Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 1 February 3 >

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 Speedily deleted under WP:CSD G4, recreation of deleted material; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midanbury F.C. had clear consensus to delete.

Midanbury F.C.

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

This article was the subject of a previous AfD discussion[1] and was deleted in November but has been re-created in the same form. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - when they were at Hampshire League Division One Level from 1987-1993, that was at Level 9 in the pyramid. Even today, the equivalent (second-level division of the Wessex League) is at Level 10, inside WP:CORP. Granted, the article needs work, but it passes notability levels. The previous AfD was closed as "already deleted" while it was still in motion. - fchd 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 22:55, 2 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 as hoax. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE

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

Speedy Delete - Just another hoax article by a mass vandal. And the title's not related. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:08, 2 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. Nishkid64 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Whiton

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

Non-notable subject. ghits: [2] NMChico24 00:16, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next Fifteen Communications

[edit]

This article has been speedy deleted twice as a blatant ad and has had a PROD tag added to it, which was removed. User:Timdyson appears to have a Conflict of interest in this subject, as he is listed as the company's CEO. There appears to be nothing notable about this company. Corvus cornix 00:22, 2 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 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American artists

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

The subject of this list is unworkable, simply because it's too vast and is going to get bigger and bigger, but unfortunately with less and less notable artists and more and more contemporary ones, swamping the significant figures that one would wish to stand out. Smaller lists would work much better, i.e. List of 18th century American Artists, etc, List of American Artists born 1900-1950, then List of American Artists born 1950-75 and then 1976-. At least all the contemporary ones and the self-noms would be in one place to see easily if they merited a place. This would also create a historical context for the artists. There are also other artists lists that will need assessing, but let's take one at a time.Tyrenius 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, but reorganize Can't you just divide it by periods instead of alphabetically, put a notice on saying redlinks (and external spam links) will be deleted, & maybe have a "major contemporary artists" section that is policed, and then another "other contemporary artists" one at the end that you accept will have to be a bit rag tag & bobtail? You also have architects & doubtless other types in there; the criteria for inclusion need to be defined. Obviously the concept of the list is fine; its just the practicality. Having separate lists by century is not attractive; there are all sorts of overlap problems. It's not in that bad a state. I have problems like this at Printmaking & its daughter articles; better a messy list than no list. There already is a category of course, and people are always being encouraged to put categories into lists, not the other way around Johnbod 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm up for any meaningful and usable organisation, but this is no good to anyone, apart from unknown artists sneaking their name in. I've suggested retaining smaller lists. Using dates at least gives a rigid definition so that everyone knows where they are. Dates will also do a rough and ready job of sorting out major from ragtag contemporary artists, as major tend to be older. Good red links provide a valuable function to show articles that need to be written, so this purpose is also defeated by the present arrangement (though the new blue links are a good way of tracking down non notable contemporary artists.. ;) Tyrenius 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have lists (or categories) by century, you have to put loads of people in two of them. The list isn't that long & the older periods would be quite short; as you say the problem is the contemporaries. I think you have have to keep redlinks out; there are other places (Visual arts project/ articles needed) for articles that should be done. Johnbod 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nevertheless established that wiki does have lists (lots of them). What we need are lists that are useful and usable. This requires the right definition to start with. Tyrenius 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean a central list from which the specialised ones could be accessed? That would work. The real problem here is the amount of contemporary artists who swamp the rest. At the very least there should be a list of historic (i.e. dead) and contemporary (i.e. living) artists. The latter would be even better subdivided. If there was a list of people born after, say 1975, it would catch a lot of the not-terribly-notables (but just notable enough to survive an AfD) and make the other lists far easier to read. Tyrenius 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. I have no idea what those sub-lists will be, but I do feel they should exist. FrozenPurpleCube 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm no expert, but isn't the generation of this type of list precisely what categories are for? So if anything, I'd suggest a set of narrower categories that include time period and nationality (i.e., 19th century American artists or whatnot). Planetneutral 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on categories (or lists - I tend to avoid them -mainly because there's too many like this one!), but an earlier comment said the encouragement was for lists rather than cats.Tyrenius 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - look at any Categories for deletion day page (WP:CfD) - "Listify" is the regular cry. I think this is quite right by the way; lists sit quietly by themselves; categories have to be in every article, are much harder to rearrange etc. Johnbod 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds as if what we really need is the equivalent of an index, which is essentially what lists are, but conceiving of them in that way might make it easier to decide what lists to have. Tyrenius 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep using criterion. I raised this issue on the article's talk page. Specifically: "What's the criteria for listing here? Should the artist have been born in this country? Is reputation a factor? Are we wasting our time on a list that cannot be complete?" I might suggest the following. Allow this list by do not allow names for which there is no biographical information. In this way, the user can read a bio to determine information about the artist which, hopefully, puts him/her in context. This also prevents a random list of names with no context whatsoever. For example, I added the name George McConnell, but did not add a biography. This would force me to create his bio first, and then add his name to the list. Let me also point out that there are many references to biographies of American artists that are alphabetical with no further categorization. For example, the three volume reference Who Was Who in American Art (Falk, ed.).JJ 14:24, 2 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 A7. Daniel.Bryant 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advendo

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

Fails WP:BAND. The article does not list any songs this band has put out, and the only thing that seems to make them notable is the fact that they skated on ice skates in 1985. Diez2 00:42, 2 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. Bucketsofg 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cakes society

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

Ok, this is the "Cakes Appreciation Society" that does... I don't seem to know. Also, the founder "likes to keep things British"? I say Delete. Diez2 00:45, 2 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 as non-notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Trell

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. This rapper has only released one song on some unknown album. In order to pass notability, bands or singers have to sing either a well-known song or many not-so-well-known songs. This rapper didn't do either. Diez2 00:51, 2 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 Result was Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn) Diez2 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Kitsilano Boys Band

[edit]
Vancouver Kitsilano Boys Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC - high school bands are not notable -- Selmo (talk) 00:57, 2 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.--Húsönd 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Turcotte

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

Non-notable journalist. In order to pass notability, the journalist must have been featured in the news somewhere and/or won an award for journalism. This person did neither. Diez2 00:59, 2 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.--Húsönd 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make limstone in your own kitchen!

[edit]
Make limstone in your own kitchen! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod. Heimstern Läufer 01:56, 2 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 g1, patent nonsense, author is in the midst of a flood of nonsense articles. NawlinWiki 02:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klongidni

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

Appears to be a hoax. No ghits, and no sources for these supposed cars. Seems to be a contested speedy deletion. SunStar Nettalk 02:11, 2 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.--cj | talk 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushi-jujitsu

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

It seems to me that this page is based upon a false history which exists no where else that I've encountered. Asao Yoshida is one of the names which Choi Yong Sul's senior students say that he went by while living in Japan. Even Choi's connection to Daito-ryu is contested (To make Asao into another person who studied under Choi is a new one on me.) The name of the art seems quite unlikely for a legitimate Japanese tradition. It may be that the author is innocently conveying information which has been supplied to him through no fault of his own but I see little reason to give it further distance to run unless some sort of verification of its legitimacy miraculously appears.--Mateo2006 02:04, 2 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 12:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose Lodge No. 67

[edit]
Melrose Lodge No. 67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Google gets exactly six hits for "Melrose Lodge No. 67", none of them establish that this is notable. Article claims no notability. Carabinieri 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Webucation 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC) What the hell are you talkng about? So what uf google doesn't have a million hits for it. It exists, its a building, i beluieve it should be there. If you erase it I will put it right back up so go home.[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted by Lacrimosus. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 04:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAC Productions

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

non-notable, the author repeatedly reverted my db tag. Wooyi 02:25, 2 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. Maybe the article should be moved to Saudi-Yemeni conflict or something like that. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves (or be bold and just do it). — CharlotteWebb 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi-Yemeni War

[edit]

can i consider it as "Conflict of interest"? - (there were never been a war between saudi arabia and yemen , and Najran & Asir used to be under Tribes conquest while Jizan conquered by Al-Aiyd who was againts yemeni Imam) Ammar 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this isn't a "conflict of interest" case (the term only refers to what happens when an editor writes an entry on themselves or the small company they've just founded - so unless the article was created by one of the combatants in the war, it doesn't qualify). Secondly, I'd want proof that there hasn't been such a war. There's a reference - albeit a very scanty one - provided. Additionally, Paul Dresch's "History of Modern Yemen" refers to the war as the cause of the Yemeni Army being strengthened with the jaysh difa'i militia (p 46) and also mentions some of the fighting in this conflict (pp 34-35). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to a more appropriate title, accoridng to [3] this is an on going conflict stemming from a 1934 treaty text here Benon 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - while it may have been a minor conflict, it cleary existed: [4] [5] [6]. Perhaps the article exists under another name; we should look for the right name though. Part Deux 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - WP:COI is inapplicable and the war existed (as noted above) and is notable by WP standards. I will try to flesh out the article using some of the sources noted here (possibly not now, but definitely within 24 hours). Black Falcon 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's give it a bit, see how it goes, and revisit if we need to. Philippe Beaudette 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the nominator gave a notice on the talk page requesting references that received no response for over a month (I assume because it's not a high-traffic page). However, I still stand by my vote as sources are available and even before the AfD one source was present. Black Falcon 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, invalid claim of COI in nomination, invalid disputation of factual basis. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think maybe the person is saying that the war did not involve Yemen as we know it or was not a war in the sense normally meant. That because of that the name is misleading and ahistorical. I don't know enough to say if that's true, but it'd be a different issue to "it never happened."--T. Anthony 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename Keep it if it is accurate, but rename it if the article name is not accurate. --SilverhandTalk 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - it was a historic event, although did not involve Yemen under the name "Yemen" --JavazXT 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME war is definitely the wrong word Alf photoman 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding naming: it is frequently the case that wars are known by different names to the respective combatants. Article naming is supposed to favor the most common name in English, and conventionally if there are alternate names we note that in the introduction to the article. I have not found one overwhelming name that this is known by, but Saudi-Yemeni War has the apparent plurality. War between Saudi and Yemen and Saudi-Yemen War are the only alternate ones that have any currency. Some histories seem to downplay the fact that there was a war at all, concentrating on the Taif Treaty that resolved it. But most that mention the war seem to agree that there was a significant invasion by Saudi Arabia including occupation of Hodeida. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a more appropriate title as stated above. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 00:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on renaming or: why the article shouldn't be renamed - The correct name of Yemen during the 1934 war was "The Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen". However, until 1967, there was no other independent political entity known as Yemen (South Yemen was occupied by the British). Although technically, the article could be renamed to "Saudi-Mutawakkilite war", I think this would only create confusion. In addition, as Dhartung notes above, articles should be named to reflect their most common name in English. The only English-language designation for the war I have encountered is Saudi-Yemeni war. Black Falcon 01:26, 3 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. Can still be transiwiki'd, then revisited at AfD. Merge or a rename could also be discussed without AfD. W.marsh 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names

[edit]
Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason:This article was created "in order to provide a place for shape references to redirect to, as V-shaped, which used to redirect to V-shaped valley." It's been copied to Wiktionary, where (as a set of dicdefs) it belongs. Why do we need this? Let V-shaped redirect to Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. First, you cannot "redirect to wiktionary". Second, there is more than that explained in talk:Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names: "to collect definitions of various shapes, which would otherwise have got small articles." People continue to confuse the difference between "dictionary definition of a word" and "description of a thing, notion, or a concept". The size of the description of an object does not matter and it belongs to encyclopedia. The description of a word belongs to a dictionary. Some of these descriptions are minor, yet improtant. E.g. "I shaped" is not what you would think while looking at this word printed in sans-serif. If you have nothing better to do, why don't you try and delete the Cleveland Steamer for an exercise? `'mikka 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it borders on incoherence. If something is shaped like a U, it is shaped like a U. There is no metaphor. If something is "triangle-shaped" does that mean it's a metaphor? The entire premise of the article is untenable, and its poorly written and confusing to boot. I am not swayed by the above comment that retires to the old "why not delete all these other stupid articles first" argument.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Shape. For such a well used term the shape article is very brief. Shape itself is a tricky term to deal with especially in a mathematical way, and comparision with other objects is one of the major ways in which the shape of something can be described. On Talk:Shape I've briefly outlined an expansion of the article which incorperates some of the ideas from this glossary. --Salix alba (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, rename into Glossary of shapes of List of shapes. With some exceptions (most of which are in List of geometric shapes) all names of shapes are comparisons with typical "real" objects. By the way this situation is called simile, not metaphor, i.e., the article title is wrong anyway. But the content is useful and informative, in many instances goes beyond simple dictionary definition, i.e., encyclopedic. By the way, I noticed that an overview article Names of shapes or shape naming may be handy as well: a quick google search reveals that this issue is widely discussed, at least in the context of children learning. For example, there is a very interesting article "Etymology of Geometry Terms" (which may suggest a wikipedia title, Etymology of shape names, in our context). Mukadderat 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I keep reading this article and talk page thinking I will finally figure out what this is doing. I keep failing. It says the name is somehow metaphorical, but I cannot find it. Even if I assume "metaphorical" is misused and it's actually an example of simile or symbolism or whatever, I am at a loss. "V-shape" - I suppose that's an explicit comparison to the shape of a V, but what else would V-shape mean? Same with heart-shaped and the likes. One argument seems to be that the terms specify exactly what the shape these adjectives denote is, but if this is the intention, it is not the result. If one did not know what something pear-shaped was, for example, I do not think s/he will be helped by being told it is a comparison to the shape of a pear. Possibly housing this in some context in shape or something similar would work, but I must admit this entire article continues to perplex me. GassyGuy 06:58, 8 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. Bucketsofg 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents who served more than one term

[edit]
List of Philippine Presidents who served more than one term (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - redundant to List of Philippine Presidents by time in office. Otto4711 03:10, 2 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 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents who served one term or less

[edit]
List of Philippine Presidents who served one term or less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete redundant to List of Philippine Presidents by time in office. Otto4711 03:17, 2 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 speedily deleted by Gogo Dodo. MER-C 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: A Dark Path

[edit]
Star Wars: A Dark Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A not-yet-filmed fan film. Was deprodded by the article's creator, who left his reasoning at Talk:Star Wars: A Dark Path; however, at this time I don't believe the film is notable enough for inclusion. BryanG(talk) 03:30, 2 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 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Franks

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

Admitted personal essay. Unreferenced. No reason why any relevant information can't be placed in Franks. Slac speak up! 03:34, 2 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 A7. Daniel.Bryant 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Klassen

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

vanity-user:Texaco oil king's only edits have been either vandalism or vanity, he is the self-identified Paul Klassen, see also discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer Chris 03:55, 2 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 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Eyes (porn star)

[edit]
Angel Eyes (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN name. Performer doesn't seem to meet either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|(talk) 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notablity made, and does not appear, per nom to satisfy the bio and porn guidlines Benon 05:34, 2 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 12:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiering Software

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

Nom - fails WP:CORP, has produced no notable software (WP:SOFTWARE), unsourced article since August 2006. Rklawton 16:01, 27 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, Agent 86 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See nothing notable, no software, etc. Philippe Beaudette 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Has several products, and this page could be a single place to discuss them all: Super Worms, Charlie the Duck, Charlie II. OTOH, these games don't seem notable (all are AfD at this time), and "a collection of non-notable things" is not necessarily "a notable container article". So need at least something of notability of the company or at least one of the games before I'd say "keep". DMacks 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking through the google hits for "Wiering Software", all I see is the company site and a ton of freeware/shareware download sites. What I couldn't find was any newspaper articles, etc. about either Mike Wiering or Wiering Software. wieringsoftware.nl gets an Alexa rank of 473,445 [7]. A quick look at the sites linking in shows a bunch of download sites, but no magazines or newspapers. So as far as I can tell, this is just someone who's written a few shareware games, probably makes a little money selling them from his website, but none of the published works listed in WP:SOFTWARE seem to have anything to say about him or his company. Dave6 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article says itself that it's "small". --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 00:54, 3 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie II

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

Nom - fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no independent reviews, no awards, zip. Rklawton 16:01, 27 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, Agent 86 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could the original Charlie the Duck not also be merged in? They're virtually the same game by the look of things, just that the sequel has a new set of levels. An article called "Charlie the Duck" featuring both games makes more sense than an article called "Charlie II" and no mention of the first game. QuagmireDog 08:37, 5 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 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Duck

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

Nom - fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no independent reviews, no awards, zip. Rklawton 16:02, 27 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, Agent 86 04:08, 2 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 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Worms

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

Nom - fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no independent reviews, no awards, zip. Rklawton 16:02, 27 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, Agent 86 04:09, 2 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 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacSpark

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources Wackymacs 16:36, 27 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, Agent 86 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small company only existed ~1 year before merging into another and no notable results after that are asserted. The one product with asserted notability (UpdateWasher) has a single ref, and that is to an article that neither comments extensively on the item nor gives it especially high ratings. It's a product-roundup article whose inclusion criteria are broad: "When I first started looking at the various tweaking utilities, I downloaded each one that I found" and the item is not listed in the "recommended" category. DMacks 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 12:15, 2 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 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EBG Systems, Inc.

[edit]

Looks like an advertisement to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (by article creator) I don't understand the viewpoints stated here. The company has existed in various forms for decades, and is well-known and respected within the American business community, dealing with some of the nation's largest corporate entities. Emmanuel Garcia is featureds because he is the driving force behind this company. Tags were added to the article pointing out areas which needed improvement. I did some work to implement them and removed the tags. If you have other observations on how the article should be changed, or how it is composed in a distasteful manner, I am happy to conduct further edits. I am writing in the style that comes naturally to me. User: Emellis (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is your first go-round at the process, I can understand why it would be confusing. Nobody is saying your work was not good. The article seems to be fairly well-written. However, it seems to fail to meet the criterion on WP:NOTABILITY and is lacking sources. As it stands right now, this article is not something that should be on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can look for some verifiable sources and find a way to write an article that could be included here. Or, maybe you can try to get your feet wet in other articles and see what is normally included here. As it stands now, I also have to vote Delete on this one. Good luck! Fundamentaldan 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that accomplishment is not the same thing as notability. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are not "existed ... for decades", "respected within the business community", or "dealing with major corporate entites". They are being verifiable by reliable third party sources. If we cannot find such coverage, it is very rare that we will find consensus on keeping an article. Writing style plays a relatively small role in this process. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Times Magazine (music)

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

Not a notable publication. Aaronproot

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article mentions several points of notability (oldest of its kind, notable in its geo/genre, etc). But the only references listed are the mag's own websites. It's hard to google this kind of thing, since the title is a common English expression...probably need someone who knows something about the industry or the mag to find any shred of third-party information. Any such ref would put me at a clear "keep". DMacks 07:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current state, this is a clear delete. Spurious claims to notability backed up by exactly zero references. I would consider changing my vote if the article improved by the end of the AfD. A Train take the 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of references is a reason to add references. A Google search for ``"good times magazine" +music'' brings us external references here and here and here from just the first couple of pages at Google, to address the issue of notability. Note that these links are not references about this magazine, but their existence speaks to the respect the magazine has within its own industry. One rarely sees articles written about news magazines. I'll poke a friend of mine in the music industry and see if more details can be scrounged. Please feel free to do your own research, too.  ◉ ghoti 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you jest. Have you actually looked at those links that you pulled out? Even if those weren't just obscure fan sites and commercial sites, your reasoning is flawed. Remember that the criterion for notability states: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works. "Good Times Magazine" is not the subject of any of the links you pulled out. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, and It is not incumbent upon me, the AfD voter, to do extensive research to save a dubious article; I've got my own research to do. A Train take the 16:25, 7 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 as recreation (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deaths). Part Deux 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Deaths

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

Overly broad list that by definition will include every Redshirt (character), Ted, the Generic Guy, and other stock character to have ever died in any fictional work. As this list is potentially unbounded in size, delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Allen3 talk 04:21, 2 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 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline of Perfect Dark

[edit]
Storyline of Perfect Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary spin-off page full of fancruft. Soo 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the existence of similar entirely in-universe plot summaries does not mean that this one should be kept. Trebor 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise Ok. I got one. The summary you have is the equvilent of a summary of a summary. I think a little expansion wouldn't hurt in the main article. We could expand that ( a little) and you could delete this article, which took me a couple days to type.Muldoon X9 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't need any expansion of storyline, it passed an extremely rigorous Featured Article debate. You could've saved yourself "several days of typing" (not continuous, I assume) by checking the discussion on the talk page. Soo 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You guys seem to have the odds stacked against me... And you do have some pretty good points. sigh. You win. Oh well. I'll just have to find something better to do with my time. Maybe I should get a life... Can you recommend something for me to do (on Wikipedia.)Muldoon X9 01:41, 6 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. Bucketsofg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by number of votes

[edit]
List of Philippine Presidents by number of votes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article duplicates List of Philippine Presidential elections while containing less information. Moreover, it lists presidents in terms of the raw # of votes received and is therefore biased toward more recent times (a larger population). Finally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--election results are good, but a list of 14 individuals by vote count is unnecessary. Black Falcon 05:11, 2 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 Reverted by User:Dmz5 to former version as a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stapling

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

This page conveys no meaningful information. It appears to be nothing more than someone’s rambling. ●DanMS 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I don't understand why it didn't work. If you click on the article name or search for it, you get the vandalized version, but if you go into history and click on my most recent edit, it's the redirect. What's causing the conflict? Should I have blanked the page first?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge the cache and wait? --N Shar 06:22, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiro Homma Hisa

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

Apparently nonnotable Japanese businessman. There were only 10 ghits, but it doesn't prove much because English alphanumerics don't search well for Japanese characters. That's why I'm sending it here, to see if anyone of Japanese affiliation can check this person's notability. YechielMan 05:24, 2 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 for the zig, AYD!. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zig Zag Cat

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

Non-notable game. The article reads like a first-person account of someone who played the game, not a third-person account of someone describing the game. I found less than 1,000 ghits, which is below the threshold of notability for a video game. Note also the well-placed cleanup tags. YechielMan 05:32, 2 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 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Israeli Forum for Cooperation

[edit]
Young Israeli Forum for Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. I wasn't so sure of this, since the organization asserts national scope in Israel, but the parent organizations (see last paragraph) have not yet entered Wikipedia themselves. If anyone can provide a good notability argument, perhaps those organizations should be added, instead of subtracting this one. Note the lack of external sources. YechielMan 05:42, 2 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:18Z

Sendik's Food Market

[edit]
Sendik's Food Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was marked with {{importance}} and {{unsourced}} tags on December 24, 2006. On January 31 the original contributor blanked the page. ●DanMS 05:55, 2 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, nominator withdrew GracenotesT § 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vang

[edit]

:Lee Vang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Does not pass WP:BIO Nposs 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Cy Thao, who is notable. Chris 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also added several bios created by Special:Contributions/Hmongvoice. All very nice, but not yet notable people. Hopefully someday.
Song Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tou Saiko Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yeng Lor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nposs 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding one more. One I missed from a similar, but not related AfD. Non-notable author bio created in batch (details - all were deleted). Nposs 06:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm sorry if it came off as wanting to delete the batch based on who they created them. I find that none of the articles meet BIO, that is why I submited them. I do agree that Lee Vang could be merged with Cy Thao. I'll cancel the whole thing if there is consensus to do so. Nposs 15:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Per User:Bsnowball's advice, I'm abandonining the AfD. I will propose a merge for one of the articles and reconsider each of the articles individually. I asked how to do this at the Help Desk and it was suggested that I could do this myself - making a note of it on this page and reverting the templates on the article pages. If this is the wrong way to do this, please leave a note here letting me know the correct procedure. I'm also adding strikethrough to the above proposal to indicate that I am retracting the AfD. Nposs 02:15, 5 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 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyndra alyse mayo

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

Article appears to be about a non-notable actress. Part Deux 06:41, 2 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 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kozmo 3

[edit]
Kozmo 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band Part Deux 07:05, 2 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:17Z

Evan Siegel

[edit]
Evan Siegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesnot seem to meet WP:PROF Alex Bakharev 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I have no idea or interest, but tagged it with {{WikiProject Azerbaijan}} to see if those folks think it worthy.

