Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

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 Alex Bakharev 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Non-notable band

[edit]
Non-notable band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article in question: Yellow Second. The band could possibly stay, but I don't think it satisfies the WP:BAND notability guidelines. The band broke up in October, so they aren't going to have any more hits. I think this could merit a section in the Five Iron Frenzy page, or if Kerr had his own article, then a section there. --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete because the keep arguments are not giving enough reasons for a valid inclusion of this article. The article is clearly lacking reliable sources and hence does not conform with WP:V. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's Real, Worse Than Queer

[edit]
She's Real, Worse Than Queer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot find this film on IMDB. Google produces many Wikipedia mirrors and gay film sites acknowledging its existence but with little else to say. I suspect it therefore fails WP:NOTABLE. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears (from the mentions in my comment below) to be a notable lesbian film. IMDb isn't perfect, especially with regard to video-documentaries. Unsure why a gay film site, or even Planet Out, isn't considered a reliable source. Edited because I forgot to login. --Charlene 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not only is it non-notable, it doesn't even exist. --Dennisthe2 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BFI page doesn't exist, the PlanetOut one acknowledges it exists but doesn't say anything else, and the third one doesn't mention the film at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (I had no trouble accessing the BFI page.) I found no mentions in Google News Archive, and just one citation -- in a listing of "other" queer films inside a book devoted to them -- in Google Books. It seems to exist, but it does not seem notable, let alone "seminal" by any citation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see it now too. Weird. But it didn't tell me anything that made the film notable... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Console-ing Passions is an academic film festival that was held at Tulane, not a syllabus. This seems to meet The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. 2004 > 1997 by seven years. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 keep arguments do not indicate how this article seems to meet WP:MUSIC. It is clear that this article does not meet the primary It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable criterion for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lourds

[edit]
Lourds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable band; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:MUSIC. —Angr 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - but rename Article purports to be about the lead singer, yet the main body of the article is about "LOURDES" the band (their caps) The band could just qualify for notability due to their touring multiple states, albeit the source is their website [1] Would suggest an article on the band is appropriate, but one on the lead singer would not yet deserve own article. •CHILLDOUBT• 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The correct name of the band appears to be LOURDS (no e) and I found reviews [2][3][4], and I'm not sure how I feel about defining those as 'nontrivial.' Article should be about the band, not the person, if kept.-FisherQueen (Talk) 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP The article is indeed about the band "LOURDS" fronted by Lourds Lane. More information can and should be added in about the band in its entirety. The band has toured extensively throughout America, has been the subject of articles in national publications (Billboard, for example) They have received national airplay on the Fuse cable music network as well as the national series "City Sounds". The band "LOURDS" is also chronicled in the forthcoming documentary entitled "Always". Worthy of an entry, though article needs to be fleshed out a bit.Griff 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely KEEP - I am the webmaster of the LOURDS official website [5] and the LOURDS MySpace website [6]. I will work with the leader of the band, Lourds Lane, to address the above issues, expand the content about the band, LOURDS, and create a separate page for the musician and lead singer, Lourds Lane. Bkoopers 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, no concensus to redirect. If you wish to pursue an editorial-concensus-based redirect proposal, feel free to use the talk page (not AfD II). - Daniel.Bryant 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Duchâtelet

[edit]
Roland Duchâtelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability

I propose the deletion of this article. The main reason is the lack of notability. This person has been the chairman of a non-notable and no longer existing Belgian party, which is largely unknown and has never played a significant role in Belgian politics. This is also proven by the fact that this article didn't get more than one sentence, while this article already exists since 2004. Sijo Ripa 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well-expanded, C mon - make that a Strong keepHeartofaDog 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volconvo

[edit]
Volconvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Nick Catalano contrib talk 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, after weighing both the keep and delete arguments. I do agree that the article needs to be re-written, but that is not a reason enough to delete it outright. The NPOV issue can be dealt with by rephrasing the words and quoting the magazine which calls this enterprise "the fastest-growing video game retailer in the United States". This is a borderline close and the nominator or any other interested party can re-nom this article for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if no more independent sources are available. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play n trade

[edit]
Play n trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In my opinion it is below the radar on notability Alex Bakharev 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDoesn't Wikipedia policy (or maybe an essay ... ) mandate that if an article has potential it should not be deleted. I mean we have teh rewrite template for a reason, and it's not just for articles that survive an AfD - be boldDaniel()Folsom T|C|U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIsn't that why we have the NPOV tag? Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although I would agree with the delete arguments that this article inherently fails WP:BIO. However, as an academic it is possible that he would not be the main subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. But his work and research has been mentioned in multiple sources as illustrated by the article. There is a proposed guideline which has not achieved consensus as yet, but sums up good reasons why professors and other academicians should be included into the Encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Knutson

[edit]
Brian Knutson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This guy is only an assistant professor and does not have many publications. The publications he has are not well cited and not influential. Not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed indicates he has one publication in Neuron, which is not the highest ranking journal of any field btw (Nature, Nature Neuroscience, and Science all rank much higher than Neuron). He has a couple of dozen publications, which is not that many by any standards. Prominent neuroscientists typically have over 200 publications. Furthermore, he is not the recipient of any notable awards, nor do his publications indicate any significant new findings that are in any way notable. Nor does he appear on ISI Highly Cited Researchers. He seems like your typical neuroscientist who falls on the lower end of the publication spectrum. If he has done something significant, I'd like to know what it is. Mnemopis 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you're right, my bad, it only covers 1981-1999. Mnemopis 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: This is the second time in recent days that I have seen someone propagate the false belief that ISIHighlyCited.com is based upon 1981-1999 citations. The first version was based on those years, but they continually shift the 20 year frame of reference forward with each full year's contributions according to their own website: To identify Highly Cited Researchers, we begin with all articles indexed in the Thomson Scientific Citation Databases in a 20 year, rolling time period; the first dataset used for analysis comprised articles and their citations in the years 1981-1999, the second dataset included 1983-2002, and we will continue with 1984-2003, etc. Each article in the data is assigned to one or more of the 21 categories in ISIHighlyCited.com based on the ISI classification of the journal in which the article was published. ju66l3r 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange. I checked the site and you're right but when I checked it earlier, I could have sworn it said it covered only 1981-99. Maybe they updated the site? Mnemopis 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He has some publications and is cited, so he is a little notable. mrholybrain's talk 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be interesting to compare standards. He is perhaps in the top 10% of his field--(among those who have acquired the minimum credentials, a PhD) but not the top 1%, (perhaps everyone could agree on that?) .
Then do we include the top 10% or the top 1% in other areas of human work? Do we include the top 10% of rock musicians who have acquired the minimal credentials of producing one generally released recording?--or only the top 1 in a hundred? Do we include the top 10% of novelists, among those who have published at least one novel? or only the best 1 in 100? Do we include the top 10% or the top 1% of professional football players, among those who have ever played a professional game?
Some of the guidelines say more notable than the average (whatever): That's the top 50%. All associate professors in any research university are within the top 50% of those with doctorates in the field. In fact, so are all assistant professors in a research university--at least half of new doctorates never get a tenure-track job in a research university. Included in the top 50% are all associate or full professors in any four-year college and up, and all full professors at 2-yr colleges.
If we think the standards are those whom we could write a meaningful article about, then anyone who has obtained these minimal distinctions count, for it could be done by analyzing their work in connection with their field, their advisor, where they publish, etc.
What I do not think is acceptable is to say those about whom a good article is written--we are judging the subject. If the article is inadequate, by all means we should stubbify it, and then protect it indefinitely against deletion. The point of having rules is equity--judging by a fixed standard, applicable to all. DGG 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no consensus. This is a borderline case for notability when you refer to WP:BIO. The subject of the article might not have multiple, non-trivial independent sources to justify it's inclusion; a lot of his published work is available over Google Scholar search; and the article needs expansion and not deletion. There is a proposed guideline on the subject of academicians which sums up good reasons why academicians should be included as subjects in the encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Rawlins

[edit]
Nicholas Rawlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I pull up 7 hits when I Pubmed search this guy. Does not seem very notable and does not meet WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, on further investigation, I now believe this article should be kept. This person's publications appear under "Rawlins JN", and not "Rawlins N", as would be expected from his name, Nick Rawlins. The fact that I could not retrieve his list of publications using "Rawlins N" lead me to nominate his page for deletion. However, he does have quite a few publications, as I subsequently found out, and they are fairly well cited, so his article should be kept. Mnemopis 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OXION stands for Oxford Ion Channel Initiative. Rawlins is (or was) a professor at Oxford: see [9], [10], [11]. Zagalejo 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this the same person as JN Rawlins? Zagalejo 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's John Rawlins. Mnemopis 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that, or are you just reading the automated search suggestion? Zagalejo 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I was just reading the search suggestion. I did some more digging and 'Rawlins JN' is Nick Rawlins. The problem is that there seem to be multiple people in Pubmed with the name 'Rawlins JN' so it's hard to dissect out this guys actual publications. However, he is a prof at Oxford. His page is here. Mnemopis 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok we seem to have validated with primary sources only that the subject of this article is a Professor at Oxford, but in spite of all the keep votes no one has shown how he meets WP:N being a professor is not a notability criteria any place that I can find any Wikipedia policy. Per WP:V If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok, I've changed my mind. This guy's article should be kept, but the article should include some of his publications and significant findings. Mnemopis 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some publication info to his page. I started this deletion request. Is there a way for me to terminate it? Mnemopis 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. If there had been no delete votes you could have done a speedy keep close because you withdraw the nomination. But because there have been a few delete votes you won't be able to close it yourself. I suggest putting your note right underneath your nomination. That way future editors to this AfD will be aware of how you have changed your mind that you now believe this article should be kept. Mathmo Talk 06:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossed

[edit]

Nelogoism that isn't verified by anything reliable. Links down at the bottom are all fan-created info (such as user-submitted terms to UrbanDictionary, or guides to that BBC link). I did a quick Google search: out of 4,000 hits, all of them link to fanfiction sites or user-created info, none of which can be used under WP:RS. Hbdragon88 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Blechman

[edit]
Barry Blechman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears from the text to be a non-notable person SilkTork 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definately a copyvio. Should I replace the page with {{copyvio}}? mrholybrain's talk 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space4k

[edit]

Apparently non-notable browser game per WP:WEB/WP:SOFTWARE, text reads like a game guide. There is an older version that doesn't, but it's old, with hardly any info. But in any case, I don't think there are any reliable sources out there on this topic: I found a whole buttload of ghits, mostly forums. Alexa rank is around 155K, which is low for something like this (wouldn't the constant connection generate an artificially high rank?) Mangojuicetalk 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Space4k is a game played by thousands of people across the world on the .com server alone. With the Italian and German servers taken into account there are tens of thousands of players world-wide... is that not notable? The article is useful for new players to the game or potential players. Adding a guide as to what each menu does and the purpose of them would make the article a great deal better, but a lack of that hardly means it should be deleted. All of the information posted in the article, at least the information posted by Siesatia, can be verified in either the game itself or on the Official Space4k Forums maintained and operated by Gameforge staff. There are a great many different forums floating around that are Space4k related, but the only official one supported by Gameforge is at http://board.space4k.com. Siesatia has done a great job keeping this article informative and repairing damage from vandals. If he needs help adding a more comprehensive player's guide then I would be happy to aid him in that. Ranks in Space4k are not effected by people clicking or connecting with links, so artifical gains can not be made through use of this article or anything like it. Typhonous 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I posted this in the wrong area. Siesatia 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think this game should be given the benifit of the doubt. Hell, even the menu for the McDonalds is listed on Wikipedia and this has somewhat more importance than that. I don't think we should go with Alexa, the way they collect data doesn't give me a good feeling. Just let it stay, Daimanta 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm starting to get a bit dispirited at alot of these deletion proposals... this is game is certainly notable, just becuase its not physically 'there' like some of the trash which is included, doesn't mean it shouldnt have an entry. Even more frustrating, is theres no way to know when these rather random deletion proposals are are even made without spending hours on WP daily... Bjrobinson 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be an independent party, so I will ask: why is this game notable? And does your concept of notability fit either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE, and if not, why should this be in a different class? Mangojuicetalk 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply look at the Ogame page, there are no sources and the references are all going to the official pages of the Ogame owners, yet there is no controversy about that. Consistency is an important point in this. Daimanta 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gameforge.de/space4k/24,0,0,0,2.html This is a purely online game, there is no printed material for it. There are websites devoted to tips, strategies, and offering tools to aid in the playing of this game. It is played world-wide by tens of thousands of people. http://www.space4k.info/ Runescape, Ogame, etc are all online games with no more "notability" then Space4k. Typhonous 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE I'm happy to userfy the content if anyone wants them in order to populate a category -Docg 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnamese companies by industry

[edit]
List of Vietnamese companies by industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

an indiscriminate and unreferenced list of companies in Vietnam; Wikipedia is not a directory. An injunction at the top to add only corporations with articles has been universally ignored, and probably always will be. Brianyoumans 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete A7. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mafia Network

[edit]
The Mafia Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game. 25 000 registered users is fairly negligible and there does not seem to be any sort of reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 keep arguments do not make it clear as to the criteria for its inclusion. There is a lack of multiple non-trivial independent sources for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fields (band)

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

fails on notability, has no corroboration and reads like advertising / vanity piece. Wastekiller 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Taliaferro

[edit]
Christopher Taliaferro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy, should be an open-and-shut case. 17-year-old folksinger, no albums, no national tour, no other signifiers of notability per WP:MUSIC. "...not until early 2007 did he start to build up a small fan base." Indeed. Herostratus 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since no good reason has been shown for deleting this list other than "Gosh! how MANY of them ARE there?" HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids/120901–121000

[edit]
List of asteroids/120901–121000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of these asteroids are notable and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information Nardman1 02:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Are you serious? None of the asteroids are notable? How do you measure the notability of an asteroid? Although Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this list can hardly be considered a useless collection of facts. Lists like this which maintain valuable scientific information are exactly the sort of data which make Wikipedia useful. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not overlooked, but properly interpreted. Special topics require this sort of interpretation, because it is impractical to amend the general ones to reflect all cases. Therefore we need to rely on the fundamental meaning, which justifies the
  • Strong keep You could then delete all other asteroid listing pages, using this as precedent. mrholybrain's talk 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly recommend withdrawing the nom for now. While I'm not a big fan of data dumps like this article, it would be much better to work with the creators of this article (and the THOUSANDS of other similar articles) in order to get them into some sort of encyclopedic format. Also, a listing of discovered asteroids is a notable subject as all asteroids are covered in reliable sources.--- RockMFR 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, how biased is your vote on rocks due to your username? Just joking around here... Mathmo Talk 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOh and the same should happen to the other lists - could have been bundled into this AfD but is it too late? Madmedea 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It has potential. --Bryson 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason why this can't be kept. Belongs in an encyclopedia. --MasterA113 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ Nardman1 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Wikisource That's what it was created for. I fail to see any cogent argument why this should stay on Wikipedia despite WP:NOT#MIRROR and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, or the WP:RS provision that Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as copyvio per [16]. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain how this is a copyvio? Is the data itself copyrighted? I can see that the page says that everything on their pages is copyrighted, but does this basic data really fall under copyright? --- RockMFR 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's basic data you can retrieve the data yourself and create your own list. The compilation effort, i.e. retrieval, decision on what to include and exclude and presentation in a certain format is a creative act and is copyrighted. The provision that might make it usable is "Freely-available datasets may be redistributed as long as the source for the data is clearly specified." I'm not sure if that applies for this database but even then this is a primary source dump and should go to Wikisource. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this tied to an article about these asteroids? KP Botany 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm going to bold this, because I think everyone voting should read it. If you look on the Minor Planet Center site where this list came from, you can see clearly that there are 150,000 of these asteroids identified so far. Yes, that is "one hundred and fifty thousand" - and thousands discovered each year. How many of these is anyone ever going to care about? Probably 0.1% of them, if that. Why don't we start a list of NOTABLE asteroids? This enormous list of astronomical trivia belongs on Wikisource, if anywhere other than the Minor Planet site. I also took a look at the copyright terms, and I have no idea if our usage is legal as is; my guess would be not, principally because we haven't reformatted or reworked the data in any way.--Brianyoumans 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that we are not an indiscriminate collection of data, but I'm inclined to feel that this data is not indiscriminate: we're not seeking to list every grain of sand in the sky, we're simply providing an organised arrangement of data. Although obscure, I'd rather have the complete list than edited highlights in a "list of notables". WMMartin 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — It should be possible to come up with a concensus for what makes an asteroid notable (or any Solar System object for that matter). We shouldn't have to record every single 100m rock in the sky. Here's a few thoughts:
    • It was discovered prior to the use of photography for finding asteroids.
    • It has had (or will have) a close approach by a spacecraft.
    • There is a solid diameter and/or mass estimate, along with good orbital elements.
    • It has been imaged by radar or other sensors, including but not limited to occultation profiles.
    • It has unusual spectral properties.
    • It has had (or will have) a close-Earth encounter.
    • It is known to have a moon.
    • There is a published paper on the asteroid.
    • It is a trojan asteroid for a terrestrial planet.
— RJH (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure, there are lots of these rocks out there, but "notability" applies to individual asteroids, in my mind. I feel the Wikipedia list is much easier to consult than the MPC or Lowell astorb data files, if only for the links. I would love to see how it could be deposited in Wikisource --we've kept the discovery data and "meanings of names" lists separate precisely with Wikisource in mind. As for copyright concerns, the list is scientific data. We have reformatted it massively (all the wikicode in the individual pages, plus the organisation into blocks of 100 asteroids). I'm certain there is no problem whatsoever on that axis. Urhixidur 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely encyclopedia worthy. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this tied to an article about these asteroids? Could someone answer this question? If it's not tied to any article that discusses these asteroids it's simply a list of asteroids and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. KP Botany 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no article about these asteroids because there is no encyclopedic information about them. The data in the lists could be supplemented with orbital elements and magnitudes but that's it for most of them (see List of asteroids for the complete run down). I say transwiki the whole kit-and-cabbodle to wikisource and ony allow lists of asteroids that are named or otherwise assert notability. These lists are clearly useful but they are also clearly directories which Wikipedia is expressly not. Eluchil404 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OYEZ Project

[edit]
OYEZ Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is an article Oyez.org written by me, which has the identical subject of this article, has more information and details, and is fully referenced, I suggest this one to be redirect to Oyez.org. Wooyi 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Migration

[edit]
Mongolian Migration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The purpose of the article is unclear, it combines snippets of information that is given more appropriately elsewhere. The title isn't a commonly used term and has no clear definition besides the trivial fact that nomadic people happen to migrate in one form or another. Most of the article text talks about different subjects than the title. Latebird 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete: I agree with Latebird. I don't see the point of the existence of the article. Causesobad → (Talk) 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Nightingale

[edit]
Gareth Nightingale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article makes outrageous claims, like a 7 year old being head of a gang and having a chauffer's license and being reincarnated. Obviously a hoax. No g-hits besides wiki-mirrors and blogs Nardman1 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Cook

[edit]

Does not seem to be in any way significant and also appears to be an autobiography by someone with a rather high opinion of himself. Necrothesp 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Henry Westerbeld-Pottinger

