazytales talk/desk 21:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of the United States[edit]

Okay, I'm a bit stumped here. This article presents "Second Lady of the United States" as some sort of widely used term, and the links from biographical articles use it in that context as if it was a widely accepted title (e.g. Barbara Bush). But I think this is misleading to readers, as the only basis for this term having any more merit than "Wife of the Vice President" or other alternatives is a Yahoo web poll conducted at some point. I don't think that really justifies an attempt at formalizing this title along the lines of First Lady. Indeed, not much on the web about this term, many seem to be discussing whether it's a real term, making a joke about the acronym (along the lines of SCOTUS, etc.) or seem to have been mislead by Wikipedia into thinking this term is more common than it really is. So what to do? I'm not really sure. Maybe delete this, maybe somehow merge the list into a list of vice presidents. But the article is relatively old so I thought I'd give it a chance for a full discussion. W.marsh 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least this ought to be renamed - the use of an unofficial and unsourced "title" for the spouse of the VP would constitute original research on our part. As far as the article goes - I'm not entirely sure. To my knowledge, the spouse of the vice prez is generally not a significant public figure and thus I'm not sure an article about them as a whole is warranted. There are no sources in this article. Should significant sourcing be found to back up an article about vice presidential spouses in general be foun, then I suppose an article could be written, but not as is. I suppose, then, I would have to recommend renaming this to List of spouses of the Vice President of the United States (or something like that) and reduced to a list format without the extra, unsourced information. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The title has been used in a Time article, at least one major historical society, and it's at least 100 years old (search on that page for "second lady"). It might not be an official title, but it's definitely widely-used. And Yahoo definitely did not coin the term. -- Plutor ^talk 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that it's occasionally used but it's hardly as widely used as "First Lady", not even close. I think we're presenting it as much bigger of a deal than it is, and that's misleading to readers. --W.marsh 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism that may be used occasionally in the press and elsewhere, but is not a proper, recognised term. Encyclopedic guidelines mean articles should reflect not innovate. Eusebeus 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, this is a term that is in use [21] but I am not sure if it is recognized or not. Can anybody tell us where to find the official term from the Secret Service for the spouse of the VP? FrozenPurpleCube 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge . I hate to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but...First Lady isn't a formal, official title either. Why would the fact that the title isn't "official" be a reason to delete the article? Although I'm not against merging it into the VP article. Smashville 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are historians who actually study this subject and write books on it. Seems reasonable to keep. --Hanging Jack 18:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an easy one. Although not used as often as First Lady, there are many references on the first Google page, including mentions of the abbreviation - SLOTUS. There are quotes from Lynne Cheney as well as from other family members of VP wives. The article does need editing - the reference to Lynne Cheney as "current" would need to be changed every election. Plus, you don't need all those pictures - one would be enough. MarkBul 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that wives of VP's have a role in public affairs by virtue of their Second Lady position. Wl219 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename as lacking any sources supporting the assertions that this term is widely used. I would be happy to reconsider if such sources were provided but currently there are no citations or sources in the article. Of the three external links, one link doesn't work (vicepresidents.com), one doesn't even mention this title (Mrs. Cheney's website), and the third is clearly an unreliable source in most contexts (Yahoo! poll). --ElKevbo 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. The complaint is that the title "Second Lady" is inappropriate, and it is rare--much rarer than "First Lady" which is used widely enough to be a de facto title. However, the content should be preserved under a more appropriate title, such as "Spouse of the Vice President of the United States". (The gender-neutral term "spouse" is preferred since someday the Vice President could be a woman. Of course that could be an argument against "First Lady" as well; but "First Spouse" isn't used much outside the First Spouse coin program.) --RBBrittain 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename, Since the title "Second Lady of the United States" may not be officially recognized, I agree with the proposals made by other contributors to this discussion that while a change in article title may be needed, at least some of the article's content, such as the list of Vice Presidential spouses, should be preserved. --TommyBoy 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that the title of the article is not an official title is utterly irrelevant; We editors pick lots of article titles that are entirely arbitrary and unofficial; that's what discussion pages and the move function are for. As to the lack of sources, this Google News Archive search found 1,690 article containing both "second lady" AND "vice president". A Google News Archive search on the fully qualified term found 51 references to a search on "second lady of the united states", a more-than-adequate result on the exact title of this article. The "neologism" nonsense is just that; the sources found include some going back to 1918 in The New York Times, and 1932 in Time (magazine), just on the first page of article's found. The article's subject is encyclopedic, and any and all qualifications of the Wikipedia:Notability standard are met. Alansohn 20:31, 2 September 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. Carlossuarez46 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Sound Music Academy[edit]

this page was speedied, then reduced to a PROD, but I think there should be some discussion and a few more sets of eyes before the decision is made Ardent ^†alk _∈ 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is noteable actually. Lots of links on search engines. What article content there is is reasonable. Sounds to me as though it is quite a popular academy. Lra drama 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first Google page shows a lot of listings and passing mentions, not feature articles by independent sources. Come up with a few legit references and I'll change my mind. MarkBul 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn choir that fails either WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG, take your pick. Eusebeus 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus. GreenJoe 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like consensus is leaning towards deletion, as a note to the admin that closes the debate, the article Sing Me A Song should follow quickly on its heels as a speedy deletion under section 1.2 article 7 Ardent ^†alk _∈ 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the admin who closes this debate as delete should speedy delete the fair use image associated with this (and only this) article at Image:CSMA_logo.jpg under item 5 of section 1.4 of the policy. Ardent ^†alk _∈ 06:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly lacking sources supporting the assertion that the subject is world famous. --ElKevbo 03:53, 31 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange@PAM[edit]

Queried speedy delete for db-spam. Anthony Appleyard 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mmm WP:SPAM. /Blaxthos 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with spam. Carlosguitar 19:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion This entry is just an information source for email archiving software (which is still a misunderstood IT topic). It is written in neutral prose, includes third party sources and references which clearly makes it encyclopedic information. Please look at Symantec's 'enterprise vault' page and tell me the difference...Is wikipedia a knowledge base just for corporate, blue chip companies? --AdamSurch 09:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— AdamSurch (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 Note: she's only notable for being a co-author of a book for which we don't have an article, if we had such an article a redirect would probably have been a good solution, but there was no target here. Carlossuarez46 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Olbrechts-Tyteca[edit]

Apparently non-notable, quite few Google hits that aren't just related to the contents of the book (which may be notable even if Lucy / Lucie isn't) Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is notable, Perelman is notable. Subject isn't, outside of the book, which gets a healthy mention in Perelman's Wiki article.--Sethacus 15:34, 30 August 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 but probably clean-up. --Haemo 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harry Potter parodies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Poorly sourced and trivial list. This is an indiscriminate list. Many of the parodies aren't very notable. RobJ1981 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Come up with an objective criterion to judge notability in this case and I'll remove any that don't fit it. Serendi^podous 12:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wont fix the whole problem. The article is still poorly sourced and trivial. It doesn't show notability either. Being a parody of a popular subject doesn't justify the list. If that was the case: we would have 1000000 parody lists here: one for each popular book, movie and TV series. RobJ1981 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of similar lists on Wikipedia, from Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to Cultural references in The Cantos; from HIV-positive people to Mammals in Korea; from Vegetable oils to Important operas (how one determines which qualify as "important" I'm not sure). There's a Timline for Narnia and a List of English words containing Q not followed by U. All those lists are considered good enough to be featured, yet they all seem pretty random and trivial to me. You may ask why Wikipedia needs a list of Harry Potter parodies, but you could equally ask why it needs a list of Joan of Arc statues or Korean mammals. It's all pretty subjective, and simply not liking the subject matter is not good enough grounds for deletion. Serendi^podous 12:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never once said anything to the effect of "I hate the article, so it needs to be deleted" in my nomination statement. Read up on policies. Let's wait and see what OTHER people have to say. I see no reason why you should be flooding the discussion (like you did in the first nomination of this). RobJ1981 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict): WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument correct, just be careful WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't either. KTC 12:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As per nom., semi-serious, subjectively fails WP:ENC. Ronnotel 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been less than 1 month since the last AFD on this happened. Recommend closure as too soon. KTC 12:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to be honest, I'm getting really fed up with these Harry Potter lists being put up for deletion. There are plenty of these lists, and they are so very useful. What content there is is very well put together - could it not be ammended? Because it's really useful stuff. Lra drama 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hardly an indiscriminate list in concept, since Harry Potter and Parody are reasonably defined. And parodies are certainly a reasonable thing to cover, especially since in this case, it has lead to some coverage of the subject. Read some of the content here to see why: content.com/article/313199/barry_trotter_henry_potty_and_tanya.html. Notability of individual parodies is not an important concern, the contents of a page are determinable outside the notability issue. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Incredibly notable subject that has indeed been parodied numerous times and so can be verified. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "usefulness" is not a metric or grounds for inclusion. This is original research, and certainly not a topic worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:NOT, this is a loose collection of related information, not encyclopedic content. This isn't the place, useful or not. /Blaxthos 14:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Potter mythos is currently iconic, and the phenomenon of attracting so many parodies looks to me notable in itself. However, it certainly needs a trim to weed out those me-too examples that editors just found on the Web somewhere - as opposed to ones notable enough to be mentioned in reliable third-party accounts. (I've reverted a redirect by the proposer that destroyed a deal of detailed coverage of the more prominent ones at Parodies of Harry Potter). Gordonofcartoon 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the list needs to be reigned in to stick with the inclusion criteria and list only parodies of Harry Potter. The list has been badly bloated by, dare I say it - references to Harry Potter in popular culture. Barry Trotter is clearly a parody of the series, but references to elements of the series on The Office does not constitute a parody. As Gordonofcartoon, the "me too" type examples do not belong. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic list that cannot objectively aspire to a reasonable standard for inclusion, which is a basic criterion for lists. Eusebeus 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can we discuss this further? "Unencyclopedic" is an umbrella term for every possible problem an article can have, isn't it? By saying "Delete - unencyclopedic", the only thing you seem to mean is "This shouldn't be in this encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in this encyclopedia." We got that, can you go into more detail? --Kizor 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above. Original research and unencyclopedic. -ScotchMB 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no requirement whatsoever that all the individual items in a article be notable. They must all be pertinent, & verifiable, though not necessarily yet verified. There hardly have been 1,000,000 creative works in WP worth the parodying (there are only about 2 million total articles), and of the few thousand that have been, not all that many will have multiple parodies that have attracted attention. This book series is more famous itself than most notable books, and so are its many parodies. Most of the items listed are by notable authors or creators or in notable shows. Objections to individual content is an editing question. Per WP:LIST, usefullness is a criterion for a list. And how parodies on a particular work are only "loosely" connected is the oddest use of the word "loose" yet in this series of nominations. DGG (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HP's popularity has made it a notable target of parody, cases in point Barry Trotter and Wizard People. Trim if you want. Wl219 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the second nomination in a month after a properly closed, full-length discussion. The current practice, where nominations can be repeated time and time again but deletion decisions stick, is one thing, but it's quite another to hammer on an article until it gives. I do not believe that constantly accusing an article and forcing those in its favor to rally for its defense is polite, useful for improving our content, a productive use of the time of anyone concerned, or in accordance with the letter or the intention of our rules - or did I miss the words "repeat as necessary" in the nomination procedure?
I'm being blunter than usual here, but this is an issue with significant and far-reaching effects. Opinions? --Kizor 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, it needs to be said that the nominator has had no previous involvement, and I'm not accusing him personally of anything more than indiscretion. --Kizor 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God, do I sound like a politician? --Kizor 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. One of the many measures of the success of Harry Potter is the number of parodies that made it into print. 65.207.127.12 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content is notable by any criteron; deletion nomination not made in good faith 69.253.236.38 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm particularly curious to know the nominator's justification for calling a 34kB article with eighty six separate references "poorly sourced". Happy-melon 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!!!!!!!!!! - I think it is joke enought... Well, it shows the parodies, more information could be provided. Raymond Giggs 08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate trivia and filled almost entirely with primary sourced material. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually prefer the deletion of "... in popular culture", but this list is well-formatted and of decent notability. Such articles are always a magnet for fancruft and trivia, but as it is now, I don't think it's a major problem. And who would argue that Harry Plodder, Terry Rotter, Barry Pooter and Barry Potter aren't parodies. Although I'm just an average HP reader in an unimportant corner of the world, even I had one of those parody books in my hand and read a little (it was bad, mind you). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written article about a notable phenomenon. JIP | Talk 10:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two days since anyone responded. Can we bring this to a conclusion please? Serendi^podous 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least Serendipodous is doing the one thing that I would have considered and that would be to remove trivial non-notable or less notable material to keep this page from being deleted. -Adv193 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or trim down. I wouldn't say delete, since some of these as examples might be good, and the GFDL and all. It might be able to stand alone, but I think the list is currently excessive. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Should be given a chance, it's pretty well referenced, the article creators should see if it can be improved more and if so, great, if not, merge/redirect. Judgesurreal777 06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd normally would say this belongs in Harry Potter fandom, but I believe this was originally split off from the fandom article simply because it was getting too large. This article isn't written from an in-universe perspective and is well-sourced. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Indiscriminate" and "loosely connected" are starting to seem like woefully vague terms. Every work in the article has been specifically designed after the same thing. If that isn't commonality, color me flummoxed. Deeply, deeply flummoxed. --Kizor 17:18, 7 September 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 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feed Us[edit]

Track from unreleased album, only mentioned in passing in the references provided. Alksub 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beyond crystal ball issues, this is clearly an article derived from fan enthusiasm that miserably fails even to try to aspire to the standards laid out at WP:MUSIC. I suggest adding in Empty Walls as well, since the same applies to that track. Eusebeus 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Edison 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Big Fish Games. John Vandenberg 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Fish Games[edit]

Advertisement for a section of a pay-to-play game site, Big Fish Games. Italia^vivi 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Big Fish Games. Fails WP:WEB notability guidelines, and risks being an advertisement due to Big Fish Games being a pay-to-play site. Italia^vivi 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . The site meets WP:WEB, per criteria #1 "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. " The article references an in-depth review of the new site, from the The Wall Street Journal, which was reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as well as an article describing the new service from MSNBC, which itself is an Associated Press story, that was picked up and published by other outlets, such as USA Today [22]. I also doubt that an article which referenced criticism of the site as a multi-level marketing scheme could be mistaken for an advertisement. Isarig 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies guideline, per Isarig. Bigglove 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies guidelines and isn't pushing product. Wikipedia isn't paper.--G-Dett 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Fish Games. I could see an article on this, but not two (or three, counting Big Fish Studios). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the guidelines seem to be met, so we could merge it with Big Fish Studios, as mentionned above. It should certainly not be deleted at all. Lra drama 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew above. This is unnecessary as a standalone. Eusebeus 15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it with the general entry for Big Fish. That's all the Cakemaniacs deserve. --Hanging Jack 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable content and delete. csloat 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability criteria of WP:WEB. --Gavin Collins 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to satisfy notability of WP:WEB. If desired, Merge relevant content to Big Fish Games and Redirect there. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:15, 4 September 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--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fridrich Method[edit]

Majority of article is written as a WP:NOT#how-to guide. Oli Filth 11:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - agree completely with nom. that the writing style is not correct. However, it's a common and widely noted Speedcubing method (see Google hits) - it may merit it's own article, with background/historical info, details of how it is used in notable tournaments etc. Either that or merge some of the background information in to Speedcubing. Tomisaac 12:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that if all this information can be added and sourced, then I see no reason why this article can't be rewritten and kept. Oli Filth 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could benefit from being rewritten and/or extended, but there is no reason why that couldn't happen with the current version; deleting it outright on the grounds that it's not perfect doesn't make sense to me. -- Schneelocke 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now removed or reworded all of the how-to material (if I've gone too far, then please edit as appropriate). If appropriate sources can be found that demonstrate the notability of this method, please consider this AfD dropped (I'm not sure if there's an official method of doing this!). Oli Filth 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I've had a restructure, added a section on tournament use and a few web references. Still needs fleshing out though.Tomisaac 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no problem keeping it now that the how-to of the article is gone. Add refs though. Seems notable enough. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect and merge relevant material to List of GURPS books. --Haemo 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Blood Types[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GURPS Blood Types (2nd nomination)

Book of gaming instructions that fails WP:BK or WP:FICTION as only claim to notability is that it is supplement for a 1995 role playing book. The article content does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, but seems to be a platform for of a WP:POV fork from Vampire.Links to publisher, related books fail to compensate for lack of notable content. Gavin Collins 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books Percy Snoodle 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but have already merged one line of info in List of GURPS books. --Goochelaar 13:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect so try a redirect already. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it's really sad that such an obvious delete has to be voted on numerous times. I really suspect that some editors tend to vote based on their personal appreciation of a topic, rather than policy. Eleland 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, this is the first time we are discussing this item. The previous nomination included, all together, many books of vastly diverse notability. --Goochelaar 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me, the sad thing is, I doubt any of us would have objected to just putting a #REDIRECT on the page and not bothering with the discussion. If there's any real concern about what to redirect and not, it'd be best done by asking on List of GURPS books what people thought any exceptions should be. Possibly with invites to folks who'd already participated in the discussion. But instead, we get these AFD's that are pretty much all going the same way. FrozenPurpleCube 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I just noticed the "2nd nom" and assumed. Mass noms have their own issues; they always seem to lead to wild accusations ("you're trying to censor all Moképon information because you don't like it!") and I think we need a better procedure for them. Eleland 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those interested, I've set up a discussion on Talk:List of GURPS books where we can hopefully handle this subject directly without further AFD's. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — A brief summary on the list page should suffice. — RJH (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books per FrozenPurpleCube et al. -- JHunterJ 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 10:08, 4 September 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 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Love the Dough[edit]

Does not fulfil the notability guidelines. The song was not a single, and did not win any awards or get covered by any other artists, and the only notable thing about it is that it was sung by The Notorious B.I.G. Thaurisil^t_c 11:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it is not necessary to have articles on every track on an album, even where the album itself is notable. Not worth a merge as the content is covered in the Life After Death article. EyeSerene^TALK 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate info - keep it in the album's article. - eo 20:40, 30 August 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. Tyrenius 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genderfuck[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is patent nonsense. It is a repetition of "genderqueer" with a profanity used simply for shock value. If it is a valid term, it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia; and WP is not a dictionary. The article is unsourced and no evidence is provided for the claims made. 87.127.44.154 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this nomination is being submitted by me out on behalf of User:87.127.44.154, who posted that rationale on the talk page, here. I have no opinion on the deletion. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has pages that link to it, but it completely lacks references and the overall notability of the phrase is debatable. AR Argon 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is well known in queer circles, has a distinctly different meaning to genderqueer and has many many references (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genderfuck#Sources_and_informing_of_my_intention_to_clean_up_this_page_.28maybe.29 for some links...). The article obviously is sourced, even if you don't use the links given on the talk page, there are two books from 2000 (!) which apparently use the term. This isn't a new term... (Yes I am a new member, I'm over it, why aren't you?) 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfaaaaa (talk • contribs) — Wtfaaaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - couldn't that list be interpreted as a personal attack on the people in question? There are no references to prove what does appear to be nonsense at the moment. Lra drama 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll remove them for now. Even if it's not BLP-violating, it's certainly OR without citations, and as a side note, I've just discovered not to Google "genderfuck" at work. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I personally don't actually like the term, but it is an established and notable term in its own right. I get the impression that someone has merely looked at the title, seen an obscenity and decided that they wanted it gone. Hopefully this AfD will prompt someone to put some effort into referencing and expanding the article, and the list of links on its talk page should provide a start in that process. --AliceJMarkham 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary - references won't help. This is a neologism and doesn't belong. MarkBul 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the following:

WP:NEO - We are not a dictionary. "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities."
WP:NEO is clear on reliable sources for neologisms; a book on How I Became Queer and one non-peer reviewed theory do not constitute reliable sources
WP:OR - as noted by others, this is original research.