Keep for the moment, to let the WikiProject Azerbaijan folks give it a look. Realkyhick 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is Evan Siegel an Azeri? If not then I don’t see why you added Azeri tag to his biography! Siegel is one of the prominent experts on the middle east affairs and has many books and publications on the subject and well respected in the field! I added the article as a stub but someone removed the stub! I need time to gather some information and I am hoping others will start working on it too. Kiumars
John, its the only possible fit, so it is. DGG 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is MESA see http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/index.htm &
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:z0a_bqNCq-4J:fpnew.ccit.arizona.edu/mesassoc/MESA02/2002MO200.htm+mesa+%22Evan+Siegel%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en Kiumars

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiumars (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 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 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facial Hair February

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

Nonnotable internet fad. Shorelander 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Note that it is being listed here because the author removed the prod tag. Shorelander 07:32, 2 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 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aalwar - opening

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

Fangush. Article has been created to glorify the actor in the film in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hariharan91 (talk • contribs).

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

The result was Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs).

List of Philippine presidential trivia

[edit]
List of Philippine presidential trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - the title pretty much says it all. Trivia. Random collection of indiscriminate facts cobbled together for no clear purpose. Otto4711 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge potentially interesting/useful information (e.g., length of term, longevity, etc., but not births) into individual presidential articles (perhaps a "Trivia" section for each), then delete. Although I think the article should go per WP:NOT#IINFO, the information it contains is very well-referenced and some of it is relevant to the individual biographical articles. Black Falcon 08:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a trivia article.Realkyhick 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about United States Presidential trivia? If this Philippine Presidential trivia article is useless, then US Presidential trivias is too. Why not include it if you really think that list trivias can't constitute a good article. Some trivias aren't too emphasized actually. By the way, what part of WP:NOT#IINFO makes the article qualified for deletion? Is this a Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Travel guides, Memorials, Instruction manuals, Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases or maybe Things made up in school one day? Which is which? Kevin Ray 09:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article is up for deletion as well, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_Presidential_trivia (second nomination) Jerry lavoie 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, some of these appear to be in their own respective articles already; the home provinces are in the President of the Philippines article and on each article about a particular president; some are just downright silly, an example: "Three Presidents were born with a different name" Estrada's is a stage name, and the women presidents married so they changed their name, another one is "Only one president was born and died in the month of his birth", I mean, so what? --Howard the Duck 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this survives AfD, I suggest heavy editing to remove redundancy with related lists (Philippine presidents by date of birth, Philippine presidents by date of death, etc.). Dekimasuが... 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Howard the Duck says, there is some downright silly stuff here. It just doesn't make the notability grade. The significance of three presidents being born in March is what exactly? --Folantin 11:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - truly indiscriminate CRUFT, CRUFT, CRUFT, BABY. This really is indiscriminate in the truest sense of the word: just a collection of random facts. We are not here to publicise useless trivia. Put what has any encyclopedic significance whatsoever into the individual articles. Moreschi Deletion! 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to various articles, as much of it is very well sourced. --- RockMFR 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me, "trivia" is the antithesis of encyclopedic. If the information were worth including, it would be part of the articles of the individuals who held this office. Merge whatever is pertinent and delete this article. Agent 86 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia is not encyclopaedic; it is trivial. If any of the information is worth including, it should be included in one of the parent topics. GassyGuy 08:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But trim slightly. No good merge target. Some of the information is truly trivial and should be cut but some (like home provinces and the like) should be kept in a central article and this is a good way, IMO, to keep President of the Philippines from becoming bloated. Eluchil404 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles should be about something more than just trivia. Addhoc 10:59, 8 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 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English suffixes

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

See the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English prefixes, deleted earlier. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articl is only about word meaning and usage, with no encyclopedic context. We are in the process of moving these word lists to Wiktionary, and this one has been transwikied and is ready to be deleted now. It is merged into wikt:Appendix:Suffixes:English. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 2 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 Tsing Yi. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:16Z

Broadview Garden

[edit]
Broadview Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ching Nga Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serene Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– (View AfD) Prod contested by author as "Nominator did not notify authors", without improvement or assertion of notability. The stubs have been in existence since mid 2005, and remain stubs. Housing estates are not notable by consensus, and these developments are small and not particularly notable. Details have been merged into Tsing Yi. Furthermore, Ching Nga and Serene Garden data has also been merged into List of Home Ownership Scheme Courts in Hong Kong. Ohconfucius 07:51, 2 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 12:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zulu first names

[edit]
List of Zulu first names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:04, 2 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Davies (3rd nomination)

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

Speedy-deleted twice, but the original closer agreed to give it a full five-day run at AfD. Everybody's heard of him, now the question is: are there reliable sources? Procedural nomination, I profess opinionlessness. ~ trialsanderrors 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources now that verify the notability of Donnie Davies as a topic. A quick Google search of him turns up over 220,000 hits[17] and a search of his name and song turns up 22,000 hits[18]. Among the articles that acknowledge him as a spoof phenomenon are Spin[19] and The Washington Blade[20]. Other articles address his ideas (whether or not it is a fictitious persona) such as Philadelphia Weekly[21] or Cinema Blade[22]. It is also speculated that he is Joey Oglesby of the Chicken & Pickle Guys by Dan Savage in his blog with the Stranger, Slog[23]. The political content of this controversy has also attracted the attention of activists such as Heartstrong[24] and a petition has been started online for content removal from free sites[25].

In addition to the topic’s existence as an internet spoof, with evidence of becoming widely known, it exemplifies viral marketing but does not constitute spam per WP:Spam as the article itself is not an advertisement. The persona's notability is spread through the use of inflammatory content. The vast majority of the results of a Google search are blogs or forum chats. While they are not reliable sources, they are focal points of web-based interaction, and so a method of guerrilla marketing. As a viral marketing campaign, it is unique because its core communication is reliant on a pivotal point of a religious and political controversy; that is the religious contention that homosexuality is wrong. This is the root of its spread through the blogosphere as well as why the controversy over his actuality is so popular and its gain of cultural so important—particularly for people identifying with a sexually different culture. It is also why it is so culturally significant in its affect.

Advertising campaigns such as Get a Mac have their own articles regardless of the content being true or false. Guerrilla campaigns such as the 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare has been covered by Wikipedia and journalists even though coverage acts as more publicity. Personal campaigns popularized by web dissemination are also Wiki articles such as Lonelygirl15. Wikipedia covers the mentioned topics because of their cultural significance through our measure of notability that is dependent on verification. The notability of Donnie Davies is verified through multiple sources. Those named articles about advertisement pieces do not constitute spam as they are not advertisements, but explanations.

If the article were to follow the guidelines as stipulated by the Wiki Amnesia Test, would be about this topic as a controversy and the effect of it as a controversy. Understandably it does not meet the guidelines of a wiki biography, but since that isn't the intention then the point is moot. No different from articles like bigfoot or UFOs, it does not seek to establish the existence, but explain the growing topic. The only difference is its youth. Yes, the topics of bigfoot and UFOs are well-established and certainly have countless sources that address their cultural significance, but at the speed of which Donnie Davies as a topic is growing, it seems arbitrary to use its short-life as an argument against it.

To summarize: the article deserves a place because it has accumulated controversy over a heatedly debated religious and political conflict and utilizes it as an advertising campaign. It is not a biographical article, but an account of a campaign that is garnering cultural significance because it borrows from such a heated topic. It is not spam because the article addresses a variety of issues and does not seek to solely promote the persona. There are also multiple reputable sources that address the above reasons. --SquatGoblin

delete-by the article's own admission, unheard of until a week ago. Chris 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does this pertain to deletion in this case? If it never achieved notability, I would agree. But it seems that standard has been met. Gerta 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the multiple sources cited are trivial such as [Spin or The Washington Blade.--SquatGoblin 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conditional on updating the current article to reflect the new sources listed by SquatGoblin. Disclosure: I posted the current version. It was speedy deleted, and on review I was inclined to agree the sourcing was marginal and largeley circular. Given the coverage by several non-trivial sources in the interim, the article now appears to pass WP:N and WP:V if properly amended. The article should not (and does not) state conclusively whether this is a hoax (an unverifiable claim), but shoud discuss the (verifiable) controversy and provide the appropriate references. Without those additional, external sources, the article is susceptible to the criticisms in other votes above regarding sources. Gerta 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. Edits to the article (by another editor) reflect the additional sources. I would encourage others to check the updated sourcing in making a determination. Gerta 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically the same reasons as the original AfD. This really seems like a hoax or at best a piece of viral marketing, and in neither case should Wikipedia play a part in spreading it. Strong delete at least until there's some hard facts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be a hoax or simply a viral marketing campaign is part of a larger picture. The article isn't simply spreading the campaign or hoax but plays a part in assembling what composes it. There are many articles on Wikipedia that cover influential advertising campaigns. This one in particular is poignant because its core vessel for communication is dependent on a controversial religious and political issues (as self-evident by the song title "God Hates Fags"). I'm not sure I understand your difference of opinion. There are reliable sources (sources that have their own Wiki articles as journalists) that address this as a controversy. Please clarify where you need specific facts. --SquatGoblin 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost certainly a hoax, even if that can't be verified. But if it's a notable and verifiable phenomenon (regardless of whether claims of his identity are verifiable), how does this satisfy deletion criteria? Perhaps this is belaboring a point already mentioned, but wikipedia has plenty of articles where the "truth" cannot be determined and which few would suggest deleting (e.g. paranormal phenomena). Gerta 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Nobody pointed that out to me earlier! ha! --SquatGoblin 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, error fixed. Perhaps we could address the content of the discussion instead of putting down new users. -- Gerta 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think A Train's point was made in good humor at least, but I have to say that Wjhonson seems to have a good history of editting with a resilient barnstar no less! --SquatGoblin 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep If this figure is controversial enough that his videos can get censored from both youtube and myspace, then it is imperative that there be an article about him.--ScWizard 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep if for no other reason than to have information for people who want to learn about what types of videos get banned by YouTube.
  • Strong keep it is discussed on many sites, such as [26] not just those owned by him. If the problem is whether it's a 'biographical' article, rename the article "Donnie Davies controversy" to get around that. "Donnie" hints at more to come, so maybe we'll find out later if he's real or not, or what whoever-it-is is trying to do.Merkinsmum 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well-known Internet phenom covered with eight citations. To try to distinguish away all the citations will do violence to WP:RS.-- danntm T C 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's at least as 'relevant' as Jonathan Sharkey or Frank Chu. --Apeloverage 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as I think it is important that people have an opportunity to contribute their opposition to the views expressed.
Unlike criticisms of notability of verifiability, which I can't see in light of the references provided, WP:SPAM seems it could have some teeth here. I don't think Davies is "established as viral marketing," as it's not yet clear what he's promoting -- there's still lingering controversy over whether he's for real. (Though I agree he's a hoax, I don't think that's an objective conclusion.) But WP:SPAM does mention "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual," and this could fit the bill. I'm sticking with my keep vote for now, since I feel that Davies has generated enough controversy to warrant an entry despite his intentions, and inclusion seems in keeping with the spirit of the notability policy. But I think the spam consideration warrants discussion. Gerta 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Based on WP:Spam, it sounds like the article itself has to be a piece of advertisement, but this article critiques its method of campaign and its effects. More importantly, it discusses it as a hoax and rather than promote it as a hoax. Does the article read like an advertisement to you? YouTube and Google didn't remove the video for being spam by the way, it was removed by the request of a petition from people offended by the video. --SquatGoblin 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that WP:Spam seems more concerned with spammy articles rather than articles about spam. So I think the article holds up, but maybe others will chime in here? ... Gerta 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep FREEDOM OF SPEECH, no real harm done. People should leave it. Controversy is no reason to delete an informative page. What about all the Mom's wondering who their kids are talking about, and they want to use Wiki as their trusted resorce to find out?!!!!--70.171.14.118 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about freedom of speech or controversy, it's about the policy for content. I don't think anyone has argued that the controversy surrounding Davies is the problem; in fact, it seems to have contributed to his notability. Gerta 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person seems to be verifiable. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I was wondering who this guy was and what was known about the controversy surrounding him. While there are some stylistic problems with the article at the moment (some seems to be written from blog-insiders for blog-insiders), that can be corrected with a certain amount of editing. Deletion, on the other hand, would just increase the question marks. (I normally "inhabit" the German wikipedia, and came "over here" to check out this article because I figured I would find something at least halfway informative (I had heard about Davies on another German-language website that discusses the ex-gay phenomenon, not Wikipedia). When I saw that it was marked for deletion, I thought that it would be too bad if I had gotten interested next week instead of this week and the article were gone and I wouldn't have been able to find this collection of sources and links to relevant information.--Bhuck 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the article revolves around blogs at some points, and the fault is entirely my own -- it carried over from my original version of the article. I'll work to clean it up and get the focus back onto the stronger references, and I'll encourage others to do the same on the discussion page. Gerta 15:02, 6 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 George T McDonald; halt AFD for The Doe Fund due to cleanup - may re-nominate without prejudice if concerns haven't been addressed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:14Z

The Doe Fund and George T McDonald

[edit]
The Doe Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
George T McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a New York charity and its founder written by single purpose account user:TDFNY. Blatant COI. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 08:27, 2 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 fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSK-008 Dijeh

[edit]
MSK-008 Dijeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RMS-106 Hi-Zack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ENG-001 Estardoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RMS-019 Crouda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RMSN-002 Febral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RMSN-008 Bertigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DT-6600 Dautap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DTM-7000 Daughseat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Not one of these articles has any assertion of real world significance whatsoever. They are merely plot summaries.

Remember to rebut the points in the nomination when !voting keep. MER-C 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A plot summary is the editor who added it's interpretation of what happened on the show, unless it is sourced to the guys who created the show or similar reliable source. Hence original research. MER-C 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Far too much information here for a merge. riana_dzasta 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Riana said. Moreschi Deletion! 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beware the tendency to want to spew articles all over Wikipedia to show how much one likes something. A fictional work does not need to have every bit of its content placed on Wikipedia. The editors did a nice job of creating detailed articles about something which they like, but there are no sources independent of their original research to verify the information, and no independent sources to show the subjects of the numerous individual articles are notable to any but the diehard fans, so these articles fail WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N. Their time would be better spent creating and improving a single well written article, sourced to reliable and verifiable independent sources, and complying with WP:FICT. Articles could be created about any major characters, location, or gadgets which have multiple coverage in reliable independent sources, when those sections become too large for the main article.Edison 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a corporation can make vast profits off of plastic model kits of these "non-notable fancruft" that in and of itself is worth keeping. At this time I direct your attention to Gaplant. Is that "sourced" enough for you? This type of work is presently being undertaken in other articles as people who own the suitable references have time to do them. I stress that this kind of rapid deletion of multiple articles concurrent with one another will not beget a better Wiki environment, especially when there are efforts under way to clean them up. Cooler heads prevail. MalikCarr 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like plenty of sources and references to me. Jtrainor 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How much money being made is not the topic, nor is the tolerably sourced Gaplant. The article has been unsourced, failing WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FICT, and WP:N for over a FULL YEAR. Adding a bunch of links to Amazon.com does not a reference make. Please, for example, give me where I can find the source for the statements made in one article about "Karaba didn’t have many resources", or about the SE-DJ-1R Dijeh SE-R variant. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you view the criteria for "asserting real-world notability" in WP: Gundam, namely the section detailing "notability" as including having merchandise of the item in question manufactured. As far as your criticism of the article's content itself, you have valid points, but in any other situation this article would be tagged with a "needs sourcing" or "needs cleanup" tag, as opposed to an AfD which seems to be the norm when dealing with Gundam-related articles. That is the heavy-handedness I speak of. When a Gundam article needs cleanup, or possibly a rewrite, it gets an AfD. Huzzah.MalikCarr 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "Adding a bunch of links to Amazon.com does not a reference make"? If that's not a reference, you'd be surprised how many articles would be considered "unsourced" on Wikipedia. MalikCarr 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I decided to go ahead and jump the gun on this one, as it were. A cursory glance over the first few pages of a Wiki search for "amazon.com" turned up hundreds of articles whose primary, or only, sources are from Amazon.com. Here's a few I picked out at random.