[edit]
Henry Westerbeld-Pottinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a hoax. Every edit by the author is a hoax. No g-hits besides wiki-mirrors. Nardman1 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete right away: no citation, no evidence of verifiability. Read like hoax from yellow press. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (if possible) with Ctrl+Alt+Del. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Buckley (artist)

[edit]
Tim Buckley (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Though Buckley has public exposure, this page really doesn't say anything that should not appear on Ctrl+Alt+Del. So delete based on notability. DaoKaioshin 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, there's nothing in the article which can't be moved to the article on Ctrl+Alt+Del. It only mentions him in the context of the comic itself, or in direct relation to the website hosting the comic (IE Charities he promoted on the site, merchandise he sells related to the site, etc). There's nothing asserting Tim Buckley's notability outside of CTRL+ALT+DEL, which already has an extensive article. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply if we moved every article that didn't have much content at one point or another, we wouldn't have any of wikipedia's featured articles. This "what's the harm of a redirect" attitude is really not helpful. This person is distinct from the comic he writes/draws and has done things unrelated to CAD. Senseless redirects are a bad idea. Delete the article if it's innappropriate(which I doubt), but don't redirect unless there's honestly a reason to expect one(namely misspellings, synonyms, and non-notable spinoffs. i kan reed 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rebuttal This is indeed the point of contention, whether Buckley has notable contributions outside his comic. Earlier, Buckley was compared to Brian Clevinger. The difference between them is that Clevinger does have other ventures dealing with separate IP and collaborations involving individuals who do have some measure of notability in their respective industries. Even this article, as it is, reflects Buckley's current lack of non-encyclopedic accomplishments, couching everything in terms of its relation to his comic. And, if we're willing to count there are exactly zero (0) lines in this article that do not mention Ctrl+Alt+Del DaoKaioshin 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply again My point was on the notion of theory not on present article state. A person is not the same as a webcomic, and really shouldn't be redirected as such. Redirects discourage actaully making an article out of something. His entry into the "hottest gamer" or whatever it was that was an international competition is a unique aspect that could be ascribed to him without being more than tangentially related to CAD. And while this information is not presently in the article, it could be and a redirect would discourage that and similar information from ever being added to wikipedia, thus is contrary to the fundemental mission of wikipedia, and I strongly oppose any redirect, and would stand for a delete over a redirect. i kan reed 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE without prejudice to a properly referenced, WP:BLP compliant article being written by a disinterested party. If any experienced wikipedian wants to take this article on, I'll be happy to undelete it, or give them access to the history. -Docg 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue)

[edit]
Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this article is about Scot Shields the baseball player, full of citiation tags. Tagged with a {{prod}} but removed by an anonymous user. Have your say. BuickCenturyDriver 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep I have stubbed this article to get of uncited defamatory material. The article is not about the baseball player; it is about a Sept 11 Ground Zero volunteer described here: http://www.bearsearchandrescue.org/. This person is unquestionably notable but the quality problems are so severe that I would not object to deleting it and starting over. Kla'quot 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Delete unless a person who isn't involved in the situation in real life, and who has experience in following Wikipedia content polcies, offers to rewrite this article exclusively from reliable sources. Many articles which get off to a bad start end up fine, but this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction. Please also consider protecting the article as a non-defamatory stub until contributors come to consensus on Talk about what the reliable sources are for this article. Kla'quot 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think the article should stay. It is true and my article at http://landofpuregold.com/truthiness.htm supports it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landofpuregold (talk • contribs) — Landofpuregold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete!!! I am the one that prod'd the original article. I have been in contact with Scott Shields on this subject and he has been in contact. The article references/referenced a NY Post article and that article has, at best, flimsy references and BTW, best I can tell, is the only news report on the subject. If this was a legit issue, more journalists would be reporting on it in various media. Also, the NY Post is not known more for it's gossip and sports sections than for their hard news dept. As for the above anonymous poster, you don't offer any real proof, only allegations! Postcard Cathy 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS THe landofpuregold.com site isn't working right now. Really helpful in verifying your claim! Postcard Cathy 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**KEEP!!** Great editing out od defamatory stuff. Much better now. Highly notable on many blog sites and national print news media. A public figure with book authorship on WTC disaster ("Bear: Heart of a Hero"). Especially notable in search and rescue & first responder communities.Princetonpals 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia User:Princetonpals I see you have just begun editing, hope the rest of your first day goes well Special:Contributions/Princetonpals Jeepday 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea Buick. Makes more sense.Princetonpals 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Princetonpals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment There seems to be several Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts voting and commenting on this article. Jeepday 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. Mr Shields may, or may not, leap over the WP:N hurdle, but this article does not, and apparently will not, meet the criteria set out in WP:BLP. Negative articles on living people need to be scrupulously well referenced, and there needs to be a clear case for inclusion. This is a person of quite marginal notability in a Wikipedian sense. On Wikipedia, nil nisi bonum applies to the living, not the dead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCV Broadband

[edit]
MCV Broadband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but contested. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it was my article. I didn't see anything wrong with creating it but when someone puts a deletion tag on it for no appearant reason it does raise red flags. Robert Moore 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Walker

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

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Weakly. Very weakly. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey L. Bass

[edit]
Harvey L. Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well-written article, but is essentially just an obituary. None of his achievements seem very notable (started, or perhaps just ran for a while, a local newspaper, was chair of local branch of Democratic Party, and won some Rotarian award). No relevant Google hits. Elmer Clark 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ugh...WP:Pokémon test -Elmer Clark 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was this "big influence on U.S. history" and "amazing influence on human events"? Publishing a local newspaper and being a local political figure is not a "big influence" on American history. Gamaliel 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep local political figures are often notable, but the people who write the articles do not know how to position them in terms of general politics. The significance of this one is probably his role in the changing political climate of his area, and more can & should be said. What the article warrants is a more careful article. Any career can be made to sound trivial. DGG 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think the zero Google hits suggest that maybe he was not that notable a figure? -Elmer Clark 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite a library book that establishes his importance then. Gamaliel 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Dhartung -- Bpmullins | Talk 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. According to this page, there are over 700,000 Paul Harris Fellows, so it's not as significant an honor as implied above. --Metropolitan90 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously a solid local worthy, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Note that this opinion has nothing to do with a Google search, which I agree is not a good way to determine notability, but is based on the fact that he never held any sort of official post even in the small community in which he lived. Small-time local businessmen and chairmen of local political parties, chambers of commerce and rotary clubs are simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I have no idea why it is claimed that we have room for 430 articles about 430 separate Pokemon characters, as well as the entire cast of characters from video games and animated cartoons, and obscure hip-hop and rap performers who just self-published their first CDs, but we don't have room for articles about notable real people. Like other articles about local notables who are unheard of outside of their native counties, there may be too much detail; but that's a content issue, not a "keep or delete" issue. This is an article about a Democrat. I am a Republican, and I'm saying, "Strong keep." Dino 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a new record! WP:Pokémon test invoked twice in one AfD debate! :-P -Elmer Clark 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommended the following article for deletion, but apparently it has been spared. How is this article superior to the one on Harvey Bass, may I ask?

{complete text of Alonzo Sebastian Blalock removed}

Billy Hathorn 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. It was not spared, it was never submitted for deletion because you did not complete the AfD submission process. I've deleted it myself because I feel it fits the speedy deletion criteria. Gamaliel 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African Filipino

[edit]
African Filipino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nodes of Ranvier (band)

[edit]
Nodes of Ranvier (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. All links that appear in blue end up going to articles of no relation. Based on this, assuming that the band is non-notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Comics

[edit]
Blatant Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable webcomic publisher. Top magazine only sold 5,000 copies. No reliable sources; much of the article is simply listing parody comic titles. /Blaxthos 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and tag as unreferenced PeaceNT 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L. R. Kershaw

[edit]
L. R. Kershaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Not sure if it's credible. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 author's request, game creator's request, and general consensus in this nomination. -- nae'blis 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Eshraval

[edit]
Eshraval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

48 active players, no external sources, reads like it was written by the creators. Page has existed since May of last year. -- nae'blis 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Breathtakingly non-notable. WMMartin 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you are going to delete the page, the you should delete the entire geofiction section and all the others worlds listed there, such as Vexillium, which has about four active players. The page is relevant to the categories listed, it exists and it is active. The page gets more than 1,500 hits per day. I thought an Encyclopedia was used to look up a variety of information, not just items that were only 'breathtakingly notable', as appears to be the standard by some here. As for that 'breathtakingly non-notable' comment - please grow up and act like an adult. I would sincerely appreciate the exact reason this page is up for deletion. It doesn't seem to violate any Wikipedia policies and clearly describes the object of the page. Eshraval Creator — EshCreator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and other edits have been just to the page in question.
The phrase "breathtakingly non-notable" may, if you wish, be read as "very non-notable", or simply "non-notable". I'll make the rest of this comment without further humorous adverbs...
(1) It is a well-established policy here that in a debate on whether or not to delete an article we do not consider the status of other articles. We aim to work on a case by case basis. You, or anyone else, is welcome to propose deletion of any articles you wish. Sometimes we examine several similar or related articles at the same time, but this is not the case here.
(2) The number of hits per day the website gets is not relevant. This, again, is a long-standing principle followed when we review articles for deletion. The reason for this is that we are concerned with notability, not popularity.
(3) Notability is not subjective. What would make Eshraval notable would be if it had been discussed in some non-trivial way in a reliable published work. I've tried to find such a reference, but have not been able to do so. In fact, outside a very small community there's no reference to Eshraval at all. Eshraval has particularly few references of any kind ( hence the "breath-taking" comment ).
(4) I did actually express the exact reason why I advocate deletion of this article ( note that I'm not "voting" for deletion here - this isn't a vote, it's a discussion in which I express an opinion ): I said above that the article is non-notable. I hope that when you click through to the link above on what notability is you'll see that this was comment enough, and was an "exact reason".
(5) Yes, you're right, encyclopedias are used to look up a variety of information. But the difference between Wikipedia and somewhere like Google is that here we aim to include the "notable" stuff. Of course you've now read the way we identify notability, but here's my general philosophy on encyclopedias, which I hope you find useful: I think of an encyclopedia as being a kind of general repository for information that a well-read student of a particular discipline would be expected to know, or would be interested to know. So we have an article on geofiction because it's reasonable to expect "moderately well-informed" people to know what it is. We also want to provide information that will be useful for experts in geofiction, so we should have articles on Islandia, Boxen, and so on. Now, should we have an article on Eshraval ? I'd say certainly "yes", if it's notable within the geofiction community. But because I'm not an expert on geofiction, the only criterion I have for making this call is to look for publications about it: fortunately, this is a nice mechanical process that simply requires me to go and look for them. If I find that someone has written a paper in a journal titled "Eshraval: a study of human interaction through geofiction", or I find a reference to Eshraval in a survey of geofiction that includes a line like "Eshraval is important in geofiction because <insert non-trivial reason>" then we've got clear evidence that Eshraval is regarded by the relevant people as important and different - that it stands out from its peers. And then we create an article. But at present, despite good faith efforts on my part, I can't find what we need.
(6) As you'll see if you check my record, I make most of my contributions to Wikipedia through AfD debates. This is often a rather thankless task: people who work mostly in this area are looked down on by people who focus on creating articles, because we are "not adding to the project". Though it's hard to believe, I'd be delighted if every article reviewed in a deletion debate could be kept: I want Wikipedia to grow, too. But, sadly, it is very often necessary to prune the tree so that it will grow more healthily. What makes us a useful resource is that when people use Wikipedia to look something up they know that (a) we're trying to tell the truth, without bias, and (b) an article in Wikipedia will provide references to independent sources where you can learn more about the subject and why it is important. My job is to help make sure that our articles meet these criteria. It's not glamorous, but I don't mind doing it.
I hope this rather lengthy response helps you understand why I expressed the opinion I did. Please feel free to contact me any time to discuss this further, or if you feel I can help you in any way. WMMartin 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the response, but this in no way excuses the 'breathtakingly non-notable' response. It was unwarranted, ill-advised, and made you instantly come off like a belittling, pompous jerk. While you may think something is not worthy of inclusion - and that is perfectly fine - the way you state that is really the only way you can be interacted with here on the internet; frankly, you were judged as an jerk, for good or ill. In the future I just ask that you respect others work in both thought and deed. If you had simply said 'Non-notable' there would have been no issue aside from the fact we think you are wrong, but at least that debate is on-target and not about an immature comment by you. -- Eshraval Creator
  • Keep. As an Eshraval player and a long-time Wiki user and contributer, I'll have to disagree with you, Martin. If Eshraval is so, 'insignificant' as you say, do we really need an article on the Clark Material Handling Company? They make forklifts. They're hardly notable. Please, think before you speak; this is a living, breathing game, simulation and world, and I may not be the authority on the statistics of this page, I can assure you it is visited. Yes, it may need some work and updating, but otherwise there is nothing violating Wiki standards inside it. Thank you, Charles Buechner.
  • Keep. I am also an Eshraval player, and I challenge those who are set against the Wiki page to take a hard look at the creativity and depth of the world of Eshraval. I daresay, it is not appropriate for one person to decide the result of countless hours of work is worthless because they do not appreciate the creation. While Eshraval is not for everyone, including Martin, that does not mean it has no notable content, concepts, ideals or designs. Remember, in a perfect world, there is no need for thought police. Sincerely, Xeyda — Xeyda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Also an Eshraval player. I think the game speaks for itself. You don't have to like it. Just respect the joined vision of multiple people from across the world, creating a living, breathing world with its own radio broadcasts, content and unique political situations. Custodius 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) — Custodius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak delete, no independent sources found to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Article's only references aren't independent, they're affiliated with the creator and publisher. I expected Google to find some mentions on game-review magazine websites which would provide at least some claim to notability, but all I see are non-independent pages, Wikipedia mirrors, and a few blog postings. When this game has gotten substantially covered by reliable sources like the forklift maker has, and when such sources are cited, I will change to "Keep", but for now they don't appear in the article nor in the search I tried. None of the "keep" comments so far has provided a rationale that meets WP policies and guidelines. Barno 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clark (forklifts, cited as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) has no sources in the article but a Google search shows cites by the New York Times, World Cargo News, Automotive Business Review, and other verifiable sources, among the trivial hits such as press releases and directory listings. Barno 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to previous KEEP by Xeyda: Considering this is a free, unadvertised, online effort, the majority of any reviews of the game are going to be independent "blog" style blurbs and reviews of the game such as Omnipelagos.com, AllExperts.com and About.com. Xeyda 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: im also a player of eshraval and seriusly believe that hundreds of hours carefully crafting a world setting and game play cant be resumed by a "Breathtakingly non-notable" which is highly derrogative comment of our effort, its serious work and therefore deserves a place in wikipedia to inform people about our effort. Zhar2 — Zhar2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - close to being a speedy spam delete, but hopefully we can get all 48 132 (which is not what the article says and, compared to Wikipedia's 1 million plus is... well, anyway) members of their community to meat up here before we delete the article. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now theres no need to be rude. Custodius 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sheer arrogance and lack of tact by some of you Wikipedia people is astounding. People who want this page kept are now 'spam'. Why are some of you so quick to discount and minimize the effort and community of others? Seriously? We will do whatever is required to bring the page up to standard, but I believe Yahoo! and other engines returns a lot of hits. If the page requires more information, we will certainly add it, but I don't think the page itself is out of place, irrelevant, 'Breathtakingly non-notable', or 'spam'.Eshraval Creator
  • Comment - Where the hell did you guys get 48 from? There are 49 nations left open to play, meaning there are 132 members of the community. Which is bigger than some organizations listed on Wikipedia. -- 81.109.195.249 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC) — 81.109.195.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the reasoning behind this move. This is a Con-world. It's fake! You can't find anything about it besides blogs, pictures, and videos, of which there are 3690 hits on a Yahoo! search alone... Perhaps you should put up another nice pretty banner. I dunno, I think that you should reconsider the value that this article has to many people, and perhaps reconsider this edit. Cronos2546
  • Keep There is no reason why this page should be deleted unless, you also go and delete many many other pages as well. Kezaron 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Added Note. I think it is worthy to note that several people have found us via your Wikipedia. They were looking for geofiction/fantasy style online games and happened upon us through you. So I think the entry is relevant, because it is providing the very service this entire online encyclopedia was supposedly designed to provide. The entire category is/was clearly getting use AND providing a service to the greater online community. I guess the question is, how can it be non-notable or irrelevant if people have found it through this very entry? There is obviously a demand, and this entry in an online encyclopedia is providing that service. Eshraval Creator 12 February 2007
  • Delete per WP:V. Of the 34 -wikipedia&btnG=Search ghits, they are no sources that are reliable, make not of the game's significance, or make more than a trivial mention of the game. Mitaphane ?|! 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This reliable sources arguement is, in my humble opinion, complete rubbish. It's impossible to cite any source besides the site itself, along with the creator's word. Buechner
    • Comment If that is the case, then it violates WP:V. With out reliable secondary sources, how are we to assure that the claims the site makes are true? —Mitaphane ?|! 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would ask you this; what is there to verify is true? This is not a 'science or history' based entry, its about a game. If you want to know if its true, you click the link. You read. What could possibly be misrepresented? Custodius 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're saying this like EshCreator would put false information on his site- let's take a look at something posted on the front page. According to the simulator, There are a total of 181 nations, and 49 open to play. Referring to the map and forums, this is a fact. The site itself is credible. Buechner 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've played Eshraval, and enjoyed it, but it does not meet Wiki notability guidelines. illspirit|talk 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove This Page Immediately. As owner and creator of Eshraval, I request that you immediately delete this page and all references to Eshraval from the Wikipedia. I do not want my creation affiliated with your site in any manner, and by the comments of some of the so-called 'editors' here, it is clear that our game is not up to your so-called standards for inclusion. Eshraval Creator.
    Sorry, but only the creator of the page can request speedy deletion of the article. Wait one or two more days, the article will be surely deleted, since none of the "keep" opinions have bothered to give reliable sources to verify the information in the article. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. Apparently for some, the actual existence of an entire website, a very active forum, and an Wiki that contains more than 8,300 pages is not consider "reliable" and can't be used to actually "verify" the existence of something. I am the owner of the game and I authorized this page, so just delete it and let's be done with this little mess, shall we? We shall never darken your glorious door again, I assure you. -- Eshraval Creator.
You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia considers notable. This has nothing to do with how active the game or forum is. A subject is notable if it has been featured in a number of external, published sources. Wikipedia is not a database of games, unless said game happens to be sufficiently notable. illspirit|talk 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you posting, really? Nobody cares. I could care less if it is deleted - I have requested that it be so. So please let it die already. This whole thing is preposterous anyway. -- Eshraval Creator.
  • I created the page, and, per EshCreator's request, would like to request its deletion -- ObeliskBJM 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As big a tosser as WMMartin sounds, I agree that this is too unnotable, and as EshCreator requested it, I think it should go. TSMonk 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's important to note that EshCreator's request to have it deleted is because he's fed up with the attitude some of you have towards his creation. The sheer rudeness and contemptuousness you people seem to have towards the idea of a Conworld astounds me. ~Nobody of note 15 February, 2007
  • Do you think that trying to use a collaborative project to promote your game, ignoring the project's guidelines and insisting that we serve your interests, admitting that there are no sources of the kinds on which the project is based, and rejecting the project's standards is rude and contemptuous? Would you find it rude and contemptuous if Wikipedia's creator and a few of its participants joined Eshraval, then tried to tell you that you had to ignore the rules that make Eshraval work, with no good reason except that we think you should apply Wikipedia standards instead of yours? Barno 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why hasn't it been deleted yet? Please remove it - there is no real debate. You try to standardize 'validity' and 'notability', which are very subjective concepts, and while I think you fail in some cases (this page among them), it is your site to do with as you will. And I can't believe you even replied to that post above. Very telling. And no it wasn't me and I certainly didn't put anyone up to it, before you assume such. -- Eshraval Creator.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP no compelling reason or consensus to delete - if it troubles you, merge it -Docg 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirreff hall

