Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears' fifth studio album

Not enough confirmed information, only speculations, articles such as this should at least wait for a management confirmed album title with official resources listed Alankc 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wait until release. Reads like a news piece to me. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballism. JuJube 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative and crystal balling the release of this album.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources and post them.
Keep Article passes WP:CRYSTAL by being well-sourced (all appear to be reliable) about an album that has been in development for a while and will most likely be released. The tentative title is not its most important aspect. Pomte 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pomte. This article is extremely well-referenced, and displays little unverified speculation. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - remarkably well sourced for an album that hasn't even been titled yet. I think this satisfies WP:CRYSTAL. Natalie 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative. Edeans 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Britney Spears - fansites and blogs are not reliable sources. Official releases from anagement and label are. possible track list is not sourced information, and the article can wait for an officially confirmed tracklist, release date, and album title. Until the official announcements, everything and anything can change. Alankc 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other problems notwithstanding, doesn't (yet) meet WP:V. /Blaxthos 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all of the information is verified, therefore making it unreliable. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources put it past WP:CRYSTAL criteria. Quadzilla99 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although one part of my brain says delete all of it, the side of my brain that reads WP:CRYSTAL says keep it. Sources are quoted and if they turn out to be wrong in the future, at least we can look back at history and see where it went wrong. Wikipedia, like the law, is a living document. It and its editors learn as time grinds on. --Silverhand^Talk 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Silverhand, it is documented (and not just in fansites), so verifiability doesn't seem to be a problem, and it appears to pass WP:CRYSTAL. I think this is exactly the sort of article WP:CRYSTAL means to preserve.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has sources such as MTV, People, CBS to name a few. Provides verifiable content that would just have to be recreated in the not too distant future. ↔NMajdan•talk 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Britney Spears - the only true confirmation of titles and tracklsits are from the record label and management, all else is speculation and heresay that can, and often does get changed before the official information release from management. 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alankc (talk • contribs) 2007-02-05 21:31:55
- This is not a vote, Alankc. You were the nominator. Adding bullet points repeating yourself won't change the outcome. There is no ballot to be stuffed. Uncle G 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MiracleMat 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MTV, CBS, and People are all reliable sources. --Zeborah 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much of this discussion is about the album itself, rather than our article about the album. It doesn't matter if the album has no title yet; the information the article contains is verified, and it clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, surpasses the crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the "future" tag remains on it than this article is fine to stay on Wikipedia. Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the most anticipated albums of the year. Definetly keep. Starsareblind07 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to correct spelling. 〈RED VEЯS〉 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noberto Davidds-Garrido

The player's real name is NORBERTO, not Norberto, and there is already an article on him: Norberto Garrido Daveblack 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Already redirected. The spelling mistake is now also moot. --N Shar 01:17, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Raciti

I am nominating this article for deletion because this officer, while his death is tragic, does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. -- Zytron 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per WP:BIO:

The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for playing a major role in a event receiving major news and media coverage (e.g., orchestrating and engaging a famous crime spree or a widely known heroic event).

--Angelo 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is EXTREMELY notable - it's a dead policeman, but the impact on Italian football could be massive. Porterjoh 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Barely meets WP:BIO. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep multiple non-trivial works, major role in major media event.--Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting the notability criterion; the subject of the article has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works. In addition, the subject also appears to satisfy WP:BIO. --Kyra_~(talk) 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose suspending this AfD until the AfD on http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Raciti (Italiano ) is completed then do the same Filippo Raciti Translated by Google Jeepday 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree, simply because notability rules on Italian Wikipedia are very different than here. --Angelo 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and no need to suspend. His notability doesn't come from the fact that he's a policeman, it comes from the fact that his death shut down all Italian football. Which is a notable event connected to him. In addition, I would not be surprised if there are further repercussions. Crystallina 02:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a case where his death established his notability by the consequences of it. Resolute 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All football in Seria A and B has been cancelled due to his death, that is unprecedented.--134.225.177.27 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just Serie A and B, but every football league fixture in the country, plus all national team appearances (an Italy vs Romania friendly was scheduled this Wednesday and cancelled because of his death). --Angelo 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Italy's government alone will suffer millions of dollar in lost tax revenue. His death is notable beyond a doubt. Xiner (talk, email) 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: massive worldwide media coverage has proved that Filippo Raciti meets with the notability criteria. --Daĉjo^почта 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not what he's done throughout his life, it's what his death has done to Italian football. It will take them a while to recover from this. Cream147 07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable via appropriate sources. /Blaxthos 09:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep High-profile individual in a major news event. Qwghlm 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But. A year from now might be a different story. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article should have been speedy deleted as a G12 and recreated, but wasn't. As a result, the earliest versions contain copyvio material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Italian Football Violence page, his death is notable, but his life was not. Ram4eva 12:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are also German and Italian wiki articles about him and do they think his entry should be deleted from those pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet2006 (talk • contribs)
Keep - --Attilios 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Italian Football Violence page — his death did cause suspension of games, but his relevant biographical information could be condensed into a 4-or-5 sentence paragraph. DL77 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people killed in noteworthy circumstances are generally considered notable; see e.g. Benno Ohnesorg. --Delirium 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This murder is not only related to Football violence, but to social violence against police in some Italian gruop. It is a witness fact of its time unfortunately. --Bramfab 14:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep There are many articles on wikipedia about police officers who have faced terible circumstances.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously meets WP:BIO. Quadzilla99 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Porterjoh--KaragouniS 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO, will also come handy as a sub-chapter or sub-linked item for football vioence related articels. HagenUK 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Anything that can shut down football in Europe is very notable. I expect there are repercussions we have yet to see that will need to be chronicled under this fallen officer's name. --Silverhand^Talk 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and look into closing under WP:SNOW Passes Notability and Verifiability, as his death not only has suspended all football in italy, but his death is/will be the defining moment in a crackdown on the Italian Ultra Scene. SirFozzie 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The incident around his unfortunate death makes him notable. Kingjeff 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A lot of the purported Notability seems to hinge on how significant (long) the football stoppage will be ("...there are repercussions we have yet to see.."), and that is not yet known. Therefore, until more important repercussions occur, not notable. --lightspeedchick 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to article about the Catania violence. The violence is unquestionably notable, but Mr. Raciti is only notable insofar as he connects to the event. Certainly a plausible redirect, though. GassyGuy 03:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and Footballers are only notable because of football. Kingjeff 04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different. "Football" is a broad sport played in various incarnations. An athlete who habitually participates at a sufficiently notable level in such events is notable, and we have specific guidelines to determine which ones are and are not. Mr. Raciti has no long-term notability with something like "football" - he is connected to a very specific news event. His notability is inextricably tied to the event, whereas footballers often have slight claims to notability outside of football. Regardless, Mr. Raciti is known for one thing, and one thing only - being killed in the Catania violence. It would, therefore, be more sensible to cover him in that article, where his notability is better contextualized, than to break him off from the event and have two articles on what are, notability-wise, the same subject. GassyGuy 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: But this is a notable event and Herr Raciti is a major person in this case. How can he not be notable? Kingjeff 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is notable as part of the event and should therefore be covered in the article for the event. He is not notable as a person because he receives no actual coverage as a person prior to this event, and, as he's now dead, will not be able to become notable as a person. GassyGuy 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter how he becomes notable. Kingjeff 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This discussion is becoming silly. Does it even matter what I say? I keep trying to explain my reasons and you don't even address them, so why bother replying? Yes, it does matter. To be notable by Wikipedia standards, you are the subject of multiple non-trivial yadda yadda yadda. Raciti is not. The violence is. Raciti is a plausible search term and makes a lovely redirect as an aspect of the Catania violence covered within that article, in my opinion. Obviously there won't be a consensus to merge and I'm not even bothering to propose it on the page. I only keep explaining myself because you keep replying, which I assumed meant you wanted to discuss my idea. If you do not and simply wish to keep reasserting that you disagree, then that's unnecessary and I will stop attempting to explain myself for some vain non-purpose, but please then do not lead me to believe I should be further discussing the reasoning behind my opinion to merge. GassyGuy 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let's stop it all. The guideline says "the person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial works...", not "he has been the most primary one". On these works, Raciti is a subject too, together with the events itself, Catania football club and so on. Then, you can find another criterion which says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for playing a major role in a event receiving major news and media coverage" are likely to be notable here in Wikipedia. Raciti's name achieved notoriety worldwide following the events. Sorry, GassyGuy, but it seems you're wrong, and it seems also I'm not the only one to have such opinion on the matter (look at the discussion and votes). In the end, even Sirhan Sirhan is notable solely for a single event, but this is quite enough to make him notable for Wikipedia. --Angelo 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep policement. --- Tonganoxie Jim 24.60.163.16 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep subject of major news event. --Ted-m 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep while articles on officers which only notable fact is being killed in the line of duty are questionable, this officer was killed in a major riot, and his death contributed to a halt to football games in Italy for a period of time (according to the front page news article) definite keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to stand alone. Vees 20:05, 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) 2007-02-11 06:28Z

Salk School of Science

Non-notable middle school. That's right, I said middle school. *sighs* Soltak | Talk 00:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not appear to meet the core notability guideline or the proposed guideline for notability on schools. --Kyra_~(talk) 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; First, I am not sure if this qualifies as a non-trivial award, but SSoS did win a Blackboard Award "as an outstanding public middle school"; even if the award is trivial, the information provided by WMMartin is an indication that there are most likely some non-trivial sources to be found somewhere. As such, this school seems to just meet the notability criteria. Kyra_~(talk) 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Unreferenced~~, fails all notability req's. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now referenced, but the cited website is actually just the school's homepage, not a third party source. ~~And there's still nothing in the article itself that states why this middle school is different from every other middle school on the planet.~~ It may have a special curriculum and it may be associated with a university, but I still don't think this article passes WP:SCHOOL. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete "I exist" does not establish notabiilty. Resolute 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WMMartin. I'm not entirely convinced it is notable yet, but there now appears to be enough to justify giving it some extra time. Resolute 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Josh Parris

Week Keep now asserts notability, WP:BEEFSTEW score of 7/10 Josh Parris 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SCHOOL -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content can be easily replaced; doesn't assert notability. Xiner (talk, email) 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know who Salk is, and I did read the article before I cast the vote. I still don't think the article is notable per WP:SCHOOL. "Articles about schools that do not meet the above criteria may be unexpandable save for demographic data." This one fits the bill. Except for its connections, which are to be expected given Mayor Bloomberg's initiatives, there's nothing much more to say about the school. Sorry. Xiner (talk, email) 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep ~~Per comments made by Selmo and generally not-notable.~~ - although ther article has been cleaned up a little it may now just meet the notability guidelines. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above ↔NMajdan•talk 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is a first... Regular participants in AfD debates will know that I tend to feel that middle schools are generally non-notable. However... Has anyone else actually looked the school up on Google ? It's very easy to find the following information: the Salk School of Science runs a unique science curriculum in New York, and is "part of a collaboration between the New York University School of Medicine and the New York City Department of Education... Members of the medical and scientific community work with Salk teachers to create curriculum... Members of the NYU School of Medicine (NYUSM) and the NYU School of Dentistry teach and mentor students in grades 6 through 8 at the Salk School" ( from the school's website ). I have added this information to the article; it should be clear that I feel that the school is notable. I therefore, with great astonishment, find myself the first person in this debate to say Keep, though with the proviso that we should also Improve References. WMMartin 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article makes an explicit claim of notability in terms of its curriculum and coordination with the New York University School of Medicine. The fact that -- *sighs* -- this school is a middle school makes the affiliation with one of the countries most prestigious medical schools all the more notable. Alansohn 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale provided by Alansohn, there appear to be specific claims to notability here which would warrant inclusion of this article. (jarbarf) 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This award winning school meets all proposed iterations of WP:SCHOOLS. Silensor 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is going to be a Keep decision, so I won't be arguing about it, but I'll leave a final note. It's all well and good that a good institution has linked up with the school, but that institution doesn't focus on education, and even the best high schools are rarely linked with medical schools, so I think this is more hype than substance. I really don't think it passes any of the notability guidelines for schools, and at best deserves just a mention in an article about Bloomberg's initiatives. Xiner (talk, email) 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair point. My expectation ( not yet proven ) is that we can find enough independent references to support the claim to notability. I don't have a problem with revisiting this debate in a few months. I'm not a fan of school articles generally, but if the facts as presented in the article are true it seems to me that this is the sort of thing that would make the school notable. In the past I've advocated retention of an article about a similar school that had built a special relationship with the US Geological Survey ( or something like that, I don't remember all the details ), for much the same reasons. If every school did this sort of thing it would cease to be notable, but so far as I can tell this doesn't happen. In a sense, my view of notability for schools is tied up with how we might answer the question "Would a well-informed educationalist have a reason to refer to this school rather than any other when talking about his subject?". I think that for this school the answer to that question is "Yes". Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. WMMartin 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since a sufficient claim to notability has been presented. RFerreira 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rarity of the connection to the health institution is itself notable enough. Noroton 14:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1300 René-Lévesque Ouest

Building is proposed and as far as I can see is not currently under construction. Thus it is completely non-notable. Delete CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future event; not notable. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Once construction has started it's a different storey. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Josh Parris
Delete per my WP:PROD nomination here. Chick Bowen 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a crystal ball QuiteUnusual 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable future building.-- danntm ^T _C 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions and list of Quebec-related deletions. -- Bearcat 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete unless sources can be found to confirm that the building has gone from "proposed" to "actively in development". Lots of proposed projects don't actually happen. Bearcat 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. However, once construction has physically begun I don't see why this doesn't deserve its' own. Luke! 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite looking for a while, I was not able to find evidence that the building has been funded--this was just an architectural proposal. I would be very surprised if construction actually begins on it. Chick Bowen 18:19, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:38Z