[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

I've never even heard of any of these things before. Are they notable? Shall we delete them too? MalikCarr 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(grimly) Indeed almost none of them belong... and will be dealt with. I plan to see if there are any available sources for any of them, then CSD most of them, because they are not sourced or verifiable. And I agree: when things aren't sourced and they can easily be sourced then the answer isn't deletion. But when you have an article full of statements, none of which can be backed up, and then someone throws a bunch of almost identical links up that neither a) back up any of these ascertations made in the article or b) prove it's notability then no, they aren't valid. To answer your point about notability, WP:FICT is pretty firm that minor characters should be merged into main articles. You should know what sourcing is. MSZ-006_Zeta_Gundam is sourced. The links added to the articles in this AFD are not. Not only is this link in Japanese (thus we have no clue what it says) but a Google search fails to turn up anything to source most of the statements in that article with. No one is "gunning" for Gundam articles. As far as WP:GUNDAM's statements on notability, I would like to point out that first we go by policy, second, since I'm appearantly too tired to find what you're talking about, I'd like a link, and finally, if it IS manufactured, you'd think it would be somewhat easy to find a link in ENGLISH showing that. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English link showing that. You could even buy one if you want.
WP:Gundam#Wikipedia's Stand on Fictional Mechanical Units and Items - The Super Robot Wars mention is especially inclusive, since that has "real world notability" as a non-Gundam material.
If it's content in the article that's irritating the voters here, I would happily reword it to a more factual stance. I was operating under the impression that we are experiencing a purge of Gundam-related articles, starting with the mobile weapons themselves, for as of yet undisclosed reasons, and that no amount of cleaning up relevant articles would amount to anything. At any rate, I've provided an additional (non-Amazon.com) link with further evidence of real-world existence. MalikCarr 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more for good measure - This is a top-grade resin kit for serious modellers. MalikCarr 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that the article is astonishingly light on the real world notability you claim for it. The reason that you claim to see a run on Gundam articles is that , like your own notability guideline says , there are a LOT of them fail to have "any real world significant other than being one of the items in the series" , in which case "the real world impact is by the series itself instead of the mecha." An article on the various Karaba gundams would be fine, but the reason so many Gundam articles have been deleted -- in my opinion, since I only took part in a handful of the debates -- is that most of them simply don't have enough material to stand on their own. That's something WP:GUNDAM or even Wikia Gundam will have to consider. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is by no means a good article, or even a fair article. What baffles me is that, rather than attempt to improve it, the status quo here is to delete it. Presently, I am drafting a quick rewrite that will detail some of my above points (e.g. has two Bandai model kits in its likeness, appeared in the most-definately-notable Super Robot Wars series on numerous occassions, was piloted by Gundam franchise protagonist Amuro Ray, etc etc). I'd also like to clean up the language of the article as well, since the sentences don't flow well and are kinda jumbled in some areas. However, I really don't see much of a point in this endeavour, since far better articles have already been deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, according to a select few Wikipedians with a battery of people who will support their AfDs. I desperately try to assume good faith in these situations, but the heavyhandedness of these AfDs is really getting to me. MalikCarr 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would seem Bandai has done me the favor anyway. I forgot they had a North American English-language Gundam website up. How silly of me. The relevant page contains many of the contested points above. Is *this* enough of a reliable source? MalikCarr 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also gone ahead and added the relevant references, "non-reference" Amazon.com links as well as the Gundam Official page and what have you to the Hi-Zack article too. Just so we're clear on things, I believe the criteria erroneously suggested to delete these article(s) does hold true for some of the Gundam X mobile weapons that have been AfD's above. Gundam X hasn't seen much exposure outside Japan, and what's more, only its title mobile weapons have had merchandise made of them by Bandai, which, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be a good criteria for notability. MalikCarr 11:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not even going to debate my completely valid points anymore? Outstanding. Oh well, seems this article is going the way of the Dodo as well, seeing as the head count- I mean, "concensus" is coming up soon. MalikCarr 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy off-wiki. I would appreciate debating the larger issues of notability, reliable sources, etc somewhere else than here, preferably where a concensus can be worked out and something positive and good for the encyclopedia can be proposed. Please contact me via email. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:40, 6 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:11Z

List of Latin phrases

[edit]
List of Latin phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Latin phrases (full) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Latin phrases (A–E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Latin phrases (F–O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Latin phrases (P–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list of dictdefs, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Has been transwikiied to Wiktionary. The previous debate is here, the number of "I like it!(tm)" votes was rather shocking. And my purge of idiomatic lists has indicated that consensus has changed, somewhat.

Do not vote keep because they are useful or because you like it. MER-C 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep most of the words and phrases. The ones that do not have notable history or use should be taken out, but for the most part I expect an encyclopedia to list major Latin phrases, with explanations about their past and present usage. Phrases that should absolutely be kept would be ones that now have common use; e.g. "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur," "ad hitlerum," "fiat lux," "requescat in pace," etc. In a point of semantics, I understand why it can be tiring to hear "it is useful" repeated ad nauseum. I think the reason an article is useful should be noted; while indeed this may be useful as a dictionary (and this earning it a place in Wiktionary), it is also extremely useful in helping people to understand the sociality of such phrases, how the meanings have evolved, where it would and would not be appropriate to use them, et al. As for "I like it," well, we all like the same thing: Wikipedia and its governing principles as an encyclopedia. Not only do I expect this article to stick around, I expect it to become the summum bonum encyclopedic Latin article. I like it. (edit conflict) V-Man737 09:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful list, and beyond dic. def. quality, as the phrases become linked to articles that themselves are way beyond dic. def. See the recent stub I created for Carthago delenda est. Many of these Latin phrases, because of their antiquity, have attracted to themselves their own little history and have become encyclopedic. A list pulling them together is great. NB - I don't doubt that there are many entries that could be removed from each of the lists, but that's no argument for deletion. --Dweller 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and set up a bot to maintain the links to the Wiktionary articles when people wikilink et al, et al. Percy Snoodle 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/move. keep the list, but only the the used (not cited) phrases. Move the rest in wikiquote. Cate | Talk 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary --Boookabooo 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there... MER-C 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very useful article while is arguably outside the scope of a classic encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is in my opinion far superior. the scope of Wikipedia is without any doubt wider than that of a classic encyclopaedia. this article is also arguably outside the scope of a classic dictionary. most references have a historical and interesting background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnbo (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Individual Latin phrases can have articles if they're notable and there is something interesting to say about them, like Carthago delenda est. Those articles can be grouped into Category:Latin phrases. This list is bloated and unencyclopedic and properly belongs at Wiktionary only. —Angr 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per V-Man and Dweller. Not a dicdef; highly encyclopedic, as many of these Latin phrases have a long history and are used regularly in conversation. This is emphatically not a WP:ILIKEIT argument; there's nothing in WP:LIST that applies directly to this page, nor should it come under WP:WINAD. Some of the entries could be removed, but that isn't a reason for deletion per WP policy. Walton monarchist89 11:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I did that on purpose. ;-) V-Man737 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this list "clearly not an encyclopedic article?" By the criteria on that guideline, it meets the three different purposes that lists (not necessarily articles, as it seems you have applied the criteria to) are to serve. It fulfills Information by providing concise history and usage of each term. It fulfills Navigation by providing links to the articles that have been sufficiently developed. It meets Development as it shows which of those articles are present, which have been considered, and which have not yet been considered. Take, for example, "Non silba, sed anthar; Deo vindice" ("Not for self, but for others; God will vindicate"), the slogan used by the Ku Klux Klan. Wow! They have their own slogan? And it's in Latin? That is very encyclopedic. Chock-full of history and culture, I'd bet. Eventually the phrase will gather enough information to get its own article, and the list will then be able to link to it and one will be able to read all about how the phrase came into use and what its cultural impact has been. No dictionary claims the capacity to do that; only Wikipedia can. V-Man737 11:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see all lists like this moved out of article space, into "List:" space if you wish. This list is a (rather good) list of dictionary definitions and Latin idioms including their use, which does fail WP:NOT#DICT. Portal:Latin might be a good place for info like this, or some appendix. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the list had only definitions, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. But that third column of encyclopedic information is what decidedly qualifies it as Wikipedia quality.
There are things under "List:"? I didn't know that. V-Man737 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no List: namespace, but sometimes I think we should have one. Kusma (討論) 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I suggest you pursue it if you're not already, and I do agree there's way too many lists (and as I pointed out, this one is waaaay too long). I don't agree, though, that just because you believe no list should be in Wikipedia is a good reason for deleting it. UsaSatsui 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"List:" space would be quite useful, and would help us avoid confusion between mainspace and "list-space" material leading to discussions like this (although I am finding it rather enlightening). V-Man737 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful and encyclopaedic. It is entirely reasonable for an encyclopaedia to have a list of Latin phrases. Are we running short of disk space? If not I see no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there's already one at Wikiquote which is far better organized. Just redirect it there. Nescio sed Scio 17:58 GMT -6, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)(Made account to cover IP address)
It's at Wikiquote? Mind finding a link for us? While you're at it, can we get a link for the Wiktionary entry as well? V-Man737 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote Version There's your Wikiquote version. Now this last one is just retarded. It was on the Article Page which the tran-wiki box will direct you to. If you don't know how to use that, here it is: Wiktionary VersionI had to pull lots of strings to be able to get them..Nescio sed Scio 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Fixed the links) Your string-pulling is much appreciated! That said, both of those articles/entries are quite inferior to the wealth of information that the Wikipedia list has (Note in particular the lack of KKK slogans ;-). V-Man737 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why this should be trans-wikied to Wikiquote which is a better catergory for these phrases. Doesn't make any sense for it to be in a dictionary. Also, this Wikipedia version has been trans-wikied to Wiktionary, has it not? Therefore it must be an exact copy here and at Wiktionary. I still believe Wikiquote is the right place for it. Alia iacta est. Nescio sed Scio 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't get Wiki-coding very much. Also, as I've been reading along this pointless argument, I noticed some of your key points V-man. I support in the fact that some singualy phrases should own their own spot on Wikipedia(e.g. your KKK motto), but a list of them should still just appear on Wikipedia. Famous phrases and key sayings are a must in Wikipedia(e.g. my alia iacta est). Nescio sed Scio 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thou sayest. V-Man737 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is much more to these phrases than a simple literal translation that can be afforded through a dictionary. The common use as well as historical significance ensures them a spot in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. We must understand that some of the important dimensions of these sayings would be ignored by a simple dictionary article. The current encyclopedia article should remain as a much more in depth source aiding in the understanding of all dimensions of these phrases.Ringleader1489 02:48, 6 Feb 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Lists of phrases with such a great historical importance should belong to Wikipedia IMHO. --Emc² (contact me) 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's useful and I like it. (I was really tempted to put that in red.) Everyking 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/replace - there should definitely be an article on modern usage of latin phrases in academia/literature/public discourse, but the index of these phrases belongs in Wiktionary ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First I'm going to say 'because its useful and because I like it' lol. The fact that when this page came up for deletion it before it got squashed flat begs the question why is it up again. Its an important resource and deserves its place on wikipedia as much as it does on wiktionary. I can see this page being very useful for a great many users searching the encyclopedia. If i went to find a phrase for the State motto of South Carolina I would search for it on wikipedia. Also I don't think that the WP:NOT#DICT argument holds much weight in this case. It seems to me that its for prevent individual words with a definition being added as an 'article'? Thats not the case on this page its a translation for an entire phrase many of which have historic and cultural importance. -- Shimirel (Talk) 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The list contains historical context, and serves as a navigation aid to other articles. Reducing to a category would lose information. Latin phrases are highly notable as a class, distinct from the notability of individual phrases. The list permits browsing and comparison in a way that separate artices would not. As for encyclopedic nature, the 14th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article on legal maxims that was not much more than a selection from this list in paragraph format. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And may I take this opportunity to express my great displeasure at seeing such a leading remark, "do not vote keep because they are useful or because you like it" (in bolded red, yet) heading the page. Even AfD nominations can respect encyclopedic neutrality. — Athænara ✉ 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apart from being useful and likeable (yes, I've read that essay), I think the list has encyclopedic merit as well; to elaborate: the introduction of Latin terms into the English language is a significant part of our coverage of the languages themselves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopaedia, it's a collection of any information that could be useful, even if that means usurping data that is better suited for sister projects like Wiktionary. Plus, this has the entries arranged alphabetically, allowing for a far better navigation than that of Category:Latin phrases. Oh, and I like it. Plus, it's interesting. Also, we have other lists of stuff and this is better than some of them. If you delete this, you'll have to delete every list in Wikipedia! GassyGuy 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is full of notable quotes and provides information of historical, etymological and linguistical interest. It might be best to chop down the list a bit though.Comment I know this is nit-picking but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. At least that's what Jimbo Wales and the Five Pillars of Wikipedia sayYuanchosaan 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delendum regretfully. These are better placed at wikitionary or wikiquote. I would support a merge of alea iacta est, Ecce homo, et cetera into a new "List of Latin phrases" article with reasonably tough standards of notability for inclusion, or a "Use of Latin in English" article explaining the history of using Lating quotes and phrases in English texts, but neither of those what we have before us. What we have is a list of quotes and dict-defs which runs squarely afoul of WP:NOT. Eluchil404 09:39, 8 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 12:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the generic zombie movie

[edit]

The article seems to be maintained solely by people (a person?) directly connected to the film. V-Man737 09:00, 2 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) 2007-02-08 10:08Z

Legends of Cosrin

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

NN online game, fails WP:WEB. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Delete - citation added from game creator's diary. Unless contested will remove delete notice in 48 hours. 17:31, 2 February 2007 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.44.193 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment the citation certainly proves the game exists, but that's not disputed. The citation doesn't show any way in which the game passes the notability criteria. Please don't remove the deletion notice - that's for the admins to do when they've decided on the arguments presented here. Percy Snoodle 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - no direct evidence of notability and no independent or third-party sources, but the existence of two "unofficial forums" could indicate that it has a large fan base. Nonetheless, delete unless more sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 11:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank. MER-C 12:35, 2 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 It was already speedy deleted before under Bleed. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed (band)

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

Non-Notable. A lot of it seems like advertising, also there seems to be a lot of errors as far as Wiki-scripting is. Jamesbuc

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 Alex Bakharev 10:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Balahonov

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

I originally deleted this as a non-notable autobiography. Article was created by User:Drand here and the subject is "better know n as drand" is the evidence of autobiograpy. There is no evidence of notability given in the article as all the external links are in Russian. The only links I could find at google for Andrew Balahonov in English were to do with his software and again gave no evidence of notability. Even going through drand.org shows nothing to supply any evidence of notability. Delete CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:02, 2 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 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodime

[edit]

Does not pass WP:CORP Alex Bakharev 10:24, 2 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 GNOME in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:07Z

GoneME

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

Fork of GNOME that lasted around a week. There was one slashdot article posted about it at the time, but other than that I think this is non-notable. fraggle 10:42, 2 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 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian hip hop

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

Non-notable sub-genre, which has no (or very few) independant notable artists representing it Sfacets 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it OR to keep an article about the hip hop scene in a major country?--Urthogie 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources, it could potentially be (as Postdlf says) "the assessment of some armchair music critics". That's why anything needs to be sourced, to make certain that it's not just my opinion or yours, but something verifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are already articles for overlapping genres (like the "Asian Underground".) it is entirely unnecessary to have an entire article on a sub 'genre' that relies on remixes and has very little original content or presece outside filmi and bhangra genres. Sfacets 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure to what standard "Non-notable sub-genre" is being applied, but a quick look at American music includes many obscure and niche sub-genres. That said, someone knowledgeable about the genre adding sources would be a great help. --Colage 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the concerns because the article is pretty awful and is not really about hip hop musicians from India. However, the fact is that these artists do exist, even if there number and popularity is limited (not that I have been convinced that this is indeed the case). Perhaps the article should be stubified so that it's made clearer that the article should be about hip hop music in India. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could definitely do with citations and clean-up, but topically it deserves to be on Wikipedia. It is a very large and growing genre in the Asian subcontinent and I would assign it more to the region as a whole because stylistically it incorporates traditional music from that are and not simply Indian music while maintaining a common bond. There is much to be said about describing it as Desi hip-hip. Perhaps noting artists that have a good amount of wiki coverage already like, Panjabi MC? --SquatGoblin 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable phenomenon, although mainly in secondary influence (short bits in mixing of Bollywood songs) and in diaspora. --Soman 10:16, 5 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 13:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craven Arms (Coventry)

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

I am making a suggestion that this page is deleted. I am not sure that the history of these buildings are notable in itself. Snowman 22:45, 1 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 Jimfbleak, CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Waste Services Ltd

[edit]
Independent Waste Services Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable and probable spam Jvhertum 11:15, 2 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 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerodix

[edit]

Not notable hacker Alex Bakharev 11:35, 2 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 all. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:05Z

Love to Love (Season 1)

[edit]
Love to Love (Season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inappropriate page. Unsourced, possible copyright violations, and it is an article for a single season of a non-notable television series. Shrumster 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because as with the first article, they are all articles for each "season" of a television program shown in the Philippines. Note, in the Philippines, a "season" of a television series does not correspond to 1-per-year as it is in other countries. As seen in the parent article, Love to Love (TV show), the show was only shown for 4 years and is not even that notable.

Love to Love (Season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love to Love (Season 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:03Z

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION ON BHOPAL

[edit]
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION ON BHOPAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
International Medical Commission on Bhopal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a fragment of a primary document Alex Bakharev 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the primary author of this page and also a physician member of this group who has worked on the disaster. The material has been adapted & amended from the references mentioned, but is not a fragment. I am the author of reference 3. The author of reference 1 has also contributed to the material. There are no copyright violations. If there are specific objections or suggestions, please mention in this discussion. Rdhara, MD--Rdhara 13:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it just needs wikifying to tidy it up, and the title shouldn't be in caps. I'll do some of this now and then see how it goes. Totnesmartin 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Totnesmartin 21:28, 3 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 per CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Cannon Forums

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

Article about a webforum established in October 2006. No assertion of notability and doesn't have a chance of passing WP:WEB, especally with only 66 registered members. The article is mostly original research by the sites administrator (WP:COI) with no sources referenced. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 2 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 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And It's Arsenal

[edit]
And It's Arsenal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability for this song, despite one being requested from the page author. Football chants for a specific team are generally not notable, unlike well known songs/chants like Who Ate All the Pies? One Night In Hackney 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons. This one is actually a well known chant but isn't team specific, so while it may be worth mentioning in a different article there is no need for a team specific article.

We all follow the Arsenal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 21:08, February 4, 2007.
  • Bad idea. You should have made it a separate AfD - it is never good idea to alter the terms of reference of an AfD after a significant number of comments have been added (especially as over 48 hours have elapsed between the original nomination and the addition); despite the similarity of topics all of the comments before the addition still only apply to only the original article. All articles nominated for AfD should be given due process, and not just tacked onto the end of other AfDs. Advice to closing admin - any binding decision should be made with respect to the original article nominated and the second article should be given a separate, new AfD. Qwghlm 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it counts for anything I'd also !vote to delete the second article. Again there's no proof that Arsenal started that chant, it's used by many many clubs, and there isn't really anything much ti say about it anyway.. ChrisTheDude 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm well aware all comments before the addition only apply to the original article, which is why I specificallly messaged all users involved to date as stated above. I would suggest the closing admin weighs up all subsequent !votes and decides whether a new Afd would produce a different result. There is ample precedent for Afds being closed early per WP:SNOW, and in my opinion the second article has no chance of surviving Afd, whether it be one lasting for three days, five days or ten days. One Night In Hackney 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the "modification" you refer to isn't specific to Arsenal - at Gillingham we sing "Over land and sea and Swindon"..... ChrisTheDude 11:25, 5 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) 2007-02-08 10:01Z

A.D. McLain

[edit]
A.D._McLain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

First, this article appears to be self-promotion. Secondly, she's had one book published by a minor publishing company; hardly something that merits note-worthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowamutt (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 22:19:18

File:Ad mclain.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Rodeo buzzy.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Delete few google references, one book buried at the bottom of the search list on Amazon. May be relevant some day but for now let's leave a crater where this article used to be. SmartGuy 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Amanda McLain-Young (the person in question in this article). I did not create this article, and I am actually shocked at some of the information here. It is all true, but I do not know how this information was obtained. I never even sang "Back Roads" in public. I can authenticate the information here, if that is necessary. Feel free to email me at [email protected] if you need any further information or verification.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eryn Vorn

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

This place is never visited in LOTR. It does not warrant an encyclopedia page. It might be useful as part of a listing of places never visited, but not in its own article. --User:Hereiam2 1 February 2007 13:29 UTC

  • Delete - zero real world significance, unsourced. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:OR, fancrufty conjecture. Moreschi Deletion! 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pardon me for not knowing how to comment properly on these articles. However, I'm not sure how this item merits deletion. Simply because it was not visited in the LotR in no way makes it less of an item in the Middle-Earth canon. Also, whatever 'fancrufty conjecture' is, it doesn't appear to be that. It appears to reference Tolkien's few writings on the subject. Further, I don't see how one person can say it's a plot summary and the next says that it was never visited in LotR... Which is it? How can you summarize what was never visited? Lastly, as for real world significance, this is an article about a fictional location in Tolkien's Middle-Earth legendarium. None of the entries have any real world significance. Want to delete them all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.112.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Willing to reconsider if secondary sources can be provided establishing the subject's notability (in the real world). --maclean 02:23, 6 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 with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Jerry lavoie 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get down

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

Non-notable neologism--Thomas.macmillan 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be a neologism-- the article linked to, and others I searched for only referred to get down as verb, not as a noun, as the article suggests.--Urthogie 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search again http://www.google.com/search?q=%22get+down%22+dance+african&start
No argument from me that content on African cultures on Wikipedia are weak content wise, superficial and even sometimes racist. But this article does not help that; it is just another unhelpful neologism.--Thomas.macmillan 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a neologism, I just added some more sources. This is an old old old dance stance. Possibly one of the oldest. It's cracking me up that you think it's a neologism!futurebird 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have added a blog written by a non notable magazine, Futurebird. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I may be. Otherwise this doesn't count. Especially since the reference to get down is in quotes, which you strangely never see other dance positions referenced in.--Urthogie 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source I added is book, not a blog. Take a look at it again. The link is to a blog, but the source of the quote is a book. futurebird 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I find it humorous that the disambiguation page for "get down" lists several songs, many of which are excrutiatingly non notable. Yet, the article (as yet a mere stub) treating the phenomenon which is the source of the phrase in these songs (as well as the noun and verb in AAVE) is a candidate for deletion. Did it ever occur to anyone that people might wonder about the origin and meaning of that phrase -- "get down" -- which is the title of all those songs? Or, the origin of the phrase in AAVE slang? I saw the need to begin an article that would explain the cultural phenomenon, how it has survived in the African diaspora, how it has transformed Western/modern dance movement -- particularly in the U.S. -- and its related meanings in AAVE. This move to delete the article is wrong-headed and absurd -- particularly since the article hasn't even been developed yet. Yes, it needs to be expanded, but it's a definite keep. deeceevoice 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why does the dance move always seem to be referenced in double quotes if its an established move?--Urthogie 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because, unlike European dance, black dance has only a fairly recent tradition, if at all, of being codified. Furthermore, "get down" is not one, specific move, per se; it's a posture with different variations, given the often improvisational and spontaneous nature of black/African dance. And even though the posture is significant and important; it has meaning, it's not rigid or codified like, say, a pas de deux or plie in ballet. The get-down in a ring shout is different from the git down in breakdancing.[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Cakewalk, Black Bottom, Charleston, Lindy Hop, popping, locking, breaking, krumping, Yankadi, Macru, Moribayasa, Agbekor, Agahu, Kpanlogo. It seems like black dance is pretty well codified in both Africa and America.
Affixing titles to dances is a far cry from breaking up a dance up into its constituent parts, prescribing precisely how each movement or pose/posture is to be executed and then naming each one. Please! deeceevoice 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to your point about Get down referring to several types of dance, one would expect such an overarching style of move to be equally, if not more codified than the specific dances I listed-- but its not...?--Urthogie 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said. And, again, get down is not a singular movement; it is a general posture (which has no prescribed appearance, except that it must be executed with limbs flexed/bent, the waist bent, the torso relatively low to the ground) -- which may be arrived at from/through the execution of a variety of moves. deeceevoice 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to lean towards a weak keep after doing a google scholars search. However, the article seems to treat it differently than the scholars, who refer to it as a "quality" of specific dances. Check out this search. I'll vote for a keep if the article reflects the literature more.--Urthogie 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs aren't conditional. Vote keep or delete. I just began the article; it's a stub. It deserves the chance to develop -- just as any other article on any other legitimate topic. deeceevoice 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, but AfD is for not voting. We are trying to build a consensus, not a democracy.--Thomas.macmillan 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah -- right. It seems to me if you truly were interested in consensus, you would at least have tried to engage the editors on the article talk page instead of going straight to an AfD. deeceevoice 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After considering everything, I believe the best solution to this article is a redirect to [36] Culture of Africa- Music and Dance--Thomas.macmillan 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to put in in there. This needs its own article. futurebird 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get down is an international phenomenon -- and putting it there doesn't help explain how it's morphed into something which has lent its name to all those pop songs with articles of their own. It deserves a stand-alone article. deeceevoice 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a source that mentions Get down more than one time? Are there ANY sources that describe the movement in any detail? If you can, than it is not a neologism. Until then, I stand by assessment as such.--Thomas.macmillan 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noted the complete absence of any discussion of this matter on the article talk page (which remains utterly, completely blank) before this AfD was filed? The person who initiated this action made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss this subject, its true nature or relevance, before taking such a precipitous action. It easily could be interpreted as smacking/stinking of intellectual arrogance ("I'm not aware of this, so it doesn't exist; it's made up!"), and/or bad faith! deeceevoice 06:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale professor and authority on indigenous African cultures Robert Farris Thompson addresses "get down" extensively in his critically acclaimed African Art and Motion and places it within an overall framework of what he calls the "cannons of line form." Thompson addresses get down beyond physical movement and explains how it influences, and is influenced by, the music itself. Thompson states that much of West African music is characterized rhythmically by inclines and declines, both gradual and steep -- crescendos of polyrhythms. (If you've ever heard the drumming of, say, Babatunde Olatunji, then you know what he's referring to.) That's get down.