/Blaxthos 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons stated above. This is unsourced, and even if it were, appears to be little more than a dicdef/neologism. If it is significantly synonymous with Genderqueer as the nominator posits, then a redirect (or perhaps slight merge) may be warranted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above: WP:NEO. (Removing my comment per information below) Eusebeus 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this article is sourced, those of you failing to notice this may be directed to the section marked "Sources". The concept is not simply restricted to an obscure subculture, but is widely used in the scholarly literature. Skomorokh ^incite 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above comments. Sourcing and notability are irrelevant - this is a dicdef neologism, so doesn't belong on WP. EyeSerene^TALK 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real identity. The article needs to be expanded, yes, but it's as legimiate as genderqueer and third gender. Kolindigo 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing sources added that lend credibility that this is a recognized term perhaps worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Removal of original research and an addition of more historical perspectives will improve this well beyond a dictionary definition. Here's a potential source for more historical info. There's scores of Google hits, so this is totally expandable. (Apparently Perth has a Genderfuck Day[23]?) — Scientizzle 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have heard of this term outside of Wikipedia and the article has references and sources. Can be expanded further beyond a dictionary definition. -- Roleplayer 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use more work, but enough sources have now been provided to show that the term has been discussed in the scholarly literature. The article goes beyond a dictionary definition, and the term is not particularly new; I've added a source that dates it to the 1970s. Note that it is not at all the same as genderqueer, and equating the two would be original research. —Celithemis 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator is completely wrong, genderfuck is not a synonym for "genderqueer", ("with a profanity used simply for shock value" or not), it is a notable, well defined, concept in wide use in the real world. This article deserves expansion, not deletion. Pete.Hurd 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the term "genderfuck" appears in the academic literature, see for example:
- Glick, E. (2000) Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression, Feminist Review 64:19-45.
- Reich, J.L. (1992) Genderfuck: the law of the dildo. Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 15:112-27.
- Coviello, P. (2007) review of "World Enough Sex and Time in Recent Queer Studies", GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 13:387-401.
- Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text 48:77-94.
- Collier, R (1996) “Coming together?”: Post-heterosexuality, masculine crisis and the new men's movement. Feminist Legal Studies 4:3-48.
Pete.Hurd 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is based on false premises, namely that the article is "patent nonsense" and that "genderfuck" is a synonym for "genderqueer." Otto4711 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Genderfuck" is not nonsense. I am living proof and find that the consideration for removal of this article is offensive. 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.24.2 (talk)
Keep or merge - the rationale provided by User:87.127.44.154 is factually inaccurate. If they have sources showing Genderqueer and Genderfuck to be synonymous they should provide them. It is totally incorrect to say that the article is non-notable (Pete.Hurd has provided a sampling of the academic work that includes the term) - the article does need more sourcing and some clean-up but they are not grounds for deletion. I do think it would be better if it were merged into Genderqueer a large article such as Gender identity or gender role--Cailil ^talk 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, Genderqueer and Genderfuck are totally different concepts and ought not to be merged. Pete.Hurd 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I got into a bit of a muddle at the end of my comment. Basically I think Genderfuck needs to be expanded with sources now or to be brought into a parent article until there are enough sources to expand beyond a stub. But there is no reason to delete it--Cailil ^talk 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The two terms are not identical, although there does appear to be a bit of overlap. Genderqueer is an identity, genderfuck is action to shake up peoples ideas of gender identity (Performance art, for example). So genderfuck (action) may impact genderqueer (object). There are more than enough references, especially Peter Hurd's, to establish that it's not a neologism and that it's notable. And it is not a naughty version of genderqueer. As in most AfD debates, the article needs work, but that is not a reason to delete. — Becksguy 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rationale for nomination is faulty, as the two terms do not seem to be synonymous, going by previous comments here. Also, FWIW, if geographical spread of usage is anything to go by, genderfuck is the more widely known term (I live in New Zealand, and have heard the term several times - I had to look up genderqueer, since I had not come across the term before). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense with profanity (ex. "Fuck" is a profanity). NHRHS2010^Talk 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the article with WP:NONSENSE, it's not "nonsense". Also note that Wikipedia is not censored, it's an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sideline Question. Can someone point me towards wiki's policy on editing by a high school student who (based on the fact that they won't finish high school until 2010) is presumably underaged and who may therefore not be legally allowed to access the content that they are commenting on? --AliceJMarkham 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not a citizen of the US (and so forgive my ignorance on this topic), but is it really illegal for highschool students to read the word "fuck" in that country? Pete.Hurd 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid discriminating against people merely because of their age (or indeed for any reason). There are teenagers more mature than adults, and as AuburnPilot points out, there is no law against reading profanities in the United States. With regards to the policy on age, I can think of at least one administrator in the past who has been 16 or younger. I can't find any specific policy on young editors, but this may be of interest. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I had assumed that in the USA, children wouldn't be allowed to access adult subject matter such as transgender information. --AliceJMarkham 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, transgender information is not adult subject matter IMHO. Many children and young people identify as transgender or present aspects of transgenderism. - Montréalais 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pete Hurd above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefuck This articlefuck is a neofuckologism. Wikipedia is a not a fuckslang dicfucktionary. I am no expert on LGBT studies, but we are not teaching people how to talk like a Fuckcockney chimney sweep. --Pixelface 18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how my gender expression is teaching people to swear. Kolindigo 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you all know that IPs can't do an AfD, right? This should be closed. --David Shankbone 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated by Dreaded Walrus, not an IP. --Pixelface 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated by me on behalf of the IP. All I did was create the page. If IPs aren't allowed to nominate articles for deletion, then accept my apologies, as I was not aware of such a rule. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you did the right thing. This is a procedural nomination--they happen all the time. IPs simply cannot create new pages so, by default, can't properly AfD nom an article, but they can participate in every other part of the deletion process as any non-admin editor. — Scientizzle 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pete.Hurd, Grutness, Becksguy above. DuncanHill 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefuck per Pixelface. Gruefuck 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize if anyone was offended by my comment, but it was actually a self-conscious effort to "fuck with" or play with traditional notions of voting within articles for deletion discussions. I want to ridicule and destroy the whole cosmology of restrictive voting patterns and voter identification. I don't know if you're familiar with the term deletefuck, but deletefuck is generally an intentional attempt to present a confusing suggestion during deletion discussion which contributes to dismantling the perception of a "voting binary." Deletefuck implies not only the instigation of confusion for the sake of breaking down the binary, but also leaving more fluid room to be self-expressive and self-explorative with less expectations of a norm and more room to play via being radically honest. I suppose the word fuck belongs in the fucking article, but to use the word fuck in any discussions of the fucking article would be really fucking inappropriate. I'm really fucking sorry I used the word fuck so many fucking times. It shows really poor fucking taste to use the word fuck in any fucking discussion of this fucking article. I would not want any of the fucking readers of the Genderfuck article to be fucking offended by my fucking comments. Fucking thank you for your fucking time. --Pixelface 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We get it. There's no need to keep mocking it. Kolindigo 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could stand to hear a little more. Mainly because it's humourous, you silly sausage Kolindigo. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally removed the prod to this article, because it really is a distinct gender from genderqueer. A genderqueer does not wish to be defined as male or female but doesn't care what other people think. A genderfuck deliberately tries to screw with people's mind regarding their gender, and that's a hell of a difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Pete.Hurd and others. It's a valid, notable term. Youandtheguys 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is a valid term that has cites in the literature dating back to 1992. Also, it is very distinct from genderqueer as Dev920 explains above. It might need revision, but the article itself is totally good. Justbecca 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The only reasons for this deletion are the profanity (which is not an issue), the notability (which has been systematically demonstrated), and sheer animus towards the subject matter (please, you're only discrediting yourself; Wikipedia does not base decisions on mockery). - Montréalais 00:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with those who think that the only reason to delete would be the profanity -- I can see why someone coming across this term might think "Genderfuck? Come on, someone made that up." And, well, someone did - but it was at least 30 years ago, and the concept has apparently entered academic and queer literature. Maybe not a word I use every day ("Wow, Bob, that pink tie is a real genderfuck!"), but definitely sufficiently notable and well-sourced for Wikipedia. --TheOther Bob 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Other et al. Not so new, around since at least 1990. Bearian 01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Montréalais and TheOtherBob Kelly holden 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After a cursory look at the article, all it would really need are inline cites. There are sources there. -Jéskéfuck ^{(v^_^v Kacheekfuck!)}, 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)~[reply]
Strong Keep. If anything Genderqueer is the neologism. It's just counterintuitive that a standardized version of something would be shocking and have the word "fuck" in it. Not to mention that "Genderqueer" takes away from the active principle of "Genderfucking." At first I was thinking that Genderfuck should only be deleted if it remains as a subsection under Genderqueer, assuming the tamer, similar entry to be right and better one. But after reading the comments and thinking about it I feel the opposite. The word Genderfuck is older and more culturally prevalent. The two articles definitely belong together in some fashion. But not with genderfuck obliterated just because it has a naughty word in it that some people are uncomfortable with. Genderfuck and genderfucking is what this thing is. It had no name, understanding or definition of consequence before it was Genderfuck. "Genderqueer" intimated as the preferred and refined nomenclature for academic and historical interests of the phenomenon may be appropriate. But it's still Genderfucking, and always has been since its inception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.224.160 (talk • contribs) — 74.230.224.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment "Genderfuck" is an effort, is that right? "Fucking" with people's notions already has a name: mindfuck. Shall we coin a new word for every variation of mindfuck? Jobfuck? Richfuck? Statusfuck? Netfuck? Wikifuck? Where does it stop? I'm not trying to mock this "effort"...or whatever it is, but it would be great if this article had more sources with URLs that anyone could read and verify. Notice I did not suggest the article should be deleted. What's the difference between Genderfuck and Gender bender? What's the difference between Genderfuck and androgyny? Is Genderfuck a noun? Is it a verb? Is it an ideology? Is it a social or cultural movement? I notice that all but one of the references are from 1992 and later, which is the year that The Crying Game came out. --Pixelface 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - The difference between "genderqueer" and this term can be found here at this university site. →Lwalt^♦ talk 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but we could go the other way, too. Surprise is a type of mindfuck, after all, as is magic. The question isn't whether we could develop concepts like statusfuck, netfuck, wikifuck etc. The question is whether the larger culture, or some subset thereof, has done so, and whether reliable sources have discussed them. I think the article answers the other questions you posed (though if it doesn't, it can be improved). I'm not sure I agree with your theory about The Crying Game, but even if it came from that my views would not be affected. A concept that's been around for 15 years isn't a neologism, after all. --TheOtherBob 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that "mindfuck" is slang and it gets used a lot, but we don't have an article for it because Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. We don't even have an article for the slang term "fucking with." Any word derived from that phrase is also slang. The reason that neologisms are to be avoided in articles is because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and people may have different meanings for the word. That's evident from this discussion. One person says Genderfuck is an action, another uses it as a noun referring to a person, and another person says it's their gender expression. And one person says that Genderfucking "is what this thing is." Meredith Stepp said "Nurturing butches to be sensitive, vulnerable, deferential, while empowering femmes to be strong, outspoken and unyielding is true “genderfuck,” from which all men and women can benefit."[24] WP:NEO says "Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well" Are any of these examples of genderfuck? Ted Levine in Silence of the Lambs? Jason Mewes in Clerks 2? Sean Young in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective? Julia Sweeney and her character Pat? Is Courtney Act a "genderfuck" or a "gender illusionist"? Was Annie Jones a genderfuck or a bearded lady...or both? Is RuPaul a genderfuck or just a drag queen? Was Marilyn Manson genderfucking people with the cover of Mechanical Animals or was he being a genderfuck, or a genderfucker, or none of the above? Are these genderfuck films: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Boys Don't Cry (film), Ed Wood (film), Hedwig and the Angry Inch, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, Victor/Victoria -- or are they transgender films? Does Velvet Goldmine have genderfucking in it or is it just about glam rock? Is the German word "Sie" or the word "Hir" a genderfuck? Is gender-neutral language a genderfuck way of speaking? The article lacks a clear definition. Were Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane genderfucks or just bisexual characters? Is a transwoman or a transgendered person or transexual genderfucking with you? Is the concept of genderfuck related to Intersexuality? Is Cheryl Chase a genderfucker or just an intersexual? Is Eddie Izzard genderfucking with people or is he just a cross-dresser? What about transvestites? Is genderfuck a belief system? Is it an attempt to fool or trick people? Confuse people? Destroy preconceptions? Is it an attempt to create an alternate word for "shemale", which many find offensive? And if so, will genderfuck eventually become an pejorative too, like so many other alternate words for terms of disparagement? Is it a form of activism? WP:NOT#DICT says "it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas". I don't think this article does that -- as seen by the confusion over the word Genderqueer in this discussion. Does Genderfuck appear in any dictionary? WP:NEO says neologisms may be used widely or within certain communities. And "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." --Pixelface 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I should probably respond briefly - but instead will respond long-windedly. If I understand your points and questions:
  1. Genderfuck is slang, and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's not slang - I know it sounds like slang because it includes the word "fuck," but in fact it's a term of art in an academic community. In other words, genderfuck is the appropriate, accepted term for a certain idea -- not a slang term therefor.
  2. It could mean a lot of things. Sure...and some of the examples cited might fall within the concept. Indeed, there's a great question of whether Eddie Izzard is an example of a genderfuck, or something else entirely. But a concept whose edges remain ragged is still a concept. Ask this - let's say there were thousands of journal articles written seeking to decide whether genderfuck included the things you cited. Let's say there were constant debates, even heated ones. Would that be an argument for or against notability and inclusion? There's a significant debate regarding the concept of post-modernism. Should we delete that?
  3. Is it a form of activism? Not that I know of - it's a concept used in academic and queer literature. Some people in social movements likely make use of it, just as some people use protest.
  4. Is it another word for shemale? I...I don't even know how to respond to that. No. It's not.
  5. Is it a belief system? I'm not sure where you get that idea - it's not a belief system, and nothing I've seen suggests that it would be. It's also not a goat, a plane, a gerand, or an oyster. (In short, the concept is explained in the article, and suggesting other things that the term could mean...but doesn't...in no way negates that.)
  6. It doesn't appear in mainstream dictionaries. Well, first, it's a concept rather than a term - so the better question is whether it appears in mainstream encyclopedias. But regardless, no, it doesn't. Such is Wikipedia - including ideas that smaller, more constrained encyclopedias don't have space for.
  7. It's too new. It's somewhere between 15 and 40 years old, appears in verifiable, reliable sources, etc. - all these things have been discussed.
  8. We can't include a concept until a mainstream tertiary source includes it, lest we include original research. Hardly - reporting on the existence of a concept in multiple reliable sources isn't original research. Wikipedia is not limited to copying the work of more established tertiary sources -- it can report based on reliable primary or secondary sources as well. Here the reporting is based on reliable journals and other secondary sources - that hardly seems objectionable. ---TheOther Bob 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the response by the previous author, here's a list of books that mentions this term.