Hare and Hounds Pub

Non-notable pub. Only claim to fame is that Bruce Dickinson was a patron. No sources or other assertions of notability. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be notable, but as of now it is unreferenced. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Josh Parris
Delete as unreferenced and non-notable. Possibly could have been speedied. Natalie 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTE --JJLatWiki 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable information found via google except that "Hare and Hounds" isn't a terribly unique name for a pub. --Zeborah 05:00, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:40Z

List of Brazil-related topics

This list is the very definition of indiscriminate and one of the worst examples of listcruft we have. The criterion for inclusion apparently seems to be subject matter relating to Brazil. This is exactly what we have categories for, subcategorization gives a far more helpful navigation tool than an unwieldy (set of) list(s). To make matters worse there is ZERO text in this article aimed at readers, and the only non-list text is a bit of advice to editors. Delete Nilf anion (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you're unaware of Category:Lists of topics by country, which includes links to many such lists. To give two examples List of India-related topics and List of United States-related topics. That said this particular list is way too long and not done right. Also I don't know how I feel about the category.--T. Anthony 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of all these lists, and I feel they are all utterly inappropriate (a Category structure is much better). However, given the sheer number of these I feel making a nomination on one of them without prejudice on the others is the way forward; better to gauge consensus on one of them then have a massive bulk nomination which would likely be a sockfest. This particular one is hideous as it stands, but even after clean up there will still be an unencyclopedic list.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists exist because they were started as the only means to organise the articles before the category system existed. Perhaps they have had their day, but I find your contempt for the huge amount of effort by good wikipedians that they represent repellent. The fact that I am probably the largest contributor to the subcategorisation of the by-country categories which have largely superseded these lists does little to reduce my annoyance at your unpleasant attitude. CalJW 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I completely agree with Nilfanion. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information that the list contains would seem to be way more efficiently used in categories, and not as an extremely large list, as Nilfanion said in the nomination. The navigation in categories contains articles that relate to each other, without containing other, non-related articles. Seems to be an indiscriminate list of information, which is what Wikipedia is not. Kyra_~(talk) 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. Categories are a much more efficient method of handling this list, imagin the list "American related topics" Jeepday 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to imagine it - it exists as List of United States-related topics. Natalie 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 235Kb? ARgh! Josh Parris
Delete per nom. However, I think newer Wikipedia users are not very familiar with categories, so would it be totally out of line to redirect this page to Category: Brazil? Natalie 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - lists can be very useful conra categories; this one is not well done and offers little information beyond list membership for each entry. +sj + 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is so indiscriminate as to be utterly useless; categorisation is the way forward here. DWaterson 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete - Nilfanion, you note that categorization is appropriate here. However, do categories indeed exist for such things? This list is quite well-structured, while categories are often a mess. If the category structure is as detailed and well-organized, I will most likely support deletion. Also, I do not think that deliberately not listing other articles is appropriate when you are aware of them and believe the same criticisms apply. List them all and if there truly is consensus, let them all be deleted at once (that way, it is not necessary to repeat the same arguments for every single list). Black Falcon 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category exists here just fine its Category:Brazil and its subcategories - the scope of the list is to cover EVERYTHING in there. The structure of the whole category tree is superior to this list. One fundamental reason for not listing them all at once, is that there are a very large numbers of these. As for listing just this one as many of them are broken down further (due to the overwhelming length), this would be an AfD on hundreds of articles; and they all have a different feel. Whilst I feel they all have the same flaws, the community may not agree with me and could lead to a hideous mess, with some people saying "keep UK, USA and India but delete the rest" for example. Doing this one country at a time without letting the results from one AfD prejudice another may be less-efficient if everyone agrees with me, but if any individual article became contentious that would not poison the others and make the discussion a mess. I think I'm going to write an essay on this category and post to my user space (and link from this AfD's talk page).--Nilf anion (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can understand your rationale behind nominating them separately. Also, I have changed my vote to delete as Category:Brazil is indeed better-organized. I may not support deleting the other country-lists, but only because I haven't look at them yet. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brazil is one of the biggest countries in the world. Something this general can't be useful. Shaundakulbara 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator. No faulting the nom for choosing one of many of these types of lists for deletion instead of a bulk nom - it would have been a gong show. Better to review on a case-by-case basis in this instance. Agent 86 20:25, 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. There were many suggestions to merge these articles, but this is not practical. Per WP:NOT#INDESCRIMINATE, they are deleted. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list

This is a list of songs in one of the Dance Dance Revolution games. The game is notable, but the lists are unencyclopedic - one such list, Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA song list, is one of the largest articles on Wikipedia. These lists are mostly unmaintained, and are probably better off on a fan site - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a game guide.

Also nominating:

Weak keep We also have an article for the soundtracks heard in the NHL video game series, so why not have this article? P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia policy states that just because an article of equal or lesser quality can be found, doesn't mean that an article should be kept. There are presumably many articles that should not be on Wikipedia - or should at least be reviewed - but it is like the "S/He did it first" argument, a Wikipedia editor saw this one first , and so this one should be dealt with appropriately (be it delete or keep) Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge them all into a new article about DDR songs. Nevermind I like Resolute's idea better, merge per Resolute. --Candy-Panda 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given the size of the SuperNOVA one, merging doesn't appear to be an option. --Core desat 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into their parent articles. There is no need for separate articles in this case. Resolute 02:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all into one article, call it List of songs appearing in Dance Dance Revolution, and be done with it. There's no need to have a list for each game when there are so many repeats. I think the list is a good idea, many of the songs and artists are notable, and nearly anyone looking up info on DDR will want it.--UsaSatsui 11:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but keep a list of notable new songs in each game's article, like the one in the Extreme article. These lists are totally unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not the place for them. We don't have a complete list of every Beethoven composition ever made, or every Van Gogh picture either. Those are for monographs and dedicated sites. However we have a list of notable Van Gogh works, so I think it makes sense to have one for these (but integrated in the articles). --Pi (π) 11:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, how do you determine notability for songs in DDR? Few of the songs are really notable in and of themselves. A lot are J-pop songs, which aren't typically notable in the English-speaking world; many are remixes, which aren't typically notable either. ♠PMC♠ 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same way you determine notability for anything else. Verified sources. Sources from Japan are just as valid, and even in the US, most people have heard of Duran Duran and Chumbawumba. True, though, most of these artists aren't popular here. --UsaSatsui 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per Pi (π).--Madmedea 15:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a host for listcruft. ♠P M C♠ 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge into one article [with an extra column indicating which mixes a song appears in] Good material, and many songs and their inclusion is notable, but redundant. +sj + 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you serious? There's nothing encyclopedic about these articles at all. Why would an encyclopedia article about DDR list at such breathtaking length the songs in the game instead of, oh, explaining what the game is and why it's popular, etc. Allon Fambrizzi 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
For the same reason it might include a long list of popes in addition to why they're important. The songs used in the game is a very important aspect of the game itself, and it's not like we don't have room. I support a list because otherwise, the articles would get too long. --UsaSatsui 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether you realize it, but you just compared DDR to the Catholic Church. Some perspective is called for. Allon Fambrizzi 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Well, to the Pope, but I didn't really compare them. You asked why a large list would be included in an "encyclopedic" article. That's an example of such a list. --UsaSatsui 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you understand what I meant? The Catholic Church is of much greater notability than DDR. So a list of popes is encyclopedic where a list of songs from DDR isn't. Sorry, not everything is equal. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    - But why is it unencyclopedic? I understand not everything is equal, but we're not talking about paper here. It's a useful list, it's discriminate, contains non-trivial information and enhances the articles it's related to (or it would, if my suggestion of merging to one list passes. It's moot if they get merged into their game's articles, and I don't think there's any chance of a "keep as is"). Being "more" or "less" notable than something else, especially a juggernaut like the Catholic Church, doesn't matter, so long as the basic notability threshold is hit. --UsaSatsui 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. find some Wiki which would take it. SYSS Mouse 02:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into their parent articles as suggested above. --Kyoko 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with individual parent articles, the information is best served there I believe. (jarbarf) 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single parent article Simplify the list down to game and title of song while giving encyclopedic information about the game as a whole. --Deeno 2110, 8 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. People can go to video game sites for song lists for DDR games. RobJ1981 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent articles as per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 07:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate parent articles, or if not to one article. Parent articles would be preferable in my opinion, however.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:27Z

Relics of the Chozo

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

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

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

Fan-released collaborative album that does not meet the notability requirements for musical works on Wikipedia. No results for this album at All Music Guide. No sources whatsoever except for the project website, which violates WP:V as this is not a third-party source.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason given above. Note that these projects were all released in collaboration with the same website, Overclocked Remix:

Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; but why am I so sure we've seen this on AfD before? (Not the "Kong in Concert" VfD, I seem to remember another mass AfD of video game music rearrangements albums). JuJube 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This set of articles was already nominated at least once before: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgehog Heaven. The result was "no consensus"... what has changed? Oh, and I think that there are a few sources on Kong in Concert that are not the project website (there's one at MusicBrainz). -- Rmrfstar 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't see that previous AfD; nonetheless, I'm very surprised it wasn't interpreted as Delete. The role of the closing administrator is to interpret the discussion, and if all the !votes for Keep ignore Wikipedia policy in favor of their own personal taste, or, worse, unacceptable notability tests, then those !votes should be ignored. - Chardish 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Josh Parris
Keep Despite nom, it is, in fact, quite useful. --Nintenfreak 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- There are many things that are useful that do not belong in Wikipedia. The issue at debate here is that the article fails the standards of verifiability and notability, which are requirements for articles in Wikipedia. Verifiability in particular is non-negotiable. - Chardish 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No notability for these albums. GassyGuy 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep. /Blaxthos 09:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These projects already have information pages on their respective sites. There is also a severe lack of standard for which projects are allowed to become official on ocr. In other words, anyone who managed to finish a project had it become official, regardless of quality. Lack of standards may work for OCR, but not for wikipedia. Furthermore, at the risk of being POV, I'll be frank and say that with the exception of one or two of these projects, they are all quite bad. 72.208.129.108 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site these albums are from is indeed notable, and the above-mentioned guidelines for the notability of music state that albums by notable artists are automatically notable as well. Perhaps merging the articles about the albums and the one about the site itself might be an option. DorfDepp 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — DorfDepp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You're missing a step in your logic here - having your music on a notable website does not make an artist notable, otherwise every 16-year-old with a guitar on MySpace or YouTube would be considered notable. As such, these albums are not by notable artists. - Chardish 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's take your analogy a bit further - if YouTube were to release a sort of "best-of DVD" of what the YouTube employees think is some of the best stuff on their site, and the DVD would be downloaded or sold hundred thousands of times -- would this be notable? I do think so. And that's pretty much what these albums are, the best songs on a specific topic by the OCR-Community, with ten or even hundred thousands of downloads each (I only see counters for BitTorrent D/L's, but all those albums are downloadable directly as well, which is preferred by most web-users). DorfDepp 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC) — DorfDepp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Meh, I kinda changed my mind. I think it would be good if those articles would simply redirect to OverClocked ReMix. By the way, this is not a single purpose account, and I'm not exactly a new user. I've actually been quite active in Wikipedia some time ago; But only in the German edition. - DorfDepp 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, if gaming music is considered a music genre, it does meet the requirements without any trouble. While I realize this isn't argument, this article is better than most articles about music releases on the English Wikipedia. --pred 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot make an argument for the keeping/deletion of an article based on what else exists on Wikipedia due to the nature of the project: anyone can create articles that aren't notable or aren't up to standards. We have objective standards of notability for this very reason, and these albums meet none of them. If you are arguing that gaming music is a genre, you need cited reliable sources that indicate that the musicians behind these albums (not the OCRemix project in general) are influential within the game music genre. - Chardish 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "You cannot make an argument [...]" - I believe that was exactly what I wrote. --pred 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep(for all) I mean come on...Everyone knows about OCR! Why delete this? I don't get the thought processes of the person that sent this article here. Draconiator 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be deleted because it violates Wikipedia's objective standards of notability for music. We have objective standards here because everybody likes something, so simply saying "I like it" is not an argument to keep. I agree with you that OCR is notable; however, these individual projects are not notable. To put it another way, Taco Bell is notable, but not every item on the Taco Bell menu is notable. Time (magazine) is notable, but not every issue they've released is notable. If you want to !vote "very strong keep" you need to present some very strong evidence. - Chardish 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. In this case, I will change my vote to Slight Keep. Others might like it, but I agree with the non-notability factor. Especially since you cannot sell these kinds of albums. Draconiator 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for a delete, there's nothing that can really be merged with the main OCRemix article IMO, which already mentions the concept of projects / albums, and the individual names and sources of them. IMO whilst OCRemix is notable, the individual remixes created for it aren't, even if they're made into an album. FredOrAlive 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Seems to be no credible arguments in favour of keeping it. --RaiderAspect 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable - can't find any reliable third-party references via google. --Zeborah 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --D-Boy 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - OCReMix is not open for anyone to simply post their music; that is where the MySpace or YouTube analogy fails.

The site staff carefully picks out submitted music to be posted to the site through a rigorous quality control system. A similar system is in place for determining the validity of official album projects. With regards to notability, OCReMix as a site is considered notable. This has been established. Among other reasons, this is because it fulfills point six in the music notability guidelines: "# Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." OCReMix is verifiably the pioneer of the genre of video game music rearrangements and is easily the most prominent site in the field.

Now, consider the following. OCReMix as an abstract concept did not pioneer the genre. It's fame and notability is derived from the music itself, which is created by various artists who submit to the site and go through the evaluated process. Without said music, which is created by supposedly "non-notable" artists, OCR would not have gotten off the ground at all. The site exists, and is constantly growing in popularity, because there is a community of skilled artists that contribute to the database of music that essentially defines the site. Thus, when the same artists that made (and continue to make) OCR notable release an album officially through OCR, that album in turn is also notable.