Thompson also notes the prevalence of the get-down pose/posture in traditional African sculpture, as well -- knees bent, some figures appearing to be squatting. In another venue, Thompson discusses "get down" and capoeira and likens the latter to breakdancing:

During the warm-up exercises, I noticed nothing special – just jumping jacks and leaps and stretches of the kind you’d see at a New York Giants workout in August. But then, in a classic coach’s voice, Vieira led them into the specialized gymnastics of capoeira, and the movements entered the get-down zone[emphasis added]. They looked as if they were break-dancing.

Others have noted the phenomenon using other language. From an article on the history of swing dance:

Lindy Hop, also known as Jitterbug, is the authentic Afro-Euro-American Swing dance. It is an unabashedly joyful dance, with a solid, flowing style that closely reflects its music -- from the late 20's hot Jazz to the early 40's Big Bands. Just as Jazz combines European and African musical origins, Lindy Hop draws on African and European dance traditions. The embracing hold, and the turns from Europe, the breakaway and solid, earthy body posture from Africa [emphasis added].

Here's [37] an article on the web about African art and dance that repeatedly refers to the same "gimme de knee bone bent" aesthetic noted among enslaved Africans in the United States, which so characterizes, still, African American dance. Check out what's been happenin' on the streets of Queens and Harlem.[38][39][40]

The Gahu dance form referred to in the article user Thomas.macmillan precipitously has nominated for deletion is something called a ring shout -- it's a spiritual, transcendent experience. The ring shout is performed across black Africa and in the African diaspora, including in the American South. It's a get-down -- performed feet shuffling, arms akimbo, knees bent. Author and historian P. Sterling Stuckey, in his, IMO, masterwork Slave Culture: Nationalist Theory and the Foundations of Black America, also described the phenomenon of the ring shout in African-American culture, its African origins and its obvious get-down characteristics. As the shout intensifies, the dancers' movements get stronger, the rhythms beat out by the feet get more percussive, and the dancers' torsos get lower to the ground. And they always move counterclockwise. Like southern black folks in the praisehouses and hush harbors, secreted away from the prying eyes of whites and those who would rebuke or punish them for their "uncivilized" manner of worship. Like African-American jazz legend/genius Thelonius Monk jumping up from his piano in the middle of a song, inspired, eyes closed almost trance-like, shuffling around -- counterclockwise. White folks in the audience were amused, mystified. "What the hell's he doing?" Answer: the "Moments of the Sun" -- the persistence of African culture and of African memory! deeceevoice 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAVE phrases like "Git-downs," "breakdown" as dance [41], the phrase "get down (on) it," "get-down," "gettin' down," "break it (on) down" (in certain contexts) all come from either the posture/motion or the intensity of get down in an African context.

Incidentally, if you click the above link and follow on down the page, there are links to various other African American dances. Note the bent-knee, "low-down" postures of virtually all, if not all (I didn't investigate them, but I know most of the names), of them. deeceevoice 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deecee, I hope you add all of this great stuff to the article-- I mean so it's not a stub anymore-- I don't think we need to worry about it being deleted at this stage! Wow! futurebird 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No time right now. I've been playing hooky, but I've got some serious deadlines to attend to now. This is an easy way to pull together resources to come back to later -- besides, I'm enjoying destroying the argument that this is a "non-notable neologism." (I ain't heard narruh peep outta MacMillan fuh sum tahm nah. Wunda wey dat bwoi dun wint 2! :p) deeceevoice 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was (and is still, more or less) a stub. "Borderline"? You should never have opened this in the first place. Next time, try discussing your concerns with editors first, snowball. :p You can avoid getting trounced in an RfP -- not to mention it's the sensible/obvious thing to do. WP:SNOW, indeed. That's a new one on me -- but very apropos here. deeceevoice 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it because it, in my mind, was a neologism with no references, not because it was a stub.--Thomas.macmillan 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs, by their very nature, are articles in the making. Again, when you have an objection to an article, or a question, the appropriate and courteous thing to do is discuss it first -- before running to open an RfD. You jumped the gun, plain and simple. If you'd merely taken the time to ask questions about something about which you clearly know very little, this could have been avoided in the first place. You wrote not a single word on the article discussion page before opening this failed attempt to eradicate it. deeceevoice 05:10, 4 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 preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:59Z

List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

[edit]
List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Directory list with no apparent encyclopedic need. An enormous list of non-notable people. Vegaswikian 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much just what the nominator said: an enormous list of non-notable people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm T C 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Student politicians often become notable real-world politicians, as some of the people on this list have already become. --Eastmain 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If someone from this list becomes notable enough for an article, then write an article. Otto4711 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator, a list of all people will consist of some that will become notable later, but we don't have that. We don't need this list either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 08:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong keep - why do we keep digging up AfDs that have failed until they pass? It's not good enough - there's no more reason why it should be deleted now than it did in the past two nominations - I call on the nominator to explain why this is any different to beforehand. There MUST be a distinction made between the individuals on this page, which are not inherently notable, and the roles that the people have held, which have aided hundreds of thousands of students and have led some notable campaigns for students' and other rights over the past few years - this is a notable organisation and its leaders are notable. Some of these people already have their own article and if history is anything to go by, some of these people will end up in high political and other positions in Australia - while that is not certain, the roles the people play make it notable enough to keep on its own merits; this article only exists because it is a subset of the National Union of Students page, and would be too big to fit there. Let's stop this nonsense in continually bringing up articles to be deleted simply because someone doesn't like it and didn't like the previous outcome. JROBBO 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And conversely, the vast number will never be notable. Also the previous AfDs resulted in no consensus. So basically there was no decision made that this article should be kept. The article could be more acceptable from a notability basis if it only covered the national offices, so maybe deleting all of the state sections could help move to a consensus. Vegaswikian 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DXRAW 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Organisation and each of its past leaders is notable, given that they appear in various mainstream, not to mention campus, media every few months. One could argue that OBs besides the President and Gen Sec are non-notable. Suggest moving nn information to the article's talk page so it's at least recorded somewhere? Joestella 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - it's probably a bit of an exaggeration - but even for the hundreds of thousands of university students who never used the services of NUS up till the end of Compulsory Student Unionism, they were *there* to represent their interest in any case. I'm all for Joe's proposal above though - it's a good compromise. JROBBO 11:34, 4 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. Bucketsofg 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's Father

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

This is a useless and uneccesary article that does not meed the standards of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhindle The Red (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 18:21:39

  • Speedy Delete this might even stand under Speedy Delete. Completely useless. Darthgriz98 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified.-- danntm T C 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOR. Not to mention that canon is what George Lucas says it is; while the subject of the evolution of the character relationships is rather interesting in and of itself, it has no direct bearing on canon. (And in any case, as far as the development of character relationships, such material has been written far more effectively and properly by dedicated fanboys who have far better research skills than the author of this article.) Haikupoet 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure speculation and nonsensical. Even if a source could be found to confirm that George Lucas came up with the Darth-as-Daddy angle after A New Hope came out, which to my knowledge is not the case, this would be worth little more than a footnote in the Darth Vader article. 23skidoo 07:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect Luke Perry's father? Biblical Luke's father? Come on. JuJube 23:00, 3 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 Protoscience in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:58Z

Prescientific system

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

Original research. Speedy delete. DoctorIsOut 21:10, 1 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) 2007-02-08 09:57Z

Tom Curtis (artist)

[edit]
Tom Curtis (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Erupt.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Reason: Not notable. No published material reviewing the artist's work. No significant recognition cited. Artwork may be very good, but citations provided do not support inclusion on Wikipedia. Bus stop 15:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article has references. If the article is weak, fix it rather than taking it to AfD. --Eastmain 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm happy to keep if an artist has a viable track record of milieu/shows/reviews/media mentions etc. that indicates they have some niche within the contemporary art world. Everything here indicates the artist currently does not, but is "emerging" at a fairly early stage. Even the article says in the 1990s "did not exhibit widely" and only in 2000 "began exhibiting again", while his statement on absolutearts is, "I am currently seeking quality exhibition opportunities." Sorry, that's not enough. When he gets the exhibition opportunities, then we can keep an article. This is no reflection on his integrity or quality of work per se, merely that we have certain minimum inclusion requirements that must be demonstrated. Tyrenius 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Soltak | Talk 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Current and upcoming exhibition track record is included in article. References to exhibition opportunities and history have been removed.Tikitom9 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tikitom9's only edits are Tom Curtis-related. Tyrenius 00:40, 2 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 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin rivers r-10 school district

[edit]

Contested prod. No context, and therefore hard to verify, judge notability, improve the article, etc. →EdGl 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. School districts, like municipalities, should be considered automatically notable as government bodies. Besides, people sometimes argue that an article on an individual school should be merged into the article for the appropriate school district, and if we start deleting school districts, it won't be possible to merge school articles that way. Besides, school districts sometimes take in several different municipalities, so they often can't be merged into the article for a single municipality or county. --Eastmain 18:32, 2 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 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling-Radio

[edit]

Not noteworthy, Alexa rating is 1,003,062 (http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wrestlingradionetwork.com%2F). Most likely just some way for the creators to get cheap exposure. --Raderick 04:51, 2 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; I suggest finding a way to merge this article into a broader topic. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:55Z

Gym floor cover

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

WP:CORP, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. Overspecific article on nonnotable product, a clear attempt to establish a presence within Wikipedia. Creator is User:Gymfloorcover, presumably affiliated with, or the owner of http://covermaster.net/. Repeated attempts to place links to the company, also through restrictively licensed images [42] (possible copyright problem, taken from the company website, no confirmation of permission). A related IP spammed internally [43][44][45] for the article. Specific product codes were named (apparently now rowing back testing how much promotion is too much promotion). Basically the article could be redirected to tarp, but there are no independently added incoming links, so delete as nominator. Femto 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.
1) It looks like nominator's request (Femto) has little to do with the topic of the article. This is quote from the user Femto "I don't doubt that the topic is notable..." posted on December 6, 2006 on the Talk page. Now she/he contradicts herself/himself by calling this topic non notable.
2) This request for deletion came as a personal retaliation (WP:CIVIL) after my post on the talk page. User Beaker342 did not provide any constructive feedback even though I asked her/him to point out what can be improved or what in particular in the text does not comply. She/He initially came with the idea that this page needs to be deleted, she/he never had any improvement suggestions or intentions to do so.
3). User Femto is not acting in the good faith by accusing me of intentional spamming. Here's why:
a) External link to the inventor's site was placed to distinguish this company from a similar brand that has nothing to do with gym floor covers. Please see for yourself: http://www.covermaster.net vs. http://www.covermasterinc.com.
b) Femto is accusing me of not having permission to use images on the site. I have such permission. I would appreciate your advice on how I can make it more prominent, so that I don't have any troubles with copyright licensing.
c) Femto is accusing me of using restrictive license for these images. I would like them to stay copyrighted in such a way that other people can use them if they give a credit to the author. Again, any suggestions on how to improve this licensing business would be welcome.
d) Femto is accusing me of internal spamming. In fact, a message from Wikipedia bot encouraged me to interconnect my article with related topics. I posted my suggestion where I though they would be relevant. I've never spammed those locations. If editors wanted to remove those links they were free to do so.
e) Femto is accusing me of the following "testing how much promotion is too much promotion". This is definitely not acting in the good faith. This user has no insight in my intentions and should not speculate on this. At some point I've mentioned a brand of the product just to be accurate what's illustrated on the picture. My reasoning was that if you were to compare, for example, two tanks you would mentioned you're comparing T-34 and Ferdinand rather than saying "this is green tank vs. gray tank". Later, I've decided that this might be offensive to some editors and removed the brand name. Now I'm the bad person for removing this.
f) Femto suggests redirecting this article to tarp without realizing that gym floor cover is not a raw material, plastic or tarp. It is a large flat surface product that is produced with unique knife coating process that allows to blend multiple layers with different textures, colors and other technical characteristics. The inventor has patents and pending patents for this manufacturing process. This is environmentally friendly product that saves hardwood floors (read trees) all over in North America.
g) Beaker342 refers to Lexisnexis. Can please anyone confirm this is an official tool used by Wikipedia? Thanks.
With this being said, I would like other editors to read this article over and help me with improvement suggestions. Thank you!
Gymfloorcover 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) It is a tongue in cheek reply to your comment that the article was "created to educate people about gym floor covers as a product" (which may be read as "advertising"). Even so, there's a difference between something deserving a mention in an encyclopedia and devoting a whole article to it. Especially when the only major editor of that article is a manufacturer of the product. Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a manufacturer. Your assumption is incorrect.
Replace with "vendor of the product and their agents" then. Femto 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) No it didn't. I think the article should be deleted, saw that I'm not the only one, and brought it to the appropriate place for discussion.
  • 3b) There is no proper confirmation of permission, without which copyrighted company material cannot be used. I already pointed you to the appropriate guidelines on your talk page. Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exact wording would be most appropriate?
  • 3c) This is not an accusation but plain fact. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You restrict the use in such a way that these images can only be used if your comany gets some free promotion. Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a photographer takes a picture it is fair to expect he would not be happy if someone uses it without a proper credit. If a photographer transfers ownership rights to a company, they would want the same treatment. Now, what type of licensing do you recommend in this case?
It's not the photographer but your company that must be credited. Such images are simply not appropriate to use in a free encyclopedia, no prettified licensing can change this. Femto 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3d,e) The IP that added these internal as well as external links [46][47] is registered to QualityIntegrity SEO Marketing, a company providing services for internet marketing, website promotion, and search engine optimization. Covermaster.net is a customer of that company. I think this gives a very interesting insight in the intentions behind this article.
  • My IP is different. I've checked the one suggested by you, and it belongs to someone else.
"And it belongs to someone else"...who is demonstrably paid by covermaster.net to promote their company, you mean. The article is an obvious violation of WP:COI. Femto 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3g) There are no official tools, fact seems that the term sees little use outside the companies that try to sell this product.
Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or maybe redirect if a good one is suggested? Tarp does not seem like a good idea to me). It appears to me that this is something which is frequently done, if there was only one company doing this then I'd be supporting deletion (unless independent sources etc.. could be found). But because this has a wider user I suggest that it be rewritten less as an advertisement and more generically etc... Mathmo Talk 05:05, 3 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 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton Hong Kong Hotel & Towers

[edit]

Does not seem to be the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Google has 132,000 hits for "Sheraton Hong Kong" (quoted), but all except two of the top twenty hits are directories of hotels, which may be trivial. The other two are as a venue of a conference and the Wikipedia page itself. Most of the next twenty hits are of a similar vein. May be more appropriate for Wikitravel. Saligron 14:05, 2 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 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value of the United States

[edit]
Value of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned, uncited POV article, likely original research. Author has not edited since posting in late December. Subject is covered in other articles already. SmartGuy 14:11, 2 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, no delete vote PeaceNT 02:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4i2i Communications

[edit]
4i2i Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Wikipedia is not geocities. Article fails to establish notability Speedy Keep, contributors have made a sufficient claim of notability and found a reputable source Tomstdenis 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4i2i Communications - this article should not be deleted, as it links to various academic resources describing the creation of hardware video codecs. In my opinion this is an invaluable addition (there are not other articles in Wikipedia that I have found thoroughly dealing with the topic) and as such should stay.

It's a commercial article that links to other wiki pages. Still doesn't answer the challenge of notability. The subject (4i2i) itself must be notable to be included. They're hardly the only video codec vendor or designer in the world (also, don't edit other peoples comments). Tomstdenis 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also what links are you talking about? They link to H.264 and HDTV. That's hardly an authorative list of video codec resources. Also, please sign your posts. I noticed that you're posting from BT (British Telecom). You wouldn't happen to be affliated with 4i2i would you? Tomstdenis 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company is notable as a provider of H.264 hardware codecs of which there are few in the world. I agree that there are many video codec vendors, but the total number of H.264 Hardware video_codec providers worldwide that ship FPGA compatible implementations is about two. I was referring to links to Xilinx specific academic papers in the 4i2i Communications article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.190.248 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
How is that notable? H.264 is a new standard which is why there are few implementations of it. I seriously doubt that they're alone in that respect though. There are many companies which offer unique products, that doesn't make them notable. If you want to argue for notability, start by finding third party unaffliated references that talk about 4i2i's technology or place in society. Just listing products does not notability make. Tomstdenis 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should add [48] to the discussion. There are MANY H.264 providers it seems. That 4i2i is at the top does not make them notable (for instance, nobody links to their H.264 page). Tomstdenis 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles Aberdeen and Economy_of_Scotland show the company's place in society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.190.248 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That only proves that 4i2i is a company in Scotland. That doesn't prove notability. Anyone with enough money for a business license can form a company. I should add that the linked articles only mention 4i2i, they don't discuss it (e.g. why is it notable?). Tomstdenis 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though there are many SOFTWARE and ASIC implementations of H.264 there are few (only one?) FPGA implementations.
So what? Why is that notable? We often test our hardware in FPGAs as well. We don't consider that a wikipedia worthy notable event. Tomstdenis 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for being ignorant - but can I ask Tomstdenis who he is referring to as 'we'? dfmcp 18:06, 2 February 2007 (GMT)


The company develops notable, cutting edge technology (that from my research no other company seems to be providing). We do consider that a wikipedia worthy event. And the article is valuable providing the correct grounding for FPGA Video_Codec related information (and technical research papers). Definitely Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.190.248 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reflow... The 4i2i website provides no links [I can find] to papers or open documentation about the FPGA design. It's a commercial website that sells IP. The article itself provides no information about the FPGA design other than it exists. The article either needs an incredible re-write, or it needs to be deleted. Actually look at the damn article, what information can you see from it other than it's a company in Scotland that sells video codec IP. Big deal. Not notable. Tomstdenis 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the references section of the article. Research paper links are there. Also try this google fpga h.264 search for the notability of an H.264 implementation [49]
Let's see, a couple press releases and links to OTHER companies who also have H.264 hardware. Big deal. Google for "LibTomCrypt" Not only does it get more hits (about twice as many) but it's equally non-notable. Provide URLs to non-affiliated writeups (beyond a token summarization) and then maybe you'll make your point. At anyrate, you've made your case (thusfar) and I've made mine. Please don't reply until you have actual proof of notability. Tomstdenis 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just my 2cents worth... The article describes part of an important new economic driver in Scotland. I note the user Tomstdenis has posted a google.ca link, so is likely a North American user - where there are a good number of semiconductor companies. In Scotland cutting edge companies like 4i2i Communications are fewer on the ground, and make a notable difference to the economy here. Especially so in Aberdeen where the Oil industry is the dominant provider of employment - so to disagree with the words of Tomstdenis 4i2i is a big deal . I'm slightly biased as I did contribute to the 4i2i Communications article, but for the reasons listed above, and in this paragraph would definately Keep the 4i2i article. dfmcp 17:49, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

Certainly adding some of the above to expand the 4i2i Communications article makes sense. dfmcp 17:49, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

Arrg don't move AfD pages. This just doubles the discussion. As to your point, if you think you can add notable content to the page I'll change my vote to keep. As the article stands now it's non-notable and an abuse of Wikipedia. Tomstdenis 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom - after a small amount of research I've added to the 4i2i article reference to the company supplying IP Cores to NASA for spaceflight. I hope this helps add some more of the notability you are looking for. dfmcp 19:12, 2 February 2007 (GMT)
It's a start. Needs better citations though. Some ad-ridden press release isn't quite up to par. But it is in the right direction. I'd definitely vote to delay declaring a concensus (one way or the other). Please find some more references and we're set. Tomstdenis 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom, I've put in a second NASA reference - non ad-ridden this time (from the Scottish Enterprise website - a UK government organization). That said, the original reference was to The Scotsman Newspaper Online, which is reputed to be a quality publication.