Merge to Gender bending while I totally disagree with the reasons provided by the IP for this AFD I have after reflection realized that this page should be merged into Gender bending. This journal article considers them to be synonymous [25]. Although I think there is a subtle difference, there is a significant amount of common ground between the two terms. Enough IMO for a merger. As it stands both WP articles are stubs, but if Genderfuck was merged into Gender bending both would be expanded a future section teasing out the differences or subtleties in the terms would also help improve WP--Cailil ^talk 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I disagree. No merge with genderqueer (and even "gender bender" for that matter, which is a person transgresses the traditional roles of a male and female through androgynous behavior), since these terms have different meanings and take on different contexts. Genderqueer refers to a person who takes on the gender identity of neither male nor female or take on an identity that combines the genders -- that is, identifies with a unitary (i.e., no one way to be identified as a male or female), rather than a binary (male/female) gender system). Genderfuck, on the other hand (in one definition that I've found), has more to do with gender performance, presentation or roleplaying -- that is, playing with or against traditional gender identities, playing with or against the expected role of a gender in a society. Here's an example - a man, who takes on the identity of a woman, engages in sexual relations with a woman who identifies as a female in the last paragraph on the page from the book, Body Talk: Philosophical Reflects on Sex and Gender by Jacqueline N. Zita (Columbia University Press). According to the book, a person who identifies as a "genderfuck" is not interested in passing as or becoming the other gender. To merge the "genderqueer" article with this article is to confuse the reader into thinking that both terms mean nearly the same thing -- for example, suggesting that a person who identifies as a genderqueer is roleplaying, which is apparently not the case. I don't know a lot about the subculture in which these terms are used, but many plenty of academic and scholarly works are available on this subject in the psychology, sociology and social science disciplines. →Lwalt^♦ talk 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact agree that there is a difference between Genderqueer and Genderfuck. My position is this: Gender bending and genderfuck cover a similar area and maybe one topic. Take the two lead lines, which are pretty accurate summaries of the academic material on the terms: Genderfuck is a self-conscious effort to "fuck with" or play with traditional notions of gender identity, gender roles, and gender presentation and Gender bender is an informal term used to refer to a person who actively transgresses, or "bends," expected gender roles. There is a difference but genderfuck & gender bending are very very similar areas. I agree that genderqueer is something totally different but these two are not so different. Certainly in Europe Gender bending is the term that's used, genderfucking has yet to be established critically over here. I can only see the two terms benefitting from the merger (but then I am a mergist)--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, particularly Pixelface. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable term, article includes references. Seemingly the term offends some, but that's no reason to delete. Jeffpw 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -Genderfuck is an act of consciously engaging in the dismantling of the gender binary, Genderqueer is an identity categorey, and gender bending refers to changing the boundaries of gender, not erasing them. None of the terms in use, whether or not we personally use them or like them, can be struck from legitimate discourse-- scholarly, or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missbuncie (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — Missbuncie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I can see a little concern that it's more Wiktionary territory; but it's definitely been expanded enough to be more than just a definition. Maybe still slightly to essay-ish, but that's jsut regular editing. LotLE×talk 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, the word is definitely a notable one (see this glossary) and recognized in psychology studies regarding gender issues. The difference between "genderqueer" and this term can be found here at this university site. Although the word is offensive to some, the article should be kept and cleaned up, with reliable sources of course. →Lwalt^♦ talk 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me that genderqueer is an identity and genderfuck is a concept, and definitely not nonsense.TJLink 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. not nonsense...not original research...and not unreferenced as claimed by nom. --emerson7 | Talk 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the user who originally proposed this as an AFD. Thank you to Dreaded Walrus for completing the process. I hope my original thoughts, quoted at the top by Dreaded Walrus, count's as a delete - otherwise please count this as a delete. Reading through the comments on here I now realise my original thinking was wrong. However, while coming to the conclusion that my reasoning was wrong, my view that this should be deleted remains. The reason I beleived Genderfuck and Genderqueer were the same is because the article isn't sufficiently clear as to what it means. It is written in a pseudo-academic language which would confuse most readers who were not already familiar with LGBT/Gender issues. It also contained a list (which has been removed as a result of this discussion) of "Famous Genderfuckers" - including those who had articles on WP deleted because they were not notable. The phrase may be well known in a minority community; but it isn't a widespread community language. How can it be? It can't be used on mainstream television or radio programmes and most newspapers wouldn't use it other than in specific features looking at LGBT issues - so the phrase has no chance of moving into mainstream language. So it will remain a minority community phrase - and looking at the comments above and the edit history of the article, it is clear that the minority community is itself in somewhat of a confused position when asked for a straightforward definition of what it is. I am also concerned about the inclusion (see above) of this discussion on an LGBT/Gender Issues section of Wikipedia. I have seen other AFD discussions cross-referenced on specialist project group areas; but they merely list the articles for discussion and send people here. The LGBT/Gender Issues project goes further and re-creates an editable discussion of all tagged articles in a separate place. Surely that should not be allowed. This is the place for AFD discussions and all editors who wish to take part can do so here. Tagging articles on a specific subject so that editors can make their views known in another place is surely using WP to create a form of meatpuppet? I know there is a lot of "votes" here for "keep" - but AFD is not a numerical vote. I hope the confusion shown by "keep" advocates as to the meaning of Genderfuck and the arguments put forward by those in favour of deletion will enable the administrator to come to a "delete" decision.

87.127.44.154 06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, though, the article for fuck should be deleted - since it can't be used on television. The standards for inclusion in Wikipedia are not, as you suggest, that the concept be well-known and often-used in mainstream culture. Indeed, check out concepts like semiotics or the theory of post-humanism. Neither of these enjoys what might be called mainstream use...I can't walk up to someone on the street and say "I'd like to discuss the theory of post-humanism with you, but am afraid that we may have difficulty because of the semiotics involved" and expect them to know what I'm talking about. So are they concepts that we should not include here, for lack of mainstream use? Quite the opposite - we include them in the encyclopedia because if someone walks up to you on the street and says those things, you can look them up here! We're cataloging human knowledge (even if that knowledge is primarily within a minority community), not television. As to the confusion about the meaning of the term, I'm afraid I don't give that argument much weight. If the article is unclear on certain points, it should be improved. If the concept itself is unsettled, such fact should be reported on. Neither suggests deletion. --TheOther Bob 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I forgot to add that a lot is spoken of "academic sources" and "academic publications" in this debate. What are these academic publications? The name is given but no link - are they merely student dissertations? If so I wonder how this constitutes reliable independent sources. The links given don't amount to much if you try to follow them to determine the validity of the source. 87.127.44.154 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article and the article. I'm not sure what you're looking for there -- links to internet versions of the sources? If so, someone may be able to help -- but Google and the library are your friends. As to your guess that they might be student dissertations, that does not seem correct. Just to go in order, Dennis Altman is a professor at La Trobe Univ. in Australia, Peter Coviello is a professor at Bowdoin, and Elisa Glick is a professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. (I'm not going to go all the way down the list, but you get the point.)--TheOther Bob 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - cites some sources but still does not seem like a notable article... Tiddly-Tom 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, well sourced, clearly not a neologism. The fact that it is a "minority community phrase" is a ridiculous reason to delete it. You say most readers aren't familiar with LGBT/gender issues? Well isn't it great that they can learn about them on wikipedia? --Beloved Freak 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Personal Experience as a primary source

1. I personally used this term, and provided many "genderfuck" experiences as a club / disco dancer in the early 1990's. We would, for example, intentionally go out in leather muscle wear, and full face drag makeup. the express purpose was to assault the senses of those onlookers. Another would be for example, comabt fatigues, weapons and red high heels.... etc... this was intentional as a way of not showing our "personal orientation" but as a method of performance art, showmanship and "shock value" for the various clubs.

2. Would the term "clusterfuck" not be allowed as slang? I think anyone would agree that this is a true term and definable statement. As would many other terms such as "SNAFU" "JAFO" and others. --CodySteed 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If material from the article would be useful in other articles, I can provide a copy of the deleted article for cannibalization. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeWorlds[edit]

Article about a mod. -- i.e. self-published vanity fiction -- with no assertion of notability and no reliable sources. EEMeltonIV 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the parts that are not unsalvageable original research to Freelancer. Delete the rest. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant merge/delete per gorgan_almighty; personally I like articles about the more popular mods, and this is a pretty good article. Notability (from a quick google search) may not be too hard to establish, but sourcing is a serious issue particularly given the length of the article. EyeSerene^TALK 10:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide reliable secondary sources to assert notability, then it may be better as a stub rather than a merge. I searched but couldn't find any. —gorgan_almighty 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a more thorough search, neither can I (outside of blogs and forums). This is clearly not enough for WP:ATT. Although I'm personally sympathetic to the inherent difficulties that prevent this sort of article from ever clearing the notability bar, those are the policies we have to work to.... oh well ;) EyeSerene^TALK 12:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as nn modcruft. Eusebeus 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. --Gavin Collins 10:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable mod. Itake 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the present gaming climate anything contributing to the health of the space sim form is noteworthy, and a fully realized Star Wars mod is innately notable. The usual source tests cannot be applied to mods because traditional press is harmful to mod communities. If there's a sound reason to remove the article it's Wikipedia's potential for pushing grey-area stuff over the threshold into lawyer country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einexile (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If it is so noteworthy, where are the third-party sources covering such a noteworthy project? Your rationale for keeping the content is itself original research. --EEMeltonIV 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and there are no secondary sources or independant sources providing information Childzy ¤ Talk 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete The tipping point is that the notability in inextricably linked to the iceman - so little notable is Erika that no one could come up with a birth date or even year for her. There is no evidence of any coverage of these people other than as the unintentional discoverers of the ice man. A redirect from each of these names to the ice man article is OK (I'll create it presently) but it is unlikely that anyone is going to search on this precise term. Carlossuarez46 04:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut and Erika Simon[edit]

Only notable thing they did was discover the remains of Oetzi, a Copper Age mummy. Besides that, nothing. Jmlk 1 7 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found a news article linked from Ötzi the Iceman. --slakr^(talk) 10:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They don't appear to be notable enough for a separate article (per WP:BLP1E). All relevant information is already covered by the Ötzi the Iceman article. —gorgan_almighty 10:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just about enough to go on here for Helmut, not so much for Erika.. I was thinking BLP1E when I first read it, but there's a little more; Otzi's curse is pretty well documented and the Guardian / Telegraph / Channel 4 are certainly good references. If the lawsuit was better established as significant I'd be leaning keep, but right now it could be merged with Otzi. Deiz talk 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Ötzi the Iceman. At least Helmut is notable enough to have separate articlea in three other-language wikis. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clear-cut per WP:BLP1E. Mention perhaps can be made at the Ötzi the Iceman page. Eusebeus 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ötzi the Iceman. This is a plausible search term and they deserve mention there, but there isn't enough for a full article, even with the award and "curse". --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify "Helmut and Erika Simon" isn't itself a plausible search term, but GFDL requires the redirect if a merge takes place. Helmut Simon and Erika Simon both are redirects here, and would be plausible search terms. Caveat: both names are wikilinked from other articles, and I don't believe those uses are these particular people. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have nothing against a merge, but as far as I can see the relevant information is already in the Ötzi the Iceman article. —gorgan_almighty 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS as I do not think one event is enough to grant notability Corpx 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for one event is still notable. Edward321 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321, please read WP:BLP1E. —gorgan_almighty 10:28, 3 September 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. Carlossuarez46 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sankeit people[edit]

The name of the article is a typo for the correct article :Sanketi people. It is orphaned because of this wrong title. Rather than redirecting it to the correct article, it is better to delete it -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual redirect goes to Sankethi people, but neither article has much in the way of content, both are unreferenced, and the Sankethi people is at least partly spam for a Family Tree site. The content in both is similar (excepting the spam); a merge probably would serve no useful purpose. I'd support the nom for a ~~delete/redirect~~ (edit: see comment below), but to the most commonly-used term, which according to Google is Sanketi (although this seems to be used interchangably with Sankethi even in WP) EyeSerene^TALK 10:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A redirect is a good option if the article which has been redirected is an alternate name (or closely resembles) the actual name. Here we have a typo and any one in search of Sanketi people, will either search for Sanketi or Sankethi, and not Sankeit. A delete would be the right option - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}10:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that, since Google does return a few hits for 'Sankeit', it indicates this word might be searched on. However, taking a closer look it is obvious that these do not relate to the Sanketi people, so I'll happily withdraw the redirect suggestion. Delete it is ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:34, 30 August 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Addis[edit]

Contested speedy asserting notability. The subject of the article is non-notable per WP:BIO. He set light to an effigy at a festival and was arrested for arson. That's it, that's all he did. The articles creator believes that as it appeared in Reuters it makes the subject de facto notable. I disagree. The article's creator requested a vote, hence the AFD WebHamster 09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fifteen minutes would be an overstatement. WP:BIO: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. /Blaxthos 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely unworthy of an article; does not even come close to meeting the WP:BIO notability criteria. EyeSerene^TALK 10:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most redirect to Burning Man, as he already gets a bigger mention there than he really deserves. Not notable in his own right per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E Iain99 10:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable himself and seems to be a misunderstanding of the notability criteria by the author. There are multiple news stories about the arson attempt but nothing solely about Paul Addis himself. --Malcolmxl5 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definately non-noteable person, whose crime was equally non-noteable. I can't see that being headline news! Lra drama 13:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Common (accused?) criminals aren't notable. -- Mikeblas 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Delete it now and it'll just come back, even if he's not convicted. This crime and the official response to it is already considered a huge turning point in the history of the Burning Man festival. -- NobodobodoN 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC) — NobodobodoN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment If it is a huge turning point, its ramifications can be described at the Burning Man article. There's still nothing to say about Addis personally, as opposed to the festival, other than that he once (allegedly) set fire to an effigy, so unless he does something else noteworthy, this article can never hope to grow beyond a stub. Iain99 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, you guys are probably right...I guess being a burner I guess its just that he seems a bit more notable to me. I forgot everyone doesn't go to Burning Man. ;) Brentt 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read about the incident in The Times (UK) today. In a couple of years time nobody besides devoted Burning Man fans are going to know or even care who this guy is, The Times didn't even think it worth mentioning the name of the man that did it. -- Roleplayer 20:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best he's a petty criminal. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:35, 1 September 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 List of GURPS books as content has been merged there. WjBscribe 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Grimoire[edit]

Book of gaming instructions that fails notability guidlines WP:BK or WP:FICTION, as only claim to notability is that it is "useful". Its content does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, and links to publisher, related books and inclusion of book cover do not justify the creation of a standalone article from an independent viewpoint. GURPS has an enthusiastic following, but lack of article content suggests this book does not. --Gavin Collins 09:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability or significance. /Blaxthos 09:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. EyeSerene^TALK 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per User:Blaxthos (no assertion of notability); also, fails notability of books from notabasearchification™. --slakr^(talk) 10:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability or significance. —gorgan_almighty 10:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books to prevent recreation Percy Snoodle 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books, where I already have merged one line of info. (But, as I already have pointed out elsewhere, notability guidelines WP:BK are not entirely relevant here, because the subject is a book of "gaming instructions", while those guidelines explicitely exclude reference works and instruction manuals) --Goochelaar 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect behold the power of redirecting. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those interested, I've set up a discussion on Talk:List of GURPS books where we can hopefully handle this subject directly without further AFD's. FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Percy Snoodle. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. As it happens, I'm one of the co-authors, but in effect this is just Vol II of the GURPS magic system, and it's been superceded. There likely isn't anything to be said about it beyond a sentence or two in the main article. RGTraynor 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books per FrozenPurpleCube et al. -- JHunterJ 12:17, 1 September 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globus Cassus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article survived a previous AfD a while ago on the basis of what are, as far as I can see, flawed arguments. It claims notability on the basis of the fact that it was exhibited at the Venice Biennale; however, this is not a valid argument as per WP:N notability is not inherited. It only gets 644 Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia, its mirrors, the occasional MySpace blog, book catalogues and a small number of fairly specialised news sites from around the time of the Biennale. The latter do not confer notability either (notability is enduring) -- Wikinews is more appropriate for topics such as this. The Globus Cassus website itself is a wiki which at times has been heavily spammed and poorly maintained; the Amazon.com sales rank for the book is currently 1,581,876. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since submitting this second AfD, I have taken a closer look at the first one, and to be honest, it is a joke. Not one contributor referenced any Wikipedia policies, nor did anyone provide any references or sources establishing the notability of the concept in its own right. The entire argument boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article requires multiple, non-trivial references to demonstrate its enduring notability, and these are unfortunately seriously lacking. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 09:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to call a previously decided debate into question (starie decisis), however this case seems to be extraordinary. There is no real notability asserted, the article is unreferenced and seems to be unattributed original research. Let's keep this one from becoming an WP:ILIKEIT discussion, or a forum to discuss the subject of the article. /Blaxthos 09:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please read the Previous nomination that resulted in Keep - "Quoting Policy" was not as important than as it apparently is now, so that is why there is none, but the noteability by Pinkville was still asserted correctly IMHO. I have traced down a google cache of a source, I will quote it here:

The rapidly increasing population notice that their planet will soon be too small. The Earth is dismantled to provide building material. This is taken away to create Globus Cassus, a new, much bigger habitat, thought out from scratch. With essays by Boris Groys, Claude Lichtenstein and Michael Stauffer. The Swiss contribution to the international Biennale of Architecture 2004 in Venice. Fosnez 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that you give is an entry in a sales catalogue, which per WP:BOOKS is quite clearly trivial. Reference to policy has always been important: AfD discussions are not a vote but an attempt to determine to what extent an article's presence in Wikipedia conforms to policy. I have raised another AfD precisely because not a single argument in the previous AfD raised any objective evidence whatsoever to support the claims that Globus Cassus is notable in its own right -- i.e. the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is most likely that this was an oversight or that nobody thought to address the issue at the time -- well, I am addressing it now; without such evidence, it can only be assumed to be non-notable, unreferenced, original research. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with jammycakes here -- the only notability you are asserting is from a sales catalogue -- hardly a reliable source (much less coverage in multiple secondary sources). As requested previously, can we keep this AFD policy-centric? /Blaxthos 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the concerns raised above. Eusebeus 16:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in full agreement with nomination EyeSerene^TALK 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable for reasons that were articulated in the previous AfD discussion, but I'll elaborate here. First, yes, the subject is obscure, it doesn't generate Google hits in the same order of magnitude as Final Fantasy X, and while sources such as "a small number of fairly specialised news sites" may at first seem damning, many other articles in WP have few Google hits and only specialised sources. Most of my work on WP has involved obscure subjects (barely known 19th century photographers in Asia), but they are notable nonetheless (apparently, even FA-worthy). That Globus Cassus was the "core of the Swiss entry" at the 9th Architecture Biennale in Venice of 2004 is already a claim to notability, that the project has been published by a renowned - if somewhat obscure - publisher (Lars Müller) bolsters that claim, and that the project continues to develop through its website adds further to that claim. Again, comparing with articles on photographers (which represent a similar set of problems re: notability), there is much agreement (see this discussion, which follows from WP:N) that notability depends on a photographer's work having been exhibited in a prominent exhibition and/or having appeared in a serious publication. Extrapolating from those criteria, Globus Cassus fits the bill in both respects. Finally, I must take issue with the characterisation of the previous AfD discussion as "I like it" vs. "I don't like it". In fact, the discussion was much more a case of "I don't like it, so it must be deleted" vs. "what are its merits as a subject for a WP article?". I happen to hate the subject, but I believe it merits an article in WP as an example of an admittedly obscure but notable combination of artistic/architectural/science fiction speculation and scholarship. I do agree that references need to be added, and I'd like to point out that such references are more likely to come from the realms of printed architectural and design sources than anything readily Googlable or otherwise Internet-based. It's not a subject I'm greatly interested in, but if I have time I'll try to add some bibliographical references to critical reviews, etc. Pinkville 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: "obscure but notable" is an oxymoron.