[edit]
Shirreff hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A college residence hall. I don't think is notable enough, but perhaps others can add their 2 cents. Jvhertum 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a building with a rich history, along with much of the rest of the Dalhousie campus. Howe Hall, another residence, has an article, and I know other halls from other campuses must have articles here on Wikipedia. Both articles are well written, and are quite informative for those looking for information on buildings in Halifax. I don't see why most other building articles in Halifax should be more notable (Bank of Montreal Building (Halifax), Loyola Residence Tower, Scotia Square, Alderney Landing) Lusankya 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the relevant "standards" in this case would be general notability criteria and most likely notability guidelines for places of local interest. Luke! 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what does that have to do with this debate? Nuttah68 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:LOCAL states that "If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." Personally I feel that there is sufficient information to warrant a separate article, or at least possibly a conversion of this article into one which would cover all of Dal's residences. Particularly Shirreff and Howe halls have quite rich and long histories, which should belong on Wikipedia. Lusankya 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's current sources don't warrant a separate article -- two links to pages on the university's own web site, and one broken link to Facebook. The university's own site is probably accurate but is not an independent source, and Facebook is a social networking site, not a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Menner

[edit]
Jonathan Menner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Manager of a non-notable social indoor football team Lankiveil 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Aphoy

[edit]
James Aphoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge

[edit]
Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page, and all associated pages, are subpages of the article. Problem? Subpages do not exist in the article namespace, so the article in question is considered separate. The nomination also includes the linked "subpages". I don't know if the merging project is dead; I don't know if this is even encyclopædic, either. We could also move this to the talk namespace, if the project is even still alive. (Due to technical limitations, this is a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge
  2. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/A
  3. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/B
  4. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu
  5. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/D (redirect page)
  6. Dictionary of chemical formulas/D
  7. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/E (redirect page)
  8. Dictionary of chemical formulas/E
  9. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/F (redirect page)
  10. Dictionary of chemical formulas/F
  11. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/G
  12. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/H
  13. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/I
  14. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/K (redirect page)
  15. Dictionary of chemical formulas/K
  16. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/L
  17. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/M
  18. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/N
  19. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/O
  20. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/P
  21. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/S
  22. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C
  23. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C2
  24. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C3
  25. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C4
  26. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C5
  27. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C6
  28. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C7
  29. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C8
  30. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C9
  31. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C10
  32. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C11
  33. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C12
  34. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C13
  35. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C14
  36. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C15
  37. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C16
  38. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C17
  39. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C18
  40. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C19
  41. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C20
  42. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C21 (redirect page)
  43. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C21
  44. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C22 (redirect page)
  45. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C22
  46. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C23 (redirect page)
  47. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C23
  48. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C24 (redirect page)
  49. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C24
  50. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C25-C29 (redirect page)
  51. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C25-C29
  52. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C30-C39 (redirect page)
  53. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C30-C39
  54. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C40-C49 (redirect page)
  55. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C40-C49
  56. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C50-C100 (redirect page)
  57. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C50-C100
  • Huh? We are voting on whether to delete a verb which may be applied to articles?Inkpaduta 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, then delete - this is the only solution I can think of given that I still don't understand the exact purpose of the page. Given that all of the pages seem to be created by User:Eequor, I would suggest userfying to his/her page. -- Black Falcon 06:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy per above. That is an excellent solution. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy only through total bafflement, would prefer deletion. "Dictionary of...." article title says it all about why this should not be in Wikipedia Madmedea 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!!!. These Tables are extremely important since they provide connection to a significant number of articles describing different chemical compounds. This is very important to have for anyone who writes Wikipedia articles on chemical or biochemical topics. Before deciding anything you must consult with several Wikipedia users who are familiar with chemistry. Someone did excellent job by creating these Tables. One can tell that this is a "Dictionary", but such Dictionary is necessary and convient for developmet of articles.Biophys 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the purpose of these lists is not actually to be articles themselves, but to be aids in the development of articles, then they do not belong in the main namespace, but belong in the project namespace. That's one of the very things that the project namespace is for. Uncle G 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is essentially another way of navigating wikipedia, similar to by alphabetical order. Normally when one selects a category the articles are listed alphabetically. For this category (chemicals) alphabetical order is not necessarily the best way to navigate. I see use in this but it would need to be automated from chemboxes rather than a user maintained list.--Nick Y. 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then, we should contact author or someone else who could make this properly, insted of simply deleting this valuable work. I would like to note that aricles about many chemical compunds look really professional, see for example Lanosterol, which is accesible through one of these tables for deletion. Biophys 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a chemist I agree with Biophys that it is useful to list compounds by formula as well as by name, since most chemists actually think in formulas or in structures. There may be a better way to present the data, but I would keep the present article until something better is available. Dirac66 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suggest moving this into Missing article WikiProject and notify the other relevant projects of its existence. I'm happy to assist in this migration. John Vandenberg 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost anything except delete - I am withdrawing my suggestion to userfy then delete in light of additional suggestions (transferring to a WikiProject, temporarily leaving it, etc. As I understand from the "/Merge" in the titles and some of the comments above, the articles are intended for organization/development purposes. Although I don't think they should remain in this state for long, it would be a disservice to WP and to the editors involved to simply remove the mechanism they have created without at least offering an equal or better alternative. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Analyzer

[edit]
Image Analyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed advertising speedy, article doesn't really assert meeting WP:N/WP:SOFTWARE. Consider me in favor of deletion unless sources are added. --W.marsh 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not advertising, and that is that. What sources are you talking about? A source that shows there is an article or something about the program? Well, http://www.snapfiles.com/get/imageanalyzer.html is one I found on a quick search. Also, a Google search for "Image Analyzer" yields almost 500,000 hits. That is almost double of other image editors that have articles. Looks pretty notable to me. It looks like it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. --Althepal 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "image analyzer" is fairly common. The bulk of those hits have nothing to do with this subject. IrishGuy talk 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IrishGuy: Still, it has plenty of hits for the program and does have reviews on it. Althepal 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Including the latest version number in the search yields almost 15000 hits - as much as some image programs with articles. Althepal 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, not to be rude, but did you look at the links in my nomination? It doesn't assert meeting those guidelines. --W.marsh 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying. Althepal 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the pages or not? You said this article "doesn't meet any criteria for deletion" but it doesn't assert meeting the two inclusion guidelines I mentioned. --W.marsh 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to have at least two publications about it. http://www.freewarefiles.com/review_3_36_5125.html is some user reviews. Its hard to believe there is no publication about it, so I encourage you to look for one before deleting it. I did a little bit of searching but didn't spot a real publication. So, maybe it is not notable. If it is deleted, make sure you delete all the information from the comparison of raster graphics editors, too. Althepal 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability and the "review" looks like a copy of the program description. GHits are a bad way to show notability, especially with such a common term. This search turns up ~500 sites, mostly download mirrors. —Dgiest c 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Artweaver 0.4.3" turns up 62 hits. I wasn't including the version number in the quote; I left it outside of the quote just to try to limit the hits to ones about the program. --Althepal 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFTWARE doesn't say the reviews have to be long. And 69.87.199.81, your vote won't count unless you create an account. Althepal 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it states that they must be multiple non-trivial published works. A paragraph is trivial. IrishGuy talk 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it define a paragraph as trivial? Maybe it means a sentence is trivial. Furthermore, there is more than one paragraph of information on some of these "reviews". Althepal 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. An anon with a valid argument is welcome to participate in this discussion. —Dgiest c 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my wording. Althepal 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A couple of the links provided by the anon appear to be independent (albeit short) reviews. It's enough for verification and a good faith argument for notability. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the argumentation and evidence of 69. is very relevant and useful, it is insufficient to show notability. All of the reviews are either trivial, non-independednt or both. A paragraph (even a glowing one) at a couple of download sites is not enough for a freeware program. Eluchil404 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources outside of download sites are provided, --Daniel J. Leivick 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Tongue Publishing Inc.

[edit]
Mother Tongue Publishing Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod expired, but to combat systemic bias I'm giving AFD a chance to salvage it. Prod rationale was "Not notable. Company has published translations of six kids' books. Possible WP:COI problem judging by all the personal info in the article." If the article is not significantly improved, it should be deleted. GRBerry 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Całkowite Wewnętrzne Odbicie

[edit]
Całkowite Wewnętrzne Odbicie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album fails WP:N , WP:RS, WP:V and WP:MUSIC. It only gets about 1000 Google hits independent of Wikipedia.Inkpaduta 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --MaNeMeBasat 13:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the band Syndesmo claim to have released four albums. Whether they are on notable record labels or not I dont know. However if by releasing four albums they are notable, does that make the albums themselves notable per WP:MUSIC? Jcuk 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the meaning of "releasing albums" in the era of home computers that can record, edit and author cds, complete with cover art and jewelbox inserts, and duplicating services that can mass produce them, or in the era of people paying for downloads? What is the standard, in other words, to be sure it was a legitimate record company, and that it was widely sold? This is a serious question, because issing a single or cd seems to be something any non-notable band could easily do these days. So was it released by a major company? Did the album achieve big sales in Poland or other European countries?? The name of the album gets bogus Google hits unrelated to the album, as it seems to be a term in the physical sciences. The article on the group and the articles on their other albums bear examination as well, but the website for the group set off alarms in my McAfee antivirus program, which warned that it linked sites which sought to download spyware. Inkpaduta 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. There is an interwiki link over to the Polish Wikipedia, but there is no article there. There's practically no information in the present article except for a track listing for one record. Hardly worth an encyclopedia entry. The band Syndesmo, which made the album which is the subject of this article, has their own article (very uninformative) and three other articles for specific records, all just as minimal as this one. In their present state they all look to me like candidates for deletion. EdJohnston 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q.Quan

[edit]
Q.Quan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fragomeni

[edit]
Andrew Fragomeni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Alicatoras

[edit]
Steven Alicatoras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Verma

[edit]
Ivan Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.Mills

[edit]
C.Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Brandner

[edit]
James Brandner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Maccagnini

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brennende Liebe

[edit]

Non-notable single. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpaduta (talk • contribs) 04:46, 11 February 2007

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moises salinas

[edit]
Moises salinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Borderline on notability. If the consenseus is keep, the page should be moved to Moises Salinas. BuickCenturyDriver 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability is very, very week. The Herzl Award is the only thing that would suggest notability, but I hardly think every winner of that is worthy of their own article. Aplomado talk 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Nardman1 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the Herzl Award, Dr. Salinas is the author of over 20 publications, including one award winning book, and a second book that is quickly becoming a major contribution to the field of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hardly any of the other original Herzl Award winner have such a record. In addition, he is one of only 4 Herzl Award winners in the U.S., and some of the other ones have pages in their respective language (Hebrew, Spanish). AZM-GH
  • Comment. There are several pages about American Zionist leaders from the right. None, however, about American Zionist leaders from the left, progressive affiliation. Do I detect a bias here? Is there a reason why Liberal Zionist are being deleted? Kibbutznik
  • Comment There are many other non-fiction authors with less stellar records. e.g., Thomas Alexander, Biplob Kumar Debnath, James Joll, Neal Lozano, etc. I have looked at Salinas' books, and they seem really noteworthy. Has anybody looked him up? Maybe somebody needs to add more notability items to his stub?
  • Comment. Someone created Moises Salinas as a redirect to the article in question. It's proper to have the article itself on Firstname-Lastname capitalized and the Firstname lastname as a redirect. If this article is deleted, both the article and the redirect will be deleted from the mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some information about Dr. Salinas, including some of his other awards (American Education Research Association, Carnegie Academy, Pew Charitable Trust) and some minor edits. Thank you. AZM-GH 15:57, 9 February 2007
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't know that an AFD could be extended. Lets see how the cards fall. BuickCenturyDriver 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable. His 4 books are from respectable academic social science publisher--Sage is a very important one & the other 2 of also reputable. His university does count as a research university,and we have consistently accepted full professors at research universities as notable, because their notability has been verified solidly and reiiably by the peer-review at the university. DGG 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I almost missed this one, because the article was not written to give a summary of his major accomplishments as a lede paragraph--and perhaps others did also. I added it. DGG 03:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libido Airbag

[edit]
Libido Airbag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Can find no evidence of notability for this band. It was tagged PROD, but was removed with the note "there is no reason to delete this page". I disagree. ♠PMC♠ 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Murphy

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC. Original AfD was to delete a different Keith Murphy entirely. -- Longhair\talk 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most people here can read. I suggest you take a read over the official Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. There's no need to go insulting anyone simply because they may disagree with your idea of notability. -- Longhair\talk 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP i agree, it shouldnt be personal, but if this player has goal scoring records, and is being scouted for an international squad, then it must be of some importance, and therefor relevant to people interested in his progress —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.134.249 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC). — 58.164.134.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The person should first read then get his facts right before saying the page should be deleted, and i dont think merely asking someone if they can read is a personal attack thanks all the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Calling other editors "nerds" in other AfD discussions [24] could be considered a personal attack. My comments of above, whilst not referring to your worst offence of a personal attack, is your warning to stop with the personal comments, or be stopped. Comment on content, not the contributor. I've also left some pointers on your talk page to the official policies of Wikipedia so you don't fall foul of the rules. Now back to the article at hand, do you have any evidence of this players' achievements and/or claims of notability from a source outside of your organisation? As it stands, the article is currently without any external references at all, so we're merely taking your word for everything the article says. Wikipedia functions on verifiability and some sources may help to back up the article's claims. - Longhair\talk 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry ill stop it then anyway back to the topic, currently Keiths Football Club doesnt have a website which i can give reference to but it will soon be up and running with all stats and player profile, but if you really want a reference you can contact Jason Sorenstam, club coaching director and confirm all keiths details Johnnybhoy22 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable social player - being top scorer in a minor suburban indoor league does not satisfy WP:BIO. I find it very hard to believe that an international team would be scouting in such a league, and "you need to contact some *bloke in Australia" is not a valid citation.... ChrisTheDude 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually he is not top scorer in a minor suburban league mate, he is on the roster but hasnt played for the indoor team, he is top scorer in Queensland state league 3(equivilent to Coca Cola League 2) which is a top league and also is top scorer for another team aswell, please read the article propely before asking for it to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - totally non-notable. Orderinchaos78 08:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [25] theres park ridge fc for you, and obviously u havnt looked hard enough for queenslands league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)
    • I never said the club didn't exist, I said I could find no confirmation of the league existing. The club's own website doesn't mention it and neither does the website of Football Queensland.... ChrisTheDude 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • After some further searching I've found that Park Ridge apparently play in the Brisbane District League (not QLD State League) but aren't in the top three divisions (which is all the website currently shows fixtures for), so presumably they play in one of the lower divisions, which doesn't strike me as a "top league", personally, and certainly not the equivalent of England's national fully professional League Two, as claimed above. I'd also hazard a guess that the Brisbane League itself isn't a full-time professional league, which means that Mr Murray doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO.... ChrisTheDude 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Archibald99  23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alive in Studio A

[edit]
Alive in Studio A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable album fails WP:N, WPRS:, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. Inkpaduta 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per article's improvement. PeaceNT 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psyopus

[edit]
Psyopus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I deleted this under category a7, and another editor asked me to restore it based on a fairly large Ghit count. However, the article positively asserts the band's "lack of fame", and cites no reliable sources. I found a few independent sources on Google but I am not sure that any of them are reliable. NawlinWiki 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep, This band is currently signed to Metal Blade Records, a very big label. And their guitarist alone has a list of notable credientials. Christopher Arp writes a monthly column called "Dr. Opus PhD" in the national publication Decibel magazine, he is a fully endorsed guitarist by Ibanez guitars, and he also plays guitar for Hank Williams the III. Chris Arp's links alone to these noteables is a strong connection to the publics interest.

Psyopus has also toured the fully spectrum of the States with such other noteable acts as Cannibal Corpse, The Red Chord, Dying Fetus, Hank Williams the III, Job For a Cowboy, Cephalic Carnage, A Life Once Lost, and Heavy Heavy Low Low.