Also as the article is less than seven days old, it would be unreasonable to delete it without first having given it time to expand. There is much public domain information about 4i2i codec products which I believe are widely used in various consumer electronic items. Similar more mature wikipedia articles from other UK technology companies include ARC International and ARM Holdings. dfmcp 17:56, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeaTurkeys

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

Okay, look. The issue here is verifiability. I'm a big animal geek, I appreciate fowl, and I'd really love to know all about the pea-turkey. Can a peafowl hybridize with a turkey? I'd like to learn about it. But I can't find any reference to this anywhere except for the author of the article saying it's verifiable per him/her. I don't doubt his/her word that the animal exists. But until there is a reliable external source verifying the existence of the Elusive Pea-Turkey of Rhode Island, it's simply not suitable for a Wiki article. :( - IceCreamAntisocial 14:20, 2 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 07:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lattice Semiconductor

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

Delete. On the one hand it's a public company, but the article does fail to meet notability requirements, and reads like wikispam. In it's current form I recommend deletion, but given that it's a public company maybe a re-write could save the article? Tomstdenis 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Tom... Hmm.. Do you really want to delete the Lattice Semi's article? In my mind Lattice are one of only four genuinely successful FPGA vendors worldwide (I think the other three on that list should be Altera, Xilinx, Alcatel). Certainly the Lattice article is poorly written at the moment, but deletion is absolutely not the answer. Keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfmcp (talk • contribs) 2007-02-02 18:35:03
    • As I said, the article requires revision if it is to be kept. As it stands right now it lacks references to prove notability. The article is also very short on details. Tomstdenis 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We call articles that are short: stubs. The tag for such a stub is {{company-stub}}. The tag for an article that lacks references is {{unreferenced}}. The tag for rewriting is {{cleanup-rewrite}}. And the tag for an article on a company that may not satisfy our WP:CORP criteria is {{notability}}. We expand stubs. Only after you've done the research and determined that there is nothing written about a company except its own self-publicity, advertising, press releases, autobiography, and so forth, and thus that the article is unexpandable from any independent sources, should you come to AFD. Your nomination gives no indication that you've actually done any research at all to see what sources exist. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies. This page is over two years old. If there were many notable things to say you think people would have said them by now. I tend to think there likely is, but not knowing enough about the company (aha the catch-22) I recommended the AfD. My bad I guess. I still vote to delete unless the article is turned into a real wiki article (by someone who presumably knows the company). Tomstdenis 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you actually serious about the two years old bit? Do you have any idea how many articles there are on Wiki? Look at the main page and you may get a sense. Not every article is going to be FA. There are too many, and when we have to come spend time on a page like this, it takes away from spending time making articles better. Next time: 1) look at the criteria for AfD 2) research the topic to see if it is indeed an AfD. And for pittance I think you should research the company here and improve the content. Otherwise it looks like you Afd was in bad faith, like maybe you work for a competitor? Like maybe Elliptic Semiconductor Inc.? Looks like a conflict on interest to me, point #2 on the conflict page. Just because you delete things from your talk page, doesn't mean we can't see what was there and determine people's true motives. For those who do not know who the AfD nominator is, look here, then here. And since you like to threaten others with complaints to admins, this is not a threat. Aboutmovies 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Cleanup. Lattice is (imho) unquestionably notable in the electronics industry. The article just does not do a particulary good job of conveying that. Arakunem 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are notable by the standards given : Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Does need serious clean-up and sources, but that is a different tag. Aboutmovies 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The product share is an indication of notability, though more documentation would certainly improve the article. DGG 23:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "No" to a another bad idea by user "tomstdenis". Yes, the article needs a re-write...This company (or it's precursors) originated PAL & GAL devices. --pagemillroad 17:52, 5 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 (WP:PROD would have been appropriate in this situation). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:50Z

Alan cassidy group history

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

Duplicate of information at Alan Cassidy MrBeast 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this falls under the criteria for speedy deletion - I couldn't see anything at WP:SPEEDY, so I listed it here MrBeast 14:26, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin (rapper)

[edit]

nn rapper, only released mixtapes, fails WP:MUSIC, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


He's label is 1389 Records. He's distro companies are bassivity and obese records...please feel free to look these up...aslo look up "sizzerb" which is his alias you will find 30 000 matches on google...this is absurd...then delete jr writer and whole dipset...how can we close this arguement

  • DELETE - This seems to be nothing but a vanity/spam page. I took the liberty of inspecting the contributions of everybody who contributed to this page, and it appears that almost all of them have only contributed to this page (and a couple of off-shoot pages that are concerned directly with this rapper). Are all these guys working for the same marketing firm or what? I tried to google some information about this "famous" artist and only found this wikipedia page, mirrors of this wikipedia page, and a couple of minor blog entries. Is this guy really famous enough to merit his own article? Is he really that famous in Serbia/Canada? - Big Brother 1984 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I tried to google some information about this "famous" artist and only found this wikipedia page, mirrors of this wikipedia page, and a couple of minor blog entries." um ok...here are a few i found when i googled it:

http://www.allhiphop.com/BreedingGround/?ID=86 (biggest rap site on the net) http://www.sizzerb.com/images/frenchmag.jpg (magazine) http://www.rapmullet.com/exclusives/exclusiverev111.htm http://www.sizzerb.com/images/velika.jpg (magazine cover 1) http://www.sizzerb.com/news/IPS.xls (serbian domestic charts) http://www.objektiv.us/arhiva/sin_sizzerb.htm (magazine cover 2) http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/mixtape_monday/080105/

not everything is internet based as these magazine scans show and there are still 21,1000 matches on google for "sizzerb" as of right now, so therefore i don't think this is a spam/vanity page and should not be up for deletion. If you're not very familiar with the mixtape game you shouldnt be deciding whats "famous" and what isnt, you saying you only found wiki pages and blogs show you are clearing lying and hating and are probably friends with the guy who originally wanted to delete because you 2 have some sort of nerd alliance...anyway if you chose to delete this i will save the information i have showed and send it in an email to the wikipedia contact with LINKS after i have had a thorough amount of time to find everything related on this artists which will clearly meet the criteria and i will suggest to whoever appointed you admin to reconsider


Please sign your comments with four tilde (~) characters (or hit the 10th button on the editing toolbar). Leaving off this important element on your comments (and the fact your are removing AfD tags yourself) makes you look like a newbie. And that brings me to my main point... why is it that all of the contributors to this article only make edits related to this musician? It makes it look like you're spamming.
In any case, the fact that he seems to have appeared in several published works (and has a top 20 hit in Serbia) would seem to qualify him under Wikipedia:Notability (music). But just for the record, most of those links are dead, make no mention of Sin, or are hosted by Sin's own site. Also, a #19 hit in a small county like Serbia does not a star make.
The question here is whether or not this article is mere advertisement, or if it provides information that the general population might be genuinely interested in. This one seems to close for me to call, since I have never heard of the subject in question. (But then again, I'm not a big Serbian Hip-Hop fan ^>^ ) Does anybody else have any comments about this (other than the people who have created this article)? - Big Brother 1984 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have no idea but I looked at the history too and it seems to be quite a few different people editing the article. For example I corrected a few spelling errors of his projects and the name of his record label. Again you are telling me the links I posted are dead, well I just checked all of them like I did last night and no they're not and every single one of them has a mention of Sin. So therefore you are wrong on both accounts, again. And how can we have an intellectual debate when everything you say is simply not the truth? The one's hosted on his site are newspaper articles who's text you'd have to look up to find it on the web. Wikipedia does not have population guidelines of countries that make "stars". This is a joke, I suggest you educate yourself before you start trying to delete articles. Start by looking up rap on wikipedia then go ahead and look up mixtapes, then look up the american DJs hosting his mixtapes. You said yourself he qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (music). So it seems to me you are just either racist against Serbs or just have no knowlegde about the role mixtapes play in making rap "stars" as you call them nowadays.--Mistabusta 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop putting the delete notice on if you yourselves have no reason to delete it

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rain EP

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

Nom - fails WP:MUSIC utterly non-notable album, self-released, only 75 copies ever made(!), no sources Rklawton 15:21, 2 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 40 Below Summer in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:48Z

Side Show Freaks

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

Nom - fails WP:MUSIC utterly non-notable album, self-released, only 1000 copies ever made(!), no sources Rklawton 15:21, 2 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; I am also going to take the liberty of renaming to List of semiconductor IP core vendors, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lists. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:43Z

Vendors of semiconductor IP cores

[edit]
Vendors of semiconductor IP cores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete This article is a list of commercial IP vendors. It is without merit, without notability, and does not belong on wikipedia. The author of this article is just upset that I re-wrote the section of vendors in the Semiconductor_intellectual_property_core article. You can educate the reader as to what an IP vendor is without a vacuous list of company links. Nobody is learning anything of an academic nature by reading this article. Tomstdenis 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I have created the article using the material Tomstdenis deleted - despite objections on the Talk page - from another article, see Talk:Semiconductor intellectual property core). The articles of this type are fairly common in Wikipedia and usually do not generate any controversy. See, for example, List of ERP vendors, List of SOA related products, List of defunct graphics chips and card companies, List of defunct hard disk manufacturers, List of ERP software packages, List of former IA32 compatible processor manufacturers, List of antivirus software, List of EDA companies. Dimawik 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, just because other (and I haven't checked all of them) irrelevant pages exist doesn't mean this one should stay. You're but one in a sea of tens of thousands IP vendors. Why is your company so notable as to be listed and not others? The flipside is to list every company that claims to be an IP vendor. The article would be very long, and totally unwikipedia. For instance, the list of IA32 processor vendors is only borderline encyclopedic by the mere volume of x86_32 processors in use today. Many of the IA32 vendors are historic in that their designs led to advances in computing, for instance, pipelined CISC cores, super-scalar CISC cores, OOE cores, etc. ARM Ltd (for instance) already has an article in wikipedia because of their place in modern computing. This list offers no explanation as to why they're placed at the top of the list (repeatedly in different sections). They're hardly the only processor vendor. See for example, freescale, motorola, ibm, intel, RCA, etc, etc, etc. In that this list is infeasible to be accurate, it should be deleted (much like I think a page listing all thousands of human genes would be inappropriate for wiki). Either we list ALL vendors of IP cores who have at least one product, or we list none of them. Tomstdenis 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can I add my objection to the views of user Tomstdenis. The list of IP vendors is important, but should be kept short and to the point. In my view that is quite feesible as worldwide the number of significant IP vendors numbers in the tens not the hundreds. I'm not counting every vendor who can offer a CRC checksum routine in VHDL, but only those IP companies that offer large and complex IP blocks such as Processors or cutting edge video codecs that require a significant number of man years (centuaries??) to develop. Also the focus of the list page should be on those companies that generate the bulk of their revenue from IP sales.
  • While the academic value of this list is limited, it is an excellent primary source of information about this difficult to understand area of business.
    • Remark You seriously underestimate the number of competent B2B IP vendors there are out there. Sure there are few the size of ARM or ATMEL or whatever, but there are many competent businesses that are making profit in the industry. ARM already has a wiki entry, for example. We do not need another empty page that is merely a link to it. Either write a body to the article that substantiates the links (hint: the parent article has a stub in that direction) or delete this page. Wikipedia is not a place to put up meaningless vendor lists. And even though other lists exists, doesn't mean this one should (and perhaps some of the existing lists should be removed too). Tomstdenis 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC
  • Remark Perhaps the list page should be changed to a category. I'm not sure how to do this, but if an IP Cores category existed, it could be added to all relevant wikipedia company entries.dfmcp 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping the list in addition to a category might be the best idea though - as a category will not be able to add details of they type of IP cores provided by different vendors. Dfmcp 20:23, 6 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 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Called to the Peaceable Kingdom

[edit]
Called to the Peaceable Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only 2 G hits, prod was removed, author of the book was speedy deleted. NN publication Optimale Gu 16:19, 2 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 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kagemaru Korik

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

Fan-made self-published character. Only 3 google hits and they're all on deviantart. No sourcing for any of this. ColourBurst 16:33, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo

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

This is the third nomination for this article. I've read the other two, and I've yet to see a compelling reason for keeping (the first was overshadowed by a bad-faith nom). I think keeping this article is a result of systemic bias; we think it's notable because we have heard of it because we are Wikipedians. I'll outline the reasons for deletion below.

Firstly, it does not pass as notable according to WP:WEB. These are well-established guidelines for determining the notability of web-based concepts, and are used extensively for most web topics. The second and third criteria are certainly not passed: it has not won an award, nor been distributed via well-known independent medium. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself (the mention in Telepolis is undeniably trivial. Thus, it clearly fails the notability guidelines.

Secondly (and if you don't like notability), there is practically nothing verifiable that can be included in this article. Everything is being sourced directly to the Wikinfo domain. The article is essentially a description of Wikinfo is and how it works, with no context of why it's important in the larger world; due to the lack of independent sourcing, this can't change. If there is nothing verifiable from which to construct the article, why is it in the encyclopaedia.

Thirdly, to rebut an argument given in the previous AfDs for keeping; being a fork of a notable project does not automatically confer notability. That just wouldn't work. If you feel it is a prominent fork, then it would merit inclusion in an article on Wikipedia, or even Wikipedia forks, but not on its own (for the reasons mentioned above).

Previous AfDs cited numerous other reasons for keeping the article, but none of them conformed to any guideline or policy. The existence of similar articles (Nupedia, Citizendium et al) is not a reason to keep this one. The significance of Fred Bauder within the Wikipedia community is not a reason to keep an article in a general encyclopaedia.

I'm aware this nomination is fairly lengthy, but that's an attempt to combat any dismissive "keep per previous AfD" replies. Consider the arguments raised and, if you still feel this should be kept, please explain why; don't simply assert that this is notable. And I would ask you to judge this objectively; if a website of similar prominence and sourcing, but unrelated to the Wikipedia community, was nominated, how would you vote? Trebor 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's nothing new in this nomination, so I'll just link to my (long-winded) comments at the previous AfD. Casey Abell 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't follow your comments last time; how on earth can something "borrow" notability from Wikipedia? You are using notability in the sense of "significance" or "importance" which it isn't. It is a reasonably objective assessment of a topic, in respect of the guidelines agreed on by community consensus. If I forked Wikipedia, would my fork be notable? You said last time that you would support a move to Wikipedia namespace; is that not a tacit admission of this site's lack of notability? Trebor 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you couldn't follow my comments from the previous AfD, I'm sorry but I'm afraid we'll have to leave the discussion as is. There's nothing more I can add, and we're certainly not going to convince each other. Casey Abell 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well last time you seemed to conclude that it shouldn't be in the main namespace, and supported moving it elsewhere, so I'm not sure why you're !voting Keep now. I'll post a (neutrally worded) comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability to get some more opinions on this "borrowing" notability argument. Trebor 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no new information since the previous Afd, and I am not comfortable with repeated attempts, as they either are hopes that by some chance there might be a different group of editors present who might feel differently. Tis is a game that can be kept up indefinitely, and most formal or informal judicial systems disallow it. This disrupts the afd process by forcing continued reargument. There is nothing new in the facts or the argument. Keeping it is just common sense. DGG 18:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but I think the previous AfD wasn't a fair reflection. Too many people came and !voted, and then left, not responding to arguments against their POV. Please explain why we can abandon policy and guidelines to allow an unverifiable and non-notable article to exist. Trebor 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can source two facts to sources other than Wikinfo itself. See the citations in the article. Uncle G 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we can create an article saying it is a fork of Wikipedia with a sympathetic point of view. Nothing else seems verifiable. Trebor 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not from independent sources, no. Those two citations are all that I've been able to discover so far. (Admittedly, this particular subject is hard to research. Looking on the World Wide Web, for example, one has to wade through a large number of copies on other web sites of this article and of User:Fred Bauder, and cannot easily exclude them from a search without excluding potential sources as well.) Uncle G 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I admire your dedication to look through sources; obviously (as with all notability deletions), we can never definitively say that there are no sources anywhere. However, given the relative size and prominence of the project, it seems unlikely there will be much else (and, as ever, the burden is on those wishing to keep). Trebor 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, no it isn't. AFD involves multiple editors precisely so that editors can find things that other editors either have overlooked or do not know about. For it to work, everyone in an AFD discussion must do their own independent research, so that there are as many layers of swiss cheese, to prevent an erroneous conclusion, in the process as possible (see the Swiss Cheese model). That includes the nominator and those that want the article deleted. "Fails WP:WEB, and I did the research looking here, here, and here but could only find X, Y, and Z." is far more convincing than "The article doesn't cite enough sources to show that WP:WEB is satisfied.". If the sources exist, and it is simply the case that the nominator didn't make any attempt to look for them, then fixing the article is a matter of cleanup, not deletion.