Secondly: the Venice Biennale is the only serious claim that Globus Cassus has to notability, and by its very nature, it is transitory. WP:N requires substantial coverage by multiple sources that are independent of each other and the subject. Notability must also be enduring, which is why I raised concerns that the only Google hits to serious press articles (and these seem very thin on the ground before the search results descend into spammy gibberish) are from specialised publications at around the time of the Biennale.

I do not know much about the best designed books from around the world award, but it needs to be established that it was both notable and independent of the Biennale; even then, it is dubious whether this is sufficient to carry the day.

Thirdly, your statement about nothing googleable academically is very difficult to swallow: any non-trivial coverage from the academic community will show up in Google Scholar, as at least the abstracts for every published paper in the past ten years or more are available online. Google Scholar returns only one result.

Fourthly, while WP:BK does indicate that the publisher may be a factor in notability criteria for academic books, other factors must also be taken into account, such as how widely it is cited in the academic press. See point 3.

Finally, what goes on elsewhere on Wikipedia is irrelevant; WP:ATA notes that such arguments hold no water, and in fact I noted that one such argument on the previous AfD pointed to what is now a redlink, which would indicate that the page in question has since been deleted (probably speedily, given the juvenile nature of its title). — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure but notable is an oxymoron, but so is army intellegence. I don't really get what point you are trying to make here? Once notable == always notable. It does return results on Google Scholar, and Google Search, and it has been featured in a book award, and an architecture award. I think this more than suffices for notability? One final thing, in your last point you say that what goes on elsewhere on wikipedia is irrelevant, but then go on to reference another AfD, I'm confused? Fosnez 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you to WP:N#Notability is not temporary for my response to "Once notable == always notable": there is no doubt whatsoever that Globus Cassus falls flat on its face on this one. As to the awards, or anything that you consider may indicate enduring notability, please give full details of exactly which awards and how notable they were, backed up by reliable sources. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-read the policy that you quoted, it actually states "Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes" nowhere in that policy does it say that notability diminishes with time, which seems to be what you are implying. In fact "enduring" is not even mentioned on the page. Also, regarding sources: Sources != internet links. It has been established that this has featured in a major exhibition (via the source I provided, and others in this AfD) and is thus notable then, and is therefore notable now. - Fosnez 01:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In turn.

1. "Obscure but notable" is not at all an oxymoron, and I'm perplexed that an experienced WP editor should think it is. Pierre Rossier is exceedingly obscure - virtually nothing (not even his full name) was known about this 19th century photographer until 3 years ago - yet he is notable for his influence as an early teacher of photography in Japan and China. Treatises on impossible megaprojects are likely to be obscure by their very nature, but may yet have a notable influence - to those who know the field.

2. The second serious claim to notability, which you dismiss, is the publication Globus Cassus by a prominent publishing house. Lars Müller is one of the finest publishers of serious works on architecture, art, design and related subjects, as prestigious as, say, Princeton University Press. I invite you to consult Lars Müller's website. I don't understand what you mean about the book being "independent of the Biennale", but think of it as a book parallel to the Globus Cassus exhibition entry. There's nothing that needs establishing there, it's a book, like Dhalgren is a book. As for the "transitory nature" of exhibitions... well that's a limited view. Exhibitions often receive scholarly attention many years or decades after they occured. The 9th Venice Biennale is no exception.

3. When abstracts have been put online, they appear, yes. But Google doesn't measure everything that has been written or that is being written. And the three essay contributors to the book, Boris Groys, Claude Lichtenstein and Michael Stauffer, are each notable in their own right. I note that there is a Library of Congress Authority for Christian Waldvogel that mentions Globus Cassus, again indicating notability.

4. As above.

5. Other activity in WP is not irrelevant, it is what WP policy is based on and meant to guide. And it's particularly useful to compare with similar subjects in other parts of WP when related difficulties regarding notability arise - as with obscure subjects such as Pierre Rossier or this article. Pinkville 02:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could respond to you point by point but I won't other than to say that none of them satisfactorily address the issues I have raised. Instead, I will simply sum up what has been stated so far in favour of a keep:

1. The Venice Biennale. This is a fairly good point but it is doubtful whether it is sufficient in and of itself to carry the day, particularly in the light of the fact that the subject has had so little coverage elsewhere.

2. The identity of the publisher. This can be a deciding factor in determining the notability of books, but only when considered alongside other factors such as breadth and depth of citation.

3. An award which appears to be given for typography and graphic design, not content, and (you may correct me if I am wrong) appears to be little known outside Germany.

4. The Library of Congress. Unless I am mistaken, this is completely trivial: as a copyright library, the Library of Congress keeps a record of every book published in the United States and their respective authors.

Set aside these factors, which alone are borderline in terms of establishing notability, we must consider that there is so little coverage of the subject elsewhere that without them this article would be a candidate for category A7 speedy deletion. It may be that, as you maintain, there are offline sources that can be cited that bolster its case for notability. If this is the case, please prove it and cite them. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherited, but editors should be aware that the Venice Biennale is the premier contemporary arts exhibition in the world, comparable in some ways to a contemporary arts Olympics. It is curated and by invitation. The Architecture Biennale apparently has more of a World's Fair approach and it is possible that this is just one of many things exhibited "at" the fair, but it is noted to be the official Swiss entry. To achieve that status it must have gone through a juried process of some kind. I personally believe this is sufficient notability to keep an article on a contemporary art project, because this is equivalent to athletes "competing at the highest level". Being a Venice selection is a serious honor and should not be dismissed lightly. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true but WP:N requires coverage from multiple independent reliable sources over an extended period of time. Prestigious as the Biennale may be, there is almost nothing to speak of apart from it. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not see any significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is one other thing that may or may not be of relevance. User:Pinkville opined that the Globus Cassus website adds to the subject's notability. The GC website is actually one of the most heavily spammed wikis I have ever seen. At times, approximately one in three pages are totally obliterated by spam bots, and some spam remains for several months before being reverted. (Example) — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would actually that is a very good reason to keep in on wikipedia, if the source website is being spammed as you say, then having it stored here is a good idea, it retains knowledge that might otherwise be lost. After all, that is what we are all about here. If your seemingly unquenchable requirement for sources is not satisfied by the end of the AfD (and IMHO I believe they have been) I suggest we break all the rules anyway. - Fosnez 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave it to everyone else to decide now. I've stated my case, you've stated yours, and everybody knows exactly what the score is. At least this time I can be more confident that the outcome will be based on Wikipedia policies and hard facts rather than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because it might get spammed elsewhere (or lost). We have notability guidelines, as well as a big long list of what Wikipedia is not. I don't find the "source might get spammed, so we should keep it here" argument at all convincing (or such a drastic case that we should resort to WP:IAR). The topic has no enduring notability or worldwide significance. /Blaxthos 18:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP isn't a repository for texts that may vanish elsewhere. But you have seriously altered the WP definition of notability with the addition of the qualifiers "enduring"* and "worldwide significance". When did these criteria become become policy? And just a general reminder, notability is not the same thing as popularity or familiarity, it refers to something that is "worthy of note", which is why very obscure topics may be notable.

* WP:N says that "notability is not temporary", and Globus Cassus is not temporary, the book is still in print. Pinkville 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop splitting hairs about the exact meaning of the policy, you know exactly what it means and exactly what the issue is. Specifically, that the third party coverage of Globus Cassus by independent, reliable sources is quite clearly insufficient to establish notability. If you want to convince anyone of your case, you must provide solid evidence to back it up as ultimately that is what will decide this matter. There are no sources to speak of available online, though you maintain that there are some available offline -- well, where are they? If it has permanent notability per WP:N#Notability is not temporary, reliable sources will still be covering it on an ongoing basis since the Biennale. Where are the references and sources to back up your assertions? — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep things just have to be notable of their sort, and for this the sources are fully sufficient to show notability in its field. Popularity is not notability, and unpopularity is not non-notability. Specialized material, even in the smallest specialty, can be notable, and a random look at WP will show this--access to such is the very purpose of a comprehensive encyclopedia. Deletion here is based on ITDOESNTMATTERTOME. DGG (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is based on the explicit and specific definition of notability in WP:N: non-trivial coverage in multiple published reliable sources, which, per WP:N#Notability is not temporary, must extend over a sufficient period of time to demonstrate enduring notability. As for the specialised field business: this is an argument that has cropped up a couple of times but it does not seem to have been properly justified, that Globus Cassus is notable because it is significant in some particularly specialised field. Can somebody please enlighten us as to exactly what that field is supposed to be, and why in this case such a tiny and transitory amount of coverage should be considered sufficient? Deletion discussions need to be based on evidence, not broad sweeping generalisations and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "keep" votes have thus far failed to address the issue at stake in this deletion debate: the almost total lack of coverage of the subject in reliable, third party sources. None of them have provided any solid evidence or references to back up their assertions and some of them are falling back on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion needs to either (a) cite additional references and sources or else (b) demonstrate non-trivial influence in an area where only a tiny number of sources can reasonably be expected, stating what that area is and why it is reasonable that third party references should be so thin on the ground. So far the only convincing "keep" argument has been from Dhartung, with some useful information about the Biennale, but even then the lack of coverage elsewhere leaves some questions unanswered: if what he is saying is correct, it would be roughly analogous to an Olympic swimmer winning a gold medal and getting little or no press coverage in her home country. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 08:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Comment - Just because something doesn't get much "press coverage" doesn't mean it is not notable - Prime Example. Now, please don't take this as an attack - you seem to understand the policies of wikipedia - you sure have quoted a lot of policy!, but I don't think you understand the spirit of the organization. I have already been flamed once for using this quote, but I think it applies here. Mr Wales once said that wikipedia was supposed to contain the "sum of all human knowledge"[26], that would include this. We have established that this is a notable idea, repeatedly - heaven knowns there are less notable articles on wikipedia. (I won't link to them to "protect the innocent") but they, like this on, deserve to be here. The article is well written, is not advertisement and takes up a trivial amount of bandwidth / harddrive space. Live and let live. Fosnez 09:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this just boils down to a combination of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't have policies and guidelines (WP:RS and WP:N) so that we can have something to ignore... ;-) Wikipedia is not a reward; things don't "deserve to be here". The nebulous "spirit of the organization" argument is just an appeal to ignore the rules without a real explaination as to why. This subject, as appealing as it may be to some, has no long term notability, which is examplified by the complete lack of reliable sources -- this pair of deficiencies go hand-in-hand almost always, and should be a clear cut case to delete, IMHO. As a side note, I have no campaign or disdain for the subject of this article; I just hate to see the AFD process be overrun with !votes of keep with no clear rationale in policy. /Blaxthos 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with other articles about space habitats, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere carefully. There are a few online hints that it has had additional coverage [27][28], but more importantly, the German Wikipedia entry tells us that the book won the "gold medal to the Leipziger book fair", and includes two quotes (presumably by notable people).[29] John Vandenberg 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally we're getting somewhere. However, coverage is still very sparse and I still say it is insufficient to warrant an article of its own. Even if it is kept, the article will need to be rewritten as it does not make its significance clear and does not differentiate clearly between fact and fiction (when I first encountered the article I seriously thought it was an April Fool joke or a hoax or something). Furthermore, the links in the German Wikipedia article all point to the Globus Cassus & author's websites, not to secondary sources. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 08:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The next step is to research the award and expand the article about the fair, in order to gauge the significance of the award. John Vandenberg 08:21, 7 September 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jangladesh[edit]

Jangladesh is not a recognised geographical or political term. It seems to have been invented for some political or other agenda. Please see the discussions on the Talk pages of the articles on "Jangladesh" and "Jat people" John Hill 07:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have been moved to the talk page. utcursch | talk 11:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Do not delete Jangal Desh was the geographical identity of the north western region of Rajasthan prior to it was annexed by Bika Rathore. In the article Jangladesh it has been mentioned as an ancient region and not in the present context. As far as Mr John Hill is concerned he is not having any knowledge about this region and is biased. It has been discussed in detail on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people. It may not be delated for the following reasons:
- SECTION IX of Bhisma Parva in Mahabharata mentions about the regions of India during Mahabharata period (See http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06009.htm)
"After this, listen to the names of the provinces as I mention them. They are the Kuru-Panchalas, the [[Salwa[[s, the Madreyas, the Jangalas, the Surasena, the Kalingas, the Bodhas, the Malas, the Matsyas, the Sauvalyas, the Kuntalas, the Kasi-kosalas, the Chedis, the Karushas, the Bhojas, the Sindhus,..." These are only few out of detailed list. Most of these ancient regions are mentioning in the Wikipedia. So is Jangala or Jangala Desh.
- It is the geographical region known so in the history since Mahabharata times and that is why it is mentioned in Mahabharata. Geographical features mentioned in Mahabharata still exist in present times also. The name Jangala Desh continued till the beginning of the rule of Bika Rathore in end of fifteenth century.
- It has been suggested before, and it will bear repetition, that it is always a good idea to get a knowledge of the Indian languages,and cultural heritage, and Indian history from an Indian perspective, before rushing in to delete material on a page that is related to Ancient Indian History.
- It is mentioned on number of sites such as http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2006/08/sultanate-of-nagaur.htmlJangaldesh - The English word jungle is derived from the Hindi jangal, both of which indicate a thick forest. However the original Sanskrit word jangala had a very different meaning—it was actually used to describe land where water was scarce, where khejri trees and ber hedges were abundant, and where roamed deer, black buck, and wild ass. The ancient Ayurveda states, “The land that has less water, trees, and hills is healthy jangala country.” (see -Shabad Kalpadrum) Over the centuries the word jangal was used for any wild or desolate piece of land and eventually became synonymous with forests. From the descriptions above, the country around Nagaur, north to Bikaner, and up to the border of Punjab, was called Jangaldesh in ancient times. The remains of some of the earliest settlements along the banks of the long dried-up Saraswati River can be seen to this day—in a later age it came under the Naga rulers after whom the town of Nagaur (Naga-pura) is named.
- The Indian govt sites such as http://tdil.mit.gov.in/coilnet/ignca/rj019.htm, http://tdil.mit.gov.in/CoilNet/IGNCA/rj185.htm etc give details of these regions in which Rajasthan state of India was divided in ancient times.
- Prof. Dilbagh Singh, a known historian from Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Delhi, writes in [“Migration and Movement: The Role of Jats in Rural Settlements in Rajasthan during Medieval Period”, The Jats, Vol. 2, Ed Dr Vir Singh, Originals, Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-88629-52-9, pp. 215-217 ] as under:
“Even Puratanaprabhandasamgraha and Nainsi’s Khyat attest to the formation of nodal kingdom at the expense of medas and meenas. Their movement was from Ahichhatrapura to Sakambari or Jangaldesh, which one could assume from the name and topography of Jangaldesh led to the colonization of generally unchartered area. [BD Chattopadhyaya, ‘The Emergence of Rajputs As Historical Process in Early Medieval Rajasthan’, K. Schomer (ed) The Idea of Rajasthan, Vol. II, Delhi, pp. 163-166]"
- A well known political personality and author, records that Jats had established powerful governments in north India. Prior to 1488 Jats had seven Janapadas of Godara, Saran, Sihag, Beniwal, Puniya, Sahu, Johiya in desert region of Bikaner, [Dr Karni Singh (1947): The Relations of House of Bikaner with Central Power, Munsi Ram Manohar Lal Pub. Pvt, 54 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi.], [Dr Brahmaram Chaudhary, The Jats, Vol. 2, Ed Dr Vir Singh, Originals, Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-88629-52-9, p. 250].
- Jibraeil writes about Jangala Desh in [“Position of Jats in Churu Region” in “The Jats, Vol. 2”, Ed Dr Vir Singh, Originals, Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-88629-52-9, pp. 223 ] as under:
“When Rathores led an expedition into the region of dry land also known as Jangal Pradesh, which was occupied by the Jats and various tribes, the Bhatis and Jats of the region wanted to secure their position, they measured sword with him (Bika) and fought bravely against them, but finally defeated and accepted Rathor suzerainty. [G N Sharma, Rajasthan Studies, Agra, 1970, p. 197]”
- A reputed historian K R Qanungo [History of the Jats, Ed Dr Vir Singh, 2003, p.] who mentions incidence from Mahabharata that there is a town named Sakala and river named Apaga where section of the Bahikas, known as the Jartikas, dwell. Their character is very repressible. He mentions about a Bahika who had to sojourn for a time in Kuru-jungal country (meaning -Jangala Desh).
- These are only few instances from fistorical records. If this article is deleted the entire ancient history of this region of Rajasthan will be deleted from Wikipedia.
- I strongly favour not to delete Jangladash. --burdak 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of Bikaner. According to the website of the Rajasthan Tourism, "Jangladesh" was the name of area where Bikaner is situated today. Half of the article ("Rule of Bika and after" onwards) is about the history of Bikaner anyway. So, merging is an acceptable solution. utcursch | talk 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Burdak. 65.207.127.12 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jangladesh page need not be deleted. If someone has doubts, the same could better be written on page. - dndeswal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.34.13 (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, OR-fest. Creation of a concept of a coherent realm around two common words. Equivalent to coming across a history of somewhere called "Woodland" constructed out of references to a particular set of forests in all sorts of different sources. Some of the references are indeed to the area of desert wilderness (which is exactly what jangladesh means) common to Bikaner and Shekhawati, so make of that what you will. The two 'Indian government' sources in devanagiri script provided above are nothing of the kind, but websites from an arts institute written by a scholar of folk dances and heritage. Certainly any kind of linkage between the Mahabharata and Bika's period, which the article and its creator above tries to draw, is entirely fictional. Hornplease 06:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an absolute wealth of references provided in English and Hindi, and from ancient texts such as the Mahabharat.