Also, their Metal Blade release was in late Feb 2007. This was after the initially proposed deletion in Jan 2007. Since then there are so many reviews for this band and so many interviews in any language imaginable, it would be an inaccurate descision to assume that this band is being missed by the radar. Just search them on the internet or check out their myspace page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.144.108 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Haven

[edit]
Brooke Haven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable porn performer, does not satisfy WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V Inkpaduta 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look under the "dubious criteria" section. Tabercil 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this section (which I'll presume is true) is certainly a claim to notability: Brooke has now worked in over 150 pornographic movies and with some of the biggest names in porn. Brooke is under a non-exclusive contract with the studio Vicious Media which allows her to work for other companies as well and where she also directs her own pornographic movies. Mathmo Talk 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A search for her name in imdb.com lists 120 films, which exceeds the threshold of 100 films mentioned in WP:PORNBIO. That criterion points out that films like this can be made in three days. Notability is thus minimally shown. More sources would certainly help. EdJohnston 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Francis

[edit]
Ricardo Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A search fails to bring up any sources that would show this person is notable. The closest I could find are these two results. This and this. Neither of which give anymore than a one off trival passing mention to him. Also the article itself hardly gives him any claims to notability either. Mathmo Talk 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Poets

[edit]
Buzz Poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak delete and with a couple of reliable sources that will change to a keep. I'm pretty sure this band would pass WP:MUSIC but there's no evidence at the moment. Nuttah68 12:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Getting a record played on a local radio station is not evidence of notability. Nor, sadly, is the "dancing dentist". WMMartin 15:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. WP:MUSIC is fairly demanding with regard to record sales, awards, critical notice, etc, and there is no evidence that they have hit this level of fame. The main evidence offered in the article is that a particular song of theirs was heavily played on two Pittsburgh radio stations in 1997-1998. That doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC standards. EdJohnston 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabral

[edit]
Fabral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about an apparently nonnotable vehicle manufacturer. Fabral santana -wikipedia only gets a couple of hundred Google hits, and many of these are unrelated to the vehicles. This is a Brazilian company, so maybe others can determine if there are sources to show notability and make this into a keepable article. Appears to fail WP:N WP:CORP and WP:RS Inkpaduta 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- WP:AGF, and don't bite the newbie either. 13 completed AfD nomination at the time of writing, of which eight were deleted (one speedily) and three redirected ("in lieu of deletion"). Only Chen Li (no consensus) and Minnesota State Highway 127 survived unscathed. Even this article was well worthy of deletion before others worked on it. I'd say he seems to have a very good understanding of wikipolicies for such an "inexperienced" editor. --DeLarge 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I click on random articles. If one is a stub, I look for sources to make it into a better article. Sometimes I nominate for deletion. This one had lingered for 6 months with no additions and no sources. No one was actively adding sources or details to it, so adding templates to it that it needed improvement did not look like a productive move. The WP:N standard says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and reliable. A Google search did not disclose such sources. I asked that others with better access to Portuguese sources try to add some. In the end if the article is kept but with sources, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. If it is deleted because good sources cannot be found at this time to bring the article up to meet the standards cited, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. The nomination was made in good faith and not just to be nominating something randomly through lack of having read the policies cited. Inkpaduta 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I realize that a google search for Fabral alone will generate a lot of irrelevant hits. Sometimes more sophisticated search techniques can turn up reliable sources. This can include googling a combination of words, such as the manufacturer's name and its city, or its country, or its product together, or searching on other databases which may be available to you free of charge through your city library or university library. In this case, I checked the Portuguese Wikipedia to see if it had an article on the company. It didn't, but if such a page existed, it would have saved a lot of time. This isn't intended to criticize any other editors; I just want to explain some of my techniques for expanding articles when there is some time pressure involved. --Eastmain 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Additional sources go a long way to showing notability and verifiability. Eluchil404 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koreans in the Philippines

[edit]
Koreans in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I am not contesting the fact that there are Koreans in the Philippines, most of the article as it stands is not verifiable. A great deal of the article is unreferenced, and might not even be possibly reference-able. The article scope seems confused, being a mix of unverified statistics, history, religion, sociology and a little blurb about the entertainment industry. Notability may also be suspect, as there is most likely a minority of X nationality in most, if not all countries. Most of those communities do not warrant articles on Wikipedia. Shrumster 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I specifically left out Americans, Spanish and Japanese in the Philippines as these articles have potential if re-scoped to deal with their respective occupation of the country (and not just the racial mixing. Shrumster 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You're right, there is a minority of X nationality in most countries. Not all of these communities are notable and I don't see why this one is. As you say, most of the information is unverified (and possibly unverifiable, judging by my quick google search). Srose (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/clean-up or Merge. It appears that this article was written with another article in mind. After reading and re-reading the said article, it appears that this article (Koreans in the Philippines) was written as a fork of the Gyopo article...that is, written after it, and can be viewed as one of a series. (Note that this article is linked within the "Other countries" discussion in Gyopo). Let's face it, Koreans have been here since Philippine colleges and universities have started accepting Korean exchange students and Korean expats (Korean restaurants now seem to be a staple in the newly-opened megamalls like the Mall of Asia). (And, like her or not, Sandara Park chose to live and work here.) All these, to me, are signs, that the presence of Koreans in the Philippines make an interesting article...just that, the article as it currently stands, needs a lot of work to make it worthy as an encyclopdic article. Hence, IMO, one of two things need to be done: either merge this article to the main Gyopo article, or rewrite this article and add more sources and references. Otherwise, we might as well nominate the Gyopo article for deletion, as well as the other (insert-your-nationality)-Korean articles (although the Japanese-Korean, Chinese-Korean and Korean-American articles appear to be well-written). --- Tito Pao 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it is though, the article makes a lot of (possibly controversial) unreferenced claims. For example, until a sociological journal or a major local newspaper takes note of a "Koreatown" in a specific place, it is simply unverifiable and is original research. I mean, one of my favorite places, Ortigas Center, IMHO is turning into a Koreatown. But until I have concrete evidence of a demographic study done by someone, it'll still be my personal observations, and not really apt for wikiality. Shrumster 08:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methane reformer (car)

[edit]
Methane reformer (car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article seems to be more of a half-started work or a scrapbook. The name Methane reformer (car) is used without there being any article called Methane reformer. The article should be completed or deleted. Tunheim 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section on autothermal reforming closely you'll see that this is not so much it's own process but just a way of saying that the feedstock is providing the reaction energy for the process. The same concept is used in most any thermal reforming of an energy-rich substance. This includes numerous, possibly most, core processes in the petroleum industry, petrochemical industry, biomass refining and coal refining. Sometimes these processes might be named integrated or autothermal, but most of the time this would be omitted as it is the most common way to run such processes on an industrial scale. --Tunheim 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play on Words (band)

[edit]
Play on Words (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Performance Officer

[edit]
Chief Performance Officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Concept is a neologism from a book by a non-notable author. Search reveals no notable company on earth that has a person in this position. UnitedStatesian 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Weak keep for now - the above searches appear to indicate this content could be salvageable. Addhoc 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muarrif

[edit]
Muarrif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic definition of personal name which has already been transwikied to Wikt. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, article has shown improvement with reference added since it was tagged for AfD PeaceNT 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Experts-Exchange

[edit]
Experts-Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advert for commercial venture, with associates of the venture adding weight against critics of the venture. Gomez2002 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regard your opinion but I object. Looking at the talk page, you can see that people with different points of view are involved in a discussion on how to wikify the article. The solution is not to delete the article, but to help improving it. I've been trying to gather relevant information from available and verifiable sources within the past few weeks. I'm slow on it I know, but I'm trying as much as I can.
In addition, I belive what you mentioned is not a good reason for deleting an article. If people assosciated with Experts Exchange are adding weight against its critics in an illegal way, it is their fault, nothing to do with the article. If available facts against EE are few and/or not verifiable, this again does not mean the article should be deleted. And finally, the article does not explicitely advertise Experts Exchange or even compare it with similar services in a way which may make people feel more positive about it or negative about the others.
Regards, huji—TALK 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, few or no verifiable facts about an article is the primary reason for deletion, as per WP:V. The only reliable source I could find was [31], a trivial review going on 3 years old. There is precious little coverage about the site in its current incarnation anywhere, and certainly not enough to help eliminate any of the citation concerns in the article. That said, there does seem to be a reasonable amount of chatter about two things... 1) the old domain name, but that confusion is already covered in Domain names, and 2) that some experts-exchange articles are cloaking the google bot to get a higher ranking [32] which is somewhat covered in Criticisms. However, I don't think either of of those topics are meaty enough to fill out an entire article, especially if the rest of the article is purged of the unverifiable statements, so make mine a Weak Delete until the WP:V issues get resolved. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I said right at the start of the discussion that it was spam. I tried to offset puff that was stuffed into it by EE associates, and then we saw a senior member of EE staff engaging in a campaign to purge anything that was critical.

The fact that it is filled with unverified facts both pro and con is enough reason to delete it. However, there is still the matter of the patent. That is verified. The patent does exist. That can still be the basis for an article but the critics of the site are not going to abandon the dispute over other facts as long as administrators and other associates of EE insist on making it a promotional piece or even a review of the site. Some of the negative things entered were an over reaction to EE staff being involved.

What is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article is the patent. Just about anything else is going to fuel an argument. It would be a shame to lose the article. My preferece is not to delete it, but if it is not about the patent, then there is nothing to qualify it for a Wikipedia article. There are thousands of Internet sites just like EE; forums where experts answer questions. The only thing different about EE is the patent. While there is very little research; and not much in the way of independent reviews, there is the fact that the patent exists and is the basis of a point and grading system that makes them unique. whether they are a unique tech support site, or a unique game can be debated, but that does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

I guess the best is delete, and hope that we get an article based on the patent at some point.

COBOLdinosaur 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Interesting. I couldn't really find any precedent for basing an article exclusively on a patent, and I'm not entirely convinced its a great idea. The only thing that exists to tie the expert-exchange website to the patent is the assignee, and there's no verifiable proof that they actually use the algorithm as designed. Other then the USPTO, there are zero third-party sources about the patent, and there isn't any reason to believe this patent is notable in the least. Prove me wrong? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing to prove. If you go back and read what I said, we are not in disagrement; that it should be deleted. All I am saying is that the only thing that might be of value is the patent; which you correctly extend to implementation of the patent. If someone can supply the verifiction as to the implementation of the patent then there may be something to salvage. EE is just one of thousands of forums. I am not aware of anything they have done that is inovative. The patent was the only thing that was unique, and I can also not find any independent support to indicate it is actually being used. There are also other forums with point based ratings and grading that may be violating the patent and I have not been able to find any history or evidence that EE has ever taken action to defend the patent. It appears that the argument I made in support of the patent is moot and deletion should proceed. - COBOLdinosaur 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • delete as unverified,--- indeed many of the links are simply "questions answered of Ee. I dont see how the patent would help it--its the use made of the patent that make sit notable. DGG 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 82.70.155.252 added the header, you completed the nomination, and then 82.70.155.252 deleted the header. If you completed the nomination on behalf of an anonymous user, then you should edit the nomination header to indicate that. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep (and cleanup): This is a pretty well-known website, one of the first of its genre. Lots of references in independent news articles [33]. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 05:43Z
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconcidering your vote

[edit]

I have updated the article, added sources for many of the statements, and included more information about Experts Exchange there. I would like to ask people who voted a delete here, to check the article again and see if they still vote for its deletion.

Thank you. huji—TALK 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) huji—TALK 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironweed Collective

[edit]
Ironweed Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced except for the link to the homepage, this collective seems to fail WP:N. janejellyroll 11:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (with egg on my face). So... I should pay closer attention to the history. Most of those "more than just the author" edits were attempts at speedy deletion, which the author removed. Silly me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gauss

[edit]
Matt Gauss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greeneyes

[edit]

Non notable webcomic, fails WP:WB, no reliable sources. I was quiet baffled reading the first AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeneyes, where arguments for keep are used like "Simultaneous story threads as an approach is of artistic signficance. Use of elements for chapter headings is of artistic significance. Anonymity of writer and illustrator is of artistic significance." (by a current admin, no less!) I don't see how the way this comic is created is in any way an indicator of notability. The only claim to notability is that the author of another webcomic liked the way Greeneyes played with colour, and imitated it, and that another webcomic artists contributes to it,and mentions that in passing This is rather trivial, and does not constitute multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources (the bare minimum asked by most WP:NOTE guidelines. This webcomic has only 18 distinct Google hits[34] (looking for greeneyes without the author gives many, many unrelated hits, and it seems hard to have a non-trivial mention that doesn't name the writer of the comic anyway). No significant awards, no significant reviews, no independent book published, no major reviews, ... Fram 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it is very interesting to read the previous AFD for this article. It is truly remarkable how much the standards for a webcomic article staying on Wikipedia have changed in a little over a year. That said, while Greeneyes may be artistically stunning, unusual in being a comic published under the CCL, and may be slightly better known than it was then (constrast, say, Google hits on the previous AFD with what they are now), I have a lot of trouble with the idea that this is notable as a webcomic. Delete.Balancer 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That said, the original request above appears to have been generated with a biased agenda. Searching for greeneyes+Hecke on google.com - not google.be - turns up 1050 hits[35] and similar numbers fall out when we have searches like greeneyes+webcomic-wikipedia[36]. While I can't see this as meeting notability by the current standards of Wikipedia, I find myself having a great deal of difficulty in assuming good faith on the part of the person starting the AFD, who has misrepresented a weak case as even weaker. Balancer 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply living in Belgium does not make ones google searches evidence of intentional harmful editing. --Dragonfiend 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but even just searching on google.be for Hecke+greeneyes generates 242 hits. "Greeneyes"+"jetfuel" is the singularly lowest combination of all possible search term combinations I could come up with, with a raw hit count of 27. If this was by chance, it's quite remarkable. As things currently stand, though, the only argument I find even somewhat plausible is that it was very resoundingly kept in the last AFD; however, it's quite clear that standards of notability have shifted substantially since then. Balancer 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google.be or Google.com gives exactly the same results, it's just a language skin. This is the search from the nomination via Google.com: [37]. Still 18 distinct Google hits. Anyway, the number of hits is not the only argument: we need WP:RS sources to establich notability. I don't like you doubting my good faith, and certainly not when you do so on faulty grounds. I think my history on Wikipedia shows more than clear enough that my AfD's (and other contributions) are done in good faith, no matter if they are met with agreement or disagreement. I always search for (web)comics with the name of one of the authors added, because the chance that you have a serious discussion of a comic without even mentioning the author is very small, and because for many titles, searching without the author gives many false positives (hits that aren't about the comic at all). e.g. for Greeneyes, the first hit already is this completely unrelated page[38]. Please check your accusations more thoroughly before making them in the future. Fram 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And following that policy would have led you to search Greeneyes+Hecke - the name of the author, rather than a random handle - first. In the first place, however, Google (or Alexa) hits aren't a basic measure of notability. My apologies if misfortune has led you to select the singularly least appropriate search term combination of all those, but I am not particularly happy to have stumbled upon this corner of Wikipedia and found rife misrepresentation in use in nearly every active webcomic AFD. Balancer 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, the article gives Jetfuel as the name of the author as used in the comic, and Hecke as his real name. It is normal to search on the pseudonym. Smurfs plus Peyo gives 59,800 (non-distinct) hits[39], Smurfs plus (real name) Culliford gives 795 (non-distinct) hits[40]. I have taken the name which was given in the main text, not the one given in parentheses. If these is the less obvious search term, then the article should be rewritten to reflect the name most used in references to the comic. Anyway, this "corner" of Wikipedia (the main deletion discussion board) is open for everyone to contribute, so if you have any evidence that there is rife misrepresentation, please provide it. The problem with most of the webcomics is that there are a number of hardcore fans, but very little reliable sources about them. Too bad, but until those sources pop up, they don't have a place on Wikipedia. Fram 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It should have emphasized the name Hecke indeed, given that the real name is in much more frequent use in discussion of the comic. Someone should pass that suggestion along to Comixpedia. As far as showing that there is rife misrepresentation in the recent spate of webcomic AFDs, I recommend you consult my recent contribution history in the past three days. I've been pointing out lots of misrepresentations - of article content, of traffic statistics, of search statistics, etc. Most, though not all, has been from users trying to delete a wide assortment of webcomics, including some clearly notable ones. My apologies for snapping at you; you haven't been the worst offender, and I can readily believe now that you were simply careless in trying only one search that happened to produce ~18 related hits when several others produced close to ~1000 related hits. Balancer 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to establish notability under WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It would probably be better to search the author William van Hecke as "van hecke" rather than just "hecke". "Hecke" is the German word for "hedge" and shows up in unrelated contexts such as "Ab durch die Hecke" (Over the Hedge). --Metropolitan90 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very few German pages contain the exact compound "greeneyes," which filters those out pretty well. In general, if you're going to check search results - which don't in principle establish notability or lack thereof (see WP:N) - you should try a good number of different searches and look at the sort of results you're getting. Balancer 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after transwiki. It doesn't have WEB or sufficient sources for Wikipedia, so it should ease on to Comixpedia, to be kept until it become sufficiently notable. The google search just give an idea, and may lead somewhere the subject is represented by multiple non-trivial published sources. There aren't any, it can't be verified, so it should go. Agree with nom which does not misrepresent. MURGH disc. 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with images; still no reliable sources. Sandstein 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comic has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " - Francis Tyers · 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sourcing here is a problem. Wikipedia has established standards for verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards, which don't seem to be met here. The suggestion to transwiki is a good one, as the material itself is not so poorly written as to be of no worth. The issue here simply is sourcing, and the article does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion here. We have a responsibility to readers to assert notablity and importance, by citing multiple non-trivial published sources, and to adhere to web content guidelines. Should the consensus favor inclusion, then this article still is in need of serious cruft cleanup. NetOracle 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Never notable, only sources are other (not major) webcomics. Original AFD was railroaded by Sidaway's Wiki-philosphising and some really incestuous "oh but webcomic webcomic webcomic webcomic" rubbish. - hahnchen 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Huskisson

[edit]
Todd Huskisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. He directed an 18-minute film? Good for him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Servaty

[edit]
Philippe Servaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested db of scandal-bio; sources have been improved, but not enoughTikiwont 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A quick Google reveals the subject is notable enough, but I'd like to see some more English references. I don't think deletion is warranted so quickly in this case - give it time and see what happens. FYI, the "A8" deletion referenced on the talk page is, IIRC, speedy deletion for blatant copyright violation. -- Qarnos 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I took this around over the weekend. I thinks the 'quick' clarification is necessary because of the subject and WP:BLP. I studied the sources and tried to search more myself. The main issue is the scarcity of reliable sources. Of the three in English (including the one on the talks pages), two are self-published and take the 'facts' as starting point. The third one (Le Soir) talks of Servaty only as suspect, as does the French one. Tikiwont 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Every sentence is sourced with multiple references. There are 22 citations for a three paragraph article. While I realize English refs are preferable on the English Wiki, WP:V states that foreign refs are acceptable. As to the issue of self-published refs, while WP:V states that blogs are not largely acceptable, it goes on to say that self-published work may be acceptable if the author is a professional in the field. This ref fulfills that criterion, as Paul Belien is also a journalist who has written for major newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Independent. I doubt he would libel anyone, as he has his professional reputation as journalist to consider. By the way, of the five refs I currently have, this is the only one that I see as self-published. The others are a Moroccan magazine, a Belgian magazine, a Belgian Newspaper and an Arabic news site. Jeffpw 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Could use some cleanup per WP:BLP but is chock-full of non-English references establishing notability. —Dgiest c 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and I am irritated this was relisted. It is obviously notable, and my personal feeling is that it was not nominated in good faith. It has 22 cites now, and had 22 cites when it was nominated. It's not my problem if the only language the nominator can comprehend is English. Jeffpw 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I hope that you examined the sources more thoroughly than my userpage. While it only lists German and Itlian as Non-English languages, that allows me also to comprehend some Dutch and French respectively. As regards your feeeling of lack of good faith, I will merely take this as hint to try to make my montivation clearer, as I originally did in contact with the artcle's creator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • As, of course, you're the creator let me add that I had hoped to have clarified that while there are many citations, and it is clear that there was a scandal with Servaty as main suspect, not all sources actaully sustained that Servaty was identified as 'Belguel' or explained clear enough how or e.g. where and when the mentioned interview was published. Here my limited understanding of Dutch may indeed have played a role. So I felt it necessary to have this reviewed. However, I won't express an opinion in this relisting (which is completely legit since there originally was only one opinion but ours.) Tikiwont 09:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The TelQuel ref: the 11 Moroccan young women imprisoned following this business had designated the man who had photographed them in these defamatory positions as being "Philippe Sarfati, journalist with the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir. The Brussels journal: Le Soir, however, forced Servaty to resign in early June when it became known that Servaty had added “anti-Islamic remarks” to some of the pictures. The ArabicNews.com (the weakest ref): Servaty would have deluded over 80 Moroccan women, in the Moroccan south-western city of Agadir, into taking pornographic photo-shots and scenes on promises that he would marry them and ensure their legal stay in his country. Knack magazine: Servaty photographed the women, saying it was for hi8s own use, and placed the explicit photos on the internet, with sexist and racist comments, on the now closed webiste marocsluts.tk...In an interview with RTBF he apologized and said that he is a sex addict. De Standaard newspaper: In Agadir thirtten women are jailed and dozens on the run after becoming the victims of Belgische journalist P.S. During his vacations in Morocco he seduced the women, made compromising photos, and set the photos on an [internet] sexsite. Every ref either states he is accused of this act, or states explicitly that he did it. One ref even contains the fact that he apologized for doing it. It's clear he did it, so I don't see how you can nominate this for deletion based on WP:BLP. it's not libel to state the facts of a case, if you have sources to back them up. The fact that the refs are not all in English does not make it fail WP:V, which explicitly allows non-English refs. I didn't think this was a good faith nomination the first time you placed it here, I think it even less this second time. As to your comment that you hope I read the references more clearly than your userpage, I didn't look at your userpage at all. I merely assumed you were having a comprehension problem, since you couldn't read what I have set before you now in black and white. Jeffpw 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As probably is clear by now, I did not place the article a second time here. That was done by an administrator. I nominated the artcicle in the first place, because I had doubts about the sources of the sources and in particular about the interview in light of WP:BLP which I seem to have understood more narrow than other editors here and only reentered this second discussion because of the not-good-faith claim. Tikiwont 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources are there, he's notable, it's verifiable, that's it. AFD is not for source review when you simply don't like the sources. If you had questions about the reliability of sources, you should have taken it to WP:RFC. This is an abuse of the deletion process. — coelacan talk — 10:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi guys, please calm down: AFD is exactly the right forum for this, not RFC (that is for behavioral disputes). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 11:21Z
  • Comment - For what's it worth, after the article survives this AfD, it will be immune from being proded or speedied. However, I agree this should have been an immediate speedy keep. Addhoc 15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the frustration expressed above. Time wasted trying to save articles from improper deletion could be better spent. Press your "random article" age ten times and look at some of the stuff that is begging for deletion yet goes unnoticed. House of Scandal 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sufficient news coverage per above. Addhoc 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Philippe Servaty scandal The article as currently written has very little biographical information about Servaty himself, and is really just a summary of the scandal. So, really, it is the scandal which meets WP:N, not Philippe Servaty, and that should be the name of the article.--Aervanath 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP I do not think that most of the article could stand up when examined in the light of BLP, unless one actually thought the sources here reliable by that criterion. As mentioned, this is especially true of the purported interviews. I do not see how one could justify some of the newspaper sources as sufficient for the purpose. But it is notable, though I would how much of it will survive. DGG 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: DGG, would you please clarify your comment? My sources are A) A Belgian magazine; B) A Belgian newspaper; C) A Moroccan magazine; D)An Arabic news website; E) A blog from a noted Belgian journalist; and F) A Moroccan newspaper. Why would these not be considered reliable sources? Because only 2 are in English? Or do you have some other objection to them? Jeffpw 08:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I... yeah, I obviously crossed the line on this one. I unfairly bunched Ford in with other articles I'd deleted images for... at the very least, yes, I should have done a Google search. All the more reason to stop editing Wikipedia when I'm already tired... That said, some actual sources for any of the claims in the article would be really, really nice (though I understand that AfD isn't the place to take cleanup requests). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robben Ford