            Hence: User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            • No, I'm aware that people should do their own research. But if, after this, no sources have been found, I don't think an argument for "Keep", asserting that there are sources, is very convincing. In this case, it's not really relevant, as the arguments for keeping are in spite of the lack of sources. Trebor 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've had a look over there, and find the sympathetic point of view can be illuminating. It's not that long ago that Wikipedia was the size of Wikinfo, and it had a Wikipedia article then. Stephen B Streater 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to delete or merge: Great as Wikinfo is as a concept, Wikipedia is moving towards quality rather than quantity for articles. Wikinfo people have unfortunately not come up with any sources of significant articles, and we are nearing the AfD deadline for the third AfD. If these are found or written, we can re-introduce the article. Stephen B Streater 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What relevance does that have? Whether or not you like the concept or not isn't pertinent to this AfD. The fact we may have had an article on ourself too early, in no way excuses keeping this one (see WP:ILIKEIT for fuller explanation). I don't see how your arguments excuse the fact it is unverifiable and non-notable. Trebor 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is an expression: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Wikipedia is moving away from using common knowledge, where people write about what they know, to a more rigorous system of using "reliable" sources. But doing this exclusively this has dangers. Anyone who has been written about knows that even so-called reliable sources are full of simplifications and often made up "facts". My view is that reliable sources should be used to establish contended facts, but not be required for common knowledge which is uncontended. This is actually much more relevant on technical subjects, where elementary knowledge is often not mentioned in the most sophisticated sources. But as no one challenges it, we can work on more difficult areas, which benefit from references. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I still fail to see the relevance to this deletion discussion. Could you link it more obviously please. Trebor 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think applying the latest ideology on Wikipedian purity to all articles makes this encyclopaedia better. Many articles, for example the much edited Go, contain a multitiude of unreferenced facts. The question here in AfD is not about what should be in the article, but about whether there should be one. I think that Wikinfo is notable because it is the manifestation of an interesting philosophy, just as I think Wikipedia was notable even before it was widely written about. Wikipedia is not just notable because it is written about. This is a sufficient but not necessary condition. By trying to control editors decisions by imprisoning them in one-size-fits-all rules, there is a risk of driving away intelligent, thoughtful and inspired editors - the mappers - leaving just the packers (you won't find these terms here because they are banned neologisms, but you can find them elsewhere in the context of software development - perhaps I'll add them to Wikinfo). Stephen B Streater 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's hardly the "latest" ideology; it's been around for a while and has an accepted consensus. Things aren't notable because they're "interesting". Your comments don't seem very related to this particular nomination, they're more general comments on the system as a whole. I don't think your reasoning has any grounding in the policies and guidelines we currently use. Trebor 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The evidence would suggest otherwise. After all, this article has survived two previous nominations at AfD, which would seem to contradict the assertion that the long-held consensus policies and guidelines would ensure deletion. It is true that the gist of the points above is generally applicable. In reality, almost all articles here still have unsourced material, and without it we would have a much more minimalist encyclopaedia. I'm not saying we can't move towards the ideal of everything being sourced, but throwing out common sense is something which takes time and has negative consequences as well as positive ones. In practice, the best encyclopaedia comes from only insisting on reliable sources for conentious content. Think of what benefits users the most. I'd rather have a short article full of uncontended but true facts than no article. These views are controversial, but I think it is too easy to delete (ie destroy) and things would be better if people spent more effort on creation. You will see from my AfD record that I have fixed many articles which have come up in AfD as prime candidates for deletion. Ideally, someone would spend their effort in fixing the article rather than deleting it. (I haven't yet gone as far to encourage a referencable article to be written.) In my experience, many articles are started by people who know what they're talking about, and these are fixed up later to meet guidelines and policies. Strict application of the "rules" will prevent this natural process of article creation. I wouldn't oppose a warning tag in the mean time. Stephen B Streater 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Being useful isn't an argument for keeping. At the moment, it seems that if I created a fork of Wikipedia it would be ipso facto notable. Almost all the facts in the article are sourced directly to the wiki. If I wanted to make a point, I could start challenging a lot of the facts for coming from a primary source, and strip the article to the bare bones. And I think that, if I did that, it would be so short as to not be worth keeping (and should be merged or deleted). This is absurd double-standards, based on "I've heard of it" arguments; we regularly delete websites with this lack of sourcing and notability. Trebor 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And if I wanted to make a point, I could delete almost all of every article as unsourced. I think that a tag is more appropriate than an AfD as a first step to give people a reasonable time to source the article. For example, the people running Wikinfo may have access to lots of sources - have they been asked to provide them? This is what I mean by thinking that AfD should be more active. Stephen B Streater 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If there are more sources, then great - we'll add them and I'll withdraw the nomination. But searching by Uncle G and me haven't brought up anything outside of very trivial mentions in a few places. My problem is that people are arguing to keep, in spite of the lack of sources, and ignoring the concept of notability (and to some extent, verifiability). The fact remains that this is a pretty minor project, and so for it to be the/a primary subject of multiple non-trivial sources seems incredibly unlikely; I'll repeat that if this wasn't connected to us, there'd be no hesitation to delete. Trebor 13:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've put some comments on my talk page. What I will do next is see if I can contact someone from Wikinfo to see if they know of any sources. As an aside, which policy says non-notability is a valid reason for deletion? Stephen B Streater 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • None, notability is a guideline. However, there still needs to be a particular reason for ignoring it, and I don't think "connected to Wikipedia" qualifies as one. Trebor 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • There is a reason it is not policy. And a reason for the notability guideline is to ensure articles are maintained. This is less of an issue for subjects of particular intterest to Wikipedians. And your I LIke It isn't even a guideline - it's just an essay. Anyway, I've put a post on Wikinfo asking for independent sources - lets see if anyone bites. Stephen B Streater 13:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) Yes, there reason it isn't policy is that there's a lot of dispute over how strict it should be. However, I don't think anyone believes that it should be a measure of whether the article can be maintained or not; that would cause extreme systemic bias. WP:ILIKEIT can't be more than an essay, because it's descriptive, not prescriptive; it does, however, provide strong explanations for why certain deletion arguments don't hold. Trebor 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing I can add to the very well done nomination, except to lament the fact that the above "Keep" opinions amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT-type handwaving. Seriously, this website has had no substantial coverage by reliable sources for a long time now, and next to nothing verifiable can be written about it. It's non-notable in the extreme, whether or not we like it in our capacity as Wikipedians. (Disclaimer: I was the nominator in AFD #2 and was brought here by this notice). Sandstein 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per DGG. Mathmo Talk 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially saying strong keep per the previous AfDs. But, by my reckoning, the previous AfDs were seriously flawed: there were numerous ILIKEIT !votes, lots of people didn't respond to challenging of their opinions and I can't see any arguments that I haven't rebutted above. Can you give a reason for ignoring existing policy and guidelines in this case? Trebor 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had a lot of editors - this itself indicates a level of notability not picked up in the current notability guideline (perhaps we should fix the guideline). On verifiability, which is serious (being policy), the claims about facts made are pretty trivially verifiable by logging on to the system. If the AfD goes for delete, it's not a disaster, as technically this may be the logical consequence of the rules, but would be a possible over-application of rules which would see most of Wikipedia's 1.6m articles deleted. Stephen B Streater 13:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bog-standard application of the rules which we would do to any other article unconnected to the Wiki. If you think the guidelines are broken, fix them, but don't ignore them as they stand. I don't care how many editors are willing to work on the article if almost everything has to be sourced directly to Wikinfo itself. You're now saying that deletion may be a logical consequence of the rules, so why are you !voting to keep? (Arguments should be based on this particular article, not on the system in general.) Trebor 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He probably just takes guidelines as they were originally meant. It is not the dictatorship of rules that makes good encyclopedia, but the wise application of guidelines according to each single case. If there were, for some reason, a decision of mainstream media to ignore a particular presidential candidate, yet he would draw major votes from voters and stand in front of you waving, would you deny him notability because there are no "independend sources" ? (Better do n o t answer.) --219.110.234.90 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to hear a compelling reason to ignore them in this case. Everything has either been hand-waving, or a general disagreement with the concept of notability. Trebor 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's disagreement on the purpose of notability. Some people seem to think it stands on its own, but guidelines are merely here to enforce policy, not to be policy. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I kind of feel he is touching on another point as to why I believe it should be kept, guidelines are not meant to be policy. There is more to them than just what is contain in them, and at times we ought to let common sense rule the day. etc... Mathmo Talk 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll ask again, what is the specific reason for ignoring guidelines for this particular nom? Trebor 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki users are naturally different from the population at large, this will be correspondingly of much more greater importance, interest, and notability to readers of wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which goes back to my earlier point of double-standards; we aren't writing an encyclopaedia for ourselves, but for people in general. Trebor 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point. However, we can write better articles about things we are familar with because we know where to look. Stephen B Streater 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm currently producing a lexicography term paper on Wikis and wikipedia, and I've seen enough independent mentions of WikInfo to consider it notable on its own. Saying it is not notable because it is inspired from Wikipedia would be like saying Nupedia is not notable only because it represent Wikipedia's predecessor: when did you see Nupedia mentioned outside reports on Wikipedia? Circeus 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Nupedia should be deleted, at any rate, the existence of another article is not grounds to keep this one. Could you give me some of the independent mentions of Wikinfo you've seen; outside of the few trivial mentions on the article page, I haven't seen anything. And no, I don't believe that something can be notable because it is inspired by (or even forks) something else, otherwise I could create a fork and immediately get an article. Trebor 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe Circeus? You're welcome to your opinion, but I find arguing to keep based on (as yet) uncited sources as rather an odd thing to do. Trebor 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Circeus were to add a citation of an offline source to the article, it would not have a link. While such a source would probably be more reliable, not being online, I would either have to trust Circeus, or look for the source myself. If my local library did not have it, I would either have to trust Circeus or not trust Circeus. Since my lack of ability to find it at my local library does not mean that it does not exist, I would choose to trust Circeus. Secondly, finding offline sources, even ones that you have found before, takes time. So, I am willing to be patient. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but to me it makes more sense to abstain until specific sources are cited or not. Trebor 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that would make more sense. However, finding things in the library takes time, so by the time Circeus finds the sources, the AfD might be over. Therefore, I feel like I should make a decision about whether or not to trust him or her now. If, after a period of time, there is a fourth nomination and no one has found better sources, I may change my vote. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you support keeping an article in spite of a lack of sources? With each successive AfD it becomes harder and harder to get something deleted as people will just point to the last one and go "nothing has changed", even if most of the previous arguments no longer hold weight. I could assert that I've looked in lots of libraries and saw no references to Wikinfo anywhere; it might not be true, but would that be enough to convince you to delete? Trebor 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping an article with insufficient secondary sources (it has enough primary sources and a few small secondary sources) in the hope that more/better secondary sources can be added in the near future. Have you thoroughly looked in libraries and found no significant references to Wikinfo? If so, that would probably be enough for me to change to a neutral, since I really don't know whether you or Circeus is more trustworthy / good at looking for things in the library. If you say you found no references (significant or otherwise) whatsoever, I might question how thoroughly you have looked. I can find a few insignificant references on Google Scholar. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't looked in libraries at all, but that's my point. Verifiability means we have to go on what's proven to be there, not just assertions of what exists. The references on Google scholar give me a 404 error, 3 citations to Wikinfo (not describing it), 2 sources already in the article and a French source I can't evaluate. Trebor 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have at least one source right at hand: Klobas, Jane et al. (2006). Wikis: Tools for information work and collaboration. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. ISBN 1-84334-178-6. OCLC 63136958. pp 45-46. Circeus 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what does it say about Wikinfo? Trebor 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a basic run-down of its goals and how it goes about it as a wiki (e.g. that it requires registration). It's in a part of the chapter ("Wikis as information sources") that lists examples of Reference Works wikis. The others being, for the record, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Digital Universe, Wikitravel and the Open Guide to London (the only one lacking an article. It's mentioned in City wiki, though). It's briefly referred to in Rosenzweig's "Can history be open source" essay, too. Circeus 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. Still fairly trivial but better than nothing (even if it's kept, I'm hoping the AfD will improve the article's sources). Have you found any other independent mentions? Trebor 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number of Google hits are practically meaningless. Quality, not quantity, is what's important. Trebor 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that Wikinfo has only 36,000 articles. The reason for the number of Google hits is that a significant number of sites have mirrored all of Wikinfo. This is itself an indication of notability - no one has mirrored my site, for example. Stephen B Streater 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find it extraordinarily disengenuous to claim that 500,000 Google hits are meaningless. It shows more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case. Are you actually claiming that wikipedia has a half-million clones spewing meaningless copy pages? If we even had 10,000 bloggers mentioning wikinfo it has far surpassed the necessary bar to keep here. Just the fact alone that there are a half-million pages, makes it significant in terms of googlespansion if nothing else, and that's all we need. Wjhonson 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to play numbers, then there are only 79 unique hits. To put it another way: Wikinfo is a website which has imported tens of thousands of pages from Wikipedia. Wikinfo has been indexed by Google. Therefore Wikinfo will come up with thousands and thousands of results. Having a large website does not mean that you're notable. As to "more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case", I'd say that's baseless; I was the one advocating looking at the results and seeing what they say, as opposed to a WP:ILIKEIT argument of "this number is big". Trebor 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal Keep. Has some 3rd-party sourcing, and has already survived AfD twice. This entire 3rd AfD and its predecessors strike me as nothing but a longwinded variant of "Well, I just don't like it", and outright vindictiveness for it having survived twice already. That it has done so strikes me as basically a consensus not to delete, so this 3rd AfD is bordering on disrupting WP to make a point. I think I may have commented earlier (possibly with a "delete") something to the effect that "so what, I could fork WP myself but that won't make McCandlishPedia notable" (maybe it was in talk or on the 2nd AfD, or in CfD; I don't see it here). That is true, but that doesn't actually seem to be the case here. And further... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: DGG: Write an essay. Stephen B Streater: Write an essay. You both raise interesting points that deserve further exploration, though they are not particularly substantive in-context here and now, due to that lack of exploration. Lots of the people who have mentioned notability: Actually go read WP:N; you are badly misinterpreting it, and it has changed a whole lot since ca. Nov. 2006. (Users involved in improving WP:N or at least familiar with the debates about it, like Trebor and UncleG, who don't always agree, I don't mean you, and I'm not talking about a PoV on the topic, but actual understanding of it, whatever your PoV might be.) PS: Un-disclaimer: I have feeling pro or con toward Wikinfo or Bauder. I'm aware of Bauder's ArbCom role and agree with some of his takes on issues and disagree with others. Simply not a factor in my "marginal keep". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an effort assume good faith. I didn't participate in the previous AfDs, and they had a large number of ILIKEIT votes. So to say that I'm doing this to be disruptive is completely wrong. It's got nothing to do with me not liking it, I honestly couldn't care less. This is to do with evaluating the sources and considering it as if it were just another website, completely unconnected to us. Considering you think two of the "keep"s are not particularly substantive, and you're only voting for a marginal keep, I see no explanation for assuming my nomination was disruptive. And even if this gets kept, the article will come out better-sourced, which means this discussion will have improved Wikipedia. Isn't that the aim of these things? Trebor 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll write an essay. It's probably worth mentioning that the notability guidelines details sufficient, not necessary conditions eg A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works... and One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines.... Thus it is a logical fallacy to say that something is not notable if it does not meet these guidelines. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is nothing more than a description of what the website is and does not provide any claim to notability whatsoever. Hopelessly fails WP:WEB and the primary notability criteria by not mentioning "multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources" and is almost a CSD:A7. The nominator makes a very good case for deletion. None of the keepers' arguments seem to be based on policy or guidelines, nor do they argue very strongly for why the guidelines (which do permit exceptions) should be bypassed. Zunaid©® 11:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting point, but again the logic is backwards. This primary notability criterion demonstrates the subject is notable, but the converse is not necessarily true. Stephen B Streater 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it doesn't meet any of the specific criteria either. As it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines, there needs to be a reason to ignore the rules for this specific case which, as of yet, I haven't seen. The notability guidelines are usually applied very strongly, why not here? Trebor 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not a rule? The issue for me is not whether this subject is notable, verifyable or neutral, because I think all these conditions are met. Rather it is whether enough can currently be written about the subject to be encyclopaedic. I'm waiting to see what references come up. So far I've come across many many brief mentions which support the current content of the article, and many sites which independently use Wikinfo as a source. Perhaps what I'm mulling is what the minimum article size should be, as not much can be said about this other than when it started, why it started, how big it is, and what its rules are. It's interesting to compare this with what can be said about Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's notable (per pretty much all my other points), and only the very basic points are verifiable to independent sources, everything else is primary sourced. You can write a neutral article but it can only contain facts and figures; nobody seems to have published an opinion on Wikinfo. Trebor 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah one of the classic examples of systematic bias towards including articles about people/projects related to Wikipedia that we like, which we'd quickly delete if they were just some random website. References show 2 mentions of Wikinfo by third parties in articles about Wikipedia, nothing really non-trivial. Fails WP:WEB, so Delete or merge/redirect to appropriate article on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can point out the last website with 486,000 Google hits to be deleted for non-notability. Stephen B Streater 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT - this number is big. It's meaningless, what are we supposed to do with these hits? But since you asked, UGOPlayer gets 180,000 Ghits and has been deleted (and is incidentally a lot more "popular" than Wikinfo). Trebor 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's irrelevant because we don't use google hits to determine inclusion. Encyclopedia Dramatica gets 135,000, just for reference. If you just want a site that gets a lot of Google hits, Cams.com gets 780,000 and was deleted at afd without much ceremony. --W.marsh 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do often use Google as a guide - mostly to prove something is not notable,in fact, when the figure is low. What concerns me is that applying the rules in the way being proposed here equally to all articles would result in huge numbers of them being deleted unnecessarily. I don't see using Wikinfo as a source is a problem - the WIkipedia article is mostly sourced to Wikis, most of those being Wikipedia itself. There are many third party sources - Alexa has 490 web sites linking in, and many of these are articles which mention Wikinfo - more than most articles in WIkipedia have. The problem is, as Trebor says, the depth of the sources. I am still happy to see if anyone at Wikinfo comes up with some more in-depth third party sources. Stephen B Streater 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, and I only get 82 results for Wikinfo [50]. This is likely some google oddity, as I set the search to list 100 results per page, and there are only 82 sites mentioning Wikinfo apparently. But it points out that Google hit totals are not very reliable. --W.marsh 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[51] says Wikinfo is the second biggest general-reference wiki in English (Wikipedia being the biggest). Just as you have little faith in the internet search engines, I also have little faith in the ability of the print media to pick up anything but the very big. Thus I don't automatically assume something is not notable just because they don't have an active PR system (sorry Jimbo!). Stephen B Streater 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as it says, most of them are imports. The print media pick up that which they think will interest people (and therefore sell); Wikipedia doesn't pick up anything, unless it first picked up by someone else. Trebor 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You almost say that as if you believe it ;-) The reason there are so many articles not meeting this constraint is that in the old days, people just wrote about what they knew. Wikinfo was such an article. I've been helping to reference article claims and this definitely improves the encyclopaedia. But Jimbo's tag line - repeated in New Scientist this week - is that Wikipedia should contain all human knowledge. Partly for this reason, I think this level of sourcing should only apply to controversial areas. Major article "agree" with me on this, as most generally known facts are not referenced. The rigorous sourcing requirement mentioned so often is a mirage in practice. I can point to almost any fact in almost any article and you will not be able to tell me whether it is mentioned in any of the listed sources. As more sources are added, it gets harder to remove any statement because it gets harder to prove it is not in any source. And while I'm here, the notability guidelines are chosen because they allow articles liked by the authors, as appeal to ILikeIt is self-referential. Stephen B Streater 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines are chosen for the reasons here, where did you get the idea it was about allowing articles liked by authors? Facts about Wikinfo can hardly count as generally known, anyway. But this is still nothing to do with this particular article. I'll ask again, and I'd love an actual answer: why is this particular article exempt from the requirements we put on all the other? Trebor 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undent* Red Herring argument. Who is saying it's exempt? Not I said the duck. However it doesn't fail the test for notability, it passes it. So what rule do you think it's failing? And isn't it failing that rule your opinion? Or are you claiming it to be an objective fact that no one can dispute? This article is mentioned in five hundred thousand web pages. Are you claiming that's not notable? Wjhonson 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm claiming that's irrelevant to notability as it is currently defined. Point me to multiple, non-trivial, independent mentions in reliable sources, and then notability will be established. Trebor 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what policy behind the notability guideline do you think this article conflicts with? Stephen B Streater 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly verifiability. But that's not really possible to answer, notability isn't purely an application of policy. Trebor 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability? I.E. you'd not sure Wikinfo exists? I don't get it. What exactly is the issue with verifiability here? Wjhonson 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:V. Obviously it exists, but it has received only trivial mentions in independent sources; everything else is sourced directly to the website. This means the reliability is questionable, because there's been no external fact-checking or analysis. Added to the fact it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, this would make far more sense as a paragraph in a general article. Trebor 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a bad idea. Have you a suggestion which other article? I could do the merge now. Stephen B Streater 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's no consensus to merge (and no, I haven't looked at a target). That's why I started an AfD. Trebor 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll start by saying I haven't voted on the other AfDs before (in fact I've rarely voted at all, I usually tend to miss voting periods :) ) but I'll weigh in as someone who just visited the article as a link from another Wikipedia article (the Enciclopedia Libre article). Personally, I found the page told me what I wanted to know about Wikinfo, and it was written at the same standard of most Wikipedia articles I come across, sure it's far from FA status, but then about 90% of our articles are.  :) (And, no I don't know that much about it to add anything useful to it, I come to Wikipedia to learn more about things, and I did that here, and I learned things, therefore WIkipedia has done what it's supposed to with this article. I see no real reason to delete. --Canuckguy 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT, just because the article is passably written and useful doesn't mean we keep it. AfD isn't about the current state of the article. How does what you said excuse a lack of non-trivial coverage. Trebor 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saw WP:ILIKEIT - I may have misread the intent of the guideline, but, from what I can tell, WP:ILIKEIT is there to prevent support votes that are nothing more than "OMG THIS (subject) IS TEH GREATEST!!1!" which I'm all in favour of having a policy against. However, I don't have feelings one way or the other about the subject (Wikinfo) - although I havne't visited the site yet, I feel I know enough about it from the Wikipedia article. My point is that it isn't much different from many other Wikipedia articles I've seen (at least it isn't a stub!) If it's trivial-coverage heavy, why not leave it there to let others improve it? It may have sat there a while in this state, but I'm guessing not too many Wikipedians have visited Wikinfo as well, as it's "competition" ;). Article has potential to be improved, as does hundreds of other articles that aren't up for AfD. --Canuckguy 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's trivial-coverage heavy, it's that it's only been independently mentioned in a trivial manner. There's no potential to improve, because there's no non-trivial sources (which have been found). An article being useful isn't a reason to keep it. The standard notability guideline (usually applied rigorously to any website) is WP:WEB, and Wikinfo does not qualify under the criteria there. Trebor 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to apply to the same logic to Wikipedia - remove all the unsourced statements and primary references. Would the fairly minimal remaining article be an improvement? No, of course not. This article could be improved in future by someone finding a significant article on it, but even the short article there is, which is backed up by sources, is a positive contribution to WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except there doesn't seem to be a significant article on it, which is why it isn't notable. Trebor 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your view on FFmpeg then? Not many third party articles there, but something which anyone involved in Open Source knows about. Would you delete this article too? Stephen B Streater 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no view on it, and that's not relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia is not consistent. Trebor 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but appealing to interpretations of guidelines which, if applied across the board, would destroy great swathes of Wikipedia is less desirable than a more gradualist approach. Stephen B Streater 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in the same boat as Canuckguy. 69.242.227.133 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Resigning as I wasn't logged in. Strawberry Island 03:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sadly, since I can see no evidence of reliable secondary sources. Doesn't matter how much we like it or how many people we direct there with articles inappropriate for Wikipedia, most of the citations are self-referential. The Village Pump is not, I'm afraid, either independent or reliable in this case. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. No reliable secondary sources. It's like feeding the trolls, really. Owww, wait... they've referred to me in their articles now. Hmmph. [52]. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confused with Wikitruth (which also has dubious notability grounds). Trebor 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at the article earlier today and somehow missed the giant AfD template. However, I was seriously considering gutting it because the majority of it is (likely unsouraceble) OR and how-to information only of interest to wikinfo contributors. If adequate sourcing can be found, I might be persuaded to argue "keep and rewrite" but right now I have to say delete. Lots of google hits are meaningless if they are trivial or self-referential as most of these are. Eluchil404 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Avoid self reference. If a crap article has a link to Wikipedia, it seems to get kept. We should be more discriminating if it relates to Wikipedia itself, not less. Fails to assert why this little, inactive website is notable. Proto::► 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep doesn't fail WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS enough for me to feel comfortable that it's better to delete it than source it. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:07, 8 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) 2007-02-08 09:37Z

Gutevin

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

SPAMy/lacks notability - it claims to be "the biggest commercial vineyard in Europe (EU) with the most Nordic location" on the homepage (probably the emphasis should be on the location) Lars T. 17:23, 2 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 - this is a proper encyclopedia article stub, not merely a dictionary definition. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:36Z

Pure play

[edit]
Pure play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Pure play was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-16. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure play.