The Mahabaharat is composed much much earlier ( centuries) than Bika' s period and must take precedence if we are looking at Ancient History. In Bika's period, there is also reference to a place, 'Jangloo' in Tod's book ( 1983 edition Munshiram Manohar Lal, Delhi) ( Now that is how the term is wriiten in Tod's book in the antiquated English of his time).

In Crookes edition 1920,OUP,London page 1124 it is written as 'Janglu' a place 20 miles south of Bikaner.

Place names are often from a people, and that also points us in the direction, that the place Janglu could have been named after the people, known as Jangasl, Jangloos, Jauaglus.

Even the name Bikaner, was named after Bika and Ner( a Ner/Nehr Jat), who at that time shared power.

The name Jangaldesh has been constantly appearing since ancient times.

Taking all wealth of information and the numerous references available, why would you or anyone else wish to delete the article?.

Do you , or for that matter anyone else, think that by deleting the article , it will make the name Jangaldesh go away?

An Encyclopedia in meant to contain all, repeat all, knowledge, and cannot and should not be held hostage, to some people who have a personal agenda .

Do not delete

Ravi Chaudhary 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody expexts the name to go away, we just hope that in due course some more evidence will be provided than these occasional mentions of a name which, as I said, in the end can mean just "wilderness." As you say "the name Jangaldesh has constantly been appearing since ancient times". Yes, but to assume all those appearances were of the same coherent state, or that there is any other connection between them, is original research. Somebody else has to fill in the gaps, not us. Hornplease 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hornplease, Thank you for acknowledging that these references appear from ancient times( thus they are not fictitious, and that gaps need filling in. Now If the article is deleted,as you are suggesting, how would the gaps be filled? Do not delete. Ravi Chaudhary 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR synthesis of tenuous references. (And merge verifiable material with History of Bikaner, where substantial overlap exists already.) rudra 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nom is incorrect.[30][31] The article needs to be trimmed down, not deleted. With 30+ incoming links, deleting this is quite disruptive. John Vandenberg 06:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor correction -- almost all of these results are actually about Bangladesh. Because of poor quality of print, "B" is incorrectly scanned as "J" for some older books (example). Of course, the nominator is wrong in saying that the term was invented for some political or other agenda. The term "Jangla Desh" or 'Jangladesh" is an older name for the Bikaner region. The article needs to be pruned or merged with History of Bikaner, since most of it talks about after the region came to be known as Bikaner (the sections about Geography, Rule of Bika and after). utcursch | talk 07:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg.Shyamsunder 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP'Bold text'

Dear utcursch

The area known as Jangaldesh covered the area west of the river Sindhu (now Indus), modern Pakistan across Modern Rajasthan, into modern Haryana and into Southern Punjab.

Geographically, the area covers North Rajastan, and extends into three major states- Sindh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana.

The town of Bikaner is in the district of Bikaner. Around that are a number of other districts, as the maps in the link below indicates.

http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/rajasthan/districts/

That gives a picture of where Jangaldesh was at least in the modern State of Rajasthan.

The districts are Jaisalmer to the West, Jodhpur to the south, Ganganagar to the north, and State of Punjab, District Hanumangarh, North West, Jhunjunu to the East, and then the state of Haryana, also to the east. Jangaldesh stretched into near the modern town of Kurukshetra.

In the west beyond the Indian border, parts of what is now Pakistan part of Sindh were also part of Jangaldesh.

Ref: Dilip Singh Ahlawat, ‘ Jat Viron Ka Ithihaas” Mathan Press, Rohtak, India.

The article cannot be reduced to being a part of Bikaner district or even the formerly princely state of Bikaner.

Te other point readers may wish to consider is, that at that point of time, prior to the creation of Bikaner, in the 15th century CE, the area was known a Jangaldesh since ancient times.

Take the analogy of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire covered vast territories, Europe, Middle East, Egypt. That has now disappeared,

Yet no one would suggest that the Roman Empire be reduced to be part of an article about Rome.

There is plenty of evidence that was not the equivalent name in Hindi of a desert, a barren place.

It is not also the equivalent or synonym for Jungle, which means forest and Jungle has entered the English language.

The article needs to improved upon and expanded, not deleted or merged.?

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 19:04, 7 September 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Hudson[edit]

Claims to notability are completely unverifiable. Vargas award: not one relevant Google hit[32] Jacqueline Hudson + Airbrush Action:not one google hit.[33] Jacqueline Hudson + Grammy: not one relevant google hit[34]. No google hits with music cares[35], nor with the correct name musicares[36].No mention of Hudson in the article about the MusiCares award for Aretha Franklin [37]. In fact, only one google hit for Jacqueline Hudson plus airbrush![38] So all the impressive links and claims in the article are unverifiable (online). Her own website, by the way, claims that she is featured in Airbrush Magazine, not Airbrush Action magazine. Fram 07:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity bio, Hubby's got a page now she wants one too. Article content doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO --WebHamster 08:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be honest, Google does bring up one or two hits, but the article still fails WP:BIO, so yes, it should be deleted. Lra drama 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new member and editor of the wikipedia outlet, I beleieve those who claim to be excellent editors, should go a little easy on new articles. Firstly, I would like to see the verible reference on all wikipedia editors, and where they claim they have the right to delete pages. (Via your qualifications, and if you are a vilable employee to the site). And not just a bored self claimed writer with nothing better to do with their time. Notibly, those partcipating in making justifiable comments should be more encouraing to help new users edit their document with supportive claims. The article written on Jacqueline Hudson is quite notable. After reading it myself, I would cross examine the verible mistakes written in the article and delete them. I have looked up all relevant associations via all the artists. And I am well versed in the art arena. Having purused an article of airbrush action magazine, she has been listed. I would recommend who ever wrote the article also clean up the reference points.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacqueline_Hudson" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.204.209 (talk) 19:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Your credibility would be stronger if a) you weren't anonymous and signed your comments, b) you had more than 2 contributions that were independent of this article, i.e. your 2 comments are this comment and a copy of it to the article's talk page. --WebHamster 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy with no prejudice to recreation if verifiable sources can be added. At the moment there are no citations and no evidence that it is possible to add citations, so it shouldn't remain in the main namespace. Regarding the comment above about going easy on new articles, etc a response: No. Wikipedia isn't dogmatic, but it is organized. "New" articles that are being worked on CAN be worked on in any user's sandbox at any time. But if they are going to be part of the encyclopedia they are required to provide proof that something is true and important. Asking for this to be the case is not the work of "bored self claimed writer"s, it's the guidelines of Wikipedia, and every editor (including yourself) is asked to respect and follow those guidelines to the best of their ability. We do indeed encourage new users to improve articles, and the proof of this is that the first person to chime in on this AfD went to the trouble of doing several google searches to see if there was any evidence out there to improve the article. S/he found none, so presented that result here. That editor didn't knock the article down, that editor spent a little time trying to see what was possible. That's not discouragement, that's trying to help. (okay, long-winded comment over, apologies for length) -Markeer 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced biography of artist with some accomplishments, but accomplishment is not the same as notability. This isn't a matter of going easy on new articles; new or old, all material in Wikipedia is subject to the same rules and guidelines. Note that editors don't delete articles, administrators do, and in the case of an Articles for deletion nomination such as this one, only after consensus is reached. What we need is simple: attribution of notability through citation to independent and credible parties. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per will-researched nom. Freshacconci 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Modernist 16:24, 31 August 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 as obvious hoax (a Nobelprize winner, born in 1987? Right...). Fram 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bowman[edit]

Obvious hoax bio that should be speedied. Unfortunately an anonymous user from a shared IP in Korea (whom I suspect to be the article's creator) has constantly removed the CSD and maintenance tags leaving me with no choice but to AFD it WebHamster 07:53, 30 August 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goat on a Pole[edit]

Contested speedy and prod, for reasons that completely befuddle me. Non-notable "religion," more likely a hoax or just pure and utter bollocks. It's supposed to be a religion that worships a goat on a pole. No, I'm not joking. Someone actually devotes a web site to this, which means web hosting prices have gotten to be a bit too low. Realkyhick 07:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Doesn't come close to WP:ORG but admirably matches WP:BOLLOCKS. 139 gHits mostly from blogs self-referencing.--WebHamster 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or BJAODN. Correction: 2830 gHits [39] --Candy-Panda 09:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you do a search on "Goatonapolists" as referred to in the article. It's a more specific search term than "goat" and "pole".--WebHamster 09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article smells like a hoax made up in school one day. Although the article seems to refer to it as a parody religion, there is no assertion that it is a notable parody. —gorgan_almighty 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a zine one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This is utter nonsense. The references consist of a homepage, MySpace, the users Wiki Page and a user driven site similar to metafilter. Helmsb 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Utter bollocks. Delete -- Roleplayer 20:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may seem odd to have an article on Flying Spaghetti Monster and delete this, but this article contains no reliable sources. --Pixelface 21:57, 31 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quake 2 vortex[edit]

Videogame modification lacking notability, fails WP:N--PCPP 07:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This also reads like adspam. —gorgan_almighty 10:44, 30 August 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. Suggestion to rename is a good one but I will leave it up to interested editors to decide what to do with the name. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern uses and adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood[edit]

Trivial cluttered list of many mentions, parodies (and so on) of Little Red Riding Hood. Being a popular and famous subject doesn't justify a list like this one. RobJ1981 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another culturecruft list under a slightly different naming format. Realkyhick 08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this page provided sourced mentions, critical analysis, and comparisons of modern adaptions of Little Red Riding Hood (that is, contained non-list prose), then I would certainly hope we kept it. But as it stands, the article is merely a list of mentions or references in popular culture. These sorts of articles examine an entity as a cultural phenomenon, but these phenomena are not always notable. So, I suggest that we merge applicable content into Little Red Riding Hood, where it can be organized better. Outright deletion is fine if merging is not possible or redundant. Gracenotes^T § 09:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Little Red Riding Hood is a very notable work, and the works that it has influenced are an indispensable part of an encyclopedic treatment of it. The list is too long to merge with the main article, hence I suggest keeping it. As an analogy, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc was even a Featured List once, and is commonly used as an example of how an "X in culture" article can be reasonably encyclopedic. I don't see anything precluding Modern uses and adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood from growing into something like that or better. --Itub 10:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Itub - Fosnez 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like one of those "...in popular culture" articles with a slightly more sober-sounding title. As usual, the notable ones should be added to the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one difference between this topic and the average "...in popular culture" article that is nominated for deletion. In cases such as a hypothetical Chewing gum in popular culture article (not using a real example to protect the innocent ;-), one typically finds a list including every time chewing gum appeared on a movie or episode of a TV series. These lists are generally trivia. However, in Modern uses and adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood one has actual works of culture (not necessarily "popular") such as novels, stories, and comics, that are directly influenced by Little Red Riding Hood--they are based on it, parody it, revise the story, etc. I'm not saying that every single entry currently in the article fulfills these criteria, but in general they do, and those that do not can be fixed by editing, not deleting the entire article. --Itub 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to Adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood and restrict similar to Adaptations of Moby-Dick and Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. This should be restricted to actual sourced adaptations of the story and should exclude "there was a character dressed in a red hood" or "one of the three dozen characters was named 'Red' and carried a hatchet." Otto4711 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to second Fosnez's "keep per Itub". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am glad to see an increasing willingness to discuss the content and the appropriate title. I'd be glad enough to reach some sort of understanding which would eliminate the need for these increasingly unproductive discussions. What the whole series of articles need is work, not argument. DGG (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of these "adaptations" are based on uncited synthesis and Merge the most significant "adaptations" back into the main article Corpx 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps rename, but whatever you do don't merge The name is a little awkward, but that's because it was a title lifted straight out of a subsection of the LRRH page. Changing it might be a good idea. However, merging it back into LRRH would recreate the problem LRRH was having when this page was created (by myself): that the list of adaptations dominated the page. The page may need work, but it's far from deletable. I too agree with Itub's comments above: many (though, yes, not all) of the adaptations listed on this page are indeed noteworthy. --Jayunderscorezero 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Otto4711 though, this page certainly should have certain elements removed, but things like Red Hot Riding Hood, The Company of Wolves and Hoodwinked most certainly deserve to be listed (unlike the dubious Fable reference). --Jayunderscorezero 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Itub. -ryand 18:51, 2 September 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. Carlossuarez46 04:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fists in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo[edit]

Completely in-universe list of attacks. No reliable, verifiable third party sources to assert its notability. If comparisons can be made to Fist of the North Star, that can be included at the central article at Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally torn. I've tried before to explain the whole matter of fists in the main article and think we need some info regarding how a "Fist Master" in Bo-bobo can use anything and everything as an attack style. However, a similar article I once created was deleted and I don't see any reason why this one won't be. If it is too trivial, then I can't say anything to stop it. -StrangerAtaru 12:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:FICT, WP:NOT#INFO. As nom said, completely in universe information and if this was a video game, would definitely fall under game guide content. Also, not a directory of powers in an anime Corpx 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate "Fists in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo" is notable. We don't list all the specifics if the concept itself isn't notable. If an individual fist were notable, not that any appear to be, it still would still be no reason for a list. Jay32183 01:57, 4 September 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. Singu larity 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya_Danielle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tanya Danielle

Doesn't seem to meet the standards for notability of a pornographic actor Anadin 05:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmmm, let me see; a blonde with 36" boobs that dropped out of college and went on to make some pr0n movies to supplement her income. Sounds very notable to me. No mention of getting awards for pulling the longest train either. The article doesn't have a lot to offer really.--WebHamster 06:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that passes WP:BIO. Most of the article just describes how she hated school and dropped out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil 21:34, 30 August 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. Singu larity 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Reinmann[edit]

Non-notable city council member, who received 129 votes. Attack page that fails WP:BLP.

His membership of the Tallinn City Council does not make him notable. His career of petty crimes does not meet WP:NOTABILITY either. The combination really does not make him notable. He might be mentioned in an article on the Tallinn City Council, if such article ever existed. As is stands now, the article is clearly an attack page. Non-notable people have a right to privacy, even criminals. They do not deserve their misconduct spashed on the front page of Wikipedia.

I was thinking of nominating this for AfD the first time I saw it, but because I have refrained from editing anything that User:Digwuren is involved with, I did not react early. The on-going arbitration at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren makes me even more unwilling to touch any of this crap. Placing this attack on the Front page, in the WP:DYK section is however a step too far. I request that this article be removed from DYK ASAP and deleted. -- Petri Krohn 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event this article could be moved to Tallinn City Council. ("Cover the event, not the person.") I would prefer the article history be deleted, but if someone wants to do the move, I will not object. -- Petri Krohn 06:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, why do you call it an attack page? Can just sourced facts be an attack? As it is in WP:DYK, it is clear that an administrator - or several - reviewed the article and saw it as acceptable.