The Time Magazine comparison is also inaccurate. Here is a better one. Let's say there is a record label, "DNA Records", that pioneers a new style of music, Jazz Metal. The artist roster consists of primarily hobbyist musicians who have no interest in doing any sort of mainstream release are not not "notable" by Wiki standards. While an obscure/esoteric genre, various print magazines and websites applaud "DNA Records" for their accomplishment and the DNA Records site becomes the #1 place for Jazz Metal. According to the logic of the people voting "delete", any actual albums the "DNA Records" label releases would be considered non-notable. This is illogical. Simply because the artists involved are not individually notable (according to Wiki guidelines), it is their collective work that defined and developed the new genre to begin with. Surely, none of you would say that an official compilation release by DNA Records would be non-notable simply because the individual artists were not! Yet, that is what many of you are saying about OCR, which is in an identical situation. Zirconst 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- I fixed the formatting on your post. Hope you don't mind. - Chardish 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the DNA Records albums would not notable. Genres are not invented - they are terms given by music reviewers and journalists to describe trends in sound. If the sound they pioneered was as truly innovative as you boast, the artists would be reviewed and discussed by reputable third-party sources, which would make the artists notable. Record companies with no notable artists are rarely themselves notable - remember that OCRemix is a notable website, not a notable record company. Furthermore, video game music remixes are nothing new, OCRemix (despite being a very good site) did not invent them, and fan releases by OCRemix volunteers are not notable. Your analogy would probably be more effective if you found a real-life example instead of resorting to the hypothetical. - Chardish 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's true that OCR did not pioneer or invent the genre per se, but it is the most prominent representative as we have already established and has been cited numerous times in different forms of media, as well as by notable composers in the field. The site has done quite a bit for the genre and attracted much attention for it. Moving on, for all practical purposes, OCR is a record label. Every sound recording posted to the site is distributed and branded as an "OC ReMix". The fact that there are no physical releases is inconsequential; numerous internet-only record labels exist. While the site does not refer to itself as such, for comparative purposes OCR functions like the hypothetical "DNA Records" might - collecting sound recordings from various artists, branding them, and releasing them to the public.

You are wrong in assuming that an innovative or pioneering sound would necessarily be "reviewed and discussed by reputable third-party sources", especially if the release in question is a compilation. What if the form of music is simply not palatable to the general public or mainstream media? What if there are so many artists involved (in the case of OCR) that discussing each one of them at length would be impossible, and it would be more practical to simply talk about the general concept?

Ultimately, I think the black-and-white adherence to the notability guidelines here does not make sense when applied to something like this. I think the album guidelines were more intended for traditional labels doing traditional releases. I agree that it would not be wise to allow every tiny indie label with a basement album release to be on Wikipedia. And to that end I think the guidelines are successful. However, an allowance can and should be made for a case like OCR, which is NOT traditional either in the type of music it promotes or in how it distributes the music. These albums have been downloaded (collectively) over 110,000 times through OCR's official torrents alone, not counting the traffic from numerous HTTP mirrors. That is a truly massive number, and to write them off simply because a print publication hasn't written about them specifically would be in poor judgment. Zirconst 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - Big numbers don't mean anything in deletion debates. If you have to explain in several paragraphs why something is notable, chances are it isn't. We have objective criteria for notability because anyone can make a case like yours to explain why something that isn't notable should be on Wikipedia. If it's not an album by notable artists, and there aren't reliable third-party sources on the subject of the albums, it's not notable by Wikipedia standards. And, for purposes of objectivity, let me state that I enjoy these albums very much. They're really good. But they're not notable. - Chardish 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You continue to neglect to address my central point - the same point DorfDepp made. The artists that submit to OCR are what give the site its notability, much like a notable record label is only that because artists record and release music through it. Once again, as these are official album projects that represent the core of what OCR is all about (which has been established to be notable), they should be considered notable even though the individuals involved are in and of themselves not. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, if you will.

BTW the reason why I continue to write so much is that barely anyone in favor of deletion has provided any non-trivial discussion on the topic and appear to just be reading your initial post and making a cursory evaluation of the facts at hand. According to the very "Arguments to Avoid" article you linked, "delete per nom" is as invalid as my citation of # of downloads. I will remind everyone, as an earlier poster did, that the same arguments for deletion were brought up for these albums in the past and no consensus was reached. Ignoring that precedent seems unjust. Zirconst 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - - - No, reliable, third-party sources on the topic of OCRemix are what give the site its notability, not its artists. This is the standard for every article on Wikipedia. You could find reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources about these albums and end this debate immediately. Do not waste words if these sources do not exist. - Chardish 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Furthermore, I just noticed that Zirconst's only edits have been to this deletion debate. Welcome to Wikipedia! I can understand why you wouldn't have a sound understanding of Wikipedia policy: that's okay, you're new here. I invite you to read articles on Wikipedia's three core content policies: verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. You also might be interested in what Wikipedia is not. I hope you enjoy your stay here, but I recommend you join the community, make some edits, ask some questions, and do some reading around before participating in AfD discussions. - Chardish 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, are you the same Zircon who is a contributor to OCRemix, and who wrote track 11 for one of the albums up for deletion? If so, you have a definite conflict of interest - while this may not disqualify you from participation in this debate, it is considered good etiquette to reveal this, especially since by the nature of your arguments you are claiming that you are notable by Wikipedia standards. - Chardish 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Slashdot seems to think OCR album projects are "notable" I'm inclined to agree with them. That's just me though. jtitteri— jtitteri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: The above was this user's first edit. - Chardish 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Moogy^(talk) 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is, one must use a very liberal interpretation of WP:MUSIC to declare that these are notable by that guideline. There are no reliable sources covering them, so they fail the primary criteria. None of the musicians involved can be considered notable by WP:MUSIC, and OCReMix can't really be considered an "ensemble", so they fail the "Albums" criteria.

Now, here's the place where things get confusing: The argument for keeping these is "OCReMix is notable, these are distributed through OCReMix, thus these are notable as well". OCReMix is notable through WP:WEB, as a website; it's not a record label, so OCR can not confer notability to its projects through WP:MUSIC. But, these "albums" aren't really albums in the strict sense; they have no physical distribution, only distribution through the OCReMix website. They may then fall under the category of "web content" as well.

However, they'd likely fail those criteria as well, because of the previously noted lack of coverage in reliable sources, along with the fact that they are not distributed independently, only through OCReMix itself.

It is also noted that the projects are already mentioned and listed in the main OCReMix article.

My verdict: Delete and redirect to OverClocked ReMix. WarpstarRider 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There seems to be some outside solicitation for votes on this entry going on. Moogy^(talk) 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to remind everyone nominating for deletion to please look at the following list of OCR press coverage; http://www.ocremix.org/info/Media_Coverage - verifiable mentions of these very albums from third party sources, both net-only (but non-trivial) and print. Regardless of the supposed conflict of interests I have (though I have made no effort to conceal my identity) one cannot ignore these press mentions.Zirconst 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - First off, we have to ignore the Slashdot postings, as those were written by members of the projects themselves (or djpretzel.) Then we are left with three sources: the Russian DVD insert, which is likely a trivial reference, the Music4Games blog entry, which is a non-notable and unreliable website, and the IGN.com reference, which merely displays the album's cover art as a picture of Sonic. The rest of the posts are about OCRemix itself, not the albums. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require multiple, non-trivial, third-party, reliable sources: none of these sources fulfill any of those requirements, and the single source for each of those three albums is not enough to satisfy notability. - Chardish 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article called List of notable OverClocked Remix songs or something. Each of the nominated articles them doesn't deserve its own article, but I believe it should get mentioned and summarised in a small section each on such a page. Just my opinion. --FlyingPenguins 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the albums themselves are not notable, and the artists are not notable, then I guarantee you that none of these songs are notable. - Chardish 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan music is roughly the equivalent as fan fiction as far as notability goes, and we all know that that's always deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The legitimacy of "fan music" has been addressed in the past, OCR itself was considered as an AfD. More than enough sourcing to prove it is notable in a variety of ways, so bad comparison. 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I can't find an AfD for OCR; regardless, OCR is subject to a different notability guideline. It's a website, so its notability is established according to WP:WEB. The website is what is judged as a notable subject, not the individual pieces of music. The albums must meet WP:MUSIC, and they don't. WarpstarRider 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OCR is not only a website. As has been discussed numerous times, it has become the most prominent representative for video game music arrangements and is widely recognized as a major force in the world of video game music in general. Again, simply read the media mentions portion of the site to verify that for yourself. I contend that it is notable under both the music and web guidelines. 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zirconst (talk • contribs). — Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      - I'm going to ask you kindly to thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before you continue participating in this debate. You are arguing, against apparent consensus, that OCR is an exception to Wikipedia rules, using arguments that are largely unverified. While it's okay to argue this, people are less likely to listen to you unless you have demonstrated that you already have an understanding of the rules. Right now there is strong evidence to suggest that you are a single purpose account with a conflict of interest, which essentially removes all weight your arguments could possibly have. If you want your views about projects you've worked on to be listened to, it would be a good idea to demonstrate through actions that you have an interest in the Wikipedia project as a whole, and are not simply attempting to use it as a vehicle for publicity or exposure. If you have questions or comments I would be happy to answer them on my my talk page. Thank you. - Chardish 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question If you are all going about that these articles should be deleted, then shouldn't the Projects section of the OverClocked Remix article be deleted as well? Draconiator 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the projects are essentially part of OCR, they can stay in that article. The problem is that they don't have notability independent of OCR, so they shouldn't have their own articles. WarpstarRider 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the press coverage link on OCR, it should be noted PC Gamer (UK) mentioned the Doom project in the November 2005 issue [1]. According to the rules, there seems to be no doubt that this doesn't satisfy the notability requirement of Wikipedia since there aren't enough noteworthy sources. Admittedly, I'm on OCR staff, but I think it's the points that matter, not the person's relation to the cause. Wesley Cho 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: cite it. I'm open to keeping these articles, but as it stands it is very difficult for me to evaluate whether they are notable because I don't know where the info came from—in particular, you should demonstrate some recognition of this music outside the remix website. Everyking 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laughably not notable. Delete all related secondary OCR pages and seriously trim the OCR entry. This looks like a vanity entry. - Draxle 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-02-11 06:20Z

Internationalist Books

Possibly not notable enough organisation. Opening AFD for community consensus. No Vote exolon 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not cited, and appears to be about one single store (not a franchise). P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable, as explained in the notability guidelines. The article here does not claim or demonstrate notability. --N Shar 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite clearly an advertisement for a non-notable store. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Resolute 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability and no sources except the store's own website. Natalie 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up On notability: Internationalist Books & Community Center is an infoshop, comparable to the Iron Rail in New Orleans. It is not a franchise, but that is intentional. Internationalist Books supports and is affiliated with various local radical groups, hosting a weekly 'Queer Youth Night' and sponsoring a Prison Books Collective (which publishes the National Prisoner Resource List and serves the Southeastern United States). Internationalist Books is one of only three resources listed for North Carolina in Slingshot's extensive Radical Contact List. IBooks provides a wealth of information and resources not available elsewhere locally, specializing in alternative news. Available resources include a free news rack, a wide variety of alternative and radical magazines (few of which are available in "notable" franchises like Barnes_&_Noble), and an extraordinary selection of self-published Zines.

Please keep in mind that by deleting this article, you will be saying that this vital radical resource -- for which hundreds of people have willingly volunteered their time over the years -- is of less importance than Zinc_Oxide_Eugenol and Kazuma_Kuwabara (two randomly-accessed articles). Digitoxic 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable Infoshops on Wikipedia (from the Infoshop article)

Delete non-notable, no matter what quality or quantity the amount of effort put forth. /Blaxthos 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seen above, many other infoshops have entries -- are they non-notable as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.14.174 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).— 66.57.14.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep/Clean-up Article has now been cited. Article has now also removed much of the language which made it seem "ad-like" - the entry is now much more encyclopedic in nature. Content has been added which shows the scope of the organization is national and international, important and unique. I would like to point out that the "delete" votes here seem to be a snowballing effect, not viewing the article on its own merits, rather basing opinions on previous "delete votes". Example: "non-notable, no matter what quality or quantity the amount of effort put forth" - if you draw this conclusion out, this could be said of Wikipedia (which is a collection of quality efforts). If you look at it now that is has been cleaned up, objectively, you will see this is just about as 'wikipedia' as things go - a collective organization which only exists because of the communal input and efforts of a group of people.

Outside recognition as measure of notability: Duke University Library, an internationally renowned organization, has collected and archived the papers of the founder of Internationalist Books, as well as the organizational records, in its Rare Books and Manuscripts Collection: Duke University Library collection This is evidence that the organization is a unique phenomenon, which deserves to be noted.

If time is a measure of notability: Note that of all of the other entries in noteworthy infoshops listed, only two (Jura and Wooden Shoe) were founded prior to 1981 - the founding date of the Internationalist. Not to mention that Jura and Wooden Shoe exist in much larger markets than Chapel Hill, NC. To exist as an independent bookstore for 25 years in a small college town, and to be the only remaining independent bookstore in downtown Chapel Hill, is intrinsically notable (not to mention the history, the outside articles, and all the other measures that comply with the notability guidelines).

Note also, if comparing to the other infoshop entries, that many do not have external links other than their own websites. Here we have a number of outside links, which is a major part of notability - from the the notability guidelines.

Finally, a quick anecdote: I recently spoke with a friend in San Francisco. We have not spoken in about ten years. When she learned that I had moved to Chapel Hill the first thing that she asked me was: "Have you been to the Internationalist?"--Citizenplastic 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)— Citizenplastic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, per above. This is a well known, long standing establishment. - N1h1l 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is N, and there seems to be adequate demonstration. The excellent political reasons why one might think it important are not relevant--and they are not needed, for its N in the ordinary way.04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Keep - notable as per references now added to the page. --Zeborah 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First i would like to say that this does not appear to an "international" entity, despite the name ("internationalist" refers to a world view, not extent of entity) but is rather an important local resource. The standard of WP:LOCAL should be considered here. It should be notable under this standard. The Independent Weekly and Daily Tar Heel cites more than satisfy WP:V criteria.Edivorce 00:12, 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 Merge to Ulam spiral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:19Z

Number spiral

Seems to fail the notability guideline. The only reference I can find via Google is the website http://www.numberspiral.com by the guy that came up with the idea and a link to that page on http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/ulam.htm with the description "R. Sacks' NumberSpiral page with an interesting graphical variation on the theme" [of Ulam's spiral]. I cannot find any papers commenting on the "number spiral" on MathSciNet.