[edit]
Robben Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician, unverified assertions of notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Makes a fair number of assertions of notability, many of which are verifiable, if unreferenced. Contributing musicians are often listed in liner notes. See his album on Amazon. Should be tagged as unreferenced. —Dgiest c 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : AlbumS (25+ between 1972-2007) Amazon (I still got steam comin' out of my ears since reading this insult of an AfD a couple hours ago ;-) (but I did find those two new tasty youtube vids of Robben in Germany from 94 - so it's not so bad) - FAAFA 09:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep: Excuse my language but I'm fucking STUNNED. Robben Ford is one of the best and most respected blues-rock-jazz guitarists alive - with a 30+ year history of being so. Numerous articles on him. "Robben Ford came to prominence as one of those smooth, jazzy West Coast studio session players whom many compared to Larry Carlton. Both played with a group called the LA Express, which backed Joni Mitchell in mid 1970s. He also played on George Harrison's Dark Horse album, plus records by people ranging from Barbra Streisand to Kenny Loggins to Little Feat." "By the mid 1980s, Ford would become part of Miles Davis' touring band. [P]layers as respected as Pete Townshend and Eric Clapton have marveled at his work, and he appeared as a featured artist in Musician Magazine's "100 Greatest Guitarists of the 20th Century" issue." Do yourself a favor - watch this video (the whole thing) - then withdraw this meritless specious AfD as truth and justice and musical history demand. Robben Ford Live In Germany 1994 FAAFA 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dgies-from K37 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this listing. I enjoy his music, Quite talented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.14.136 (talk • contribs).

  • Speedy Keep, with nominations of this type I wonder if it is a good idea to let just anybody come around and create nominations for deletion. The minimum one should do is to refrain from subjects one does know nothing about. Alf photoman 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 10:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Animation

[edit]
Universal Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization that operates two anime conventions and a manga library. There are numerous organizations in the world that operate these sort of conventions. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as to why pointing to an article is not a reason that another should pass AfD. One rather significant difference between the two is that the New England Anime Society has been mentioned in the press (such as local papers) and by other third parties quite a bit. I looked around a lot for articles about Universal Animation, but I'm having a very difficult time finding any mention of "Universal Animation" in anything other than a press release. (The fact "Universal Animation Studios" shows up a lot doesn't make the search any easier.) WP:CORP states that a "company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." Yes, the organization is the parent organization of AnimeNEXT and MangaNEXT, which are notable...but notability cannot be inherited. Universal Animation must have notability on its own. --PatrickD 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Valid points, though one could argue that the subject in the articles cited are the events, not the organization. Likewise, one could point to several similar articles which reference Universal Animation and can be used to demonstrate notability. The article should be updated with these references if it is kept. Echocharlie 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the three links and none of them would meet the "non-trivial" part of the primary notability criteria. -Farix (Talk) 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovico Racaniello

[edit]
Ludovico Racaniello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a shoddy automated translation of the Italian article. Gilliam 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - AFD != cleanup. Just copyedit and source it and it should be fine. MER-C 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, should be sourced and referenced Alf photoman 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree AfD shouldn't be used as a way of improving aticles. However, it is here now and the article as it stands offers no indication of why the subject is notable, let alone sources. If this changes my opinion may as well. Nuttah68 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I have to agree with Nuttah68. The article is basically incomprehensible, and I can't understand from the text why the guy is notable. I also couldn't find any online sources (other than WP), which is not surprising for a subject this old. So, at this point, I think it's best to scrap it and start over.--Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a bad way to approach this. However, I am concerned that the Italian original does not cite any sources. Seems like we may just be importing a problem; another unreferenced article. Can you provide a general sense of why the person is notable from your reading of the Italian original?--Kubigula (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is always a problem with translations from other language Wikipedias. So far no other language Wikipedia has a requirement that articles must be sourced, although they encourage it, and as result few are. They do however have notability requirements and the Italian article has existed since August 2005 and it has been edited by a number of experienced editors on Italian Wikipedia. I think its reasonable to defer to them on notability here. WjBscribe 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unreasonable, and there is no harm in waiting for the translation to see what we really have. So, I'm watering down my support for deletion - though I can't quite bring myself to support keeping the article without some firmer indication of notability. It's quite possible that the Italians would (perhaps appropriately) consider any Italian Count to be per se notable for the Italian language Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathways World School

[edit]
Pathways World School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Fails to assert notability (unless you count one of the first schools in Northern India to offer the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program); the school has been in existence since 2003. You don't get an notability from an article, but the other way around. Seems to be a vandalism magnet, littered with unsubstantiated defamatory comments. I don't think we need this headache. Josh Parris 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Leaving aside for a moment that 90% of the article needs to be junked as trivia or original research, the only assertion of notability is weak. A college having an IB accreditation is not that special. Saying "all schools carrying the International Baccalaureate program to be sufficiently notable" is like saying "all licensed doctors are notable". It's an important accreditation, but it is not so unusual as to be notable. —Dgiest c 06:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the equivalent of an American high school; it is even a particularly large and notable private high school, at that. And it seems to have been - regrettably - established that all American high schools are notable. As a matter of fairness, I think this should be kept. Brianyoumans 08:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this specific accreditation is an indicator of notability. (jarbarf) 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to agree with the statements made previously, additionally, I am sure something can be done about the vandalism that is done to this page. The article of President Bush has a very heavy volume of vandalism, and wikipedia is able to live through it. Sukh17 Talk | Contribs 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a high school and thousands of them have been quite correctly kept. Cloachland 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-1 Order

[edit]
E-1 Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about a religious cult that gains inspiration from an air and water pump in Chessington, there are no relevant hits on Google apart from the article itself and claims to have ~2000 members. I am nominating this because I believe it to be unverifiable, non-notable, possibly original research and a possibe hoax. I've asked for sources on the talk page, but no such luck. WikiSlasher 06:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, it was a contested prod as well.

Contributors notified: Hazmara, 80.43.78.200, 80.47.190.29
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hackathon. PeaceNT 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hackmeeting

[edit]
Hackmeeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but does not really qualify. Appears to fail WP:NEO and has no references or evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Tregoweth with reason nonnotable/vanity. Kyra~(talk) 06:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Fictitious Skies

[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:BAND, also seems to be a WP:AUTO Alex Bakharev 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was elete ~ Arjun 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Alexander Hernandez

[edit]
John Alexander Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't have any wp:reliable sources for wp:notability. I looked for sources on google but I couldn't find anything that wasn't promotional material for himself,[41] or his show.[42] [43] So as yet, I'd say non-notable, delete. — coelacan talk — 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ Arjun 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no assertion of notability. Also worth noting, the page had been deleted earlier also. ~ Arjun 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch (band)

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

No assertion of notability in the article, seems to fail WP:BAND, and the entire article lacks sources from K37 07:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars Diecast Line

[edit]
Cars Diecast Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This feels like a fannish advertisement for one of many, many licensed toy lines, with no sourced claims of notability. The only claims of notability are unsourced fluff ("instant best-seller" according to whom? By what standard?), and the bulk of the article is an unencyclopedic collector's checklist guide.

This was prodded, but was deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete without prejudice due to lack of reliable sources. --Myles Long 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck the World (3rd nomination)

[edit]
Buck the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A recent AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Bucked, included the articles Get Bucked and Buck the World, and reached consensus to delete. However, the article Buck the World was not properly tagged as part of the group nomination, and the editors of the article seem not to have known about the AFD. Therefore, I have undeleted the article and re-nominated it, to avoid the appearance of bias. The primary concern in the prior AFD was lack of reliable sources for this not-yet-released album. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 07:36Z

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Bucked (lack of reliable sources) without prejudice against recreation once said sources can be provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete this article as it is an album that will be coming to stores soon. It is important to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.10.106.77 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous AfD. Considering the only source is a link to MySpace, the article should be deleted if reliable sources cannot be found. auburnpilot talk 01:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete its a CD by a big name rapper--Bucs10 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons discussed previously: no reliable sources. To those who don't want to see this deleted, use this extended window to cite some. (jarbarf) 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is purpose of deleting this page when the album is scheduled to be released sometime in the spring. This album is confirmed on Young Buck's own [website.http://www.young-buck.com/main/default.aspx] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin82485 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • What verifiable information can be obtained from the young-buck.com website? Forgive me if I don't find his personal website and myspace page to be reliable, given that the working title has changed at least three times since it was announced, and the release date may as well shift on every page load. This is a perfect example of when not to use primary sources; when the album is released or there is some concrete information published about it from a third party we can create a reliable Wikipedia article at that time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rumor. Official release date and the whole project would probably be pushed back due the recent conflicts within Interscope regarding G-Unit sales. It's not a coincidence that there's no tracklist 1 month before the retail.Lajbi Holla @ me 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, and everything here is unreliable speculation at best. RFerreira 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Album will be out in march. The album advance is available for download.
  • Strong Keep. I do have a reliable source that says the album will come out March 20. [44]. Yes, the album title has changed several times, but not since September. And by the way Can't sleep, clown will eat me, by your logic, the whole Category:Upcoming albums should be deleted. Bottom line, the personal website/myspace ARE verifiable sources. Tom Danson 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • by the way, we're tied right now, so any future vote should make a difference. Tom Danson 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, so now, according to the link you provided, the album is being released on March 13, 2007? That's funny, because the Wikipedia article has advertised a date of March 20, 2007 going on several weeks. I agree that these sites have proven themselves as unreliable sources. We should wait until the album is released given the uncertainty surrounding this article. If other articles in the upcoming albums category have these same sourcing problems, we should delete them too. (jarbarf) 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it says March 20. And you should pay attention to the upcoming album template, beacuse it says "Information on this album may change dramatically as the album approaches its release date. Personally, I think we should lighten up, and see the artist pages as reliable (If you can't trust the artist, who can you trust?) Tom Danson 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the closing administrator decides this should be kept so be it, I just want to go on record that I'm less than impressed with the sources that have been cited thus far. If I return to a cited source tomorrow to find that everything I read the day before has substantially changed, I don't consider that to be a "reliable" source. (jarbarf) 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just realized that the source you cited, gunitworld.com, distinctly refers to itself as an "unofficial site" in the title bar. Why should we give any credence to this fansite, and on what basis do you find it to be reliable? (jarbarf) 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Strong Keep." This page gets updated every day now with new information, without this page and many other pages like it in the rap industry, fans would not have a lot of info to get buzzed about. Even if it is sometimes proven false, encyclopedias are always updating and changing, and wikipedia is no different. Strong keep!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.70.166.119 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • JARBARF YOU NEED TO LIGHTEN UP. Stop letting your hate for Rap Music and the associated industry influence your decisions on articles. This album is coming, the songs are all done so why in the world should wikipedia not have an article. Ridiculous.JTaylorCU
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. if the page must be deleted please renominate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VL Mike

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

Delete Looks like self promotion; no known notablility. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 07:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 10:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Bush, Jr.

[edit]
Jeb Bush, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person is unnoteworthy asside from being born to someone who is noteworthy. Fredd727 08:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking the reasons for his notability rings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the person was the subject of multiple published works as this person has, that qualifies as notable per WP:BIO. --Oakshade 09:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bold delete from the nominator? Isn't that similar to a second vote? I know it's not an actual vote, but it looks like another person suggested to delete the page when in fact it was the person who nominated the page for deletion. I agree there should be more information on the page, but I don't see a desparate reason to get rid of it. Jjmillerhistorian 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton McGuinty

[edit]

small unknown leader. Doesn't warrant a article because he is not powerful. Therefore, fails WP:BIO and WP:notable

User:kkiloo 8:29 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. --Coredesat 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome

[edit]
Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cobbled together from unreliable sources, original research, and hoax. The supposed medical journal paper was made up for a joke article on ridiculopathy.com. The hoaxer managed to invent a vaguely plausible title, but apparently thought The Lancet was a monthly. —Celithemis 09:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Deletion How do you self-diagnose Aspergers? I have Aspergers and I went to three doctors before they came to the unanimous conclusion that I had Aspergers. If three trained psychologists had a hard time coming to the Aspergers conclusion, then I doubt you can self-diagnose it. Sidenote, I was told the reason it took three doctors is because Aspergers takes on the symptoms of other psychological problems. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 09:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The big red warning light should have gone off in the article creator's mind when xe found that xe wasn't permitted to enter the URL when attempting to cite Encyclopaedia Dramatica. This article has zero reliable sources, and is wholly sourced to joke articles and discussion forum posts by unidentifiable people. The web page on Ridiculopathy actually says outright that it is a joke and should not be taken seriously, twice even. The only sources that could be reliable are the two medical journal papers. But one doesn't exist and the other doesn't support the content of this article. I've checked volume 368 issues 9551 to 9554 of The Lancet, and they have no such article by Leon McCouch. ("Lie on my couch", I suspect.) The journal article in ANZJoP (DOI:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.0896a.x) written by Halaz is in fact a book review, of a book by the same title ("Attention-Deficit Disorders and Comorbidities in Children, Adolescents, and Adults", ISBN 0880487119) written by Thomas Brown. It's about ADHD.

    Although it may have been created in good faith, this article is based entirely upon hoax and joke sources. Delete. Uncle G 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Not much could be added after Uncle G. Pavel Vozenilek 11:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Keep, alright, the current page is obviously a hoax, but I think it's a topic worthy of an article, once we remove all of the obvious hoaxery. If nobody else is willing, I will do this. Lankiveil 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Lankiveil - now that he's removed the joke websites used as sources, I think the article is fine. MichelleG 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing the joke sources left it with no sources at all. Self-diagnosis may be a legitimate topic within the Asperger syndrome article, but where are the sources to demonstrate that this is a distinct, named phenomenon notable enough for its own article? —Celithemis
  • Delete unsourced and fails WP:V. If needed a small section should be created to cover the self diagnosis of Asperger syndrome phenomena. Nuttah68 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Asperger's syndrome. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This may be an emerging social trend rather than an actual condition. Perhaps a search could be made on that basis. 514 ghits, many on Asperger discussion boards and so on. This is real, but just under the radar. Totnesmartin 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Leon McCouch, indeed. Sandstein 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was just on the way to AfD this myself. The hoaxes and jokes exist because the idea rings true in some internet communities, but that doesn't make actual reliable sources spring up out of thin air. Opabinia regalis 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete if at all possible. Get this crap outta here. Promoting self-diagnosis of any such condition is akin to kneeling down on Interstate 5 in Seattle during rush-hour traffic (i.e., really incredibly stupid by several orders of magnitude). --Dennisthe2 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Downgrade to Delete. All it does is briefly explain the situation at hand, and while the advice therein is certainly sound now (see a doctor, dammit!)...well, that's not encyclopedic, that's just common sense. --Dennisthe2 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy if possible under criteria. This is the worst kind of hoax—subtle and created under a "legitimate" title that people may be searching for. If any reliable information on the topic exists, it should go in the Asperger syndrome article. BTW the only McCouch on PubMed is Susan R. McCouch, a Cornell plant biologist. Fvasconcellos 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This this article has no notability, reliability, or verifiability. Liberal Classic 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR that cannot be salvaged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without any kind of sourcing, there's no reason to believe this is notable. Should we have an article on Self-diagnosed ulcerative colitis? GabrielF 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is on internet social phenomenon, which is very real. Nobody self-diagnoses with ulcerative colitis to make themselves look like a special and unique snowflake, that's why we don't need an article on that. Dr Popularity 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge or, failing reliability, just redirect to Asperger's syndrome. Give anyone a health book (or an encyclopaedia) and they're ready to diagnose themselves with just about anything - especially psychological issues. (I'm pretty sure I'm not paranoid myself. I'm actually right on verge of uncovering the global motorist conspiracy to make cars appear just as you are about to cross the road, no matter how quiet day.) That's not notable in itself, not even if it's an "internet phenomenon". However, psychology articles can cover problems related to self-diagnosis. There's just no need to cover them in a separate article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou banter / contribs 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideazon

[edit]
Ideazon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming products company. Article(s) on products have been previously deleted as spam. No independent sources. Drat (Talk) 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or merge into Zboard). Plenty of hits including these ones from news.google.com. Mathmo Talk 10:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe the articles Zboard and MERC should be merged with and redirected to Ideazon. They are not notable enough for their own articles. This means that it is not necessary to wiki-link the rest of the products (with uncreated articles) and others like ZEngine. - Anas Talk? 13:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this page is alittle lame, but it does talk about the history of the creator and the company. I dont have any of their products but being an avid gamer, I feel that Ideazon is a great and inovative company and I would like to start expanding the Ideazon page soon. Hurleyman 02:25, 11 February 2007
  • Keep this company is quite notable. Enough sources to assert its notability are in the article's talk page. I started the article about five months ago. - Anas Talk? 11:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep even though I'm not convinced of their notability, and I'm not sure the Google News ones above count. The article has no external references other than the corporate website. However, Zboard and MERC should definitely be merged. --Chris 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updates are on the way. These things don't write themselves in one day. Hurleyman 11-Feb-07
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, redirect to LOL (Internet slang) and protect. - Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolarcoaster

[edit]
Lolarcoaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable web site claiming notability; neither claim (London Times "Best Website" award, Rolling Stones "Best-Kept Secret of the Web") can be verified. Looking at the site itself it is just a message board which does not appear to have any claims to notability (I didn't look very closely since it made my brain hurt. That is not a reason for deletion in itself, of course.). Was previously removed in 2004, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lolarcoaster - since that was an old system I'm not sure that qualifies the page for speedy deletion. Bonadea 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphadi

[edit]
Alphadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Same as Xuly Bet. Up for speedy delete, tag removed. A non-notable fashion brand. I decided to nominate them seperately, because this article has just a bit more content than the one above, and also, I don't know how similar they are, so I don't want to put them in the same argument. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Sunday

[edit]
Autism Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for this non notable prayer day. 31 distinct Google hits[55], and even those aren't all for this day. Seems to have received little attention in 2002 (first time around) and none since (searching for the official name, "International Day of Prayer for Autism", gives only 6 Google hits, none of them by reliable independent sources[http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=%22International+Day+of+Prayer+for+Autism%22&btnG=Zoeken&meta=). From the sources (the BBC One, given in the article and via the google search is the only notable one in my view), it looks as though this yearly event got some (but insufficinet) attention the first year around, and none since then. No multiple reliable independent sources with non-trivial coverage indicates that this event isn't notable enough for Wikipedia (per WP:NOTE). Also WP:COI concerns with author of article. Fram 11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not sure what google search you have carried out but here is a reference from
Hansard - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020109/halltext/20109h02.htm
Wrong Planet - http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=308
TreeHouse (charity) - http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:0Q09ZnVfs3UJ:www.treehouse.org.uk/_download/HYWLFEYX.pdf+%22autism+sunday%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28
The charities may have a vested interest, but are not directly connected to the organisers. The UK Parliament and the BBC are totally independent of the campaign (and imply more than 'little attention'). In addition there are numerous links and references in blogs and church sites from around the world, which whilst not reliable sources in themselves when considered en masse do imply that the campaign is international. Nuttah68 11:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Google searches are given in the opening statement of this AfD, so I presume your question was rhetorical and/or sarcastic? Anyway, the first and second link are only passing mentions of Autism Sunday (the subject of this AfD is only Autism Sunday, not the Autism Awareness Campaign or any other Autism related event). (the UK parliament one in full reads "The year's events started this week with Autism Sunday on 6 January."). The third one is a bit longer, but both the second and the third are not by reliable, independent sources as per WP:RS, but by charities / interest groups. The only true source is the BBC one, which I already commented upon. The only source, acceptable or not, for the continuation of Autism Sunday beyond 2002 treats it as if it is a new thing, not the continuation of the earlier one: "Autism is back in focus with February 2006 as the Month of Prayer for Autism - Sunday 12th February was also the first International Day of Prayer for Autism and Asperger's Syndrome. " (again, the full text regarding Autism Sunday). So yes, the prayer day has received very little attention the first time around, and no attention whatsoever since. Fram 12:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hansard reports the debate in the UK Parliament virtually verbatim per day. Autism Sunday was discussed as part of a wider debate, within a days worth of debates. It is not (as no subject ever is) going to be reported seperately. The fact that parliament did not debate it for a whole day does not make it a passing reference. Nuttah68 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But as you can easily see from the site, they discussed Autism Awareness Year for over an hour (yes, this subject was discussed separately), and only one single short sentence is about Autism Sunday. This is the very definion of a passing reference. Fram 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you want more. Here is a report to parliament on the service at St Pauls, http://www.baronessuddin.com/en/baroness_uddin/house_of_lords/20020325_autism.htm, a report from the Observer confiming the service, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,647858,00.html. Unfortunately neither mention the name directly. However, on searching there is an article on the related Autism Awareness Campaign UK that I would accept a full merge with if someone wants to sort it out. Although this does lose the international aspect. Nuttah68 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the provided cites, although most do not have Autism Sunday as the central subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry. You probably don't remember when Ronald Reagan proclaimed March 6 to be "Frozen Food Day", even though the President asked his countrymen "to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities." The parade was nice, but the Republican v. Democrat frozen food fight was a fiasco. The point being that various organizations and worthy causes routinely ask politicians to announce commemorations or celebrations for their business or cause, yet few of these are really truly notable. Not that their cause is not worthy, but yet another of these commemorations orchestrated by an "awareness campaign" does not strike me as all that notable. It may have gotten some minor political attention and was mentioned in the newspapers, but getting that kind of attention was the purpose. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the last two 'week keep's. Have you checked the searches? Books yields nothing, Scholar yields two results which are not for autism sunday but for "autism. Sunday", and News gives 6 results, of which two are for "Autism. Sunday" as well, one is for a completely unrelated event (in March), one is a "letter to the editor", and we are left with two articles very briefly mentioning the first Autism Sunday (2002), and none for the later ones. So thanks to AddHoc for the searches, but I can't see how these can lead to a keep when they clearly fail WP:NOTE criteria on closer inspection. Fram 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi Fram, I agree the references are less than overwhelming. However, I think the BBC and Hansard links, plus the two genuine results of the various google searches, together, more or less, justify 'weak keep'. Addhoc 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, no problem! That's why we try to reach consensus instead of getting robots to do this, because opinions on borderline cases will differ. 21:45, 11 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Paugh

[edit]

I can find no G'hits for this fellow other than self-promotion articles (which includes this article). It is unreferenced, fails COI, notability and probably a few other things as well. Somebody has made some disparaging remarks at the bottom of the latest version of the article. A firm delete from me. --Richhoncho 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar (novel)

[edit]
Gibraltar (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent self-promotion of non-notable unpublished book by non-notable author, who according to the article is "a teenage who live in a little place in Norway called Geilo." (sic) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morten Vebjørnsen. ChrisO 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Vebjørnsen

[edit]
Morten Vebjørnsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent self-promotion by non-notable unpublished author, who according to the article Gibraltar (novel) is "a teenage who live in a little place in Norway called Geilo." (sic) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibraltar (novel). ChrisO 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 10:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sears

[edit]
Barry Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Barry Sears created a diet, and that appears to be the limit of his notability. The diet is Zone diet, which is listed on Wiki. Apart from the Zone Diet the man appears to be non-notable. I suggest a redirect to Zone diet. SilkTork 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou banter / contribs 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.7 (album)

[edit]
No.7 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The name of this album is not No.7, it is self-titled "Kottonmouth Kings" and there is already an article for it at Kottonmouth Kings. You can visit http://kottonmouthkings.com/media_kmk.php for citation proof of this. War wizard90 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavishnu Gautama

[edit]
Mahavishnu Gautama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am really not sure about this one. It may be a very legitimate article. However, it seems to be wildly (fanatically, even) POV, and I think it COULD be a recreation of something, judging by the creation comment of the author. Also, the author is a suspected sockpuppet. Very unsure what is to be done about it. J Milburn 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus are entitled to their own beliefs! This whole argment started when Hindu articles kept getting deleted. Hindus are not allowed to post their views on Wikipedia because they will only be deleted reguardless of any so-called "discussions."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.179 (talk • contribs).

The deletion proposition was issued by vandals who are very racist. they do not want Hindus to show their viewpoint. First vandals would not permit Hindus to post their viewpoints on the Gautama page so I designed the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu page and even the Hindu viewpoints in that were mostly deleted. Now this is proposed for deletion. Then where should Hindus post their viewpoints? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HinduDefender (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A number of editors contributing to this discussion appear to be missing the point. Wikipedia is not the place for ANYONE - be they Hindu, Buddhist or of any other faith - to post their points of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating chamber, and wiki policy is that articles shall not express points of view, save only by second-hand attribution.--Anthony.bradbury 17:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Wikipedia is not the place for ANYONE - be they Hindu, Buddhist or of any other faith - to post their points of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating chamber, and wiki policy is that articles shall not express points of view, save only by second-hand attribution." Response: Yes, indeed it is an encyclopedia and because the topic is Lord Buddha from the Hindu viewpoint, it should be recorded in the encyclopedia rather than being deleted just because some fools want to hide Hindu viewpoints about Lord Buddha from the world.

The Buddha talked about the Sanatan Dharam and the Arya Dharam and Nirvan. Do you neo-Buddhists have any explainations for that?

This article has to remain to educate people on the Hindu Buddha!

Comment: We are not here to debate the nature of Buddha. We are here to decide whether this article should be deleted. J Milburn 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An argument on the place of Buddha in Hinduism may have a place somewhere. However, this article, pushing its own POV starting with the unjustified name, is just propaganda. Imc 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That "somewhere", specifically, is Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu, where all the POV nonsense has been painstakingly edited out by some very hard-working editors and replaced with good scholarly material. The quality of that article is, in my opinion, the strongest argument for deleting this one. Orpheus 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock message boards

[edit]
Stock message boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatantly original research. Delete unless converted to a legitimate article. J Milburn 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, also per author request. Sandstein 10:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cocktail personalities

[edit]
List of cocktail personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vaguely defined list page of people somehow related to cocktails. Delete or merge with cocktail - Jvhertum 12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Holiday Hell

[edit]
ECW Holiday Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn wrestling show, many ECW shows (non-ppv) have been deleted in the past Booshakla 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect to cloak and dagger can be created, but is probably unnecessary. —Doug Bell talk 13:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloak-and-dagger film

[edit]
Cloak-and-dagger film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a neologism apparently made up by the creator, a literal translation from the German de:Mantel-und-Degen-Film. To boot, "cloak and dagger" has a different meaning than "Mantel und Degen", it's about spies and agents and has nothing to do with musketeers and the likes. There are some Google hits for "cloak-and-dagger-film", (the number jumped from 255 two weeks ago to now 700, however most of them clones and only 69 true hits (see [56])), but I can't find any evidence there of this term being used for what the article says, and not even for a film genre at all. Hence, I had proposed the deletion, however the article's author, User:Wittkowsky, apparently German just as I am, objected. H005 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, if you think "cloak and dagger" in literature is something completely different you are free to add content of that kind to the article. But that missing is absolutely no reason to delete the article, it is just an incomplete article. And another "well", Google finds 618 entries with Cloak-and-dagger-film -wikipedia (so without wikipedia-clones), not 255, with "Cloak-and-dagger film" -wikipedia 693 entries and with Cloak-and-dagger film -wikipedia about 200.000 (as of today). Seems to be "a bit" more relevant than you thought. And not being used for movies? Well, have a look at the first sentence at [57] or [58] and even the New York Times uses this term ([59])--Wittkowsky 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the multiple sources provided by Wittkowsky (especially the three single page links) refute the justification for deletion that "This is a neologism apparently made up by the creator". -- Black Falcon 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna go Merge and Redirect to Swashbuckler here, since the films herein seem to be also included under such a description - and at least to me, the term is new. I'd defer to a keep, though - not a bad article at any rate. --Dennisthe2 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I had pointed out above, there are currently only 69 true Google hits, not 618. Of the three links provided by Wittkowsky, two are of obscure websites run by Maltese and French authors - apparently no native speakers of English. And two of the three films discussed are not of the swashbuckling type, but about spies - just as "cloak and dagger" suggests.
After all, a couple of proper occurrences of such a term on the WWW does not justify an own article in Wikipedia.
I am fine with renaming the article to a name that is widely used for such a genre - if such a name exists, or integrating its contents somewhere else. -- H005 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...erm, what User:Metropolitan90 said below. =) To say this myself would be repetitive. --Dennisthe2 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the NYT-link (and the others) was/were provided to prove, that the term is actually being used for movies and was not made up. IF the content of the arcticle does not match some contemporary movies, it is by no means the best matter to delete the article, but to improve it and add content, that states (and explains), that this term also is being used for other kinds of movies. It is, like on many other articles, just a beginning and not the end. (@ H005: Please don't tell the Maltese they can't speak English. That's like telling a Scotch he's an Englishman). --Wittkowsky 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lundeberg

[edit]
Bob Lundeberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as complete fiction. No corroboration of any sort on Google - indeed, not one single instance of this name in any connection at all. This article was originally prodded, and the tag removed by the creator with the note that "Verified sources and made minor changes. This page should not be removed as it is true". I beg to differ. HeartofaDog 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated as part of same group the articles Fabulous! and Roy Montgomery Adams - Google is totally silent on these also. I had prodded them, but it seems more effective to deal with all three together here, given that the first one above was deprodded. HeartofaDog 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roy Montgomery Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Save Bob's Wikipedia I find it almost insulting that you suggest removing Bob Lundeberg's page. Anthony Bradbury and HeartofaDog, you both have no right or duty to do so. As his agent and close friend I can vouch for his existence. I am not surprised that he is not found on a Google search as he does not have a website and is considered, as mentioned in the article, an underground rockstar here in the Willamette Valley who is most-publicized through posters and local literature. Mr. Lundeberg deserves to be recognized on the internet and my only intention was to give him that sense of fame by dedicating a Wikipedia page to him.

As for Fabulous and Roy Montgomery Adams, simply because a Google search brings up nothing cannot be considered valid grounds for deletion of the article. Have you stopped to consider that, as in Lundeberg's case, any published material is found in local newspapers and magazines and not on the internet? Leave them alone, Mr. Bradbury; as far as you know, they are completely valid articles.--Samorado 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am kinda confused. I worked as a set designer for fabulous. I agree with Samorado, a lot of stuff from local newspapers is deleted from their databases. It's kind of insulting in fact that the only place where we can get recognized for our work even a little bit, everyone wants to delete us.--Allmighty Jimbo 12:11, 11 February 2007

The onus is on you to provide evidence of notability to the standards of Wikipedia - cf WP:BIO, WP:NN and WP:MUSIC mentioned above. HeartofaDog 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HeartofaDog, it is my impression that I have adhered to the rules and stipulations of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC in Bob Lundeberg's article. Regarding WP:NN, I would be happy to locate and identify some non-trivial published material in support of Lundeberg's accomplishments. "What constitutes 'published works' is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." (Taken from WP:NN; Primary Notability Criterion). The sources I site will be newspapers and magazines which this excerpt deems appropriate as fulfilling the Notability criteria. After inserting references to published works into the article, I think we can agree that Bob Lundeberg's article will have all the necessary credentials to remain online.--Samorado 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and protect from recreation as potentially dangerous hoax. Sandstein 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haje Virus

[edit]

Suspected hoax. Couldn't find any references. Chris 12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Scott

[edit]
Brian Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability.Reads as promotional text, looks like a copy and paste from a website somehwere, and the claim to notability is weak and lacks a credible source. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subject uses the name "Sparkman", creator is WP:SPA Sparkmanforever (talk · contribs), either a fan or the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Super speedy delete He spent 10 years backyard wrestling, and has allegedly had one professional match in a promotion called Clarksville Championship Wrestling which returns a whopping 0 Ghits. One Night In Hackney 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the one who originally tagged this article as being of uncertain notability, giving the user some time before I nominated for deletion. J Milburn 14:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assertion to notability is not convincing. No independently ascertainable notability evident within text.--Anthony.bradbury 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems to be recreated, judging from the logs for the page, which may well constitute a speedy delete. However, judging from the debate this may well be a different guy. J Milburn 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only an administrator (who can see the previously deleted version) could tell if this is a recreation about the same person, because the previous Brian Scott article was about a musician, and this one claims musical activity as well (though mostly he is here as a wrestler). Notability not shown in the wrestling world, per One Night In Hackney. The question of whether it's a recreation is not that interesting because it only makes a difference for Speedy, and here we are having a full-length AfD anyway. Non-speedy deletion gives fewer avenues for recreation, so that's the way to go. EdJohnston 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Finger Award

[edit]
Bill Finger Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It fails to establish its notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability, etc. Ayatollah's hashish 13:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Well, is the question notability or verifiability? The award exists. It's presented at the San Diago Comics Convention -- the largest industry convention in the country -- and is presented "along side" the Eisner Awards -- the most prestigious awards for the medium. The Beat carried the press release when this award was founded, (note that comicon.com is not associated with comic-con.org), has press coverage at The Beat and the official Comic-Con website has pages on the winners [60] [61]. My only question is if this is a special prize at the Eisners, and perhaps belongs on the Eisner Awards page. The recipients of the Finger Award are included on the Eisner Award winners list for that year. ~CS 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now updated the article, added the 2006 winners and a reference to the official press release. I'm sure the release has been picked up somewhere, and perhaps someone can come up with a copy of the convention program where it's presented. It's an important award, it's presented to important people in comic history, it's verified and notable and noteworthy. Strong keep. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your improvements are good, but if an award is notable, it is surely covered somewhere in the press. (It's an award, after all, it's supposed to be famous). I'll change my vote to Keep if regular press mentions are found. EdJohnston 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HSG-Big Band

[edit]
HSG-Big Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Groupies zum 2..jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Hsgbigbandlogo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Unverified/OR and probably CoI entry for Swiss university band. Except for bot edits, this had been pretty much untouched for a year [62]. No sources have been cited. Google produces 62 unique hits [63] with this article at number 2. No evidence this meets WP:NOTE/WP:BAND. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 leaning towards keep. —Doug Bell talk 13:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carlet

[edit]
Louis Carlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Person is not notable, comparison with other workers leaders overstates notability Sparkzilla 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlet is just one of a group of people within the organization that have garnered press and this is confined to the past few years. If you were to look at news articles you see other names representing the unions.Osakadan 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With creating the annual March in March in Tokyo in 2004, he has come to be known as a pioneer in the civil rights and migrant workers' rights movement in East Asia This line is a total exageration and should be deleted if not the whole article. Pioneer? There are numerous other foreigners and Japanese who have been working in this field for decades longer than Carlet. And the March in March is considered a joke by many, including union members as it belittles the fact that many Japanese workers face the same labour problems that Carlet holds up as being discriminatory.Osakadan 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care either way if the artcile is deleted or not, But I think having articles on people have appeared in the news a handful of times is ridiculous, especially when the article says nothing of importance. I also wouldn't delete an article on the basis of a few opinions and would hope it waits until more people have weighed in with an opinion.Osakadan 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the notability is in the organisation, not the person. There appear to be no articles that specifically talk about the subject. Sparkzilla 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notablity proven, the references do not mention the subject of the article and only one, at best, is a reliable source. Nuttah68 15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The very arguments for deletion admit that he is well-known. I do not know the politics here well enough to judge, but this seems to have all the hallmarks on a within-movement debate. I note than one of the editors here has voted twice, and added a boldface comment as well, and that this editor is the only negative voce here besides the nominator. DGG 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well-known? Perhaps to union members, and some companies. Outside of that, he is name would not be recognized within the english speaking community in JapanOsakadan 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have no views on the notability of this article - if it was reworked I would say KEEP. It is important to note that a check of the posting history of the nominator of this AfD, Sparkzilla, shows that this user and editors on the NUGW (in which Louis Carlet is intimately involved) page have been in conflict for some time. Sparkzilla introduced the criticism section on that page linking to Metropolis magazine. It should be noted that a conflict of interest arises, due to Sparkzilla's intimate involvement with Metropolis ( a crisscross publication). A RfC, or RfA or simpler remedy, by interested parties, will show Sparkzilla's past IP's to fall within that of the IP block assigned to crisscross.com by apnic. It would suggest that this AfD is not motivated by a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia.