Also, as for notability, Rene Reinmann is probably the most mentioned name in Estonian politics at the moment, having been lying about his past and education - and the follow-up of Keskerakond trying to protect him almost at any cost. If you want English sources, then the Baltic Business News ran a story about him, [40], available for subscribers. Sander Säde 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "only one event" would that be? The one when he ran a major electricity meter clock theft ring, which was covered in media? Or the one where he ran for the City Council? Or the one where he lied about his education? Or the one where it became public? Or the one where it was covered up? Digwuren 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, then, there's the issue that Tallinn City Council has a seven-century history. Shoving this incident into that article, with temporal coverage of less than a third of one percent, would be a clear case of WP:UNDUE. Considering Petri Krohn's history at Wikipedia, making such a suggestion is more than a little interesting. Digwuren 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Number of received votes is totally irrelevant. Article is well written and fully cited - WP:BLP does not mean that Wikipedia must avoid writing anything that might displease the living person or his supporters, it means that content must be fully verifiable. And in this case, the author has been extremely careful with facts, having two or even three sources behind every claim. Note that article was also on frontpage as WP:DYK. Sander Säde 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the fact that the guy's a thug who's a councillor which in itself isn't notable, most of the references seem to come from the same newspaper written by the same editor. Just because someone can write a lot about a little is no reason to include it in an encyclopaedia. --WebHamster 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the author used articles from one newspaper just because it was easiest. But, Eesti Ekspress, SL Õhtuleht, Äripäev, Postimees, Delfi, Reporter (TV) all run one or more stories about him. All mentioned sources are among the biggest media outlets in Estonia, there are dozens of minor sources not worth searching or mentioning. If Digwuren has time, he could add sources from other places then Eesti Päevaleht. Sander Säde 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, I felt that since Eesti Ekspress was responsible for digging up the whole story, they should get the most prominent credit. Digwuren 11:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with strict adherence to WP:BLP. The attention given to him in media "probably" makes him notable. However, I just removed the section with all the offenses he's been convicted of. It's overkill, superfluous, and I think it violates BLP policy. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is directly sourced to relevant newspaper coverage, some offences even to court rulings. I believe this satisfies BLP requirements, and will restore the section accordingly. Digwuren 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sander Sade. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Definitely notable person, Estonian media run this person on front pages several times. As of criminal records, it is relevant as THIS is what makes the person notable. Accusations of attack page are as ridiculous as would be listing Osama bin Laden for deletion because it were attack page. Suva 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The whole nomination seems to be based on the fact that nominator does not like the content.--Alexia Death the Grey 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As pointed out above, the person involved is thoroughly covered in Estonian news media, and the offences listed are matched to WP:RS, some even with online copies of court rulings. (Unfortunately, earlier Estonian court rulings are not online, and a few years ago, the Ministry of Justice migrated to a new infosystem that does not support linking to court rulings.)

The 129-vote victory is not actually extreme; it's an artefact of Estonia's proportional voting systems. Most parties have up to a dozen Very Known People as their flagships, and then the Long Tail. In Reinmann's case, the flagship was Vilja Savisaar. Extreme victories, in context of local elections, are usually considered those that take less than about 20 votes. Digwuren 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate to close this AFD early, under WP:SNOW. Digwuren 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first off, speedy keep is inappropriate when editors have argued to delete, as above, especially when the reasons presented are as well-considered as WebHamster's. Second, editors seem to be forgetting that media references do not equate to notability. Pedantically quoting from the policy: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Thus, while he may have been the object of some press attention, I fail to see what, exactly, is notable here per WP:BIO. Frankly, shrilly asserting speedy keep and hiding behind WP:RS instead of instancing something that asserts notability is a poor argument. Eusebeus 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiding behind WP:RS"? Watch me throwing a snowball in your general direction! Digwuren 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable figure is that country, has several sources and significant coverage in that country for his criminal activities.--JForget 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I see it, the article is about a controversial politician who's attracted interest partly because of his criminal record and partly because of his claimed educational background. I don't speak Estonian, so I'm taking it on faith that the sources cited in fact say what they're claimed to (the article creator speaks it, so it's a fair bet), so BLP doesn't seem to be a concern. The sources appear to be from a third-party source, so that's taken care of. Is the man in fact notable as a result of all of this controversy? I'd say so. He and his associates may desperately wish that he wasn't, but he is. After all, it's not every day this kind of thing happens. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian is my native language and I can confirm, that article contains what the sources say...--Alexia Death the Grey 06:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I need, then. No risk of calling someone dirty names without sources, then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he was a career politican, he would be a public figure and potentially notable. Most city council members are however not politicians, although they are involved in local politics. -- Petri Krohn 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would have actually looked even the headlines of the sources - as you understand Estonian - you'd have noticed that they call him a politician. Unless you want to dispute those sources, then he is a politician according to the cited and perfectly wiki-valid sources. 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Sander Säde

I'm not sure whether it matters if he's a "career politician" or some guy who happens to be (or have been, rather) on the city council. What matters for me is that he was elected and then turned out to have a criminal record and have fudged his educational background. By being elected, he became someone in the public eye, and he would have done likewise had he been in any one of several hundred other jobs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if it *did* matter, this one hasn't held a job as customarily understood for years. His position in the famous elections' biographical form is marked as "project manager" in a company his father owns. The father, as a matter of fact, belongs to the same city council, is a Chernobyl liquidation veteran (with considerable resulting handicap), and played a rôle in the balance-of-power mechanics. Digwuren 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources on this person to show that he passes WP:BIO and anything negative appears to be well sourced to satisfy any BLP concerns. Davewild 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tallinn is the capital & largest city, so its city council is notable. DGG (talk) 06:41, 1 September 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. Carlossuarez46 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancer Press[edit]

This article's content is comprised of thinly disguised spam promoting the company, whilst its products are listed in detail in the article body, the reference and external links sections. Strip away the self-promotion and the peacock language, this advertorial fails to demonstrate notabilty, which is yet to come. --Gavin Collins 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Comment Funny how this made it to good article status then. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have they changed the way articles make it to "good" status recently? Because I have always thought of that process as absurdly subjective. One spam account creats an article and the next spam account awards it "good" status.-Apollo58 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that might perhaps be why I noted it. FrozenPurpleCube 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete in lacking coverage from reliable sources. Forums/etc are not reliable sources Corpx 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GA does perplex me a little, because this is absurdly spammy. Doesn't mean a good article couldn't be written.DGG (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While biased towards company, could be fixed by someone with knowledge of the field.Mbisanz 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability. MarkBul 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even spam can be well-written! There seems to be an awful lot of detail written about the "products", just enough for the prospective buyer perchance? --WebHamster 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well-written spam indeed. Realkyhick 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree that this is clearly spam, I'm not sure it should be deleted. The main problem is not the exiistence of the article or the notability of the publishing company, but the way it is presented. It could easily be rewritten in a more neutral and less promotional style and be acceptable. I'd suggest that the original author undertake such an effort and then let us judge it. --Hanging Jack 18:25, 30 August 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 02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMW X7[edit]

More or less a procedural nomination. I believe User:Laxplayer630 blanked the page in good faith thinking it should be deleted. I generally agree that this topic is much to speculative to have an article at this time. Daniel J. Leivick 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, amounts to pure crystal ballery. At best the vehicle has been hinted at, but what amount to rumours do not an article make. There was an article in an automotive magazine (I want to say Motor Trend but I'm not sure) back in 2005 that referenced the possibility, but wishful thinking on the part of magazine writers is not the same thing as sourced, factual information. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation per WP:CRYSTAL. If and when sufficient coverage emerges that a fact-based (as opposed to speculation-based) can be written, it can be recreated. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:07, 30 August 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Armiger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination A prior AFD action closed on 13 August with 'keep' as the outcome; 13 days after that close, the article was first nominated for speedy deletion by User:75.2.209.103 then PROD-nominated by User:WebHamster. The claim in the PROD-based re-nomination was "Lack of notability per WP:MUSIC." A couple of the reviewers in the last AFD recommended a period of time (ranging from 2 weeks to 3 months) to allow current events related to this singer to unfold, then rejudge the article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the Music Row Chart? Local Nashville maybe? Charting means the national chart to me, not a local promotional chart. I lean hard towards Delete. MarkBul 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and isn't likely to for quite a while yet I'd say. Created by a SPA so it's either marketing or vanity, either way WP isn't AllMusic or MySSpace. If anyone has a large hook Sugarland, Texas is thattaway.--WebHamster 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been decided shortly ago to keep the article, please don't start again deletion discussions and spend your time writing and improving articles instead. LHOON 07:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but only because this was tacitly agreed to in the first AfD, and enough time really hasn't passed yet. Having said that, I would normally vote for delete with the article as it is now, because notability has not been established yet per WP:MUSIC. The Chron articles help, though. Realkyhick 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Music Row is apparently a country music industry magazine and website. She appeared at the "CMA Music Fest" in June. She was featured in the Academy of Country Music's Tempo magazine. She's being played on American Airlines' in-flight radio system. Corvus cornix 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Heaven forbid that a musician should be notable for their music skills and accomplishments rather than the skills and accomplishments of their PR machine. --WebHamster 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your feelings, WebHamster, but we can't judge talent, only notability, and unfortunately, notability is pretty much what the PR machine makes of it. Corvus cornix 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I didn't mean talent per se, I meant accomplishments such as work output in the form of CDs, touring etc. A full catalogue and/or a full touring schedule are pretty independent forms of notability references as they can't be manipulated as easily as quantity of media coverage. After all the latter is rarely anything to do with the musician his/herself, it's either the press or the label/marketing team. To my mind 2 or 3 CDs says heaps more about an artist's notability (after all, someone has to buy the disks, if they are selling then they are reasonably notable) than a press release being faxed around the tabloids. With the advent of blogs, social networking and ten-a-penny media websites the value of gauging notability via press coverage is starting to become less and less all the time. Sooner or later everyone with access to iGarage and a web connection will become de facto notable based on some of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Do we really want WP to become full of musos who are only famous for being famous rather than being notable musicians? --WebHamster 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with WebHamster that Ms. Armiger's got an impressive PR push behind her; when I opined towards deletion on the last discussion (and I'm surprised that was a keep, to be honest), I found a lot of press release reprints and comments on other artists' message boards that looked to be a search-engine influencing trick to push up hits. However, I think she's edging closer - but she still has one album out, isn't charting on national charts ~~(thus far in my search, the only confirmation she's on the Music Row charts is from some of her reps)~~ (scratch that, it's on their website - my bad), and while there's local buzz, it doesn't seem to have broken out yet. I'm still a delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - [41] This appears to be a non-trivial article that is not a PR spin or anything like that. Along with the music row article above, this seems to meet WP:Music criteria #1. I would vote delete if this was not there. - Spryde 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as someone who works for an independent record label, the way it works is the label (large or small) write up a list of places they want the CD to be seen, they then send a copy of the CD along with a press release to the music editor at the paper/website/magazine (fill in as appropriate). The lazy journos then concoct an article using the press release (sometimes a phone call is used to answer any questions not covered by the PR sheet) infomation. The article you quoted looks suspiciously like it was done just the way I describe. First rule of thumb, never believe a magazine article always allow your ears to be the judge. There's lots of stuff behind those reviews you never see, back scratching, bribes, adverts, politics, nepotism, buddies. Very rarely is there truth. They are there to make money, not to tell the average punter the truth. They tell them what they want them to hear or what they are paid to tell them to hear. This is why I am opposed to the press criteria in WP:MUSIC. It's too easily faked.--WebHamster 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Easy on us lazy journos, now. Some of us did interviews and research when doing reviews... Having defended my profession, I think I agree - that is a fairly generic review, and it's also in a paper fairly close to the subject's hometown. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I am just pointing out a more reliable source. The Houston Chronicle is a pretty reliable source IMO but entertainment is always a touchy subject. I defer to your judgement. Spryde 00:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC as she has recieved non trivial coverage in country music media publications. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:40, 6 September 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. Singu larity 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of residential projects In Bangalore[edit]

advertisement, unencyclopedic -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}04:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better as a category or list within Bangalore's city page.Mbisanz 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This actually qualifies for speedy deletion as CSD G1, A1 and A3. Gnanapiti 05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails about half of CSD regs. Realkyhick 07:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. Abecedare 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above.Harlowraman 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 16:59, 3 September 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. Singu larity 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraclete center[edit]

This article describes a nonnotable local after-school center. It cites no references, and it clearly attempts to advertise, saying it costs $25 to join. The multiple violations of WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV leave little choice but to delete. Shalom ^Hello 03:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this after school center. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article. There is also questions over notability issues as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is little more than an advertisement for a day care. Also, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. faithless (^speak) 04:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thinly-disguised spam. Realkyhick 07:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very thinly-disguised spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 30 August 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Flowers[edit]

NN. Bio extensively edited by its own subject. Subject isn't notable in any of his fields (computer security, literature, or film). Secondary sources for article fall into two categories: a long newsweekly article claiming the subject is a fraud, and superficial trade press hits. What little there is to be said about the subject cannot be written NPOV and within bio guidelines. What's there now is highly misleading. Tqbf 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepThere are multiple published articles about him that are quite large and widely distributed. Even if he is only known for fruad it is enough. The rest of it has to be weeded out.--Dacium 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited) rebuttal: the only WP:N-qualified source cited by the page can't be represented due to WP:BLP --- it slams the subject. Trade press is NN: it's not independent of the subject (based on press hits). As from [Uncle_G] --- Wikipedia is not a business directory.

This seems to be only your opinion. The article does not slam the subject. It questions his stories. The articles his method of making money. Where are the lies in it? There are none. NPOV doesn't mean only kind things.--Dacium 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm being unclear. I agree with the article; I don't dispute it. But (a) that article is the subject's PRIMARY source of notability, (b) it's a profoundly unfavorable article, (c) the subject disputes the article and its contents, which disputes are hard to resolve because of WP:BLP. 69.17.73.234 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Indeed, article doesn't even assert significance of subject. faithless (^speak) 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subject quite clearly passes WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are 3 very long articles dedicated just to him.--Dacium 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I only see 1 very long article from a credible independent source dedicated to him: the one calling him a liar. Cite? 69.17.73.234 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- note "search engine lowdown", the second biggest secondary source in the article, fails the WP:N general notability guideline --- it's not independent, but rather a straight interview with the subject by a webzine that is itself not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. Tqbf 05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Problematically, the subject is not a "fraud", just prone to whoppers, such as allegedly fake degrees. His startups, however, are real, and Kozoru is mildly notable even if it went nowhere. Some of that just goes with the territory, e.g. Steve Jobs's reality distortion field, except that Jobs is wildly successful and Flowers is not. If WP:BLP means it's impossible to have an article, that's one thing, but no article is a drastic solution for an WP:NPOV problem. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken re drastic measures. I considered that before I nominated the page. Kozoru no longer exists; it can count itself among thousands of tech startupts to have obtained only a first round of funding, no significant traction, a few superficial press hits, and an unfortunate demise. See this news brief: 3MM (a small amount) from a no-name fund, company liquidated pre-revenue. Is there value in trying to document this nn company, esp. in a bio page for an nn person hotly contested (and edited) by that person?Tqbf 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like just a guy to me. Media mentions of fraud are news - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MarkBul 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a vanity-bio to me. Notorious maybe, but notable? No. --WebHamster 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There's a lot of legit stuff in here, and I checked out the movie he's producing and it's real and has real actors in it, even if they aren't major stars. The guestion seems to be whether moderate notability/notoriety in a number of areas adds up to sufficient notability overall. IMO it probably does in this case. As for not 'asserting' the significance of the subject, my suspicion is that the author - who is presumably connected with the subject - thought it was obvious, and it kind of is. --Hanging Jack 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- rebut: WP:NOTFILM. The film hasn't received significant coverage. It hasn't been released. It is based on a self-published (Xlibris) novel written by the filmmaker. It is unlikely to obtain national distribution, because it is a low-budget local film with an NN cast. It is in no other way historically or academically notable. Thousands of similarly ambitious/successful film projects do not find themselves in the encyclopedia. Perhaps, if the film is the core argument for notability, a new article could be created describing it, instead of John Flowers. 204.152.235.217 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The reason to keep would be if he's considered an expert in his field, but I dont feel like that's the case from looking at the article Corpx 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not. ~~It's easy to measure: look at Scholar or Citeseer. He has no cites,~~ (I guess I concede that he doesn't claim to be a scholar) ... just patents and patent apps (none of his patents have been enforced; they prove only that he has hired an IP lawyer at some point).Tqbf 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment as he is a practical engineer, not an academic, neither GS or Citeseer is necessarily relevant as a test. DGG (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's tricky in security (my field). There's no WP:SECURITYNOTABILITY, but if there was, tests would include (1) academic cites (many of us have them), (2) authorship of notable security tools or products, or (3) discovery of notable security vulnerabilities. I'll assert Flowers would fail all of these tests. (1) He's cited nowhere. (2) His security company, Hiverworld, has faded into obscurity. (3) From what I can tell, he's discovered no vulnerabilities. Agreed preemptively that he's not "just" a security person, though. Tqbf 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiverworld did not "fade into obscurity. It changed its name, brand, received considerable funding, re-organized with a different management company and currently exists as nCircle using the same core technology developed at Hiverworld and covered by the patents.--P Todd 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rebut: (a) the relationship between Hiverworld and nCircle's success is highly debatable, (b) the "founder of nCircle" claim on this page is misleading (nCircle is a different company), (c) being the founder of a middle-tier security company doesn't confer WP:N notability; there are hundreds of these people, an ever-changing roster, all of whom derive "notability" only from non-independent secondary sources based entirely on press releases. Request, peripheral to the argument: cite a source that argues nCircle's product line, say, since 2003, is based on "core technology" from John Flowers. Central argument: the difference between John Flowers and some random founding CTO of some random foundering software company is that John Flowers seems to have lied about a bunch of stuff and got caught. What's he doing here?Tqbf 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, this article is an orphan, with problems. Maybe he is notable but this article doesnt show it, and neither does a quick search. John Vandenberg 06:48, 7 September 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 as a repost. Still the same speculation that was deleted the first two times. Reso lute 03:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Cassie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article consists entirely of unreferenced speculation about an album that is supposed to come out sometime in 2008 (according to Cassie, although a Google source says Sept. 18th, '07), but it seems they're not even sure what record label it'll be under yet. Recommend deletion under WP:CRYSTAL. Contested Prod. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already deleted once through AfD and it doesn't look like anything's changed; can't we just speedy delete it under CSD G4?--P4k 02:56, 30 August 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 --Haemo 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour[edit]