The Ulam spiral, which is notable, is slightly different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ulam spiral. Per the nom this spiral is not notable and someone looking for number spiral is very likely looking for Ulam's. JoshuaZ 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Math should be published or referenced in a recognized mathematical forum to be notable. "The Internet" doesn't count. Redirecting would be acceptable, but seems not-so-useful. --N Shar 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as above. I looked at the article and it mentions nothing that would make it notable other then a self published web posting in 2003. Jeepday 01:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge into Ulam spiral. I don't think we should make an absolute of the guideline that it should be published in a refereed journal to be considered notable. Based on its content alone, I'd say this is at least as notable as the Ulam spiral, the question being whether it's sufficiently different from the Ulam spiral to be a separate article. It seems the Ulam spiral winds once around the origin every time this spiral winds around twice. Perhaps all of the phenomena pointed out here are equivalent to something observed in the Ulam spiral. In that case, maybe just merging this whole thing into Ulam spiral and labelling it a sort of variation on the theme of that article would be appropriate. Michael Hardy 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to userfy. I am astonished to learn that a man published something on the web three years after he died. Nevertheless, I have some duties concerning his disjecta membra, and would appreciate the opportunity to research the topic further to see if a verifiable article can be written: a task that I cannot hope to complete before this AfD must be resolved. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and don't see anything that would prohibit you from using User:Robert A West/sandbox to work on the article. It is failing WP:N and is not a copyvio so you should be fine. You don't need consent to copy and paste it. Jeepday 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ulam spiral and perhaps merge essentials (meaning 2-3 sentences or even just the link). The Ulam Spiral is the well known one / original, and is featured in many popular texts. This is much, much less notable, and boarderline website promotional in nature, but might be interesting to readers looking for more mysterious prime number observations. Danski14 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the link and a brief explanation This isn't just an ad. Xiner (talk, email) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy if necessary. /Blaxthos 09:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps because of the way the nomination was phrased (in terms of notability) nobody seems to have addressed the issue of WP:NOR. What are the reliable sources that this material has been published in? --C S (Talk) 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Responding to Michael Hardy: they do both seem to pick out the same features, the diagonals in Ulams sprials are all of the form $n=ax^{2}+bx+c$ likewise the curves picked out by this spiral are of the same form $x^{2}+a$ , or $x(x+1)+b$ . One rotation in Ulams spiral is two rotations in this spiral, so there is some simple correspondence. I think there are certain nice features of this presentation as it lacks the sharp corners of Ulam's, and the fact that each quadratic makes a single curve from the origin rather than two diagonal lines in Ulam's. --Salix alba (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to NOR issue IIRC, Robert Sacks was a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, so they may have somehing on this, but that will take time to check, and I don't have much time right now. If I find reliable sources, it can be undeleted. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sola adewunmi

non-notable person Wooyi 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; if the guy were notable, perhaps any article would link to the one about him Josh Parris 02:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this also appears to be a vanity article. Edeans 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up. There are about 10 genuine (and diverse) hits on Google for Sola adewunmi and about 610 hits for TheBlackTelevision.Com. The hits are Nigeria and Africa related. There is a radio transcript mentioned, which indicates that Sola is of some prominence in his community. However, I REALLY think that this article requires a clean-up and cited sources. HagenUK 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless other sources can be found. I've just deleted the bulk of the article's material as either copyright violation or autobiography; unfortunately the only other google hits I find don't have enough information on him to recreate anything of interest. --Zeborah 05:43, 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. Mediation case deferred to AFD and the consensus is clear. No need to drag this out. Banyan Tree 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nepassa

Disputed speedy. A mediation cabal case has been opened to discuss whether or not it is a hoax, which is more properly a function of AFD, in my opinion. Previously speedied but, given the ruckus, an AFD to determine community consensus is in order. Banyan Tree 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite clearly a hoax. Nepassa gets 76 Ghits, "The Lost World Of Nepassa" gets none. Josh Parris
Delete per Josh Parris. Edeans 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely a hoax or something made up in school. The Amish don't use computers either, but if you type Amish into Google information will appear. Natalie 03:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This was speedily delted before, and probably should be speedily deleted again. I also think it should be protected from re-creation. I see no compelling reason for a long discussion. I also agree that it's a hoax.TheRingess (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unquestionable hoax. Leaena Jones, the founder? One hit, a Flixster account. Gwynaea and Xtayautae, her children? Zero hits and zero hits again. Llannbryn, the city in Wales this supposedly took place in? Zero hits. Nepassi, the conlang? 5 hits, none of which apply. I suppose these are preferable to complex hoaxes with forged referencing. Serpent's Choice 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Humans should not play god? That's quite a modern statement. Xiner (talk, email) 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems an obvious hoax. None of the relevant terms gets any relevant google hits, as said above already. Author claims religion is not well known because they don't write about themselves. If it exists and is notable, someone else would have written about it. --Fogeltje 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. In deference to the Mediation Cabal, as well as to establish precedent, I will refrain from requesting a speedy. Nevertheless, this is an obvious hoax, and should be deleted. --N Shar 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Came across this by accident; it reads like an assignment we were given in high school to make up your own religion.Can't Undo 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for Non-Notability and bag the rest of the issues. Whether or not it's a hoax is actually irrelevant, since the article doesn't hold up either way. My addition of the {{hoax}} tag just muddied the main issue, which should have always been WP:N. NipokNek 09:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. --Soman 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:V outright. janejellyroll 11:22, 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) 2007-02-09 08:41Z

Europe's 100 most infuential

Not notable, WP:WEB, internet voting with 14 voters after three weeks [7] Jklamo 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reasons cited in nomination, no external coverage, and an Alexa ranking of 4,162,627 doesn't bode well for its notability. Crystallina 02:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Josh Parris
Delete bordering on speedy delete as spam. Resolute 02:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next? A web poll to find the most influential celebrity? Xiner (talk, email) 04:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, non-scientific website with totally subjective content. HagenUK 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ↔NMajdan•talk 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crystallina. Completely absurd; I don't think this the results of this poll are ever going to be very "infuential"... DWaterson 23:07, 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) 2007-02-11 06:16Z

Upstate New York Cosplay Society

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drexel University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:15Z

Drexel Shaft

This article is a biased entry about a term coined by Drexel University students for getting treated poorly by administration. There are absolutely no citations, nor does the article have a neutral point of view. This entire article is basically about a little-known slang expression, and how it was used as a nickname on a nearby smokestack. The article is in no way notable. Crashintome4196 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted on the talk page, it is not "something made up in a day." It is notable to any student or alumni of that school. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Drexel University. This term, both to refer to the smokestack and the colloquialism, is already mentioned in the main article and there is no need for a spin-off article. Being notable to a student or alumni of the school may count for DrexelPedia, but not for this project. Natalie 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect as above, per neologism Jeepday 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#DICT Jeepday 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Univ. article. Xiner (talk, email) 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. /Blaxthos 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Drexel article where it was before it was split into a separate article. I suppose this doesn't really need it's own article, and it will fit just fine as a subheading under "Student lore and traditions"--TexasDex 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article actually discusses two things: a lore at Drexel University, and the heating plant for the 30th Street Station. Thus, Merge the discussion of the student lore into Drexel University, merge the disucssion of the heating plant into 30th Street Station.-- danntm ^T _C 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Danntm. At Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, it was called the "Tute Screw" - whichever way you turn it, it goes in... --Brianyoumans 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I haven't had time to find information to make a suitable article in regards to the heating plant (as I previously stated on the talk page), it is best merged per danntm. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if being notable to some students at one school were enough to satisfy WP:N, there are no sources to establish that this is actually the case.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't support a merge. There are minimal references and frankly, the article is incapable of NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article is not "incapable of NPOV". Students at Drexel are frequently unhappy with administrative treatment. That is a fact. It is evidenced by very poor results in the Princeton Review. The term "Drexel Shaft" is frequently used to refer to this dissatisfaction with Drexel university. That is also a fact, although it is harder to find sources for. There is nothing inherently non-neutral about facts, even if they make somebody or something look bad--although the article could do more to mention that the administration has made several attempts, such as the "Drexel Shift"[8], to improve the situation (or at least get students to stop complaining so much).--TexasDex 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danntm's two-fold merge suggestion seems the best bet. Verifiability is not negotiable; what's left would not justify its own article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:43, 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 Redirect to Tin Foil Phoenix. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:42Z

Steven Kray

Appears to be an auto-biographical or self-promotional page. User:Stevenkray could be using sockpuppets on this, adding links to a variety of articles. {among them is a duplicate page he created here, which I redirected). Google test showed no signs of notability under WP:BIO. Band may be (just barely) notable, but this page seems excessive, and contains unverified claims. I say delete, and maybe merge sourced essentials into the band's page. Danski14 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band's limited notability doesn't extend to this member, especially given that all the sources seem to be connected to the subject in some way. There has been apparent sockpupperty on many articles associated with this subject and an excess of self-promotion. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote Mr. Kray and his various enterprises. janejellyroll 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I agree. I am just beginning to scrutinize the related articles.. for instance, Lady Venom and C4 Records. However, they are of the nature that any AfDs on them should be dealt with on an article to article basis. I also just realized that Steven Kray was previously speedy deleted. Danski14 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Josh Parris
Delete per nom. Edeans 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 04:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Revision as of 14:36, 9 September 2006 by Stevenkray added substantial spam links to the article. I removed these today, and added some links which are in the reference section of Tin Foil Phoenix (TFP). The support that he was a member of that band and discusses some other history of Kray. As it stands I assume that TFP is notable since it has an article at WP. Is Kray notable as a member of the band? At minimum I see this as a redirect to TFP. I will put a spam warnig at Kray's talk page.--Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, I think that most of the article should be trimmed to reflect the issues of notability, music, though what we did before and since is pertinent, but should not be prominent.--Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep or~~ Strong Redirect per my comments above. --Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-I agree that a redirect to the band page is not a bad idea.. If someone felt like it, short bios on each of the members would be appropriate. I still hold that he is non-notable, and there has been too much promotion going on here and with related articles. Danski14 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a truncated version of the text to Tin Foil Phoenix. So lets redirect and blank this page --Kevin Murray 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks good, just have to wait until the discussion is closed. Danski14 03:00, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:43Z

Leota Junior High

Fails to assert notability. Exclusively school cruft. Soporific. Josh Parris 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best you can do is listing what the cafeteria serves for lunch, you just aren't notable. Resolute 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination... their "infraction" system sounds pretty harsh too! --Candy-Panda 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure schoolcruft. Edeans 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Makes no claim to notability; WP:BEEFSTEW score is 4/10. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this school is notable. What makes this school stand out from its peers ? The article doesn't say. WMMartin 15:32, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:43Z

Accidently Like A Martyr

"Accidentally" is misspelled, and there is little or no information in the article Proofreader J-Man 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an article, and if anything of interest could be said about the song it would have been. It might not event be misspelled, artists are funny like that. Josh Parris
Delete. Great album, but not one of the truly notable songs from it. Edeans 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MUSIC and general WP:N Jeepday 04:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 19:07, 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 Merge to List of Islamic studies scholars. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:44Z

List of Muslim scholars

This article is just a bunch of links. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sefringle 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete someone may want to categorize it, but does not make sense as a list. Jeepday 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category would make more sense and is easier to maintain. Xiner (talk, email) 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think the author put a lot of good work in and it is useful information. It would be worthwhile transforming it into a category, so that the effort is not going to waste. HagenUK 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid, verifiable, finite list. No violation of WP:Lists here. Also happens to be a valid research topic. i kan reed 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List_of_Islamic_scholars a much better organized list of the same thing. This was discussed on the talk page. I highly recomend not deleting regardless of merging or not. i kan reed 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Proabivouac 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Islamic scholars; convert to a redirect as a plausible search term for that article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:56, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:46Z

List of guest voices on Avatar: The Last Airbender

Non-notable listcruft. I see no other "guest voices" for cartoons lists, this should be no exception. RobJ1981 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone tack this onto this AFD: Avatar: The Last Airbender media information. It's more listcruft. As an added comment: alot of the Avatar pages should be either cleaned or deleted. There is a "major secondary" and "minor secondary" character list pages as well. This listcruft madness needs to end. Notable characters should be listed only, in my opinion at least. RobJ1981 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-All the pages you mentioned have significant histories. At the very least, they need to be their own AFD, not just tacked on to a related one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft and listcruft. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. JuJube 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split to individual episode articles. The information is relevant to include in the episodes, but it shouldn't be collected like this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the appropriate Wikiproject, I do believe that I should add my two cents. If you look at the characters lists and actually watch the episodes, you will find the some characters, while not major characters, are more important than others. I agree that the list of minor characters should be trimmed down. However, since that is not what is the current topic, i will adress this one. All the articles already list guest voices in the infobox and it would be easy to find the information if needed. So since that article, in essence, has already been split, my vote is Delete The Placebo Effect 22:51, 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 Redirect to Asian Americans. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:46Z