WP:COI states:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should exercise great caution. In particular, you should:

  • avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  • avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.253.85.230 (talk • contribs) date.

Considering the bias of the person who called for the deletion, it may not be warranted. The problem is though, much of the article is unverifiable, even if true. Union official - can be verfired through newspaper records and public records in Japan. one of just a few paid migrant workers in Asia who is also a migrant worker activist doubt this could be verified. in 1995 organized a demonstration march in Manhattan Again I wonder if this can be verified. If all the unverifiable material is left, I wonder if there is enough left to support an article.Osakadan 08:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest hat somehow Metropolis is biased against the union because of one article written in a history of hundreds is nonsense. In fact, I am sure there are several pro-union articles in Metropolis if someone was bothered enough to find them. Please ignore the troll who psoted about COI. Check his posting history Special:Contributions/221.253.85.230 and you will see that he is a sad person who only posts negative information about Metropolis.
FYI WP:COI says: The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor. Nothing against Mr Carlet, but he is not notable, the claims are not verifiable, therefore the article does not warrant an entry in Wikipedia.Sparkzilla 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The demonstration in Manhattan is verifiable through the August 1995 edition of OCS News, a Japanese newspaper published in the US. An entire article was devoted to him on page 3 of a recent Mainichi Shimbun article. Also whether or not the annual March in March that he spearheaded is a "joke" or not is irrelevant to its relevance in the foreign labor movement today in Japan. It is the only march in Japan dedicated to multinational labor solidarity and march leaders, including Carlet, have repeatedly made clear that Japanese workers face many of the same job problems as foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.37.32.92 (talk • contribs)
If you have citations please add them to the article. Even so, a single demo or march does not make notability. Also, please sign your comments. Sparkzilla 09:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the drive-by commenter above -- his title sounds impressive, but the person has almost zero name recognition to foreigners in Japan, and totally zero recognition outside Japan. Sparkzilla 09:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Korean and South Americam immigrats outfar western immigrants greatly. And as many of these work in industries such as motor cars (Brazilians etc). The claim to be the largest union of immigrations may well be false. While the union has quite a lot of members it is relatively small in members in the foreigners division.Osakadan 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice's Palace

[edit]
Alice's Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably hoax article, should be speedy deleted. RMS Oceanic 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a speedy candiodate because it is not covered by any speedy criteria, including Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Nuttah68 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let an admin decide that, hmm? Nardman1 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone can contest a speedy. I have and you are out of line replacing it. Nuttah68 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we are not going to go to war over this; but I quite like {{db-nonsense}}, on the basis of the total lack of any factual back-up to the statements made in the article.--Anthony.bradbury 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy deletion tag. It doesn't seem to me that the article qualifies under any of the criteria. G1 (patent nonsense) specifically states: This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Canderson7 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedily or not, no verifiable official info has been released. SpikeJones 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine El-Rashidi

[edit]
Yasmine El-Rashidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has multiple considerations for it's AFD. The primary statements in the article that support its notability are mostly limited to "an Egyptian journalist and writer who has had multiple articles published, many by The Wall Street Journal". The article appears to fail WP:N and many statements fail WP:V

Note - the section listed as References is in reality a bibliography it is a list of works the person has written, not a list of articles about the person. There is little doubt this title needs to be changed but as I (User:jeepday) Prodded the article and am now submitting it for AFD, I did not want to complicate the issue by also editing the article.

  1. The article was originated 04:02, 16 December 2006 User:Yasminerashidi (←Created page with 'Yasmine El-Rashidi is an Egyptian journalist and writer. She is a graduate of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism (99) and has covered t...')
  2. The article author appears to be the subject who made no other edits Special:Contributions/Yasminerashidi This looks like a clear WP:COI problem
  3. User:jeepday proded the article on 14:22, 3 February 2007
  4. user:Inkpaduta removed the prod and began work on the artilce on 09:50, 6 February 2007 (sounds fine, but)
  5. The first edit by user:Inkpaduta is 22:59, 3 February 2007 bringing Wikipedia:Sock puppetry into question, As this editors first contribution is 8 hours After the article Yasmine El-Rashidi was prodded', see Special:Contributions/Inkpaduta
  6. I attempted to validate the the first news article "referenced" on this article, I found what appears to be from the The Wall Street Journal on line http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116009288369684389.html%3Fmod%3DdjemITP that an article titled "Ramadan Turns Into Big Business" was written By Yasmine El-Rashidi as stated as the first "reference" on the article

AFD submitted by Jeepday 15:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seeing that the originator of the article is titled User:Yasminerashidi I would venture a guess that this article is self-promotion. Since its inception it has recieved very little informational additions as to why the subject is noteworthy. I am afraid I have to agree with its deletion. --Ozgod 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Richard (second nomination)

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

Non-notable biography per WP:BIO. An article with this title was previously deleted as a result of an AfD discussion here, but "{{db-repost}}" failed because apparently it was not the same person (see this). RJASE1 15:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ECMO is/was a new medical technique, not just a different brand of machine. Nuttah68 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distorted Penguins

[edit]

Three reason,

  1. Wikipedia is not a site to promote unsigned bands
  2. another is not notable enough, not even having such amount on mp3.com is deservable
  3. is this page do exist then all these not notable unsigned bands is gonna place their entry there just for their own benefit.

Dr Tobias Funke 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NapsaQ

[edit]
NapsaQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was put up as an A7*, I don't think it's an A7, but may be non-notable. I abstain. Deco 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*By me. :-) - Mike Rosoft 19:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro the Dragon (TV series)

[edit]
Spyro the Dragon (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Superman and Batman

[edit]
Comparisons between Superman and Batman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another overzealous Batman article. Unencyclopedic, an essay consisting entirely of original research and fan speculation. ~CS 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're labelling the entire article with a couple of words, generalising for the sake of convenience. Nothing is as black and white as that. As far as I'm concerned, there are too many people on this site who think the truth exists in absolutes. My faith in this site is shaken. This will be my last edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs).
We certainly won't miss your melodrama. If you have no real evidence for your opinions, then we can't be expected to believe your assertions. That's the way things are. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is pure original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly the definition of original research. I'm certain one could find individual comic books that have a situation where these two characters behaved toward each other in a certain way...but unless one could find an interview with the writer and artist of that comic book, any interpretation of the MEANING of that encounter only exists in the mind of the individual, not in any objective and verifiable state. An article about a psychology textbook that uses Superman and Batman as examples might be excyclopaedic (something like The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer) but a straight up article that attempts to determine meaning, psychology and interpretation to these characters is exactly what WP:OR is intended to avoid. -Markeer 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, call me a heretic, but I think Wikipedia's whole pretence of not containing original research is increasingly laughable, especially in cases like this where existing scholarship is minimal or non-existant. While a worthy goal, it's entirely undercut by its very status as a text that anyone can edit (and don't get me started on "not notable" when this site has individual articles for EVERY EPISODE of most current US TV shows!). Even highly-sourced articles contain great heaping piles of original research if you care to read between the lines, so I think that new articles such as this one (which, frankly, I'm not going out of my way to defend on its own merits) get unfairly targeted. I mean really, honestly; if every unverified sentence on Wikipedia that's suspected of being OR was cut then how much content do you think we'd loose? 30%? 50%? 75%? Think about it. -PacifistPrime
    Awesome. Let's throw open the doors to every crank with a proposed theory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court calendar

[edit]
Court calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not against an article explaining what a court calendar is, or the different forms it takes.... but this article seems to not be that but is intending to be a list of internet links to all US (and potentially world) court calendars. Wikipedia articles should not be "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIR). I didn't feel comfortable just deleting all the links and stubifying the article - as this effectively would mean deleting the page - without opening a discussion - any thoughts? Madmedea 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My point is that a wikipedia article should not be hosting lists of links to external sites. This is a wikipedia policy (not just mine) (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY) Madmedea 17:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently, this is a repository of links. If the links were removed, the article would be a dictionary definition, and I don't see much room for expansion. There might be another article somewhere that covers this topic tangentially, and a redirect would be reasonable then, but I don't really know what article that would be. Mangojuicetalk 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suggest we delete all the links per nom reasoning and stub the article. I think there is some modest room for expansion - e.g. ways in which different states/countries use court calenders, history of the alternative term "docket" etc. As an aside, Docket really should be a disambiguation page. I will follow up on that, though I think I will wait to see the fate of this article first as that will affect the disambiguation.--Kubigula (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The present article could be improved to meet the WP standards, provided it doesn't try to add links to all court calendars. It might be better to point to some other sites that contain more complete sets of links, to reduce the number of links needed here. In its present form it helps answer the general question, 'What kinds of online information do courts publish?', and it's so short right now, it's hard to object to it. However, the constraints of WP:NOT indicate that it should not add any more links unless it provides more analysis. EdJohnston 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mangojuice already said the first two thoughts that came to my mind. I might add that this is a bit US-centric, but that alone is not reason enough to delete. If not outright deleted, I'd suggest stripping the links and transwiki to the wiktionary. Agent 86 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Solomon

[edit]
Philip Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a memorial - Cybergoth 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with the reasoning of the nom, wikipedia is not a memorial but I think this guy has done enough to make him notable for WP:BIO and WP:PROF so the article needs a major clean-up and wikification not deleting. Tagged as such and I might even have a go at it myself Madmedea 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Major rewrite now done. Article now looks like any other notable academic stub. Still needs referencing as I feel that info is likely to be found in paper sources not the web - but the information is verifiable (just not verified yet). His Handbook of Psychiatry does look like it was a major textbook therefore fulfilling WP:PROF. Madmedea 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Mahler Elbang

[edit]
Jørgen Mahler Elbang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This article appears to have been created by the artist himself, based on the licensing associated with the displayed image. Fails WP:BIO as far as any evidence (or lack thereof) is concerned. Planetneutral 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luciana Duvall

[edit]
Luciana Duvall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Luciana Duvall Toxice.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jóhann Sigurjónsson II.

[edit]
Jóhann Sigurjónsson II. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dubious notability, probably nonsense Feeeshboy 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:39, 18 February 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 delete. Tempted to move this to BJAODN, actually. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Root Beer Flavor Spectrum

[edit]
Root Beer Flavor Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OR, unreferenced and created by a rarely-used role account. Google turns up no references. Delete. fethers 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of the bride

[edit]
Mother of the bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. I guess an article could be written about 'mother of the bride', but this isn't it, and it wouldn't be a good idea to leave this until someone replaces it with something else. JoanneB 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, hoax. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Anderson

[edit]
Bradley Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod disputed without explanation by article author. This is a hoax if I ever saw one. For as famous as this guy's illness supposedly was, googling for "bradley anderson" "chief ambassador" turns up absolutely nothing. "bradley anderson" "ambassador" does turn up an article of ours, but that only lists an Australian ambassador (not even chief) who was born in 1949, and that name was recently added by an anon and the spelling changed a little bit later by the same person who wrote this article. "bradley anderson" by itself turns up lots of results (common name), but nothing at all about an ambassador. (Also nominating Maria James, a redirect page to this one, created about the guy's supposed "wife". I can find nothing to support that either.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here agree with this suggestion?? There may well be another Bradley Anderson who is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but this one is not the person. --sunstar nettalk 12:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus of established users. --Coredesat 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Wrestling Federation and The Triangle of Death

[edit]
Hardcore Wrestling Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Triangle of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This previous AfD related to a New York organisation. The present article relates to a UK one so it can have a new AfD. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete I have been asked by the organisaton to vouch for some of the ideas this articles uses, and being a police officer I can do that officially. I will only justify a few incidents as I'm a little short of time.

On December 14th 2005 the ploice were called due to claims of arson and trespassing, as well as criminal damage, 2 members of the groups in question were detained but released with out charged when supspect dropped all charges under certain circumstances. On July 21st 2006 the police where alerted to a ring of criminal activity involving assault,fraud,criminal damage and arsonistic behaviour. On both occasions mentioned several criminal objects and illegal substances were confiscated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.46.130 (talk • contribs)

  • Definitely Do Not Delete I undoubtedly agree with both points made below and protest to the accusations and proposal for deletion. — ValuedMember214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Do Not Delete I am personally a person who is willing to accept new ideas and embrace them before judging them, having been informed of the current debate i felt outraged at these propostrous claims of a lack of notability and credibility. I suggest that these people actually take an interest in the subject before making such ludacris comments and lowering my respective view of them. As I have been a fan of the organisation involved for the past 9 months I as a part of the online community can protest that they have a high notability and credibility in most parts of the country.NewIdeasRevolution 14:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — NewIdeasRevolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Do Not Delete This article has a huge degree of notability for people that take an interest in such pressing new ideas being introduced to the online community, and just because a certain person has not heard of this activity, it does not mean that thousands of others have not. Many people would protest to some of the claims being made about notability and credibility, as they can vouch against them because they have adapted these ideas into their lifestyle.PsychoPsam 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — PsychoPsam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete and possible speedy A7. Backyard wrestling? I think not. I live in the UK, I have not heard so much as a murmur about this and there are no sources and no apparent claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Do Not Delete This is a perfect example of how a backyard wrestling federation is created and done and was the only notable on ever to come from the U.K. Amongst the online communities of bacyard feds this is highly regarded as one of the best. If there wasnt an article about the HWF then wikipedia wouldnt be as detailed an extensive about the highly controversial issue of backyard wrestling 86.143.221.241 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Backyard wrestling feds are almost never notable (I have only seen 1 or 2 that woulddeserve articles), and these two don't show why they should be exceptions. TJ Spyke 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading the article gives the impression that its subject is barely a step above the "something made up in school one day" level. No credible claim of notability and no sources – not even non-verifiable, non-respectable ones. Get rid of this. Henning Makholm 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I do not see the reason for deleting this article - mind you, not everone can sit down and fully flesh out an article and give it all the required sources in one sitting. Give the article at least seven days before nominating it for deletion. I know for when I cannot complete finish an article in one sitting, let alone day. --Ozgod 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article is supposed to at least show notability when it's created. The chances of proving these backyard wrestling groups as notable is unlikely because they are almost never notable. Nevertheless, the AFD provides 5 days to show why these should be kept. TJ Spyke 02:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally non-notable, and the fact that all the ones who want to keep the article vote "Do Not Delete" show that no one with any WP experience wants this article kept. Booshakla 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is questionable. --RebSkii 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canonist

[edit]
Canonist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I wanted to write about canon law scholars, and found this. A blog. Wikipedia is not a web directory. The talk page has various weblinks that it claims establish notability; I disagree. One story, linked to multiple times, merely quotes the blog's author about the subject of Jewish blogs. One other story mentions it among other similar blogs. This does not establish multiple substantial coverage per WP:WEB. Sandstein 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although WP:WEB is disputed a common theme in all notability guidelines is 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent' which I believe is the main concern. Nuttah68 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Could you explain to me, then, what you would require of a blog to give it an article?--Urthogie 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'multiple non-trivial published works', e.g. more than a couple of articles, about the blog instead of just mentioning it, from reliable sources. Nuttah68 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete There may be borderline blogs, for which we can usefully debate the exact meaning of the standard. But this is way below that border.DGG 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoda Montemayor

[edit]
Rhoda Montemayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no sources, possible hoax (not credited on IMDB, see [73]). Prod contested by author w/o explanation. Author has previously added unsourced and unverifiable information to Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. --N Shar 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice for relisting at the appropriate xfd. . Navou banter / contribs 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider's Web (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Spider's Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unrelated redirect page, useless otherwise.Totalinarian 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch german friendship day

[edit]
Dutch german friendship day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable holiday, possible hoax, possibly something made up in school one day. Originally tagged as a speedy, was removed by an editor saying that holdays are not covered by A7, which I suppose is true. I then prodded it, and it was removed by an anonymous editor without any reasoning. It was the only contribution of its author, and the removal of the Prod was the only contribution of the IP. Delete, unless sources are provided. J Milburn 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn_Hooning

[edit]
Martijn_Hooning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable (see WP:BIO) composer added by himself. Billlion 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.A.M.B.O.

[edit]
R.A.M.B.O. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Metacomment: I previously closed this debate, but it was contested and upon reviewing the AFD I agree we need more input; therefore I have reopened and extended debate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 19:44Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sokeripupu. YechielMan 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:NOTE. Yuser31415 21:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concert criterion of WP:BAND is disputed. Besides that, it says that that is something that makes it very likely that there is sufficient information from reliable sources about the subject, but that does not appear to be the case with this subject. GassyGuy 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh groovy, if the concert criterion is taken away, wikipedia will have firmly established that the standard mainstream distribution route (signing to a major label, getting play on mainstream radio stations, etc) is the only way for a band to become "notable". That's complete BS. In any case, even if that criterion is disputed, it's still there at the moment so no matter what anyone says or how they vote, RAMBO ARE considered notable by wikipedia standards. If that criterion goes away they won't meet the standards, but they do now. And I'm sorry, but the Philadelphia Weekly is not a reliable mainstream source? That's where the article I linked to is sourced from, I just used the link I did because it's hard to find the reference to RAMBO in the original source.Sokeripupu 01:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - their cds have been released by labels based in Minneapolis and Chicago, which shows that they are not just a local band. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere

[edit]
Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While indubitably useful, this article does not belong here, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, with no sources, it's impermissible original research, as the article itself admits: "It is hoped that bloggers will update this page often to make it as complete as possible." Sandstein 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No conceivable clarification and expansion could make that topic not violate WP:WINAD. Sandstein 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic football league

[edit]
Galactic football league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional league; violates WP:NOT Mhking 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rebuttal: If this were an article proposing that the GFL was a "real" league then sure, grounds for deletion. But, the article clearly states that it is describing a "Fictional League" as pertains to a work of fiction. The Wikipedia is packed with other descriptions of elements from other fictional works. How is this one different? We have an entire entry on the Weapons of Star Trek yet none of them are real, there is a list of the companies named in the Star Wars canon: List of Star Wars companies which is strictly fictional, and there is a list of the faux Mandarin curse words used in Firefly: List of Firefly slang words. I might note that the individual who posted this deletion actualy is a contributor to the Star Trek articles. Perhaps one might say that the other articles describing fictional elements from things like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Firefly are describing more popular works. Since when is Wikipedia a popularity contest? The fact of the matter is Scott Sigler is a groundbreaking podcaster and if anything is even more eligible for note as he is at the vanguard of a new media movement. I fail to see how there is any merit to this. Granted the article needs cleaning up, and I have posted a banner proposing just that. However, since it is describing an element of a podcast that is still in continuing production I have to imagine that the cleanup will be a continuing issue as well.