Jargon. No indication of notablity. Should probably transwiki to Wiktionary Vassyana 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; transwiki as Vassyana suggested Semperf 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transwiki per nom. Arakunem 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an encyclopaedia article about pure plays, what they are, who is and isn't a pure play, and an accounting method based upon them. Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a stub with clear scope for expansion, there being more to say about the "pure play method", which can be sourced to books on financial management. I strongly urge editors to do research before nominating articles for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please assume good faith. I did research the matter. There are an abundance of definitions that are more or less the same for "pure play". However, outside of a few debates/essays about whether a diverse or focused approach is better this subject doesn't have much meat. Subjects of this type, which are basically definitions, do not belong in Wikipedia. It's just a jargon phrase with limited scope. I also do not find the "pure play method" notable as it is nothing differant than what is done with other businesses. (That is, analysis is based on the type and market of the business.) Of course, this is just my opinion based on my research. If you have contrary sources and information please use that knowledge to improve the article. Vassyana 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no assumption of bad faith. But it is clear that this nomination and several of the opinions here aren't based upon doing research, or even upon reading the last AFD discussion, where it was explained by several editors that this is a stub with scope for expansion, with several potential directions for expansion being suggested. You are also miscontruing our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which does not imply that stubs do not belong in Wikipedia. This article is a stub. It is not a dictionary article. It is a stub encyclopaedia article. The two are not the same thing. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we only delete stubs if they have no scope for expansion. Actually reading the sources that are already cited in the article will show that there is far more to write on the subject of the "pure play method", because the sources provide more material. Your "expand the article for me or it should be deleted" ultimatum is not how collaborative editing works, nor is it how AFD works or how finding and fixing stubs works. The rest of us are not cleanup machines; and AFD is not cleanup. And, finally, whether you find the "pure play method" notable is immaterial. Notability is not subjective. We don't base inclusion or exclusion on editors' personal opinions of the importance of a subject. That way chaos lies. Uncle G 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming, as you continue to do, that I did not research the topic or read the last AFD is certainly not assuming good faith. This article was tagged for notability since June with no additions, cleanup or talk page activity. While it is definately notable as a term (making it appropriate for Wiktionary), I really found no reason in my research that "pure play" is notable except anything as a definition, as I mentioned. While it is a common term, the definition is fairly straightforward and leaves little room for an encyclopedia article. My research indicates the same for the "pure play method". It has a relatively simple definition and seems to leave little room for additional encyclopedia material, except in discussing the parts ("beta", etc) which are already addressed in other articles. I was providing a comment on the deletion discussion. I was not demanding people agree or issuing an ultimatum and I was clear on that point. ("Of course, this is just my opinion based on my research.") Vassyana 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. References go back over twenty years, so it's not so very new. Common term in investing. There might be someplace to merge it, though, such as an article on diversification. Fg2 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Fg2. Mathmo Talk 04:48, 3 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 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecologics

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

Not notable WP:N. Ecologics#Other_Voices makes the case for itself. Vassyana 17:52, 2 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 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muli (Philippine TV series)

[edit]
Muli (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Supposedly "upcoming" series. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shrumster 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced. Couldn't find a single reliable source announcing the series. The sole "external link" provided is to a Philippine tabloid site. I can read tagalog and I can tell you, there is nothing on that page that announces this series. If it does exist, Wikipedia's still not a crystal ball. If/when this series is actually shown, then it can have an article. There are question marks all over the article. Original run says "April 2007", a long ways from now. Even synopsis says "to be announced". Hardly encyclopedic. Shrumster 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike the other 2 articles I voted to keep below, this article is basically blank and the show is too far off in the future to guarantee it will ever air.--CastAStone|(talk) 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, airing is too far yet, just recreate when teasers start appearing frequently. --Howard the Duck 12:29, 3 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 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OKCupid

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

Appears to be a website that isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; specifically I don't see it meeting our criteria for website notability. The earlier Prod was removed saying that the association with TheSpark required discussion, which is reasonable. Gwernol 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems its most recent press release has been picked up by several print/online media outlets, as per this Google News search for "OKCupid". Perhaps this helps qualify it under WP:N? —Psychonaut 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB which lists the applicable notability criteria, explicitly excludes "Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site" from counting towards notability. So I'm afraid that doesn't help. Gwernol 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That same Google News search has a couple articles which seem not to be press release reprints. I don't have time to read the full articles so I don't know if OKCupid is the subject of the articles or gets only a passing mention. —Psychonaut 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okcupid it easily notable enough, even though the article currently does not reference any of the several independent articles published about it [53]. In fact, the pretty interesting data mining techniques they use are what really sets Okcupid apart from other dating sites; that would warrant some discussion in the article. --Jonik 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's enough outside media references to make it notable. JuJube 23:02, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Enterprise Independent School District

[edit]
Mount Enterprise Independent School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unlikely to garner further content. Icemuon 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. School districts, like municipalities, should be considered automatically notable as government bodies. Besides, people sometimes argue that an article on an individual school should be merged into the article for the appropriate school district, and if we start deleting school districts, it won't be possible to merge school articles that way. Besides, school districts sometimes take in several different municipalities, so they often can't be merged into the article for a single municipality or county. --Eastmain 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that school districts are notable by default since they are government bodies. That information belongs on government-sponsored sites where it can be looked up as necessary. I find it hard to believe someday these school district articles will evolve to be as complete as those found on government pages, for every single school district in the world. If people need that kind of information, they would not look for it here. Should every single law ever made also be in Wikipedia? There are other repositories for that kind of information.
      I would argue that school districts are not nearly as notable as municipalities. How often have you heard of someone looking up a school district as opposed to someone looking up a municipality? I don't even have any idea what district the schools I went to were in, but I certainly know what municipality I lived in.
      As for merging schools into school districts, if the schools are so un-noteworthy as to have to be merged, why are they even here? I'm all for deleting those school articles, as well as school district articles. Icemuon 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please school districts are inherently notable and good for merging stubs to yuckfoo 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is almost no information in the article, beyond that it is a school district with one high school and one elementary school sharing a single campus. This is almost as minimal as a school district can get (I think there may be some with only one elementary school and no high school at all), There is not precedent. let alone guideline or policy. for all school districts being notable--if there were, this example would be a good one to use in trying to change the precedent.
Yes, Municipalities are notable. Their water districts almost never are, nor their fire districts, nor their library districts, nor their school districts. DGG 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep school districts are notable and suggested location for data merging per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep School districts are notable. The nom's comments "unlikely to garner further content" makes me want to propose a WP:AfD noms Do Not Have a CRYSTALBALL guildline.--Oakshade 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you then propose to keep all informationless articles just in case they should acquire further content in the future? That is like looking into a crystal ball -- it is the assumption that something will happen to fill out this article. Note that this is different from stubs -- stubs are starter articles on topics that can be expanded to a considerable degree. But how can this article be expanded into more than what it already is? If something happens involving this school district, then an article will be written on the event rather than the district itself. Let's say that there is a teacher's strike in this school district. Then probably an article will be written about the strike, mentioning the school district. But an article on the school district itself won't give any more information that what would be in the strike article. If in the future something happens that really warrants this school district an article, then the article will be written. Until then, it is contributing nothing. Icemuon 12:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course keep articles on notable subjects that can be expanded! That's what stub notices are for. My sarcastic response was about the nom's blindly presumptive "unlikely to garner further content" comment.--Oakshade 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Small school districts are as notable as the larger ones. Articles on the largest school districts in Texas (Houston, Dallas, etc.) are never disputed. If every other school district in the state has an article, why shouldn't this one? --Acntx 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance I lean towards Delete per the reasoning of Icemuon and DGG, which seems reasonably sound. I'm also deeply umimpressed by the reasoning of ALKIVAR ( no reason is given why school districts are notable - this is simply asserted blandly ) and Acntx ( I have never seen an article on a large school district under review in an AfD debate, but to be consistent with the reasoning here I suspect I'd be inclined to the "delete" position for the same reasons ). If Acntx wishes to propose the review of other school district articles with a view to deletion, at present, and until I hear some better arguments, I'd be inclined to support their removal. WMMartin 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of content. As an example of a reasonably good school district article, I'd point to School District 39 Vancouver. The present one has so little content that it's hardly worth looking it up on Wikipedia. If more material can be found, then I think the article could be re-submitted. I'd argue that we shouldn't argue too much about notability, but we should worry more about future maintainability. So in my view it's fair to take points off for the current condition of the article. EdJohnston 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is general consensus to have an article on all school districts. Content can be filled out by adding information about the various schools in the district. While this article currently is lacking significant content, that is not a reason to delete since encyclopedic content could be added to the article. If there is concern that the article is not past a stub, then the correct action is to add the proper {{stub}} tag rather then deleting. Vegaswikian 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to find a reference to this "general consensus to have an article on all school districts" that you mention, but haven't seen it. Please would you show me where it is, along with the supporting reasoning ? Thanks in advance. WMMartin 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a strong consensus to retain articles on school districts of all shapes and sizes, just as we do for verifiable towns regardless of their population. Silensor 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we're debating the notability of entire school districts, that's news to me. We should refocus on lesser things, like those non-notable Pokemon characters that lack any type of third-party sources.  ;-) RFerreira 08:28, 7 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 pole star (tidbit about novel merged to Polestar (disambiguation). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:33Z

Polar star

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

A page called Pole Star already exists and is much more comprehensive than this one liner. Arcette 18:40, 2 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 Guy (Help!) 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snap dance nights

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

Not encyclopaedic, not notable RHB Talk - Edits 18:46, 2 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 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (card game)

[edit]
Gloom (card game) (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Twins

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

Unsourced, lone link is to a tabloid. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shrumster 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See this article: [54] (its in whatever language they speak there, but it gets the point across) This show is in fact real, on the largest Filipino network, and premiering in ten days.--CastAStone|(talk) 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. All the link says (that is relevant to the show) is that Jolina is singing the theme song, names two actresses cast and that the show is going to be shown on Feb 12. If that's enough for the article to exist, it should be trimmed then (and the source added). Shrumster 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Notability is questionable, but that may be expected prior to a premiere. Suggest Watchlisting and re-evaluating in a few weeks. Arakunem 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys have to be kidding me?? Ang babaw nyo! mag dedebate pa kau! god! cguro c howard the whatever nnman ang may pakana neto!? Why do u guys want to delete it!? e papalabas nman toh! arte nyo! babaw pa! -searcher007
    Is this written in Tagalog or something? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Yup, it is. Allow me to translate the tagalog parts. "You guys are so shallow! You're even having a debate! Maybe Howard the whatever started this! (skipped english text) It's going to be shown! You are so (hmm...can't find a direct translation for this one). Shallow!" Just for the benefit of the english speakers, as this IS the en.wikipedia. Shrumster 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing coz i dont care Tnx 4 translating Shrumster! I just dont get it! Its just a simple thing and you guys make it bigger! why? on febuary 12 its gonna air its pilot episode! Dont tell me you guys havent seen the teaser trailer yet! or u guys just doing this on purpose? or u guys are just really dumb? which option are you howard the whatever? let me guess.... u dont own the wikipedia! -searcher007
  • Speedy keep and close this nomination. Commercials and teasers abound the primetime slot of GMA Network. And no, I'm not affiliated with the nominator. --Howard the Duck 06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to point out that User:Booze broads and bullets keeps removing AfD notices on select pages. Can someone warn him please? Shrumster 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AND clean-up. Commercials are on TV, so this is definitely on. However, we need something more reliable than a tabloid; a tabloid could just well be as good as a gossip magazine full of unreliable nonsense. --- Tito Pao 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Tito Pao's rationale, he makes a good point. I'd be willing to withdraw my nomination as long as the article gets better sources and some real material in there. What really attracted my attention enough to nominate this is the "Synopsis" section with the only words under it being "To be announced". Shrumster 06:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + clean up It's definitely real. But it could do with more content. However I do have to ask, a Filipino Tabloids the same a US Tabloids? Because in the UK Tabloids may be a bit dubios but there not as bad as... say... The National Enquirer. --GracieLizzie 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my experience, Philippine tabloid newspapers tend to run gossip articles with unverified gossip (well, gossip is unverified in the first place). In some cases, a blind item would lead to a denial on the weekend entertainment news shows. In some cases, too, a tabloid item would lead to lawsuits. There are also some potential conflict of interest issues as some tabloid writers are also managers of some actors and actresses. So for me, tabloid articles in the Philippines should be taken with a grain of salt. --- Tito Pao 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If Filipino tabloids are the same as US tabloids (which I agree with), then they shouldn't be used as reliable sources for anything (not even "gossip"). Sure, there aren't many "Image of Jesus on a pancake!" articles, but equivalently ridiculous ones are published on those. The closest that I'd even consider accepting would be Abante (and I won't). Tabloid blogs? No way those are passing WP:RS. Shrumster 18:39, 4 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Kamison

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Some of the text is copied from [55], and when removed the article will just be a cast list. Also, a possible WP:COI conflict of interest. Shrumster 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If you check the history, the text "copied" from the source was posted in WP on January 31, 2007. However, the "source" article was posted only on February 2, 2007, several days after the content appeared on Wikipedia. Methinks the user is affiliated with the network responsible for the show as he has been editing/creating WP articles with text ripped directly from the network's site and has a history of uploading copyrighted images for the network's shows. User also has been "vandalizing" the WP articles of competing network's shows, by lowering their ratings as evidenced in the history of this article (Sana Maulit Muli) I just reverted. Someone should look deeper into this. Shrumster 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is so crazy! Ang babaw nman ng gumawa neto! -searcher007

Speedy keep and close this nomination. Will premiere tonight, so this AFD is pointless. --Howard the Duck 07:31, 3 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 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EWCF Carnage

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

Violates WP:NFT Mhking 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:29Z

List of male film actors (A-K)

[edit]
List of male film actors (A-K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I do find the list useful, IMHO it is quite unencyclopedic and too massive in scope. Right now, the list has a lot of American/British/etc. actors, but the Indian ones are now creeping in. Soon, every country that has a film industry will be wanting their actors on this list...etc. We should also look at some of the lists this list is associated with, i.e. List of female film actors. Shrumster 19:47, 2 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 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blendo

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

No reason to think this bot is notable. Also no citations —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How would you rate the trickle-down notability from its creators? Maybe merge into their userpages? (Just a thought.) -- Ben 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also The other robots in the BattleBots category. -- Ben 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously Verifible it needs to be cited and cleaned up but I do think notability has been established. EnsRedShirt 12:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blendo is a supremely notable combat robot. It was the first successful 'full-body' or 'shell' spinning weapon implementation. Blendo proved the utility of the stored kinetic energy weapon that has come to dominate the sport. It also promoted the development of more effective arena containment to protect audiences from flying debris. Further, the robot was deemed so dangerous that it was granted co-championship of the 1995 Robot Wars event on the condition that it withdraw to aviod potential injury to the audience. 167.131.0.153 16:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm with you. I agree that it's an important robot in the field of battling robots. But notability isn't "per field." It's WP:N. And I don't think that's being met yet. -- Ben 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I count 35 individual robot pages in Category:Robot_Wars_competitors and another 4 in Category:BattleBots. Few of them are for robots as important in the development of the sport as Blendo, yet this is the only page being considered for deletion. That puzzles me. 167.131.0.152 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a robot that competed in the notable "Robot Wars" and "BattleBots" competitions, and was built by Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage (two very notable television personalities.) Or, to put it another way, I believe the thing's been on national tv...ok, that's not exactly the same thing as notability, but it's close. In any event, it is covered by multiple non-trivial published works - it's been covered by the San Francisco Chronicle [57], appeared on the aforementioned national tv, etc. (And, to make a particularly weak argument, it is as notable as your average pokemon character.) --TheOtherBob 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable in its field and has one secondary source. So, there probably exist multiple non-trivial works about this. Thus, all the big policies (WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS) are taken care of. --- RockMFR 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RockMFR, interesting article which meets the relevant content policies. (jarbarf) 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has citations and topic has notability. Xuanwu 05:39, 8 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 Article speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Rockpocket 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Van Leer

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

This is essentially a recreation of the an article that was deleted by AFD on September 10, 2006 (original AFD discussion). I don't see anything substantial that might have been added that would cause the article to satisfy WP:BIO this time. I was tempted to request a speedy under G4, but am sending it to AFD. --- The Bethling(Talk) 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I wasn't aware of this, however I would like to suggest keeping the article. Mikemiddleton 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! - Black Thunder / ssj4goku111 There's no better article, and hard work was put into it. It may need a touch up, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssj4goku111 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and no new evidence presented or any real claim that he meets it. "Related to noteworthy people" is not a criterion, and no evidence that Cosmo has written about him has been presented. Perhaps he appears as a model in Cosmo ads? That is not notability. Additionally, the recreation of deleted content and the blatant conflict of interest-gaming count against any leniency. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO by an astonishingly wide margin. No reliable sources (article is currently "sourced" by press releases and an entirely different person's IMDB entry, offered as someone Van Leer has "worked with"). The Cosmo exposure ("sourced" by part of a press release that does not mention Van Leer by name) was apparently some sort of "One hot guy from each of the 50 states" gimmick article so he was not the primary focus. His own resume on his personal website notes that the highlights of his acting career include such pivotal roles as "Boy" in the West Nottingham Academy production of "West Side Story." Plus he uses way too much product in his clearly severely damaged hair, but I suppose that doesn't really have a bearing on his Wiki-worthiness. Otto4711 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and lock lemma, as already said in the first deletion request somewhile ago, the author is that guy himself, and he anounced already he will be keeping to readd himself. --Jestix 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice some sort of nerdy "rivalry" here between some kind of online gaming group (Shadowclan) and that guys that make this Blake Van Leer topic. To my mind that puts the legitimacy of some of the keep/delete votes in question. I have no doubt that quite a few of these delete requests are just being done to cause turmoil for instance. Personally I think the article should be given a chance to redeem itself as it does sound like there are verifiable claims of notability. The problem is just that the article needs time to be cleaned up. I say "Get a life!" to all those partaking in this online gaming feud. Drouillm 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luckely Im in neither of this gangs ;-). I highly doubt that the article author isn't this guy himself. Which is really a no-go --Jestix 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There clearly is evidence that he was not in an ad in cosmo magazine and was actually written about and listed with several other bachelors from each state. You can google the issue that he was in when you search 2003 cosmopolitan bachelor's November issue. However this was 4 years ago and I'm not sure if it's still noteworthy. I don't think an article's status should depend on someone's hair style or if it's damaged...... Waargboom 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) — Waargboom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • As has already been pointed out, the much-vaunted Cosmo article, discussed at this press release linked in Van Leer's article, takes as its subject one bachelor from each of the 50 states. The press release for the article, which was called "Hunks Across America," lists 50 different names of people who appeared in the article. Van Leer is listed in one line as the hunk from Maryland. Even if this article is accepted as a verified reliable source (and I have no problem accepting it as such), Van Leer was not the primary subject of it. He was one of 50 subjects who, if this article was typical of articles of the type, had at most a single page and most likely a half- or a quarter-page as 2% of the article's subject. This does not come anywhere remotely close to satisfying the requirement that coverage of an article subject be non-trivial, and even stretching the point beyond all reasonable lebgths and counting this as one source, there do not appear to be any others. Otto4711 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was acussing Simoes of sockpuppetry and now he basically admits being a sockpuppet and having personal motives or an agenda that involves a "nerdy" rivalry of online gaming. Perhaps someone could take necessary steps to handle this sockpuppet? Waargboom 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and second the speedy. Clear vanity article with no substantial notability. The mention in Cosmo as the "hunky bachelor from Maryland"? Please, I read Cosmo and not too long ago they had a write up about creepy coworkers and named some guy from Santa Cruz who would sneak into the woman's restroom at work to steal soiled feminine napkins. That mention in Cosmo certainly doesn't merit a Wikipedia article for him and it doesn't merit one for this guy. Agne 04:28, 5 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) 2007-02-08 09:23Z