Malaysian American

It has been over 8 months since creation and this article still does not have any content. Sefringle 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete# A3. Natalie 03:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally, I just raised a move request on this page at WP:RM to put it at a better title like Immigration from Malaysia to the United States or something, since the current title violates WP:NEO. I also suspect the topic itself may also be non-notable in the sense of not having any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; (most emigrants from Malaysia head to HK, Taiwan, or Australia) but I don't see any harm in letting this run the full five days to see if someone gets last-minute inspiration to expand it. cab 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT Jeepday 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it can't be expanded. Xiner (talk, email) 04:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOT#DICT but this article is not a case of WP:NEO. A common-sense combination of two terms is not automatically a neologism. There is an established English-language convention in these cases of giving titles to individuals with multiple group affiliations--in this case, ethnic/national origin and citizenship (e.g., Irish Americans). Black Falcon 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, redirect to Asian Americans. If and when someone wants to create a longer article on this, they can do so. But in the meanwhile, I think the page ought to redirect to "Asian Americans" (of which Malaysian Americans are a subset) as I find it very conceivable that someone would search for "Malaysian Americans". I may change my vote to keep if content is added to the article. Black Falcon 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect. (I decided to erase the previous vote) I didn't really find anything and I doubt I have the time too.--T. Anthony 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of immigrants from multiethnic states, it's a lot more common to refer to them using their ethnic origin (e.g. Hmong American, Uyghur American) rather than their national origin, and most immigrants from such states identify based on their ethnicity rather than their former/ancestral nationality. The most prominent historical example of this: immigrants from the USSR were virtually never referred to as "Soviet Americans" or the like, but instead as Russian Americans, Kazakh Americans, Estonian Americans, etc. The title "Malaysian American" is a problematic neologism because it implies a group identity that probably doesn't exist in the first place (and to which no reliable sources attest); it's probably a mistake to call a group of people by a name with which they themselves wouldn't primarily identify. cab 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but there are also counter-examples. For example, I do not imagine anyone would identify as a Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa American, but instead a Rwandan or Burundian American. Likewise, Filipino American is used instead of Tagalog American and Bolivian American in the place of Aymaran American. Despite that, I still do not think "Malaysian American" or "Rwandan/Filipino/Bolivian American" are neologisms as they are simply combinations of two common identities for which an English-language convention exists (in this case, nationality/country of origin followed by current citizenship). I view "Malaysian American" as a categorization rather than a particular group identity that individuals may or may not adopt. Oh, and as you noted, detemplate from {{Asian Americans}}. Cheers, Black Falcon 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine by me. Should also be removed from {{Asian Americans}} cab 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and detemplate per cab. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Aelffin 20:59, 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) 2007-02-09 08:46Z

Laser (wrestler)

Nominated for speedy deletion with reasons "Unreferenced since MAY 2006, no substantiation of notability, stubbed for practically a year, no sources for titles held". Procedural nom. Banyan Tree 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, no way to verify notability. /Blaxthos 09:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any relevant sources to make this notable Whilding87 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable indy wrestler. Don't know why I vested time into improving this article. Normy132 07:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also heads up theres a afd discussion for another Puerto Rica wrestler at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amazona_%28wrestler%29_2

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 08:47Z

Australian albums

This article seems to have no purpose. It might be intended as a list article, in which case it is misnamed. Freekee 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a dicdef, possibly of a neologism. 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Natalie
Delete Albums are listed by label, and only in categories, this user should be told. Xiner (talk, email) 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Albums are categorized in several ways, including nationality, and the user was informed of this. -Freekee 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have a clue what this article is trying to say, but it is definitely not useful. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- even if this was a list, a category (which already exists) would do a far better job of it. - Longhair\^talk 05:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any possible use for this article. --Roisterer 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is clear that this article is not very usefull at present, but is that a reason for deletion? Maybe we need to wait for the editor who wrote it to explain what it is really about and move it forward in that direction. I reserve judgement. --Bduke 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-necessary.--cj | talk 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly looks like it is intended as the header for a list. They can try recreating it as List of notable Australian albums, and then we can have the discussion as to whether that is really necessary. --Brianyoumans 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit of an odd one to start and leave. Topic is better handled through categories anyway. --Madmedea 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment X would be better handled by a category is not a reason for deletion in my view. At least, not without some explaination of HOW or WHY it would be better handled by a category. Jcuk 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not even clear if this is intended as a list. But if it were, it would be impossible to maintain it as well as Category:Australian albums. If it's not meant to be a list, the info should probably go in Music of Australia. In answer to above, the author has been notifieed, and he is active daily. -Freekee 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely and utterly unmaintainable as a list, and the category already exists. ShadowHalo 01:18, 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) 2007-02-09 08:48Z

Philosophical creationists

I nominated this article for deletion because it looks a great deal like just a statement of one person's personal philosophy. I say this because of the personal tone of the article, the fact that it has only one contributor, and the fact that I was unable to find a single other source for the topic on Google, though there were references to "philosophical creationists" of a completely different nature, i.e., those who defend Creationism on philosophical grounds. Mycroft7 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I personally disbelieve evolution, per WP:NEO the article should be deleted. Wooyi 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope all creationists are philosophical. Creationism would be the place for this. Xiner (talk, email) 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be just original research, or someone's personal essay. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could not find any references supporting it. Seems to be someone's personal take on a form of Deism. Danski14 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chairman S.. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor orginization.--Sefringle 23:16, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:13Z

Luciano Fadiga

Neurophysiologist with work in some apparently notable projects. Procedural listing. Banyan Tree 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why delete? Wooyi 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added that this is a procedural listing (after a speedy nomination) to the top. Also, a connection to something notable doesn't make one notable; there are any number of bit part actors in notable TV series whose articles are deleted. - Banyan Tree 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article lists a significant research contribution, and there's plenty of reason to expect it to grow. There's also plenty of reason to give it more than the two weeks it has thus far been given. It takes a while for laypeople to write articles about academics and scientists, who are not as well covered in the popular press, and whose accomplishments are mostly buried in not-easily-accessible academic journals and databases. Mark it as a stub and let people work on it. --lquilter 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I submitted this for speedy deletion because there is no assertion of notability in the article and the subject fails WP:BIO. This was not in agreement with the administrator who converted it to this AfD. What significant research contribution is given in this article? If it is his participation in RobotCub, then he is no more notable than the other dozens of people involved in the project. If it is his neurobiology research, then I don't see how it rises above other professors' work. There does not seem to be any large, independent review of his research and definitely no review outside his research area. I have worked in multiple research labs and his body of work does not stand out from any other researcher's contributions in their fields. There does not appear to be anything to add to this article. He correlated brain signals in monkeys and humans (and he didn't even find the location in the brain that directly correlated to the monkey's F5 section) and he works on RobotCub. That's all there is to his research and that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. ju66l3r 04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ju66l3r, could you expand on "he didn't even find the location in the brain...". The Google scholar hits and "impact" for this persons articles are quite good (i.e. above average), so normally I would say his work is well cited, and vote keep. However, it sounds like you can explain why the google scholar hits are out of whack with reality (or robotics as the case may be). John Vandenberg 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - See my response below. ju66l3r 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This guy is clearly not a complete bozo, but I am persuaded by Ju66l3r, who seems to know what he is talking about. I would be more impressed if Prof. Fadiga had written a textbook, some review articles, etc. He may well be notable in a few years, but perhaps not yet. --Brianyoumans 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note for future reference: bozo the clown has an article here. Tparameter 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this guy does meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO. If you search for him using Google Books and Google Scholar he is widely published, mentioned and referenced.--Madmedea 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, you appear to say the same on every Afd. Please remember that the intention of Afd is not to convert a stub into a good article; we are trying to determine as a group whether it is a notable subject. Thats all. And to that end, doing some research and providing content-specific comments are preferred to rhetoric. John Vandenberg 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In almost every Afd, yes. If there are no references in an article it goes against WP:V and should therefore be deleted, especially then when we are refering to a still living person. Alf photoman 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article does have sources; they may not be great sources, but we have a tag for that: {{primarysources}}; also any sections or statements that are unfounded should tagged with {{unreferenced}} or {{cn}}; i.e. identifying weaknesses so others improving the article. To delete an article purely because it isnt perfect is a violation of WP:FAITH and would mean that 90% of stubs could be culled, and Afd would be overworked. John Vandenberg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional referencing by DGG establish notability, the article needs more work though Alf photoman 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there was no additional referencing. Only a sentence enumerating how many papers Dr. Fadiga has his name on was added. Secondly, discussion here shows that a substantial portion of these 38 publications are middle authorship (not notable) and that later in his career he became last author (non notable, that's what happens when you run the lab instead of work in someone else's). ju66l3r 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At best, this guy has the notability of an average junior professor at an average university. If we consider him notable then all biology professors are notable. For those outside the field: look at the CV of an HHMI investigator for an example of what's notable. --Dpryan 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I make no judgement regarding Fadiga's merit nor against the creator of this article. But more notability must be shown unless this article must be deleted. Shaundakulbara 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More notability was shown here before you commented, by Madmedea; books and journal articles indicate that there is a good chance this person is notable according to WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Have you taken that into account? What are your thoughts? John Vandenberg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I feel that guidelines make it necessary to to have the article assert notability. The discussion is the place to point out that it does or doesn't. I have happily changed my "vote" in AfD debates in the past. So I advise introducing your evidence into the article. If you want to drop me a note after this has been done, I'll be glad to take a look and (if applicable) change my "vote". I think many, many articles get deleted that shouldn't, and many don't get deleted that should, and am always trying to tip these scales towards what guidelines recommend. Shaundakulbara 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am not very impressed with the evidence introduced by Madmedea. The Google Books search did not turn up any books by Fadiga, only some citations (which are nice, but lots of people get cited.) There are a truly enormous number of Google Scholar hits... until you realize that "fadiga" is a word in (Portuguese? Maybe Italian as well?) He has published a number of papers, but it is always hard for an outsider to evaluate how valuable those are. I would be more impressed with review articles, books, awards... --Brianyoumans 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Google Scholar, if you click on the link on the left "L Fadiga", it reduces the number to only entries where the person is one of the authors: 35 in notable journals and these articles are regularly cited by other articles. Each of those citations (1000s) can be considered a "review" of this mans work, by his peers. It is hard for outsiders to judge, and that is why I asked if Ju66l3r can give more information. If the work has has been discredited since then maybe it can be discarded or merely noted on the appropriate page.

Also note that he has written chapters in books[9], and is considered to be "the first to provide evidence that human beings have a system of mirror neurons analogous to system found in monkeys" [10][11][12]. John Vandenberg 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be recognized that nearly any researcher who publishes is likely doing so as the "first" to observe something. The contribution by the subject of discussion was to see parallels between primate and human brain responses (the region of the human brain responsible for what was observed was later determined by others according to the New Scientist article). This does not reach above what any other professor accomplishes during their careers. 35 publications (per Google Scholar) is not necessarily above average for tenured faculty. Many of these publications appear to be work primarily by others and list L Fadiga as a middle (often collaborating) author. I am more moved by the 3 book citations provided above than the publication list. The Guardian and New Scientist articles are about the total works of multiple professors' scientific contributions to fully characterize the F5 motor neurons and Dr. Fadiga is not the subject of the article in either case. I do not see the notability requirements being met which is not to say that his research has not been important to its field. Unfortunately, nearly every professor has contributed to their fields in important ways (it's part of what warrants their status in their profession) and so the notability requirements at Wikipedia are held fairly high to be sure that the encyclopedia is not flooded with every professor and simply becomes a Who's Who of PubMed/Citeseer/etc. Furthermore, it should be noted that Dr. Fadiga's work was passed up in favor of reviews and work by his colleagues instead in the Mirror neuron article, suggesting that his work alone may not notable to the Wikipedia community improving the same scientific topic. That his name is missing from that Wikipedia page is certainly more circumstantial but something to consider. ju66l3r 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Continuing on what I wrote above, I checked ISI's HighlyCited.com which lists the 250 most-cited authors in each of 21 fields and did not find Dr. Fadiga. You may feel this is too restrictive, but I felt it was important to note that it is not as if he is an abnormally highly cited authors in neurobiology as a previous comment felt to be suggesting. Furthermore, I looked for more independent articles on mirror neurons and found an article by the New York Times from a year ago that thoroughly discusses the topic and does not note Dr. Fadiga. The television show NOVA by PBS has a site related to a story they did on the mirror neuron. Dr. Fadiga's work is not mentioned in the links nor are any of his 3 book chapter contributions part of the books listed for references by NOVA. The more I dig on this, the more I find that Drs. Ramachandran, Rizzolatti, and maybe Dr. Iacoboni are notable in this area, but not Dr. Fadiga at this time. ju66l3r 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proper use of ISI highly cited. This source covers the period from 1981-1999, and will miss anyone whose work has been primarily published since that date. To verify that it hasn't been updated, i checked 5 neurophysiologists at random, and they each of them had their entire productive careers earlier than that, sometimes much earlier. DGG 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The original dataset for ISI HighlyCited was the 1981-1999 dataset, but every year the 20 year timeframe is shifted forward per their own description of how they calculate the citations. Dr. Fadiga's citations are included in the current dataset but do not rise to the level of "highly cited" as defined by ISI. ju66l3r 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: media articles are usually biased on these topics because they do only sufficient research to be on safe ground. i.e. It is easier for a journo to omit the correct attribution than it is for them to mention all of the people who should be given credit. That said your articles do call my three into question, and your point about not being the primary contributor on most of those articles is what made me second guessing a vote for keep. I've delsorted it to Science/Medicine on the hope of an opinion from someone in the field. If one isnt forthcoming I'll ask someone specifically. John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry neurobiology isn’t my field of expertise - I did this article because I saw he was heavily mentioned within robotics world. And I did the mistake to forget adding the stub tag at the beginning, I've been clumsy. But I still think he does meet the notability requirements Gilemon 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a neuroscientist and a quick search with Pubmed indicates that this person has very few first or last authored publications. He has only one top-tier hit via pubmed and it's a perspectives piece in science where he is was only the second author. That's pretty far from notable in our field. To be notable in neuroscience, you either need to publish a highly-referenced first authored paper in a top-tier (Nature/Cell/Science/etc.) journal or be a PI with last-authored publications in said journals frequently (i.e., every year or so). Perhaps this person is notable in robotics, about which I can not speak, but as a neuroscientist he is not notable. --Dpryan 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first or last--since either can be the principal author position in biomedicine. I checked in pubmed. Of the most recent 38 papers listed there, 17 had his name as either first or last author. More revealing, 12 of the most recent 20 did --meaning that most of the ones that didn't, were when he was a beginner. Google Scholar doesn't sort by year. PubMed does. DGG 01:42, 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 speedy deleted per user request (CSD G7). Thanks in particular to Brianyoumans and Manik Sethisuwan for a cordial discussion. - Banyan Tree