As with List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show and List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show, it's pure listcruft. An indiscriminate list of variety show guest stars. The list is not notable in and of itself, has no sources, and is unlikely to ever be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, as the show is over, I expect it wouldn't need much maintenance other than VP. FrozenPurpleCube 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of loosely-associated people, appearing on an episode of a variety show is a non-notable characteristic to connect people by. Crazysuit 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would be a tight association? How is this loose? Would a list of people on the Titanic be tight? Can you elaborate?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No references - how do I know Ronald Reagan and Larry Storch were really guests during season two? MarkBul 05:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have episode lists for situation comedies such as Sienfeld. We need the equivalent for variety and interview shows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oh, don't even get me started about episode lists/articles. But I'm fighting a losing battle on that one. Realkyhick 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, pure and simple. Eusebeus 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry but I think this is WP:LISTCRUFT, and in regard to your question Richard Arthur Norton, I would say loosely associated would mean they are related because of something relativly non-notable or something that to many individuals belong to. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again per we're not a directory of people who appeared on a show Corpx 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad that someone went to a lot of trouble on such a useless list that says nothing. But I do remember the 1974 episode with Joel Grey. It was funny. 65.207.127.12 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:10, 4 September 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 --Haemo 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show[edit]

As with List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show, it's pure listcruft. An indiscriminate list of talk show guests. The list is not notable in and of itself, has no sources, and is unlikely to ever be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so what maintenance do you expect would be needed? Might take some work to get the list complete, but once done, it'd be done. FrozenPurpleCube 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of loosely-associated people, appearing on an episode of a talk show is a non-notable characteristic to connect people by. Although being a guest was probably a notable event for Jerome Irving Rodale. Crazysuit 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorder by appearance date We have episode lists for situation comedies such as Sienfeld. We need the equivalent for variety and interview shows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, we don't. Besides, this was a talk show, not a variety show. Realkyhick 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh? We don't have episode lists for other shows like Seinfeld? "Talk show" "interview show" all are synonyms. Read about it in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duh. I missed the word "interview." Eyes are getting tired. But in case you didn't gues, I'm not a big fan of episode lists for shows, particularly individual articles about each and every episode. Certainly some particular episodes of top shows are notable, especially first and last episodes of a series... well, I'm drifting off topic here. Realkyhick 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe I created this article for little reason other than to move the list from the article for The Dick Cavett Show (which already looked like hell at the time -- and still does). If the list isn't going to be better organized/maintained, I won't mind seeing it go. It would make a bit sense to have a list of episodes, but that's another can of worms. Pele Merengue 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as above. Eusebeus 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per we're not a directory of people who appeared on a talk show Corpx 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dick Cavett would turn over in his grave if he saw this one... especially if he was deceased. 65.207.127.12 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:10, 4 September 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaZone.com[edit]

Delete spammy article about a web sports service - was originally tagged speedy for copyvio, tags removed pending permission being received, don't know whether it was, but this website in not notable Alexa rank of 14,232. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is as much a gut feeling as anything, but the company sems to be notable due to the corporate partners and events it webcasts. It reads a little like a news release, but I think this company is notable because of its affiliation with notable events. But this a pretty close call. Realkyhick 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be an awful lot of red links for something that is supposed to be notable and "global". I'd nuke it for being a pseudo-advert. --WebHamster 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Maybe a re-write with more corporate data.Mbisanz 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - references establish adequate notability. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM per Carlossuarez46. Lack of independent sources suggest notability to come. --Gavin Collins 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Article created by single purpose account that also created a half-dozen or so related articles the same session, most of which have already been deleted. Precious Roy 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to Naspers? Current sources a touch iffy, and the concerns about COI and spam certainly warrant consideration. Only obviously valid and reliable source, the nytimes piece, is now inaccessible and makes no mention of the firm in the summary - can anyone confirm that it's relevant? Regardless, the article is short enough that it would make sense to merge it back into its parent. MrZaius^talk 07:44, 7 September 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociolinguistics research in India[edit]

The article has negligible content, and the subject matter would seem to belong as a section in Sociolinguistics or Languages of India. Tamfang 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Never delete for lack of content--Pheonix15 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to me like this is just WP:SYNTH Corpx 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Boricuaeddie 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Corpx. The external links should support the content of the article, not the other way round. Shalom ^Hello 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for long enough to attempt cleanup. This is an absolutely appalling and useless article as it is -- but it's a topic deserving of an article. A very quick Google Scholar search finds book reviews for "Explorations in Indian Sociolinguistics", Rajendra Singh, Probal Dasgupta and Jayant K. Lele, New Delhi and London: Sage, 1995. There are bound to be plenty of other reliable sources out there, but it will take time to gather them and create a worthwhile article from them. --Zeborah 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is something particularly important going on - in which case the article should be totally rewritten (see last note above). Most large nations - especially multilingual ones - have people doing sociolinguistics research. What is notable about that? John Hill 11:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'notable' in a Wikipedia context doesn't mean 'unusual' or 'unique'; it means it's something that has been written about by reliable sources. I've gathered a quick hodgepodge of sources on the article talk page, not all of which are perfectly on topic but whose existence does show that this topic has been written about by numerous scholars, hence is 'notable' in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Of course asking what's unusual about the situation in India is a fair question too: the answer to that is that it's a *really* multilingual country, more so than any other country I'm aware of except perhaps China (and because of the common written system, not to mention political situation, in China the situation there is quite different). Anyway, I'll be at the library this morning and hopefully will be able to get at least a decent stub started over the weekend. --Zeborah 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. The article is very short, and doesn't emphasize why the topic deserves a separate page (in fact, it states "but only a few have concentrated on the sociolinguistic situation of India"). Keep after rewrite by Zeborah. Great work. utcursch | talk 10:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty. Kappa 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the expansion Zeborah. Kappa 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, an entire article about the fact that somebody is doing research on something. I wonder what the "H" stands for in PHD? Mandsford 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty, unless someone starts the potential expansion. The talk page has much more significant information than the article, and will hopefully be preserved in user space. Abecedare 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just added several sections to the page (complete with references). My head now aches mightily. :-) It could still do with work because I haven't tidied any of the stuff that was already there, but it should be enough to go on with now. --Zeborah 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep now after the tremendous rescue effort by Zeborah. Abecedare 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now I agree with Utcursch - you have done a great job Zeborah! I reverse my earlier opinion. Thank you very much. With a bit of minor editing it will be a really good and useful article now. What a difference in such a short space of time! John Hill 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeborah. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Hill. Keb25 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC). Keep after the rewrite. Keb25 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which part of John Hill's comments you're referring to? The article has been significantly changed since he made them. --Zeborah 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rationale per nom no longer applies. dr.ef.tymac 09:08, 7 September 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. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guayaquil Marathon[edit]

Tagged as A1, but has plenty of context. Is this worth keeping? Feels like it to me. Daniel Case 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; keep if independent sources are added. This looks like an event that is probably notable, but needs independent sources. I'm troubled by the fact that the only link is to the web site of the race promoters, which smells of spam. Someone might rescue this with a little work. Realkyhick 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly legitimate city marathon with over a thousand runners competing. Here are the 2005 results [42]. Nick mallory 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. A moderately large marathon in a moderately large city likely has enough notability. Hard to track down sources due to its location, but a Google search turns up several, many in Spanish. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanish sources are OK. Link some and we'll probably be fully in the clear here. Realkyhick 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Crazytales talk/desk 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems legitimate after checking out the AIMS links. Per earlier posts, a city marathon is likely to have no problem meeting notability. Perhaps someone at Wikiproject Ecuador can help finding suitable sources. Thomjakobsen 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:16, 7 September 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2000s music groups[edit]

This article is redundant with the Category:2000s music groups. I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail in the same way as being redundant with their respective categories of the same name:

There is no need to merge the information on the page. The categorization of each group's article will suffice. Keeping this list separately introduces all kinds of problems and should be considered Listcruft. Maher-shalal-hashbaz 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to categories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. This is why we have categories, boys and girls. Realkyhick 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is just a list (with no/minimal description in each one), create a category and delete the article as "redundant". Same applies here.--PrestonH 03:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With info transferred to categories Mbisanz 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Redundant to categories. Thin Arthur 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Thin Arthur and Mbisanz.--JForget 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Says Delete all Thin Arthur and I are the only ones who voted to Delete All. Oh, I guess the nominator did too. Since nobody's voting to Keep All, it looks unanimous. Mandsford 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Redundant. DJBullfish 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, could be rewritten to not be redundant with categories. For example, a year of foundation could be added. Grue 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2000s in music, 1990s in music, 1980s in music, 1970s in music,1960s in music, Delete the list portion, Rewrite the intro with sources. HokieRNB 17:28, 1 September 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. Singu larity 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Eby[edit]

Tagged as speedy but does make an assertion of notability. Does it carry the day? Daniel Case 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see an assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CD release. Daniel Case 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing a CD is not notable. Anyone with money and the inclination can release a CD. As far as WP:MUSIC goes, the criterion for notability through releases is two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. Precious Roy 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thought it was still down at one. Daniel Case 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been "two or more" since the very first edit to WP:MUSIC, although I don't know if there was a precursor page with a less stringent guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. My cat could release a CD. Realkyhick 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with slight reservation Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for a composer. "Reservation" because I'm not very familiar with the genre, and perhaps such institutions as the Dallas Jazz Orchestra are notable. If it is, however, I don't know about it. faithless (^speak) 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF. --WebHamster 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 1000+ google hits. Mbisanz 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get more than that under my real name and I'm certainly not notable. Does this mean I can get a WP article now?--WebHamster 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good point, I figured that "Eby" is an odd last name, but since the consensus looks like a delete, I'll keep my weak keep for the time being.Mbisanz 06:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:15, 31 August 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Fan Club[edit]

No sources. A google news archive search for "Latino Fan Club" comes up with no relevant results. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for relevant policies. Chick Bowen 01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely porn-spam. Realkyhick 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not spam, although it is porn. LFC is a significant and long time producer of ethnic gay porn located in NYC. Market is for those who want Latin men, thugs, newyorkricans, etc. There are about 35 videos listed on their website for sale. Review here which mentions it, although in embarrassingly little detail. Here's another article from GayYN. Two of their videos were nominated (didn't win) for a 2007 GayVN award. Here's an entry from Fleshbot. Google lists 87,900 hits, most listing Videos/DVDs for sale, granted. Fotofactory Press is publishing an erotic art book this fall featuring their models, here. This listing shows that a LFC video has reached #2 position in weekly rentals. The article has almost no references, and much appears to be original research, but thats reason to improve, not delete. — Becksguy 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, correct me if I'm wrong of course, but none of those look like reliable sources to me. Chick Bowen 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken individually I would agree with you that's it's not enough. It's all I could find, as I was really really tired. I don't like this stuff, but the company is notable within it's niche market. And I think we are generally too quick to delete when improvement would be a better option. I think the company is notable, any thing else can be fixed. — Becksguy 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:PORNBIO, a nomination for GayVN establishes notability, LFC had two of their videos nominated in 2007 for the Best Ethnic category, so that should be sufficient. — Becksguy 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete porn spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Please note that the article does need to be improved. — madman bum and angel 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this is a company, I think it should technically be judged under WP:CORP rather than WP:PORNBIO. On the subject of sources, the company is briefly/trivially mentioned in this book and there is apparently at least one Village Voice article dedicated to the company (see [43]). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:26, 7 September 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. Singu larity 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wired New York[edit]

Website which does not meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB. The external links to the claimed number of members are to the cite itself, not a reliable source. Most of the article is about a member of the website who died tragically, in circumstances unrelated to the website. Exteranl links in this section are to the sites forums. Savidan 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL for the unfortunate fellow who died. Shalom ^Hello 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a memorial. Unnotable site with forum *yawn*--Dacium 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shalom, and Dacium. IP198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP198 (talk • contribs) 17:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
delete Original research--Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 31 August 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. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Ape (band)[edit]

Non-notable band (WP:MUSIC). Only claim to notability is an unreferenced claim that they are "famous" for using zombies in their music videos. Savidan 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not really making a grab at notability. Also, AMG says they've only put out two albums (on NN labels) in the last ten years.--Sethacus 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non-notable band, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails criteria as established here - Nascentatheist 01:32, 30 August 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 under WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian celebrities by hometown[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> Some hockey players are listed, but not most, etc. In fact, Steve Yzerman is listed twice. Some bands are listed, some not. Unmaintainable list, no objective inclusion criteria, trivial intersection by location, unreferenced. Reso lute 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, woefully indiscrimiante list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case where Categories are the way to go, or at least, grouping by province, not nation. Note, lists of people from say Toronto or Montreal is a different question. FrozenPurpleCube 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and break out the Category (as mentioned by Manticore). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the population of Canada and the number of celebrities there, you might as well divide them into categories of "Celebrities from [name of province]".--Alasdair 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use categories instead by city and/or province. Realkyhick 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nat^tang 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mbisanz 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of bands from Canada was once organized this way, too, and there was a general consensus that it was a bad idea. Bearcat 07:28, 30 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Equality Coalition[edit]

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't know that I consider a state-wide organization to be particularly local in scope. This one has seven chapters, it seems, spread across the eastern and midparts of the state. It is a little light on sources, but I did find another reference in USA Today (apparently they rallied in opposition to Fred Phelps), and there seem to be a number of google hits. It would be nice to see more verification. --Moonriddengirl 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Moonriddengirl and I'll add what I wrote in the deletion discussion for Equality Mississippi: "The 'Equality [State Name]' organizations seem to be representing a significant movement associated with the Gay Rights issue, and there are organizations in a number of states, including California." They do seem to be referenced in some few news stories and serve as sources for news outlets. See, also, this set of criteria. Like Mississippi, I would imagine that we'd hear more if it were a more tolerant environment for gays. - Nascentatheist 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not think the reference support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. I hope their cause succeeds, but not everyone who supports a notable cause is notable. State branches of a national organization are almost never independently notable, and this is no exception. DGG (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonriddengirl. -- Roleplayer 10:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This state organization doesn't appear to be part of a national organization or umbrella—at least I can't find any connection—but it has significant presence in the state, so local scope reason would not apply, I think. It's a weak keep, as it's rather light on references, especially compared to the others, such as California's. But it's notable and fixable. USA Today isn't really a good reference, as it's just a mention. Here is another mention in the press, and there are more than just a couple others, none in depth that I see, but together, enough. If it doesn't improve, renominate in the future. — Becksguy 03:50, 5 September 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 article would benefit from some of the references cited in the AfD. Tyrenius 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MassEquality[edit]

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A local scope doesn't mean something is necessarily non-notable. (So long as notability can be established by outside sources). I've added one reference to the article, and I think more can be found (given that MassEquality played a strong role in the evolution of gay rights in MA. In fact, they won a national award for that). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See my comments at the AFD page at Equality Maryland. I'm not sure MassEquality is even "local" in the sense meant by the criterion, but even if it is, it surely is notable -- although not represented here, we could find many references to it in national media. I think it would be better to improve the article with references than to delete it. kdogg36 01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:ORG, Since it's mentioned by InNewsweekly, a very large LGBT magazine.--Alasdair 01:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agreed that the organization appears to have a significant presence. - Nascentatheist 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Delete The Google hits are mostly blogs and press releases. For all the media coverage of gay marriage in Massachusetts, they have a remarkably low presense in the media. One Bay Windows article doesn't equal notability. MarkBul 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Bay Windows comment is a bit misleading, as there are much more prominent sources: there are several articles in the New York Times that mention the organization by name kdogg36 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite those articles non are actually about it just, just passing mentions and comments from people who are in the org. still seems to fail notibility of WP:ORG-Dacium 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This outfit is the point crew behind the same-sex marriage faction in Massachusetts. A complete list on Google News returns nearly five hundred hits, from the AP newswire, FOX News, MarketWatch, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg, the Philadelphia Inquirer, PBS ... "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Reliable sources are available in carload lots. RGTraynor 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reason given for nomination is untrue -- Roleplayer 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not think the reference support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. ""We believe he's projecting himself to a national Republican audience," said Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group." as two lines in a full page article that is devoted to the general issue, quoting several other people and organizations at considerably greater length. The article furthermore does not talk significantly about the organization, but about equal marriage rights politics in Mass., mentioned that the organization is one of those involved. Straight PR; they are notable for getting themselves quoted as one among others. I suppose the support for the article proves they're good at their PR. I fervently hope their cause succeeds, but not everyone who supports a notable cause is notable. DGG (talk) 07:43, 1 September 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day by Day Armageddon[edit]