Christopher DiCicco

[edit]
Christopher DiCicco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:I am sorry for your loss.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Autobiographical article about an art/film person. No independent reviews given. Just lists fellowships, etc. ccwaters 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Candidate repost of Chris_DiCicco [58]. ccwaters 21:50, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films

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

This list was originally part of Cult films before being split off recently. Prior to being split off, I tagged this list section as being unreferenced and requested references from editors and from the Wiki Film project to verify that the list was something that was objective, verifiable and not original research. The reason is that this list of films appears to be simply an ad hoc collection of films that various editors personally believe should be called cult films, rather than films which published resources commonly refer to as cult films or that is based on a neutral criteria. Since the unref tag was placed, however, no improvement was made to the references or to show that the list is anything other than original research, and in fact the list has continued to grow with little to no evidence or discussion and no verification. Now that the list is in a seperate article, though, I am submitting it for deletion as unreference, original research. It should not be remerged with the main article, in my opinion, unless and until the reference and OR issues are properly addressed. Dugwiki 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Remerge for such a long list there is no way and is unrealistic to find reference for every one of them (and in actuality at wikipedia we can hardly find a list with all entries referenced). Also there is no universal standard for cult films, a little editorial discretion is needed. I suggest it to be kept for now or to be remerged with cult film or cult classic. Wooyi 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You actually are making a strong case for deletion. If it is unrealistic to find references for the items on the list, and there is in fact no universal standard for cult films, then this list is by definition subjective and original research. Articles and sections which are neither referenced nor neutrally biased and that can't be corrected need to be deleted. Dugwiki 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you argue this way, then we should require reference on every item on every list. Currently, you cannot even find a single long list on wikipedia to have all items referenced. Wooyi 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, ideally, lists should be referenced inline by entry. Of course, that isn't always the case, but at a minimum there should be a reference to verify that the list is correct and the entries in it belong there. This list, though, doesn't even have that bare minimum level of reference. Dugwiki 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I was persuaded by the reasons in the nomination, I was really convinced by Wooyi's comments. The fact that something cannot be verified or referenced is a very strong reason for deletion. Furthermore, just because there is an allegation that most "long lists" are unreferenced does not mean that this, or any of them, ought to be excused from the content policies and guidelines. In fact, I find that many lists nominated here at least have the saving grace of having references for the individual entries on the list. Agent 86 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not all list inherently need reference, like List of women writers, it is very easy to know if a writer is a woman. And for this one, it is harder to determine, but I believe most editors can say a film is cult classic by common sense. When I said there is no universal standard, I meant that this commensense may slightly vary, but still easy to determine. Wooyi 01:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be pretty easy to tell if someone is a woman (fairly objective criteria), I find it hard to believe that whether or not a film is "cult" is one of common sense (fairly subjective criteria). Agent 86 01:25, 3 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.
both the List of cult films and the List of films considered the worst ever were great lists! I am so sad you deleted them, is there any way anyone can get the list back and put it into http://uncyclopedia.org/ (a wiki for fun/funny content) which is also a wikimeadia project? Same request applies to the List of animes which was also recently deleted Jtgerman 11 Feb. 2007
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrasoft

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

No assertion of notability. Many google hits, none of them (on the first four pages) suitable as sources, as far as I could see. I am open to being proven wrong, delete. J Milburn 21:09, 2 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) 2007-02-08 09:21Z

Bohemia Society of the Arts and Sciences

[edit]
Bohemia Society of the Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Bohemia-logo copy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Newspic3.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Newspic1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Newspic2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Looks like they are not notable. I put a speedy A7 on them but they removed it. Fails the WP:CORP and others. Also WP:COI, article was made by User:Bohemiasociety. Delete. - Denny 21:23, 2 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 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animethon

[edit]

non notable conventions. Nukilo 21:24, 2 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:19Z

Otakuthon

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

non notable conventions Nukilo 21:26, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darian's Friends

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

Contested prod. Non notable webcomic, 68 distinct Google hits.[59] The specially made strip for Gaylaxicon is not really an indicator of notabiity (a convention with some 300 attendees...). No off-line publications, awards, or verifiable non-trivial mentions in reliable sources: the one mention given is truly a passing mention and not enough to indicate notability. A good article, but on a subject that doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia sadly. Fram 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Darian's Friends does have an off-line publication of comics, and has had public screenings of the film (College Student Investigators) based on it. There is also Darian's Friends apparel, thus leaving it that much more physically tangible. BoltMan 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for off-line publication, and note that eventual self-publication does not count towards notability. There is no source at all for the film based on it. The apparel is self-published as well, so that doesn't establish any notability either. Fram 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even going by the strict guidelines set forth in WP:WEB, a fair argument can still be made for Keep. But aside from that entirely, this is not an article for the comic's website, but rather for the webcomic itself. WP:WEBCOMICS has not yet reached a consensus as to what exactly constitutes notability in a webcomic. Even the most cursory glance at the List of Webcomics that have articles on Wikipedia will yield hundreds of wiki articles for comics, maybe 90% of which are less notable than Darian's Friends, and don't even come close to meeting the standards of WP:WEB, which DF arguably does. In this case, until WP:WEBCOMICS either reaches consensus or is purged of garbage entries, there is nothing to be gained in the community by deleting this article in particular.BoyliciousDarian 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't see how it passes WP:WEB and since you think so, I wish you would make that argument. The fact that 90% other webcomics currently on WP shouldn't be there, isn't an argument for keep, but rather a nod towards what should be AfD nominated next. —MURGH disc. 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply WP:WEBCOMICS is currently working through some new notability guidelines specifically for webcomics. The guidelines under discussion there are still preliminary, but the chances look very good that DF will meet them (easily). I really think it would be best to reserve judgment at this time. BoyliciousDarian 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree the guidelines are messy, and all webcomics should be measured by the same policy. But as of Feb4, this draft User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines, was partially merged into WP:WEB, and notability criterion: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, is central and needs to be shown by DF. What is not part of current criteria is notability on account of "a long run", which I'd think is DF's chief claim. There is of course no rush to move ahead of consensus, though. MURGH disc. 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those webcomics notability guidelines have not a snowball's chance in hell to survive wider scrutiny. If there are no verifiable, reliable independent sources, then no topic will be kept. There isn't even a consensus that e.g. secondary schoold which have existed for 50 years are inherently notable, so the chance that a webcomic which has existed for two years would be considered inherently notable is non-existant. WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia, and WP:NOTE is the basic guideline of which all other guidelines are specific explanations, not exceptions to weaken that guideline that has a broad consensus. The only way a specific Webcomics guideline can possible be useful is to discuss which sources are reliable, which awards are indicating notability (the WCCA, which its numerous nominations?), etcetera. But if the aim is to lower the bar for webcomics (which seems to be the aim, probably because many webcomics are deleted currently), then it seems a wasted effort. Fram 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really sorry to have to do this, as I love the comic. Sadly, we have to go with Delete. Why ? Because it is a basic requirement of a Wikipedia article that it provide adequate references/sources, and this isn't the case here. Sure, there are references to the comic RSS feed and blog, but these are not independent of the comic itself. We need our references to be (a) independent, and (b) from a source generally regarded as reliable and reputable. We don't have this here, so the article fails our criteria and must go. I would like to say, though, that we should strongly encourage the creator to carry on with the strip: focus on making the best comic you can, and ( probably when you least expect it ) it will be recognised by independent sources and discussed and reviewed widely. Then, when you've forgotten all about this discussion, a Wikipedia entry will arise, and no-one will question it. The best role model is Doonesbury; Trudeau didn't seek fame, he just wanted to write a good comic: the fame came automatically as a result of his hard work and talent. Work hard and hone your talent, and everything else will follow. ( This is a good rule for life generally. ) WMMartin 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Cornell Rockey 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 10:42, 8 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Downing III

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

Self-promotion, autobiography (note username of article creator), subject is not (yet?) notable. Note: PROD tag removed by IP editor, with an attempt to address notability issue, but no source for claims of "recognition" or feature in Filmmaker Magazine. FreplySpang 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have no intention in advancing his career through wikipedia, If you would do research and see that he has been featured in filmmaker magazine several news papers and imdb. You may do what you whant, but he has more credibility then most people you have listed coming from Full Sail college. We also do not feel we need to use wikipedia to advance anyones career, we came here to post info for him. He Will have another article coming out about himself and his film in First Monday magazine next week. There have also been many press releases put out about his work. If you feel that what we are doing is wrong then take it down, otherwise there is no harm being done. This is an encyclpoedia made by the people for the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcd3films (talk • contribs)
  • Please feel free to cite references to those magazine and newspaper articles in the article. (Press releases put out by Downing himself, however, are not evidence of notability.) References to reliable external sources are very persuasive in this sort of decision. However, you need to give detailed references - for instance, what issue of Filmmaker Magazine? Simply saying that he was once mentioned in the magazine does not give the reader enough information to verify the claim. And it is up to the article creator, not the reader to "do research" and provide these references. FreplySpang 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see you have already specified which issue of Filmmaker mentioned him (Fall '06). Thanks. It would be even better if you gave the article title and page number, but this is a start. FreplySpang 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not attacking the director or his films. What's being said is that his films nor himself are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. However, with the information that's been presented, I'm going to have to say keep until there's more information. It's looking like he's up-and-coming and if not now, will be worthy of an article soon. If not, I'd support an AfD in a few months. - JNighthawk 21:12, 7 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews in the military

[edit]
List of Jews in the military (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be far too broad a category, especially if it includes anyone of Jewish descent in any military organisation. Walton monarchist89 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list too impressive for some users prejudices? Trivial information? About Massena? Fernades de Cordoba? Prince Glinsky! User Tracadero1. 26. 07.

Comment. Perhaps I should have said indiscriminate. The problem is not that the people within the list are trivial, but that amassing them together into a list is fairly pointless. The number of Jewish people who have served in military organisations is so vast that the list could never be complete and would need constant updating. A category would present this information much more efficiently. See WP:NOT#INFO. WJBscribe 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, Tracadero. See WP:AGF. Bwithh 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Point of order: Why was the AfD notice removed from the article? -Arch dude 17:07, 28 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 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD notice was removed after 1.5 days by the primary editor of this article. [60] Numbers suggest a consensus to delete, but I am going to relist here just to be totally clear that this article got a fair shake. --W.marsh 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a category instead as suggested above. As a list to have a list, it is unmaintainable as there have been literally millions of jews in militaries worldwide throughout history. As a category, it could be a useful portal for those who wish to see what articles wikipedia has to offer regarding some notable persons who fit the criteria. -Markeer 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The requirement of attaining the rank of general puts this list in sharp focus and suggests renaming it. The annotations after the names of people in the list are not possible in a category, and are the reason Wikipedia has both lists (which are articles) and categories. I suggest renaming the article to better indicate the contents (and cleaning it up). Fg2 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not a list of every Jew in the military, its a list of those with articles, and a few with red links that deserve articles. Its a navigation page. Its no less valid than those below: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Jewish historians
  • List of Jewish scientists and philosophers
  • List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners
  • List of Jewish nobility
  • List of Jewish inventors
  • List of Jewish jurists
  • List of Jews in literature and journalism
  • List of Jews in the military
  • List of Jews in the performing arts
  • List of Jews in politics
  • List of Jews in religion
  • List of Jews in the visual arts
  • List of Jews in sports
  • List of Black Jews
  • List of fictitious Jews
    • Comment. If it is what you say it is, then that is best handled by a Category: Jews. Shrumster 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "a few with red links" somewhat underplays one issue here, since about half of the links are red (I got 64 red links out of 137 entries on an admittedly quick count). To me this speaks to the problem of article creep, where editors wish to continuously add names they subjectively feel are notable, as opposed to wishing to provide a navigation page for those wanting more information on the overall subject. To me this is a sign that a category would work better than this list -Markeer 14:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A category may certainly work as well or better, but that is not in itself a reason to delete this article. Likewise, extraneous redlinks can be removed, and shouldn't affect this decision. Joshdboz 17:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Joshdboz, but the list is too vaguely defined as it stands. YechielMan 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better to handle with separate categories for ethnicity and profession. Addhoc 10:53, 8 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) 2007-02-08 09:16Z

Voodoovelvet

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

Doesn't seem notable. A google search returned no third-party mentions. The book that's cited as a reference isn't enough since that's only a publication of art works uploaded to that website. BTW, I wasn't even able to fin her on artwanted.com Ok she appeared under the name Vu Velvet there, that's why I couldn't find her. Carabinieri 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems non-notable, doesn't meet criteria for an article. Steve 20:13, 29 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 21:46, 2 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) 2007-02-08 09:15Z

Stellar Procreation

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

Not a real game but merely an abandoned plot thread for Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner GovanRear 21:54, 2 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 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capan

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

A fictional country without a context. Un-encyclopedic Flyguy649 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The article now states that it "is a country created by the imagination of Garrett Shave". Flyguy649 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom - possibly speedy under WP:NFT RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:13, 2 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:15Z

Recurring jokes in The Simpsons

[edit]
Recurring jokes in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hmm where to start with? Unencyclopedic, Fancruft, Yet another "List of XYZ" article, and badly written also --Jestix 22:17, 2 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 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Today

[edit]

I am affraid it does not pass WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'the Alexa rank of 2,626,889' (??) Sorry - you speak about the website as I guess (where the content is NOT published, with exception of a few sample issues) while it is email newspaper, with many of the world elite chess-players (world's numer two Vishy Anand, to name just one here) being among its subscribers. The website is mainly a place where people can make their subscriptions and read some basic info once or twice in a lifetime - so why there should be any hot traffic?! I do not see a logic here, apologies! Sorry but I will try to repeat: Chess Today readers do not visit website to find news or anything. They read content which they receive by email and which can not be found on the web by definition, with the exception of some sample issues. This in some way explains why there was no article on CT in Wikipedia until now, it is web-based but most of content is not on the web (as it is the case with some traditional newspapers).

Gkb123 writes: I don't think the article should be deleted. Chess Today is a Chess Newspaper that is highly respected in the chess world, that is read by hundreds of chess players from beginners to professional Grandmaster Chess Players. I think I heard that the World Chess Champion is a reader.

It really has nothing to do with websites and the Chess Today website is merely a place to sign up for the newspaper.

A reference to Chess Today is placed for a long time here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Baburin Is it not eccentric in some way that media, i.e. Chess Today (which exists for more than 6 years already) is mentioned in Wiki only on the its editor-in-chief personal page? For additional info on Chess Today go here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/ChessToday/

--- A reference to Chess Today in the Washington Post (see the end of article) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33008-2004Nov7?language=printer

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

The result was speedy delete as G12. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aly

[edit]

Notability is not established Alex Bakharev 22:29, 2 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 per A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Boone

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

Attack article on a non-notable person, talking about sexual acts and other things. I tagged as Speedy attack article but the person did a hold on. If AfDing this is not right, please let me know how to proceed. Thanks. - Denny 22:49, 2 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 as A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wang

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

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Minor college football player. Article may be an attack article. Nv8200p talk 23:13, 2 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) 2007-02-08 09:12Z

Instant payment flow

[edit]
Instant payment flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:IPF scheme 2.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I do not think it is notable yet. Also looks like an Original research to me Alex Bakharev 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google pulls up a whopping 9 hits. Aplomado talk 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and most of those are for the same single web site. This concept appears to be the invention of a single person at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. There is no evidence that anyone apart from that one person, who wrote about it in xyr Masters thesis, has acknowledged this concept; and that it has gained any traction whatsoever in the world outside of that one person. There are no papers, books, or articles by anyone else on this subject. This is original research, and the article is blatantly non-neutral, being written in the first person and talking about what "we have to" do. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New payment paradigm"? Please. Delete this junk and don't go to the guy's seminar. JuJube 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deletion proposal. My argument is that if you take the same position w.r.t. similar articles, you have to delete half of the entire content of Wikipedia. One example: Turtle F2F. This is very original research. This is an invention of a single person supported by the university. No one has acknowledged this concept yet. The software was never released. And that has gained no traction whatsoever in the world outside of that university. If you need more examples I can spend some time and provide you with lots of them. What's your counterargument? van Groningen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.59.233.82 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Logan

[edit]

Nom & vote...
Del on this n-n bio. Scrabble, Sudoku, and crosswords are such widely practiced 1-4 person, single-game or single-evening casual entertainments that those who create the puzzles and/or write the books about the solving the puzzles or winning the games can be notable for doing those things. A minuscule fraction of fans engage in them as tournament competitions, and non-participants who pay attention to the tournaments probably number roughly the same as non-participant spouses and spouse-equivalents of competitors. Wordplay (film) is the kind of exception that "proves the rule": it played in lots of theaters, and got some press attention, but the participants appear in that article as text, not bio-lks; the same is true for the participants in crossword tournaments that don't get filmed. Entering tournaments for Scrabble, crosswords, Sudoku, touch football, or other casual entertainments is fun, even admirable, but a refined taste, and the winners can only be covered appropriately by listings in articles on the events, &/or lists/tables of competitive players with lks to their events. Winning the events is notable to that extent, but being a tournament winner is not notable to the extent of justifying a bio. (I'm not even sure it's reasonable to use their names as Rdrs to such lists.) In this case, (1) the info provided in the so-called bio is less useful in this format than in a table of winners of a given competition, with a column per winner about other wins; (2) the inclusion of a 1-sent 'graph on his winnings doesn't show how notable he is, but the opposite: while i don't demean the accomplishment and satisfaction obviously involved, at under $100 won per tournament, this guy is a generous subsidizer of the travel and lodging industries, rather than a "professional scrabble player", as the article at first glance suggests.
--Jerzy•t 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Point taken, but World Scrabble champs seem notable enough for me, and the article is wikified and of appropriate (i.e., short) length. That said, I am aware that we have axed articles for national spelling bee champs in the past, so I'm a little hesitant. Aplomado talk 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; In case you may not have noticed, the United States Scrabble Open receives ESPN air time in the United States. To me, if your game/sport has ESPN coverage, its top players are therefore notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Andy Saunders 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The world of competetive Scrabble is far more developed than those of the games you compare it to. Just for reference, Googling '"Adam Logan" scrabble' returns over 20K results. Soo 10:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to his Scrabble results, an additional claim to notability is that he was a Putnam Fellow (top five place in the annual Putnam competition) two years running. In the history of the competition only around 60 people have become Putnam Fellows in two or more years. Gandalf61 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We may want to enlarge this one soon; or we may want to axe it in ten years, if he fails to compete for the Fields Medal; prodigies do peter out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Point not taken. The comparisons of Scrabble to Sudoku and touch football are misconceived. Tournament Scrabble play is very established and notable. Not every moderately successful tournament player requires a bio, but one who has won multiple presitigious championships certainly satisfies the standards. He also has the honor of being the only multiple winner of the (invitational only) Canadian Scrabble Championship. --C S (Talk) 08:27, 7 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 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Stone

[edit]

As page stands right now, article does not present a strong enough argument regarding Sara's notability in order to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 23:31, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin metal

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

I am creating this discussion for the deletion of the article latin metal for the following reasons:

  • This page only consists of a brief and controversial description followed by a list that could be debated.
  • Only three articles (Ill Niño, Ankla, and Steep Trails) link to latin metal.
  • Latin metal is not a musical genre!

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It is a genre for sure, but not simply because of the reason stated in the article. I agree with your points. A genre isn't simply linguistic trait, but it has to be a stylistic one and the bands on the page do have that in common. Artists like Soulfly or Sepultura certainly have Latin music influences. While it isn't as separate as Tropicalismo is from Jazz, it is still a stylistic difference that allows for genre distinction. That is the article still needs to include more and actually describe that difference beyond a language. --SquatGoblin 17:32, 3 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 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast baseball team naming confusion

[edit]
West Coast baseball team naming confusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

topic is not encyclopedic, not notable, essentially an original essay BRMo 23:42, 2 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 consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Group Holdings Limited

[edit]
Focus Group Holdings Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be non notable, I was unable to come up with any reliable sources that give it any attention. Notable people can found non notable companies Daniel J. Leivick 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Eastmain 01:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I added a reference, a recent article from Variety.com about two film executives leaving the company. Variety is the newspaper of record for the U.S. film industry. But I checked the online archive at http://archive.scmp.com of stories from the South China Morning Post, an English-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, and couldn't find anything there about the company. The company belongs to actor and singer Andy Lau. Perhaps media coverage of the business deals that Focus Group Holdings is involved with is more likely to mention the actor's name than the company's. Still, if the company handles the business interests of a rich and famous celebrity, then it probably does some notable things. The difficulty is in verifying that notability, particularly for editors in North American who don't speak Cantonese. --Eastmain 01:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some films was released by the company since 1991 under the old name and some music albums since 2004. I feel this article at least deserve some time to grow. "After This Our Exile", an award winning movie released by the company in 2006.[61]. —Realdan 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With now WP:V, article subject is sufficiently notable in its context. MURGH disc. 14:55, 3 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 Redirect --Jersey Devil 04:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Burghart Dubois

[edit]
William Edward Burghart Dubois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although the subject is certainly notable, a rather well-done article already exists at W.E.B. Du Bois. There doesn't even seem to be enough substantiated info for a merge. Magichands 23:58, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_2&oldid=1116721865"