Manik sethisuwan

Thai citizen interviewed by CNN about his photos during the recent coup. Article apparently created by subject. Contested speedy; procedural listing. Banyan Tree 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain quite an important figure if connected to the coup, which is a current event. But, the article apparently violates WP:AUTO. Still have a question, how did this Thai guy write English, did he learn it? Wooyi 03:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many people living in Asia can write in English. --Charlene 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Edeans 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable info in coup article. Xiner (talk, email) 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 15 minutes (notability). /Blaxthos 09:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. by article provider, I re-edited the article in question with attempt put less emphasis on person/article in question and tried to refer to project Mosaic in Green which seems would be more important? with regard to User:Xiner can this article be deleted as article and simply merged into section Photo-timeline of the coup, from dusk to dawn in 2006 Thailand coup d'état? This person was one the few citizens who got stuck in the heat of the coup as the military closed down roads and laid barriers to prevent people from entering the area of the Government house. He had to seek refuge with crew of CNN during that day. with regard to User:Edeans, the person is a Thai born of Indian origin, this found at http://sethisuwan.hi5.com.Manik Sethisuwan 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being commissioned to make a documentary and hanging out with the CNN film crew during a coup do not add up to notability, although I'm sure he has some interested dinner conversation from it. I wish him luck with his film-making career, perhaps we will see this name back in Wikipedia someday. --Brianyoumans 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (by article provider). Thanks Brianyoumans for your regards, and I agree with you. I have some other projects later in the year and I hope it succeeds in its scale and objective. Until then its better to remove all existant references and rather be reffered later with more significance and notability. Many regards :) Manik Sethisuwan 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deleted hyperlinks from all other articles / stubs that link to this name. I respect wikipedia as much as you guys do. Cheers. Manik Sethisuwan 21:48, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:48Z

Chsh

Wikipedia is not a mirror or repository. This article is just a duplicate of information from the chsh man page. Compare with chsh(1) – Linux User Manual – User Commands. (note, this doesn't mean it's a copyvio. Linux documentation is all under GFDL or the equivalent. It just means it's a duplicate, and and why should Wikipedia be a mirror of what's widely available elsewhere?) adavidw 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clarifying my nomination. The article has been expanded significantly, and the reasoning above no longer applies. There's still a question of notability. Surely not every Linux/Unix command is notable. In my Linux/Unix experience I've never had occasion to use this command. However, my experience is relatively small, and I don't feel qualified to judge the notability. I'll leave that for the rest of y'all to debate. I'm officially no vote on this one. --adavidw 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is a very small article with little or not context to the reader, WP:CSD#A1. Article has no promise for being expanded. Non-encyclopedic. Jerry lavoie 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info easily gathered as well. Xiner (talk, email) 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not man(1). This program is much less notable than ls or cat, and I know several engineers who have never used it, despite hacking on Unix systems for years. Additionally, the program is not specified in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. All of this adds up to non-notability. Grouping several of these minor utilities into one article might be suitable, however. --N Shar 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copy of any manual page. It's not small. It doesn't lack context. And it clearly could be expanded, because it has been. Uncle G 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, it can be expanded. Is it notable? --adavidw 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest trying to determine that for yourself by evaluating the depths of the available sources. Look at the published works cited in the references section of the article, and any other published works that you can find, and seeing whether our WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. If it helps, notice that there are two classes of books when it comes to guides to Linux distributions and to Unix: those that simply re-print the manual page, and those that actually devote one or more pages to their own, original, discussions of the command. The books cited are in the latter class. Uncle G 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Uncle G's improvements. The article has changed greatly since this AfD started. Notability is fine since it's a common Unix utility and sources are provided. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very widespread command, and the article fulfills a useful encyclopedic purpose in comparing chsh behavior on different systems, while a man page will generally only tell you how it works on your own specific system. —David Eppstein 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would've agreed with the delete before the changes; nice job, Ungle G. - grubber 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article as it currently stands serves an entirely different function than a chsh manual page, includes references, and builds the web by including relevant wiki links. Also, a note for the original nominator: GNU/Linux documentation does not always use the GFDL; I would speculate based on my experience that most non-FSF documentation uses the same license as the program it documents. --Josh Triplett 09:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable notable. We can not cover every shell command there is. --Tunheim 22:34, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:10Z

List of Children of the Presidents of the United States

Delete - since this aricle is being (improperly) cited as a defense for the also-nominated article Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, I thought perhaps this one ought to be nominated now rather than later. The children of world leaders, whether they are the children of a US president or of a Canadian Prime Minister or a Filipino president, are not inherently notable in and of themselves. The proper place for the otherwise non-notable offspring of presidents to be listed is in the article about the individual president. Otto4711 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an indiscriminate list of trivia. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Jerry lavoie 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find where it applies in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Jjmillerhistorian 15:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't seen the other debate. This is one of the few instances where I feel justified to invoke WP:NOT#PAPER. I feel the information about children of presidents should be preserved, especially since many (but not all!) of them do have articles, and because presidents themselves are inherently super-notable. Perhaps I would have created this information discretely in each president's article, but what's done is done, and it's too much trouble to alter the status quo with a massive merge. YechielMan 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Just because information may come up in a game of 'trivial pursuit' doesn't mean the information is trivia. This is a discriminating classification of people a sufficiant number of which have by their actions shown that this classification has historical relevance.

4.156.111.151 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge to daddy's article. If they are notable in their own right, like a novelist son of Franklin Roosevelt or a soldier son of Theodore Roosevelt or a lawyer son of Abe Lincoln, they can certainly have their own articles, but being related to a notable person only entitles you to possibly being mentioned in thir article. Edison 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about them being "entitled" to anything. Being included in a list isn't a benefit, and it doesn't suggest that they need a separate article if they're not notable. This logic would apply, basically, to eliminate any list. --lquilter 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. To be worth keeping, a list has to provide a benefit over and above other ways that we can present the information. With this list and the related list of children of Canadian Prime Ministers, there needs to be some value in the list itself. Ask yourself: why would anyone need such a list other than for the sake of knowing trivia? If you can't come up with a good answer, then the list should be deleted. --Richard 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't need to repeat myself; later in the page I point out that the children of political leaders have been studied within political biography, history, and sociology, and give a few cites. Apparently, people go with their gut instinct on what is trivia. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a very useful rule.--lquilter 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, us Wikipedians contribute as best we can with the knowledge we have. It is one of the joys of Wikipedia that in the course of AFD, I learn all sorts of stuff that I didn't know before. I read what you wrote below and it is perhaps convincing. What I propose is that somebody (perhaps you) write the article as a stub right now (a paragraph or two with the references you provided below will suffice). If this had been done at the outset, this entire discussion might have been different. I suspect, however, that it will eventually turn out that children of Presidents are not far different from children of CEOs and other community leaders. That's just my personal speculation, though, and, as OR, has no place in this discussion or anywhere else in Wikipedia. --Richard 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, ooh, how about this one? "You don't go to Wikipedia with the knowledge you want, you go to Wikipedia with the knowledge you have." --Richard 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Children of U.S. Presidents are inherently notable. This list is not indiscriminate. Once again, I ask if anyone using the word "indiscriminate" actually knows what it means. Anyone? --- RockMFR 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is useful information. They may not all individually be notable enough to have wikipedia articles, but there are issues that come from being a child of a US president / world leader - that can and will make it useful to have such a list. (And it's exactly the sort of thing that, if it were to come up on WP:CFD, I would say delete and listify. In fact, the fact that they aren't all notable enough to have their own articles only makes the list that much more useful; because there couldn't even be a category even if we wanted one.)--lquilter 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is useful information, since the same information is conveyed in the articles for individual presidents. We don't need lists of children for every head-of-state in the world. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list gathers information ... that is its useful function. The fact that it is redundant is irrelevant. --lquilter 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information already found where it belongs - in the article on each Prez. Being a child of a President is not inherently notable, and the subject of "Children of U.S. Presidents" is not worthy of an article, thereby making this list similarly unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being related to someone, even someone as obviously notable as the President of the USA, does not confer inherent notability. Individual sons and daughters merit a passing mention in the parent article, that's all. - fchd 06:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At present Wikipedia indicates it acts as an Almanac to some extent. It's not unusual for children of Presidents to be listed in Almanacs. It's also useful for when Presidents die and you see the kids on TV.--T. Anthony 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fchd. Being a child of a president doesn't make you notable per se. --Folantin 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to create lists of non-notable people. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Folantin, Morschi, and all the other people who say this is a list of non-notable people please explain how a list of "non-notable" people has so many blue links (and I note that some of the ones who don't, should, and will, no doubt, someday)? And why a topic which is of obvious sociological importance -- the study of access to power & transfer of power among kin -- is being dismissed as "non-notable"? I would refer people to the entire Category:Nobility, an automated list basically tracking families with political power, and ask for someone to make a clear distinction about why political families in democratic country are somehow "not notable". --lquilter 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty obvious really: because nobles inherit titles and power and hence notability, whereas in democracies children of presidents and premiers don't. --Folantin 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then those would apply only to the method for inheritance, such as primogeniture; and I would note that in democracies children of presidents are considerably more likly to become presidents themselves, than children not of presidents. ... Regardless, "non notability" applies to articles dedicated to the individual; it doesn't apply to them being mentioned or listed in other articles. An article (list) about children of the presidents of the US must be judged as to whether that topic, is, itself, notable. Judging by presence of published literature and scholarship on the subject, it is. Inclusion or being mentioned in the article doesn't require independent notability. --lquilter 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize (which will also ensure only notable subjects will get articles, and not just Foo is the son of President Bar type articles. /Blaxthos 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you, this will not survive as a category (it may have been deleted already). A category is simply an automated, alphabetic, non-notated list; so if you think something is appropriate as a category, then it is definitely appropriate as an article-style list. --lquilter 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many people on the list are notable whether being a child of a President or not. Were they not notable then as the Bush twins are today? I guess Chelsea Clinton and JFK, Jr. are nobodys too. Throughout history the media has made them notable if they hadn't made themselves notable. Many of them have just been forgotten like several Presidents. This page should be kept. Jjmillerhistorian 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RockMFR makes a good argument. References listed, including "All the presidents children", so it meets WP:V and when someone writes a whole book on the subject, it meets WP:N as well. The president's immediate family are always well covered in decent biographies, so the subject is of sufficient interest to support a list like this. Many of the children have individual articles, and the page is therefore a useful navigational tool as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason given for the Canadian article; just as valid and encyclopedic as a listing of first ladies. 23skidoo 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out that there are, in fact, a number of books and studies on this specific topic -- e.g., Underwood, All the President's Children; Zwicker, "America's Royalty", Presidential Studies Quarterly; Wead, All the Presidents' Children; Angelo, First Families: The Impact of the White House on Their Lives -- and that's just the top few listings from an amazon.com search; I haven't yet done a search of a major research db. This is a well-studied topic, clearly a topic which begs for an article; and a comprehensive list would be an indispensable complement to the article. --lquilter 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep family and friends of world leaders affect their characters and decisions, making them notable and important to historians, biographers and political scientists. No one would argue about a list of, say, First Ladies of the United States. -Markeer 14:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked all through Wikipedia:Notability and could not find where it said notability was inheritable. There is no need to merge as if the child is not on the parent article, it's lack of notability there speaks for it's self. Jeepday 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However, Wikipedia:Notability addresses a subject's suitability for individual articles. This is a list; therefore while some of these individuals may not, on their own, warrant individual articles, taken as a group, they do. Put another way, presence of some of the more obscure First Children on this list may preempt the creation of articles on said children later, in turn preempting future AFD debates when their articles are nominated for deletion. 23skidoo 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a list of President's pets! Are pets more notable then children? I'd say their children have done more notable things then the pets, unless pooping on the White House lawn receives highest notability. Jjmillerhistorian 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for getting rid of the list of pets, not for keeping this one. --Folantin 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get rid of the pets list, I was making a point Jjmillerhistorian 16:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, making a point like this generally backfires in exactly this way (in fact, if I interpret Otto4711 right, that's how this particular AfD started) - seems to work better to hunt up references instead as has been done here by others. --Zeborah 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to hunt up references, I have the book by Doug Wead. References are mentioned in the article. I see your point, it could start an unintetional delete the pooch list. Jjmillerhistorian 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per several above, especially Lquilter. Nb Members of royal families (a category quite widely defined) are, under a proposed guideline, inherently notable. This is the relevant passage from Wikipedia:Notability (royalty):

Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.

This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria). Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO.