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

The result was speedied. Grandmasterka 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oraspeed

[edit]

Not very notable software, reads as advertisement, submitted by a user Oraspeed Alex Bakharev 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep. Merging is a separate editorial option which can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandersnatch (Known Space)

[edit]
Bandersnatch (Known Space) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable extraterrestrial species in Larry Niven's fictional Known Space universe. Fails WP:FICT. Proposed deletion, but removed by 198.82.125.211 without edit summary. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional foods

[edit]
List of fictional foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Thoroughly indiscriminate collection of unsourced, unverified information that provides absolutely no context for any of its entries' importance to their points of origin with the exception of links to those very rare fictional foods that are notable enough in themselves to have articles. We do not need a list of every single fake food from every single Letterman Top Ten List, one-time sight gag or passing background billboard ad from every random TV show, magazine, book or movie. Otto4711 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idan Carl Pidgeon-Laad

[edit]
Idan Carl Pidgeon-Laad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Loads of claims of notability but even if this guy is real, he's not notable enough for any article of his own. JoanneB

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greb

[edit]
Greb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unveriable, original research. The absence of citations suggests that this a slang term whose meaning varies to some extent from city to city and year to year. Even http://www.urbandictionary.com has few entries for it, all from 2004 - 2005, and no consensus. Fayenatic london 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, ignoring the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS agruements. Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional beverages

[edit]
List of fictional beverages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Thoroughly indiscriminate collection of unsourced, unverified information that provides absolutely no context for any of its entries' importance to their points of origin with the exception of links to those very rare fictional beverages that are notable enough in themselves to have articles. We do not need a list of every single fake drink from every single Letterman Top Ten List, Simpsons episode, one-time sight gag or passing background billboard ad from every random TV show, magazine, book or movie. Otto4711 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous AfD was for a list of fictional mixed drinks, not for this list. Links to the Wikipedia articles for the things these drinks came from are not reliable third-party sources for the things themselves. As just one of dozens of examples, can you tell me where in the Late Night with David Letterman article it references "McBourbon" and explains the notability of it? Otto4711 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look again, the previous afd was for a substantial amount of the material in this list. And I actually agree with you on the David Letterman ones. If they're your main objection to the article by all means excise them. Nardman1 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly would it be valuable to a researcher that, to pick one semi-random example, in one unidentified episode of the show Home Movies there was something called "Burpsi-Cola"? What could our hypothetical researcher possibly be studying that would make that valuable knowledge? There is no way to know from the article if this cola played any significant role in the episode, hell, there isn't even any way to know if it came in a can or a bottle or who drank it or if someone drank it or poured it over their head. Otto4711 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that it could use some cleaning. My selection stands at face value; I don't want to debate your non sequitur at every AfD; it gets tiresome. If you don't want people to express their opinions don't make marginal AfD nominations. --Kevin Murray 05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, I disagree that this article is anything even approaching marginal. If you don't care to defend your opinion (and you might want to learn what "non sequitur" actually means) then maybe you shouldn't express one. But if you do and I disagree with it, I have no intention of not challenging it. Otto4711 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was spam. Grandmasterka 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Pixellogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisment. No reliable sources. Asserts notability, but no indication it meets that requirement. Yuser31415 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hollow Bastion

[edit]
Battle of Hollow Bastion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not seam to meet the criteria for WP:FICT; not notable, no real-world connection, looks like fancruft. Also the article was started by a user with a number of vandalism warnings - article maybe a hoax.--Bryson 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect a stock puppet, the user has made only a few edits.--Bryson 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. User:Killerman2 made the above vote, [76]. --Bryson 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalitstan

[edit]
Dalitstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is mainly the work of the banned User:Hkelkar and a now-blocked Primetime sock, user:Cardreader. The subject is a wesite which has been taken down. The article is largely self-referential. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I know that may look strange, but this is in fact exactly the same as the deleted Off By One (browser) article. I would call this a G4 speedy delete, except that this article apparently predates the other one. As it stands, I felt that since the same article was under discussion, I would consider the balance of comments in both debates, which clearly shows a significant consensus for deletion. Mangojuicetalk 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off By One

[edit]
Off By One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is a duplicate of Off By One (browser), which was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off By One (browser)) a little over a month ago with all votes in the AFD for delete. It also has no talk page. The last nom said, "OK, I am not entirely convinced about notability of this product. It seems to me to fail WP:SOFTWARE. In particular I do not see "multiple non-trivial published works", nor does it seem to be a "core product of a notable software developer or vendor". It seems to be a minor, experimental product, still in early stages of development. A browser that does not support CSS and JavaScript would be severely crippled and hardly suitable for real use, as the image of Wikipedia front page shows. On the other hand I may be entirely mistaken. It's for the Wikipedia community to decide." SakotGrimshine 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou banter / contribs 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit Freedom Network

[edit]
Dalit Freedom Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Several editors have undertaken heroic efforts to neutralise this article, but it is irretrievably tainet by the work of User:Hkelkar and ban-evading socks thereof. The cited sources appear not to be mainly about the group, merely to mention it. Some of them are now 404 anyway. There are also links to User:Primetime. I don't think we need the aggro. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 British North America, with later mergers of some of the content subject to editorial discretion. The term "Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies" is apparently original research, as it does not google outside this article. Sandstein 08:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies

[edit]
Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minimal content, only a list of British Colonies that didn't join the American Revolution and thus derivative of Thirteen Colonies, British North America, American Revolution and British colonization of the Americas. --Duke of Duchess Street 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello DukeOfDuchessStreet. This article is in development. I am adding content and the CORRESPONDING REFERENCES, as time provides. It would seem that for now I'll concentrate on adding BONE-FIDE REFERENCES (you know those things like PUBLISHED BOOKS).

As per your comment on the article being "derivative" of the Thirteen Colonies article, I respectfully do not agree. The article the Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies is "complimentary", in my opinion. What it illustrates is,

(i). There were 21 British Possessions in Continental North America up to 1775 (i.e., from 1607-1775),

(ii). Of those 21 Colonial Units, there were,

(iia). 19 Settler Colonies,
(iib). 1 Commerical Colony (i.e, the Hudson's Bay Land),
(iic). 1 Crown Land Colony (i.e, the Crown Lands Reversed for the Indians),

(iii). The 19 Settler Colonies all had LOCAL LEGISTATURES, thus were Provinces within the British Empire , (e.g., the Province of East Florida),

(iv). That the correct term for the British Colonies in North America prior to 1783, is that of British America and the British West Indies,

(v). That the correct term for the British Colonies in North America after 1783, is that of British North America and the British West Indies.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into British North America as per current recommendation on both pages. Definitely an encyclopedic topic rarely well-addressed. This article has an awkward title and the BNA article needs substance, so a merge sounds to me like the best resolution. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can find no sources using this terminology or treating these six colonies as anything but the later history of BNA. This article has nothing to merge except a list. (Additionally, the editor using the bright blue highlighting is advised to cut it out and read the Manual of Style, please.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into British North America. per Askari Mark. At the very least, change the title. --UsaSatsui 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: Loyalist colonies in the British New World (Note capitalisation - Wikipedia style mandates caps for the first letter of a title, and for proper nouns): I think a case could feasibly be developed to show how domestic policies in British holdings throughout the New World changed in response to and after the American Revolution, as well as showing the progress of various local sovereigntist movements, and the immigration of Loyalists coming from the republian-occupied territories. This would be distinct from, and not merely a sub-section of British America, as it has the potential to showcase the Loyalist movement in republican North America, with no regard for the borders of any given nation-state. samwaltz 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless such a literature already exists (and it may! let me know), isn't that textbook WP:NOR? -Joshuapaquin 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 10:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GGFH

[edit]
GGFH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

On the basis of the information in the article, the band fails WP:MUSIC. Article is sourced only by the band's website. Although the band has multiple albums, I don't think the labels are prominent enough to count under guidelines. janejellyroll 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for my ignorance . . . but the article has no reliable, third-party sources regarding the tour and the reviews are not mentioned at all. janejellyroll 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a number of choice bits from reviews here, and they were formerly on Peaceville, as evidenced here, which is one of the biggest metal labels around, having bands like Opeth, Autopsy, Darkthrone and Katatonia under them-from K37 00:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I withdraw my nomination. It would be ideal if the references could be sourced beyond the band's own homepage and reliable third-party sources could be added to the article itself so that metal innocents such as myself can tell right away that the band is notable. Thanks for bringing the information to my attention. janejellyroll 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually working on it now :) - should keep me busy-from K37 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Alphachimp. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:31Z

Saturday (Carpenters song)

[edit]
Saturday (Carpenters song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:31Z

Let Me Be the One (Carpenters song)

[edit]
Let Me Be the One (Carpenters song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:32Z

One Love (Carpenters song)

[edit]
One Love (Carpenters song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:32Z

Sometimes (Carpenters song)

[edit]
Sometimes (Carpenters song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:32Z

(A Place To) Hideaway

[edit]
(A Place To) Hideaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine, you can delete it. I don't care. Even though they weren't released as singles, I don't think it gives you a right to delete it to people who might look for information here about it. But, you are in a higher position than I, so no matter what I do, it's your decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.255.90 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Actually, it's not my decision at all. It's up for discussion of the community. If you think this song deserves an article, please explain why. Also, I am not in any higher position than you are. Your opinion and reasoning counts for just as much as mine does. I simply opened the discussion - I have no control over its outcome. GassyGuy 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move content and delete - if songs are not notable, they should not have their own article in an encyclopedia. However, there's no need to lose the work done; let it go into the articles on the relevant albums. The author should copy the content to his talk page or an album article talk page now; then, if the song articles are deleted, he can move it into the articles for the albums. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:33Z

Gymnacro

[edit]
Gymnacro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:NEO--neologism with two ghits, one to the article page, and one a comment left on the article creator's home page not to create patent nonsense. Nominated for speedy delete on December 5, but the tag was removed which I will treat as a contested speedy. For some reason, it wasn't followed up on. Wehwalt 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Withdrawn by nominator) with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Jerry lavoie 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lurker

[edit]
Lurker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is very unlikely to ever satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, shown in TheFreeDictionary.com, here, notable internet term. Wooyi 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see several sources in the article. Nardman1 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete <change to keep per nom. The only cited content comes to about the size of a dictionary definition. Move it to wiktionary, maybe, but not likely to ever become a proper encyclopedic article. Not enough context is asserted to build on beyond what is currently salvageable. Jerry lavoie 03:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the sourced content is a stub is only a reason for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, if it is a perpetual stub with no scope whatsoever for expansion. Our policy also requires that you look for sources yourself before coming to such a conclusion, which you haven't done. Looking for sources turns up pages 436 of ISBN 0735713332, which describes "Lurker mode" in Macromedia Fash UI components, where a user watches but does not interact; and ISBN 1852335327 which has an entire chapter, "Silent Participants: Getting to know lurkers better" on pages 110–132, on Usenet lurkers. Fixing the article requires nothing more than cutting out the original research and the unverifiable content and adding in content based upon these and other sources, which doesn't involve an administrator hitting a delete button at any point, and which you can do. Please adhere to our deletion policy in future. Uncle G 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right close to an admonishment, UncleG. Are you certain you have the commission to dole out such? For you to assume that I vote on these AfD's without doing my own research is a bad faith assumption, and one I do not appreciate. I did not say there was no context. I said the context did not amount to more than a dictionary entry. See WP:NOT. I stand on my decision, and agree to disagree with you. But I am not prepared to tolerate being admonished by you as above. Please extend a little more courtesy and keep personal attacks out of these discussions. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was equally addressing me. Obviously, he did better work than us. Had I done that, I wouldn't have filed this article for deletion. I'm fine with being admonished for doing lousy work. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:34Z

Gourlyish

[edit]
Gourlyish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious non notable neologism as evidenced by 0 g'hits, possible hoax. Contested speedy Daniel J. Leivick 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freak on a Leash. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:36Z

Freak on a Leash Unplugged, feat. Amy Lee

[edit]
Freak on a Leash Unplugged, feat. Amy Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of the info alredy mentioned here is alredy mentioned on the article Freak On A Leash.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's kind of hard to judge an article when the content is blanked, but based on the history, yes, this is a duplicate of content that should be (and is) housed at the article for "Freak on a Leash." Normally I'd recommend a redirect, but this is an awkward title and incredibly unlikely search term. GassyGuy 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Arrggghhh.... breaks my heart I have to vote delete on this. Because I really like this song and the artists. But it is pretty much information that has been said in a similar manner twice already on two other articles. Mathmo Talk 10:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:37Z

Losfer Words

[edit]
Losfer Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC unless there are some sources out there that I wasn't able to find. janejellyroll 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:MUSIC national radio play requirements Artist has over 90 songs surveyed in the ASCAP Ace database as having received domestic (nationwide USA) performance on commercial & college radio stations. This artist has full publisher membership in ASCAP which would indicate verified commercial CDs releases at the the national level. AudioJin

  • Delete: fails WP:MUSIC. AudioJin: I fail to see on the ASCAP database that being listed means being played nationwide, and no one doubts that they have made commercially available CD's, only that they have received any verifiable attention (via WP:RS). Icouldn't ind any after a short search, and as long as no one else adds them, it should be deleted. Fram 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owners hold exclusive distribution, public display and publishing rights to all content related to this topic and the Federal Trademark. Per the copyright holders terms of use / copyright policy Wikipedia would have to first seek permission to use their trademarked brand in an article (a public display). A good portion of this articles content is merely derived from several pages in the copyright holders site and thus only the copyright holder can authorize derivative works under US Copyright law. I would venture the content is coming from fans of the artist who are unaware there are music specific Wikis out there better suited to helping chronicle the achievements of artists they like and more open to featuring indie artists. Interesting read and good listening, but per Wiki guideline suggestions better to delete and motivate more detailed research from the zealous fans, which may result in the article being re-added later in better format and not merely cloned content from the artist official site. The artist may very well be notable for mere longevity by indie artist standards but the article needs to be original and not a mere reprint of content from an official artist web site. The same would hold true for any recording artist indie label or major. Wikipedia simply can't clone content from official artist web sites. I would also venture that any recording artist, record label, or publisher would prefer for fans to land on an official web page and not an encyclopedia article of cloned content when doing a google search. Helps their CD sales :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.212.108 (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:COI problems. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The copyright owners own the text and music and artwork they have copyrighted--subject,that is, to fair use excerpts. The copyright holders do not own the right to "all content related to the topic" at least not in the US;
If it is being asserted that some of the text in the article is quoted beyond fair use, see WP:COPYRIGHT, since WP has well-developed procedures for challenging it, & always removes such material. DGG 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I believe that 172.149.212.108 is AudioJin (talk · contribs) and just wasn't logged in. That editor's very short track record suggests a somewhat idiosyncratic view of trademark rights, or at least of their importance in this context. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bong. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:25Z

Shottie

[edit]
Shottie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not censored, however, does Shottie really need its own article? By the articles own admission, it is a variation of the Bong and has no sources to show its notability RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleen (number)

[edit]
Bleen (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Trivia. Not every comedy bit requires a separate article. If this bit appears on one of Carlin's albums then perhaps a redirect, although I doubt anyone is likely to search for "Bleen (number)". Otto4711 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 season's article as the probably most consensual solution. Mergers are an editorial matter and can take place from the history. Sandstein 08:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Juatco

[edit]
Elena Juatco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sixth-placed contestant on Canadian Idol and subsequent Roving reporter. This "up and coming star on the Canadian stage" scores 214 unique Ghits, mostly to Canadian Idol articles or wiki mirrors. Pretty obvious that she's not "there" yet. Ohconfucius 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Train and per nom. I don't buy the theatre award nomination as enough; fundamentally this is not an article about an actress, it's about a failed reality show contestant. Mangojuicetalk 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep. I'm really on the fence. It's hard to argue that she meets BIO, but she did place highly on a major reality show, then get the theater nomination, and then act as roving reporter for the show. Maybe just enough bits and pieces to assert minor notability, so I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 season's article as the probably most consensual solution. Mergers are an editorial matter and can take place from the history. Sandstein 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Seller

[edit]
Joshua Seller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsuccessful TV talent show contestant, who released a CD following the show ranked in the 629 thousandsths per Amazon.com. No other notable achievements to date. Prod contested by User:Badlydrawnjeff. Ohconfucius 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 season's article as the probably most consensual solution. Mergers are an editorial matter and can take place from the history. Sandstein 08:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Vinette

[edit]
Emily Vinette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsuccessful Canadian Idol contestant. with assertion of notability of having been "second in the Central Canada Exhibition youth competition". Borderline, in my view, brought here for consensus. Ohconfucius 10:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:29Z

The Way Of All Flesh (band)

[edit]
The Way Of All Flesh (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Twoaf.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Esprit d'Escalier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Esprit.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This is a decent article, but the subject appears to fall well below the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Not only is there no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage, the one album they have released is self-funded and was recorded in one of the band's bedroom(!); they have contributed single tracks to some other albums of no evident notability. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, my google search suggests to me keeping. A couple of specific pages: [78] [79]. Thus my quick and easy use of google is telling me that this band appears to pass without too much trouble. Plus I'm sure there are even more sources out there if I merely bothered to look deeper. Mathmo Talk 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as far as I can tell they are reliable sources. With perhaps the exception of a couple of ones referenced. That still leaves many reviews of them mentioned on just those two links I mentioned. Mathmo Talk 06:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a site where where any old fan can put up a review, and the band's site was merely an easy collection of other sources of which numerous ones of them makes this band notable. Mathmo Talk 12:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I started to go with "keep" with the provided Google numbers, but then I noticed in the "Points of note" section that there is another band with the same name, so it's hard telling how many hits go to which band without some major research. I did, however, do another search using "death metal" with the band name, but I still couldn't tell. I believe the burden is on the author to come back and provide more reliable sources. Only one self-funded CD recorded in "Steve's bedroom", everything else are trivial demo cuts. I can't even say that I see any assertion of notability to prove. Cricket02 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure), WP:POINT nomination. Yuser31415 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic voice phenomenon

[edit]
Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Reason Tom Butler 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have submitted EVP for deletion. I will follow with ITC.[reply]

The reason for this request for deletion is that:

1) Wikipedia rules restrict content of the EVP entry: Wikipedia:No original research. Virtually all of the work done to study EVP and related phenomena has been classified by editors as original research, and therefore, the subject cannot be factually represented in Wikipedia.

2) A survey of the people studying EVP, and therefore the people who are sufficiently knowledgable to provide factual content , will show that virtually all of them have a conflict of interested as described by Wikipedia editors: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

3) It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that many of the editors contributing to the EVP entry do not have the background in the subject to distinguish valid information from out-dated or simply erronious information. Exclusion of EVP subject matter experts assures this to be a continuing problem.

4) There has been a continuing conflect between people who want demonstrated fact to be presented and people who discount those facts as not demonstrated by mainstream science. Even when agreement between the two vieupoints has been reached, it is sometimes only a few hours before new conservative editors begin pushing the point of view to make EVP sound like we are delusional. When I firs tcame to it last Novemeber, the AA-EVP, and therefore EVP was being discounted because I am a Spiritualsit.

5) With this new wave of editors came new determination to keep people who want EVP to be factually represented from participating in consensus building. One of the arguments for why I could not edit the entry was that there are references to the AA-EVP, making it a conflict of interest. My solution was to remove those references, but in response, I was blocked from editing for "editing wars." At the same time, one of the new editors was in an edit war over tages, but nothing was done to correct this.

Based on Wikipedia rules and the evidence of the EVP talk pages, it is clear that EVP should not be in the encyclopedia because it is not possible to arrive at and maintain a consensus. Determination to have the EVP entry has already produced negative publicity for Wikipedia, which will only eculate while EVP remains a public contest between skeptic and "proponents." Tom Butler 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Las Vegas Weekly | Association of Alternative Newsweeklies
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_11&oldid=1234121994"