Non notable, no reliable reasources and over all absolutely nothing defining about it. User:ECH3LON

Delete Search results reveal loads of forum posts about the book, which aren't reliable sources. Hence it lacks mentions by reliable sources. There is no proof that the book won any awards or have outstanding sales or what not, so it's not notable. Oh, forgot to mention, the author isn't exactly that famous as well. So it fails WP:NB.--Alasdair 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notiable as it apparently started off as an online journal that turned into a novel, apparently quite successful as RRP is £12 but they are going on Amazon for from £79.92 for a used copy. - I added some references to the article, one is from a forum, but it is the official forums of the publisher, and this post has been posted by a moderator, so it seems reliable. - Fosnez 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the contrary, forums posts and amazon catalogs aren't considered reliable sources in Wikipedia.--Alasdair 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples, says While they are often controlled by a single party..., many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster. I would argue that because this post is by a Moderator, on the publishers forums that this would become a reliable source. Regarding Amazon, the citiation was used to reference a fact on the article saying that the books were selling for up to 8 times their RRP, this fact is proven by the reference, and it is a notable source. (I can't find a policy that specifically says amazon is not a reliable source, I can understand how the reviews on amazon are not a reliable source, but amazon itself is.) Fosnez 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely Fails Book Notability standard.-Dacium 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't agree that there is anything paticularly notable in a book that started off as an online journal - not a unique situation, I'm afraid. There is a significant difference between a used book being offered at £79.92 and one selling at £79.92. I can't agree that any forum, moderated or not, constitutes a reliable source - particularly one operated by Permuted Press. I see no indication that the book meets any of the criteria for notability. Victoriagirl 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forums/amazon listings do not confer notability Corpx 00:14, 31 August 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 Blatant copyvio of [44]. This is with no prejudice against this being rewritten in someone's own words in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright. W.marsh 13:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Florida[edit]

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly significant number of Google links and even a few in Google News. Seems to be part of the creation of an "Equality [State Name] set of loosely affiliated organizations with a national focus on Gay Rights. - Nascentatheist 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rewrite and format, but notbility seems to have been established by Nascentatheist - Fosnez 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Does not show how it had media/published information. does not establish any notibility for WP:ORG standards.Dacium 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With added NPOV and Wikify tags Mbisanz 05:58, 30 August 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. Carlossuarez46 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Mississippi[edit]

WP:ORG says organizations need to be national in scope to be notable enough for inclusion. Therefore, this group is too local. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect WP:ORG gives the guideline that non-commercial organizations that aren't international or national usually aren't notable unless they meet the policy WP:V: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Please consider each of these "Equality"-group articles based on searches for substantial and/or multiple coverage by reliable sources, not on whether they're local or statewide or national. Barno 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The "Equality [State Name]" organizations seem to be representing a significant movement associated with the Gay Rights issue, and there are organizations in a number of states, including California. There's quite a bit on Google about them, and some of the links found there represent independent sources, as expected by WP:ORG. See, also, this set of criteria. The organization isn't as large as California's, for example, which hasn't been nominated for deletion, but then again, there aren't as many openly gay people in Mississippi, I would imagine! ;) - Nascentatheist 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Org is seven years old, has google results. Organisations don't have to be national to be notable. Fosnez 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self sourced. Does not establish any notibility from media/publications. fails WP:CORP.--Dacium 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With added NPOV and Wikify tags Mbisanz 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - When you click the Talk link, you're taken to a page that says, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia." You can't ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia, if you're deleting part of LGBT related issues. Part does not equal all. Futher, the organization has garnered not just national attention and acceptance, but world-wide attention and acceptance. Equality Mississippi has been reported on by CNN, FOX News, ABC News, BBC News and several others. This organization is recognized by the Human Rights Campaign, Equality Federation, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, all national LGBT rights organizations, as their partner in Mississippi. As noted on the page, this organization also wrote part of the historic argument against sodomy laws, for the United States Supreme Court. You can't get any more national than arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Deletion of this historic organization (who says equality Mississippi is an oxymoron?) would be tantamount to deleting all 1960's Mississippi related civil rights entries on Wikipedia beause, well, they happened in Mississippi and not anywhere else. Thanks for your time and consideration. Do not delete. Allstarecho 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add specific citations to the article? If individual reporting by national TV/radio organizations has been as broad as you suggest, then this will meet WP's requirements. As it stands, the article has no independent sources. Barno 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, with age, most public links to national coverage have been moved or removed. I have all of the links, dating back to 2000 but most are now dead links. I was able to find the ABC News story. I also found several stories from The Advocate, a national news magazine. If would like those links, I can provide. I found 5 of them. Further, I found a story in Christianity Today magazine and a story in Pentecostal Evangel magazine, both national magazines. Futher, there are stories available on the internet from regional media such as Southern Voice, which covers most of the Southern states. A simple Google News search brings back numerous results. You must also keep in mind that while some news stories appear to be in, and come from, local news outlets, these are Associated Press stories, which is a national news organization. Thank you. Allstarecho 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further: I just read where New England has marked several statewide gay organizations for deletion. See the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. This of course brings into question the motive here, especially since included in that list is MassEquality. If we're basing this decision off of national media coverage, there's no other organization out there that has gotten more than MassEquality thanks to the state's passage of legislation allowing and acknowledging same-sex marriage. Again, as pointed out above, the policy WP:V: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." A simple Google/Yahoo/MSN search returns hundreds of reliable independent sources. Allstarecho 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Further: I just found a USA Today article. Allstarecho™ 10:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it is a complete fallacy that organisations have to be national to be notable, though this one could do with some better referencing -- Roleplayer 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36 from list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as I do not think the references support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. For example, the CNN article simply quotes them "Jody Renaldo, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality Mississippi, said that the state law makes gay marriage "a non-issue."" as a paragraph added on to a long article about the subject. (That's all it says--this is not a substantial reference to the importance of the group.) I hope their cause succeeds in Mississippi as everywhere else, but state branches of a national organization are almost never independently notable, and this is no exception. A walled garden of local articles. We have to separate an objective consideration of the organization from our devotion to the issue. Nominating them is not POINT, unless the point is that WP is not for PR. DGG (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: First, your userpage says you're an inclusionist -- you could have fooled me. :-p Second, just as a point of information, this organization is not a state branch of a national organization (this is also true of the other organizations currently listed at the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions.) There is something called the "Equality Federation" which includes most such groups, but it's a loose, a posteriori federation of the groups for purposes like sharing resources or information. Finally, I think the POINT suggestion was because the user nominated lots of similar articles for deletion all at once, when there's no reason this matter couldn't have been discussed on the talk pages first. kdogg36 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Equality Mississippi is not a branch or chapter of any other organization, national or otherwise. It's a sovereign organization. Allstarecho™ 01:14, 5 September 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 delete. Singu larity 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VX (band)[edit]

Non notable band that simply covers songs written by others. Currently signed to a non-notable (no wiki article) label. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- PS, the article was written by a band member, who hasn't contributed outside this article. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, signed to a label that, by the label's own admission on their MySpace, only started this year. Before that, the only other thing I could find was one album, listed on the All-Music Guide. The label? VX. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Sethacus 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per nom and this guideline. - Nascentatheist 01:36, 30 August 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. Singu larity 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean State Job Lot[edit]

This company is semi-notable in New England, but that's it. Its not notable enough for inclusion here. (and I live down the street from one). New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 85 stores? It may be notable. This [45] court case may entail some notability. Possibly even more in he archives. This [46] looks like the best. FrozenPurpleCube 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, regional chain with 85 stores seems to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's one near me, and I've never heard a word about it for 35 years other than the flyers they send out. Non-notable. MarkBul 03:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what you've heard or not heard, may not mean anything. Have you looked for sources besides your own memory? FrozenPurpleCube 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for WP:CORP.--Dacium 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Have you looked at the existing secondary sources? The case involving the mall certainly made a lot of news. FrozenPurpleCube 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jamesway only had 110 stores and thats a keep. Mbisanz 05:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite on a par with many, many regional chain department stores, most of which -- even long defunct ones -- have articles. RGTraynor 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definately a notable regional chain store. Many examples of this already on wikipedia. --Djsasso 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80+ stores that have been around for over 35 years Rackabello 01:00, 31 August 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, bad faith, disruptive nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones[edit]

Just some random garage band. --Lenmilsel 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And don't pull any mean shit on me I'm in a horrible mood everyone hates me and my girlfriend broke up with me today in the worst way possible.

Speedy Keep Um, right. If you're in a horrible mood, don't be nominating things for AfD which have the most obvious notabilty. Definite bad faith nom and tag has already been pulled off the page. Nate 03:54, 30 August 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. Singu larity 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Brown (media)[edit]

The article is written like an advertisement and it is not allowed in our policy. -- PNiddy Go! 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD#G11 as blatant advertising. May also be a copyvio. —gorgan_almighty 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above, and fails notablility requirements of WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 11:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. It even amusingly slips back into first-person toward the end. Whoops! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per advertisement and potentially a conflict of interest (although the latter is less evident).--JForget 22:37, 30 August 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 The result was speedy delete. Brad Beattie (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motaz sabri[edit]

Multiple claims of inventions such as "special car runs on AA battery ,water pump that consumes no electrical power and a refrigerator that consumes no power" all of this before the age of 10. The article is unsourced and seems unsourcable. There is no real notability here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not meet WP:BIO ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:41, 30 August 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 moved to Goodbye Girl (Go West Song) and deleted the redirect as unecessary. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Girl (Go West Song[edit]

Goodbye Girl (Go West Song is an invalid page name as it hasn't got a full set of brackets. I have recently created a new page called Goodbye Girl (Go West Song) which is a valid page name. I would appreciate it if "Goodbye Girl (Go West Song" could be deleted as soon as possible, thank you. Teddet 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if you ever create an article under the wrong name (like a typo) the correct thing to do is to move it to the right name - at the top of the page you should see a link titled "move" that will do it for you. This keeps the edit history intact which is important for the GDFL licensing which we use. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:37, 30 August 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandaren[edit]

Does not establish enough notability outside game universe. This article is also literally plagiarized from WoWwiki. (Copyright is not a problem here, though - WowWiki uses GFDL.) SYSS Mouse 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to List of Warcraft humanoid races. The April Fool's jokes might make for some includable content, but I'm not sure it merits its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this in game race. I also think the List of races is game guide content, just like list of units in <game>, regardless of the popularity of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)

Please feel to articulate how. Because I don't see anything in the page that is related to playing the game itself. FrozenPurpleCube 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth description of a character in the fictional universe, lacking any kind of coverage from real world sources, is game guide content Corpx 06:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor that wrote the WoWWiki page and the person that wrote this page are one and the same. There's no plagiarism issue, it's release of the writing to both. --Raijinili 05:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction: I misremembered. It was lifted, but the original writer approved. See Talk:Pandaren. --Raijinili 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strictly speaking, since a wiki is written by many people, a single editor cannot give such permission. SYSS Mouse 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can give approval for something someone's already allowed to do. --Raijinili 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, upon thinking, I think both of us ae wrong. By editing there, the writers indirectly gives permission for others to use elsewhere, since Wowwiki uses GFDL. SYSS Mouse 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lack of independent sources indicates this fails WP:NOTABILITY.--Gavin Collins 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 7 September 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 Redirected to Linkin Park Underground#Underground v6.0. ELIMINATORJR 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QWERTY (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable non album song, article mostly trivial and unsoured. Previously nominated here and result was delete. Delete and salt. Rehevkor 16:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice per nom (and previous snowball AfD). EyeSerene^TALK 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LP Underground 6.0 EP per above.--JForget 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 7 September 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 the album, per regular consensus on singles that didn't chart. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Foreword (Linkin Park song)

Articles for deletion/Don't Stay

Non notable non single, mostly trivial and unsourced. Was previously nominated here, result was redirect. Delete and salt. Rehevkor 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect anything useful to whatever album it came from. ♠P M C♠ 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 7 September 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. Singu larity 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kempe[edit]

Non-notable junior hockey player who is yet to play professionally. Does not meet notability requirements. Djsasso 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior player with no apparent awards or honours. 5th round NHL draft pick is a little too low for "automatic" notabiliby via that route. Reso lute 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "he played two brief stints with Ångermanland of the Swedish league TV-Pucken before staying with MODO Hockey of the Swedish Elite League ", first of all TV-pucken is a national junior tournament where the player represent their province or region. And he has never played in the SEL, he played for the U18 team. --Krm500 10:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO ccwaters 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:19, 31 August 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida wind insurance[edit]

There is nothing special about Florida wind insurance. Liability insurance in the US is always governed by state regulations, why should FL be singled out. Article was originally created as a vehicle for spam links. Avi 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (clarifying opinion) Avi 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rewrite to an article on home insurance/insurance in general in Florida, which seems to be an issue of fairly extensive importance. The same can be said for every other state and country too. FrozenPurpleCube 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable statue. --Gavin Collins 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 7 September 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. Singu larity 01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Brophy[edit]

Non-notable junior player who has not played professionally and has not won any major awards. Does not meet hockey notability standards. Djsasso 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and the WP:HOCKEY standards both; scarcely any assertion of notability, and no sources indicating same. RGTraynor 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. Fails WP:BIO. Highest level played was in QMJHL...which he no longer does. Former junior player is not notable whatsoever. Smashville 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smashville. Skudrafan1 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO ccwaters 12:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:19, 31 August 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 better page. Singu larity 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Finish Doctor Who chronology[edit]

The page is obsolete- the page Doctor Who story chronology features much of the same infomation, but with the novels as well. PROD contested. OZ OO (What?) 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Doctor Who story chronology. Leaning towards delete; it seems unlikely we'd have much need for the redirect, assuming of course that we clean up all incoming links. Either way, the article is mostly redundant at this point. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doctor Who story chronology covers this with novels and other audios as well. It also has references for the placements, which this page seems to be lacking. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — there's no reason to believe anyone will type in the title "Big Finish Doctor Who chronology", so a redirect has little point. Doctor Who story chronology has already pretty much subsumed the info that's here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If deleted, it should be kept a redirect anyway, since that page does include the same information, and it's as good as merged. Even if nobody types this in looking for it, there could be links to it that would do well to be redirected onto the more new page. -- SonicAD (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually found this page by searching for "big finish chronology", so I'd recommend keeping a redirect. --Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.244.144 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(to both above) - The links to this page are checked through the "What links here" feature before deletion. They would be updated to the new page, or removed. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:46, 3 September 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. Carlossuarez46 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 1985 Zona Rosa attacks[edit]

This article has been tagged for cleanup since 2005, and shows no signs of improvement since. It has a mere 8 Google hits when Wikipedia is removed from the search terms (see here), and only 246 when Wikipedia is included (see here). I doubt that notability can be effectively established in only 8 Google hits, and I really doubt that Wikipedia needs to document every single minor terrorist incident that occurs. ♠P M C♠ 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep - I beg to differ. I do think notability is too light for its own article and it should be merged into Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front. However, while notability is light it is not non-existent - as well as the dept of justice report in the article I found a number of sources on the web:

the United states institute of peace Truth commission report on the incident in From Madness to Hope: The 12-Year War in El Salvador [47].
The Washington post article [48] of June 19th 1985.
An article from the Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs by Enrique A. Baloyra 'Negotiating War in el Salvador: The Politics of Endgame ' [49]--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as I fail to see much historic notability Corpx 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand or merge. Appears to be notable (Multiple deaths, political fallout, non-trivial coverage). Google test is not good at establishing the relative historical importance of events other Paris hilton would need 10,000 + articles. If this had happened in the US would we even be discussing it ? Megapixie 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, main argument is lack of Google hits, but Google is a very poor source for many things that happened more then 10 years ago. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:04, 31 August 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. Singu larity 01:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Bachand[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable junior hockey player who has not played professionally and has won no awards to otherwise create notability. Fails WP:Bio and project standards for notability. Djsasso 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skudrafan1 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO ccwaters 12:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:22, 31 August 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. Singu larity 01:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pier-Antoine Dion[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable hockey player whom has not played professionally and does not meet WP:BIO or project standards. Djsasso 21:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO ccwaters 13:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:22, 31 August 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. Singu larity 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime dubuc[edit]

Protested prod. Non-notable junior player who has not played professionally or won any major awards to indicate notability. Fails WP:BIO and hockey project standards. Djsasso 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a professional league Corpx 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO ccwaters 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (Athletes). Hal peridol 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per creator's request. Non-admin closure. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Street Hockey League[edit]

Either a local rec league or a fantasy league as Google turns up zero hits on it and speaking as someone who lives in one of the cities, I have never heard of the so called local team and I would being that I am involved in the local hockey scene. Djsasso 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I usually dont rely on google to check notability, but just 4 google hits is troubling Corpx 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a hoax to me. Skudrafan1 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are shown. T Rex | talk 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax/Fantasy. DMighton 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This site isn't for things made up one day and that's what this is. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of this organization. ccwaters 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoChaosX above. -Pparazorback 17:27, 31 August 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 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejection Slip Theater"[edit]

Contested prod; radio show with no evidence of notability. Submitted by an announcer for the show COI/vanity are relevant here too. Peta 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Alksub 02:50, 1 September 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.