- since the US seems to be moving fast in the direction of a hereditary political class, the same could well be argued for this lot. Johnbod 17:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say "grin" but it's actually more of a rueful grimace of acknowledgement ... --lquilter 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment note that Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. with a history since 13:07, 7 September 2006 while WP:BIO is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia with a history since 14:16, 1 August 2003 Signed Jeepday 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I said it was proposed; actually its history goes back to August 4,06. Johnbod 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR. Mathmo ^Talk 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR, Iquilter, Jjmillerhistorian. - Jord 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that Jimmy Carter is notable does not make his kids notable in any way shape or form. Jcuk

Jack Carter (politician) and Amy Carter not notable? Are you sure? This list contains many notable people, some not, but more notable than you realize. I'm sure years from now there will be people who think the Bush twins aren't notable. Notability should not be an opinion. Jjmillerhistorian 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were not notable in their own right. They are not notable just for being the fruit of Jimmy Carter's loins however. Jcuk 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with President's article if not notable in their own right. It is appropriate to list all children, notable or not, in father's article, as it relates to father's biographical information, but the list on its own is a simple repository of trivia. --lightspeedchick 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable, as others have pointed out with published titles on the subject (even if, as a non-USAn, it seems bizarre to me that an elected official's children are important by virtue of association). --Zeborah 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when Gerald Ford died Wikipedians were editing his children's pages like crazy. I even created the missing article someone was looking for. Then we have Jenna, Barbara and Chelsea making national news doing common things, like having a fake I.D., having a purse stolen, or have voter registration problems. If they weren't children of U.S. Presidents noone would care about what they do. Nothing else is notable about them, yet they have their own articles in Wikipedia. Jjmillerhistorian 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I suspect that the people who are voting delete don't get the historical significance of the relationship, probably because this is merely a list (which raises a trivia red flag for folks). It strongly suggests that the list, as such, needs at least a preface describing the scholarship that has studied these people as an identifiable group, and their significance in political and biographical studies. It's a larger problem with lists: That some lists are clearly trivia, and some lists are really the germ of an important idea; but it's difficult for people to distinguish between the two without context and information. Perhaps the deleters (who appear to be a minority, albeit a substantial one) would be willing to suspend judgment for a while until the most robust of these Children-of-leaders articles (the US presidents' kids) can be fleshed out with some additional text & supporting references. --lquilter 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few references to books but don't have time right now to do a full search in Historical Abstracts or a US history database. --lquilter 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much for the same reasons in the children of PMs debate. In fact, I'll plagerize myself and repeat what I said there, as I think it's just as applicable. I see nothing being said in defense of this article that goes beyond it being "useful" or "interesting". Many useful, interesting things are not encyclopedic. To me this is more a specialized genealogy directory or something that belongs in the (literally) parent article. For those individuals who have achieved some sort of notability in their own right, beyond what their parents have done, having a separate article is enough. Agent 86 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm stunned this is even being debated. Notability is not inheritable, but the children of US Presidents have always and will always be notable people -- they are members of the First Family of the United States. While I understand that just because every item of a list is notable the list itself is not necessarily notable -- that's simply not the case here. The people on this list have been thrust into a common spotlight. The US President is not just president, but also Head of State. This is notable, verifiable, discriminate, not original research. No grounds for deletion exist on this article.--JayHenry 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I heard, the Head of State of the United States is not a hereditary position, despite the lineage of the current incumbent. Neither is notability. Agent 86 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Agent86, I did say in my second sentence that it is not inheritable. But this is a straw man argument. I do not see anyone suggesting that "Notability is hereditary". What is being discussed is whether or not there are grounds to delete List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. The fact is: there are not grounds. It is notable by any standard to be the child of the president. It is also verifiable. It is not indiscriminate. The people trying to delete this seem concerned that the inclusion of this obviously encyclopedic list would somehow set a precedent that would make the children of Dustin Diamond notable. It would do no such thing.--JayHenry 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is NOT notable by my standard to be the child of anyone, including the president of the USA. If the offspring are notable in their own right, fine - they then deserve their own article. But this list - no way. - fchd 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - By your standard fchd, because it's an opinion to you. Now thanks to JayHenry I have to scap my 'children of Saved by the Bell cast' list idea erg! Jjmillerhistorian 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, by my standard. It was a response to JayHenry's statement that It is notable by any standard to be the child of the president. (my emphasis). My opinion still stands, that while individual children of the President of the USA may become notable, a list like this is not. - fchd 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. My point is that by any possible reading of Wikipedia's own definition of notable, all these people would pass. Here, give it a gander: Wikipedia:notable. These are U.S. Presidents -- they all have multiple authoritative academic and popular biographies. All their children are mentioned throughout these biographies and in the constant news coverage that has surrounded every president in American history. What portion of Wikipedia:notable does a single person on this list fail? Or even the list itself? Being a member of the first family is obviously notable. And countless non-trivial books and news articles have been written on what it's like. It's a perversion of Wikipedia's notability guideline to suggest that the children of U.S. Presidents or a list of those children, wouldn't pass it.--JayHenry 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list, and it provides context beyond what can be achieved through the MediaWiki categorization scheme. If I were researching children of United States presidents I would find this to be very useful to have handy. (jarbarf) 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next? List of Pets of the Presidents of the United States? --Vsion 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, ... then I found it. Here you go: List of United States Presidential pets. :D --Vsion 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is encyclopedic and worth the few bytes of space it occupies. RFerreira 09:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of a president. They play an important part in the life of the president. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and they'd say "who's that girl?" Being a child of a U.S. President or any world leader, current or not, is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: A number of people have argued, above, that the list should be deleted because it contains people who are not notable (gist: "If they're notable give them their own article."). That is a misapprehension of how WP:N works. WP:N applies to the subject of an article; not to every individual fact within an article. In a biographical article, the subject of the article -- the person discussed -- must be notable. In a article about a topic (which is what a list is), not every individual component need be individually notable. See, e.g., WP:FICT which describes making lists of characters in books, rather than individual pages for books.

WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. I have already added references to multiple works on the list itself. (Some have argued that actually all children of US presidents are individually notable; my point is that they need not be notable to be mentioned in an article, and a list is a type of article.) My own take on this list/article is that it really should be an article with an embedded list, which would contextualize the list aspect and make the significance clear; however, even as a list with a bit of prefatory material, the subject of the list is notable.
WP:5P: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. This is the sort of list that would be (and is) included in specialized encyclopedias of political biographies.
Wikipedia:List guideline: 3 purposes of lists, each of which this article provides: information, navigation, and development. Information because it is an independently notable topic. Navigation because this is a group of people with commonalities, but it would not be desirable for this to be a category. Development because, looking at the list, some members of it need articles and don't presently have them.

--lquilter 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada. And I hope those arguing for "keep" here will do the same over there. Children of the leader of a government are notable by virtue of their relationship to him or her; and such lists act as useful aids to research for biographical anthologies, etc. Fishhead64 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada are hereby incorporated by reference. --lquilter 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT puts it best: In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. Children of the Presidents of the United States is not a legitimate encyclopedia topic. JChap2007 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it was a legitimate topic for the multiple books listed in the References and Further Reading sections of the article, so why would it not be a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia to cover? Dl2000 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - U.S. Presidents are legitimate enough to have the list of their children. Their children are even in a section of each of their articles dealing with Early Life, etc. Even Chelsea Clinton has her own article and there is nothing notable about her except she is the daughter of a U.S. President, nothing more. Jjmillerhistorian 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate method of organizing this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan McBeth (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~Opinion withheld pending creation of an article on Children of the Presidents of the United States per discussion with User:Lquilter above.
I believe that every article on a US President (or Canadian Prime Minister) should list that person's family (spouse and children). If the children are notable in their own right, then they should get an article. However, this list has no justification for existence. --Richard 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per supporters above. First families are a notable topic of interest as demonstrated by multiple works listed in References and Further Reading sections, not to mention various journalistic works. Besides, it's skewed priorities to demand deletion of this list while accepting as encyclopedic such lists as, List of students at South Park Elementary. Dl2000 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent point D12000 -- here are some other encyclopedic lists, List of Pokémon references or spoofs, Minor characters in 24 (and stop and think about this one. Fictional president David Palmer's children deserve to be listed, but Chelsea Clinton does not), List of historical cats, List of China Inland Mission missionaries in China, or how about List of BitTorrent RSS feeds. Honestly -- if people are this concerned with non-notable lists -- let's start with some really grevious offenders and allow this list which, after all, has been the subject of numerous books and countless news articles. I am really appalled that anyone could consider this list unencyclopedic.--JayHenry 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think the problem is not whether or not the children of Presidents are individually notable. Obviously, many of them are. The question is whether the group is a worthwhile collection of information as a group. Many graduates of West Point are notable but a list of every graduate of West Point would be ridiculous, partly because of the number but also because so many of them are non-notable. At the risk of repeating myself, the question is - "To whom would this list be useful?" If, as User:Lquilter suggests, the group is of interest as a group then we should keep this list but then the article on Children of the Presidents of the United States should also be created. --Richard 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are people who can use this information while researching U.S. Presidential history. Their children play a big part in their lives, some even effect their politics. Franklin Pierce even mentioned his last of three sons to die in his inaugural. His three sons may not be considered notable, but the event of Benjamin Pierce's death definately was. The article also helps compare all the U.S. President's children all at one time; who is the oldest, how many are still alive, how many did each President have, etc. It is useful to those who are obviously interested in this. If you have no interest in Presidents or history it would be easy not to care and suggest to delete. There are alot of "lists" here I would get rid of, but I know there might be a reason to keep them. This article is very new and still needs work. Not every article has to be useful to every person. It is definately useful to those who want to keep it. Jjmillerhistorian 12:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article creation comment - A couple of people have now suggested that the list is appropriate if an existing article is there to support it. I initially preferred a single article, with text and an incorporated list, and I wrote two paragraphs at the top of the current list that could serve as a stub. But now I see perhaps the virtues of a separate article: One article could explain the sociological aspects of being a child of a political leader, placing it into context with inherited nobility, economic class, personal life outcomes, and so on; and there could be short sections that discuss any specific national effects, national political history, or other specific national research that have been done, which would link to the relevant supported lists (children of Canadian PMs, children of US presidents, and so on). (Heck, we could probably cannibalize some of the arguments on this page to flesh out the text.) --lquilter 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEdward Baker Lincoln died at the age of three, nine years before his dad became a U.S. President, yet he is notable enough to have his own article as a child of a President. Then I'd say they all are notable enough. The article creation idea by lquilter sounds excellent. Jjmillerhistorian 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, a very good idea. Without wishing to sound peverse, even those of them who went on to lead totally "normal" lives have an interest by virtue of doing just that. Johnbod 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Children of political leaders ? If it's a broader topic then "Children of US Presidents" and "Children of Canadian PMs" could redirect ? --lquilter 16:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the "Children of Presidents of the Philippines", if that hasn't been chopped already. Some interesting contrasts between the three I expect! Johnbod 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they chopped it. At least the Canadian one survived. Not enough people supported the Philippine list apparently. All three lists deserve to stay. Jjmillerhistorian 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The List is relevant because it reflects important information about the Presidents. For example, alleged slave children such as Sally Hemmings's, say something important about the character of President Jefferson that is useful to historians and other researchers. Children are relevant to understand the psyche of presidents.Swampyank 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that a number of the notability "voters" miss the point. Of course some presidential children aren't notable (though a few are even as children). But this is a list covering a notable topic (as shown by sourcing) and may in fact help prevent the creation of stubs of non-notable presidential children, since they can have their bio-stubs here. Eluchil404 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subjects that we know generate curiosity and (limited but serious) historical interest should be kept in Wikipedia. Usefulness (as a record related to the serious historical interest) and Being Damn Interesting to, say, tens of millions of people should be standards of inclusion in Wikipedia. If that means we keep the Children of the presidents of Pakistan the world will not come to an end. At least not for a while. Noroton 14:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walt Disney. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:08Z

Walt Disney School

Nonnotable elementary school in Pennsylvania, except that it's named for a famous person. Less than 100 ghits for this Walt Disney School (there are others elsewhere). YechielMan 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a school to be notable it should either be famous itself, have notable alumni, or be the venue of notable events. This one is none of these. Wooyi 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schoolcruft. Edeans 08:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schoolcruft? Is that what I found in the locker rooms? --UsaSatsui 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If being named after someone famous were a criteria, nearly every school would be in. Do you have any clue just how many Kennedy schools there are alone? --UsaSatsui 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Walt Disney. There may be many schools named after presidents like Kennedy, but it is unusual for a school to be named after an entertainment figure. That doesn't mean the school by itself it notable enough for an article, but it should be mentioned in the Disney article as there can't be many places like this named after the filmmaker. 23skidoo 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found at least three other schools in the US named after Walt Disney, in a Google search. YechielMan 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment reply'. That's still only three (and they should also be mentioned in the Walt Disney article). But unless they have achieved notability, they probably wouldn't warrant separate articles, either. That said, if the article under discussion survives AFD, it needs to be given a disambiguation name due to there being more than one. 23skidoo 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I don't really see why this article shouldn't be deleted, just because it is named after Walt Disney doesn't make it any more notable than any other elementary school. However, we could put it in the Walt Disney article as it is an interesting little fact (is it a fact? It needs citing!) about Walt Disney. As said above, not many entertainers have schools named after them. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability; inadequate references. WMMartin 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the reasoning provided by 23skidoo. Another possible option would be to create some sort of a disambiguation page and then redirect each school to the appropriate locality in which it resides. In either case the title should be preserved as this is a plausible search term. (jarbarf) 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by way of replacing with a disambiguation page, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. Silensor 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-notable" is a valid reason. --UsaSatsui 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor, this should serve as a meaningful disambiguation page. No objection to merging existing content as suggested by others. RFerreira 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation to what, exactly? We're questioning the notability of one school, and you believe we should change the page to mention three non-notable schools? If there's more than one notable Disney School, that's when one mentions disambiguation. I'm not buying this "it's notable because it's unusual to have a school named after an entertainer" argument either. There's a school named after a horse in Portola Valley, California, which has to be rarer than a school named after an entertainer, and it isn't notable either. --UsaSatsui 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep turn into a disambig page. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-02-11 06:07Z

James McGee

This article is entirely unreferenced; my efforts to find references have been unsuccessful. A lack of references renders it impossible to verify whether a recent edit is correct, or should be reverted, or, indeed, to determine whether any of the information in the article is actually true. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found and added a reference with small bio. Tikiwont 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep WP:BIO requires multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the personJeepday 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote - two independent references have been added to the article . I verified the reference and changed the format to citation style. I also add a Fact tag to the trailing sentence, which does not adversely impact the article. While the article is still a stub and needs work it appears to currently met all three core content policies

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More sources for this stub of a major of a large U.S. city might be provided by the contributors of the article, which they are more likely to do if notified of this AfD. As this has not been done yet, I've done so now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I edited this article back in March - unfortunately I was new to Wikipedia and didn't cite anything. I have no general knowledge of the subject and I am certain I pulled any info I added from several newspaper articles that appeared in the Dayton Daily News after his death. I don't have access, but I think they are available on the newspaper's web archive (and likely on LexisNexis); article titles include "Former Mayor McGee dies" and "McGee changed city he dearly loved, served". In general, I don't think there's a lack of press coverage if someone was able to do the research - he was one of the first black mayors of a city as large as Dayton and was quite active with the NAACP - but due to the timeframe of McGee's service I doubt much will be available on the web. -Big Smooth 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the guy is prominent enough (first African-American mayor and longest serving mayor of a large city) to warrant an article. Any unsourced information should be marked for cites needed. Acsenray 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised to read that Dayton only has a population of about 150k, but the greater Dayton area is close to 900k. So how notable is the mayor of a 150k city? But since he was the first black mayor this seems more significant if the sources are available. --Kevin Murray 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 09:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Acsenray. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 08:49Z

Haydar Hatemi

Edit history suggests vanity (see also the edit history] on Jesus). Unless notability is independently established, delete (and even then, the subject of the article is strongly advised not to make conflict of interest edits. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP is not a private art gallery, either. Edeans 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that these seems like a vanity article. fraggle 09:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the accomplishements listed were independently referenced the bio would not be noteable. Jeepday 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:26, 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) 2007-02-09 08:51Z

Antonio Ribeiro Telles

The article does not verifiably demonstrate Telles' notability A. B. ^(talk) 04:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following AfDs for Portuguese bullfighters are somewhat related:

Antonio Ribeiro Telles -- AfD
Vasco Taborda, Jr. -- AfD
Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) -- AfD
João Moura -- AfD

If a fluent Portuguese-speaker could find some reliable sources to verify their subjects' notability and serve as article references, that would be helpful! Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources on the web, including in the somewhat known site tauromania.pt, but that does not help if they are not included in the article. As far as he man himself he is not a t the top, yet not either one of the bunch of the rejoneadores so I guess he could pass WP:BIO if someone bothered to reference the article Alf photoman 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely no assertion of notability at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 08:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources on any of these people. fethers 12:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:15, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:51Z

Vasco Taborda, Jr.

The article does not verifiably demonstrate Taborda's notability A. B. ^(talk) 04:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following AfDs for Portuguese bullfighters are somewhat related:

Antonio Ribeiro Telles -- AfD
Vasco Taborda, Jr. -- AfD
Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) -- AfD
João Moura -- AfD

If a fluent Portuguese-speaker could find some reliable sources to verify their subjects' notability and serve as article references, that would be helpful! Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mid-fielder in the ranking should pass WP:BIO if someone bothered to source and reference the article Alf photoman 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 08:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources on any of these people. fethers 12:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:26, 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) 2007-02-09 08:52Z

Tile installation

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Further, contains nothing that, as far as I can see, isn't already covered in tile. Delete (not merge). --Nlu (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs on Wikihow, but that's a different license, I think. Can we Transwiki accordingly? --Dennisthe2 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikihow is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an impediment to transwikification. The incompatible licence, that denies free use to certain people, is the impediment. Uncle G 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 08:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO --JJLatWiki 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a most unusual article which I found quite amusing especially since someone has gone to the trouble of adding pictures. not suitable for an encyclopedia, but I think this person should submit their guide to a DIY site --PrincessBrat 20:55, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:53Z

Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter)

The article does not verifiably demonstrate Ribeiro's notability --A. B. ^(talk) 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following AfDs for Portuguese bullfighters are somewhat related:

Antonio Ribeiro Telles -- AfD
Vasco Taborda, Jr. -- AfD
Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) -- AfD
João Moura -- AfD

If a fluent Portuguese-speaker could find some reliable sources to verify their subjects' notability and serve as article references, that would be helpful! Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 08:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources on any of these people. fethers 12:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD. Alf photoman 23:27, 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) 2007-02-09 08:53Z

Ethamenga

Ethamenga= zero ghits; Raimishir = zero ghits; Rushibodante = zero ghits. Unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'm prepared to say hoax. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, the fact that there are absolutely no Google hits for this name pretty much confirms that this is a hoax. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make it go away. It's a hoax. Creator's only edit. --N Shar 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then burninate this hoax. Edeans 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX /Blaxthos 09:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a SPA hoax. SkierRMH,23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears a hoax.--Oakshade 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoaxalicious garbage as soon as possible. RFerreira 08:43, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:06Z

World War IV (second nomination)

Initially I suggested merging this page to World War III, but I'm not really sure theres anything here worth saving - just a bunch of trivia and rambling essays. The Albert Einstein quote is nice, but that's not really enough to justify a page. I now think deletion is the best course of action. Artw 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed here. Artw 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know this is borderline for the definition of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. I think it's pretty simple: let's not worry about World War 4 until World War 3 happens. Please forgive me for not reading the whole article. YechielMan 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that WWIII already happened from the 1950s through the 1980s. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to World War III. There's a tiny amount of material worth saving, but someone could conceivably search for this term, so I like the idea of a redirect. --N Shar 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge the tiny amount of content worth saving. It's a brillian example of WP:CRYSTAL. It says in the guidelines there that it's alright writing on the United States presidential election 2008, but not on the United States presidential election 2016. This is a similar case. Cream147 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't actually crystal-balling; not everyone views "war" in a literal manner or counts the same way. The term has been used by -- and is already referenced to -- one of the leaders of the EZLN, a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, a speech by the former director of the CIA, and a notable writer for Commentary. Certainly, the page could use some cleanup, but that's not really what AFD is for. Serpent's Choice 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Maybe our future generation can edit it :P. --SkyWalker 11:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serpent's Choice, as it fits the general criteria for notability regarding non-trivial, sourced, third party references. Plus it has already survived AFD once. 23skidoo 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serpent's Choice. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serpent's Choice, what if we look back and say WWIII has been and gone? Mathmo ^Talk 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only for the section on The Project for the New American Century's use of the term. Very notable, verifiable, and I hear that usage thrown around every once in a while in the media. It could use a few more references, though. -- Plutor ^talk 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly that section would be better off on the PNAC page? Seems like an extreme minority usage to me, and in this context borders on a WP:NPOV violationArtw 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, this isn't a crystalball war account, but a report of of notable uses of this term. Sandstein 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced. This article singles out a generic term and then simply catalogs various uses of it. The problem is that the term has so many different referents that the article is not really about anything at all; to the extent that it is about something it is because the article is original research, chronicalling a cultural meme that is recognized only in the head of the author. Allon Fambrizzi 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- I wholly agree that the article requires a rewrite, but that is not grounds for deletion. The sources are in agreement that the term applies to a nonconventional conflict in the post-Cold War era. That different sources apply this term in differing manners and to differing conflicts does not invalidate the need for an article. The guideline for inclusion here is WP:NEO, which this decidedly meets; many of these sources discuss the term and its application (rather than simply employing it in context). Nevertheless, I'll see if I can address the article's structure in the next few hours. Serpent's Choice 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with World War III. While this term has been used by some, it basically refers to the same concept as "WWIII": a future world war. Krimpet 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep. The concept of a fourth World War and the implications it would bring is no more implausible than the theory of evolution. If we are to delete articles because the concept behind it does not appeal to us personally, we destroy the purpose of Wikipedia. The article needs cleanup, but the concept should not be ignored because, as stated by someone above, it is used in the media on ocassion, and the implications are in need of consideration. User:Anonymous 08:28, 6 February 2007
Keep. Not much more to add beyond what has already been said. (jarbarf) 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this would be OK to have as a redlink for a while. Heck, they didn't even call it World War I until World War II started. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete World War III hasn't occured yet, so there is no need for an article About World War IV TheDude2006 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether WWIII has or has not occurred is disputed, and the articles World War III and World War IV discuss this dispute. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it provides some interesting information. Biophys 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is quite common to apply this term consistently to the conflicts after 9/11 and it has to be clarified somewhere in Wikipedia, but it should not be redirected to the War on Terrorism, as the former term has other uses. This article is the most appropriate place for this. Also it is entirely distinct from World War III. After all, I don't see what has changed to the worse since the first nomination to review its result. Colchicum 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it has occured or not is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about upcoming elections and so on. What is relevant is whether it has been subject to some notable reflection, and it has. Colchicum 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really "quite common to apply this term consistently to the conflicts after 9/11"? I think that is an absurd statement. The article cites rather wonkish and obscure pundits and academics, hardly a basis for concluding the term is "quite common" or indeed notable at all. Allon Fambrizzi 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Keep for the reasons Colchicum has given. The usage connected to terrorism has become common in enough places -- if it were the Wall Street Journal alone, it would be enough, given that paper's circulation and influence. People who don't understand the term or are curious about it should be able to turn to Wikipedia for an explanation.Noroton 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein and Colchicum. — CJewell (talk to me) 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:54Z

Volito Aviation

The article reads like an advertisement. There is not a link to other wiki pages (I found it on WP:DEAD. It also fails the search engine test <1000 ghits. Because the article is aesthetically pleasing, I was afraid it would fail G11 and Prod, so I'm sending it here. YechielMan 05:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam. Edeans 08:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. definitely has an advertisement tone to it - grubber 14:51, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:54Z

João Moura

The article does not verifiably demonstrate Moura's notability --A. B. ^(talk) 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following AfDs for Portuguese bullfighters are somewhat related:

Antonio Ribeiro Telles -- AfD
Vasco Taborda, Jr. -- AfD
Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) -- AfD
João Moura -- AfD

If a fluent Portuguese-speaker could find some reliable sources to verify their subjects' notability and serve as article references, that would be helpful! Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps someone who speaks Spanish could assist? I Google'd the name, but all the sources provided are en Espanol. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references showing that Moura is on the upper league in both Spanish and Portuguese. ... but that does not help if these references are not contained in the article Alf photoman 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources on any of these people. fethers 12:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:35, 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. — Deckill er 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volatility drag

"Volatility drag" appears to be a neologism - only 143 ghits. WP:NEO is thus my only real reason for deletion. If someone can convince the community that this term is not a neologism, I think a merge with volatility could work. YechielMan 05:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm not sure this is a neologism. I think it's just a specialized term. As such, it should be merged with volatility. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax, definitely gobbledegook. Edeans 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, as the term is not noted on the page Volatility editors of that page may decide it is not relevant to the topic. Jeepday 14:47, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:05Z

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information

The article reads like a TV guide basically (with all the broadcast schedules and such). Then there is a section on the opening sequence, and full lyrics to it: cruft. A promotions section: relevant information should be on the main Avatar page. The article is much better suited for a fan wiki. RobJ1981 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Your argument is actually quite flawed. Per other Television shows currently on Wikipedia we have provided a list of relevent media information that would not go onto the main page due to size and substance. Since the List of Guest Voices is also currently up for AfD I suggest we merge it here even as both could be considered Media Information. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 08:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete per nom doesn't exactly help anyone understand your argument. If anything else it makes you look like a troll. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It means he agrees with the nomination and has nothing to add. And your comment is trolling. JuJube 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV guide, full of unreferenced and somewhat indiscriminately whacked together information. Not a coherent article and won't become one. MER-C 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite Most anime series have a "media and release information" page. This one needs to be redone, but I don't see a reason for it to go. JuJube 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other shows have it? I guess I will need to find them and AFD them. Look at the most popular show articles: I highly doubt any of them have media and release information pages. Just beWause one has it, doesn't mean it's alright for the rest to have it. RobJ1981 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bleach media and materials and Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information off the top of my head. I'm not anime's biggest fan, so I don't know any others, but I'm sure there are more. JuJube 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and to add a few more Seinfeld DVD releases and The Simpsons DVD boxsets. While I agree the page needs cleanup, I don't think there's a need to delete. At worst, merge the information back in. FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article should be added to the subsection in Avatar: The Last Airbender The Placebo Effect 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Merge per User:The Placebo Effect.--IRelayer 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARromance (talk • contribs)
Keep The main page is long enough already. If the Media Information page was deleted and its contents combined with the main page, there'd soon be a discussion on there that it's too long and needs to be split up. Cherries Jubilee 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they will be pointed back to this discussion as to why the article should only be a subsection. The Placebo Effect 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.76.116.13 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, do not merge-Its perfectly normal for a TV show's article to have this sort of information. However, in this case, it would be too much be a section of that article, so its split to its own. Merging this would be disastrous, the Avatar article is pretty long already.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:55Z

Virginia Chittick Flaherty

This fails every rule in the book. The article was written by a single user who has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia. There are no links in or out. Most importantly, there are no references. I'll have trouble finding any on my own because there's almost nothing about her on the Internet. If everything the article says about her is true, she might be notable, but we'll never know. Also, regarding the last paragraph, Wikipedia is not a memorial. YechielMan 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't assert notability; nothing on google but WP and mirrors. Article reads like a copyvio. Dave6 05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 14:50, 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) 2007-02-11 06:04Z

The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls

Nonnotable local band. Only source given is Delusions of Adequacy, a music-review site open to submissions by anyone. Speedied twice and reposted by author who claims they're notable as the leading rockabilly band in Adelaide, Australia. I think it still fails WP:BAND, but bringing here for consensus. NawlinWiki 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i am the author of the page. contrary to what nawlinwiki has said the source i quoted, Delusions of Adequacy (DOA) is not open to submissions by anyone, only the reviewers employed by the site submit material. however anyone is able to contact them giving them information about music they would like o see reviewed. however this music is chosen at the discretion of DOA. the site is well established, having been formed in 1999. it is classed as an e-zine rather than just a website and they post new material on a regular basis. as an established e-zine they have an editorial team which regulates the content. i have contacted the editor in chief of the site in order to get more details of the site's editorial policy.

i also believe that being the only band of a genre in a city of more that 1 million people constitutes a level of notability suitable for a small wikipedia article. the band's notability is likely to increase this year as some of the most notable psychobilly bands in the world will be touring australia, and as the only local act in that genre it is highly likely that they will be supporting these acts. i feel that this is surely notable enough to make a wikipedia page for them suitable.

as i said i contacted the editor of DOA and asked his to either contact me with details of the editorial policy of DOA or to post the information here. either way more details about the reliability of the site will soon be availiable and i ask that enough time be given for this to happen.

finally i would like to ask about how much research nawlinwiki did into the source i quoted before deeming it unreliable? thank you --T3hllama 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article author. /Blaxthos 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are those votes or what??--T3hllama 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't delete. They're responsible for a new wave of music in Adelaide, therefore I think they're worthy of an article.— Taigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I am Raul69, an Adelaide citizen. I am very in touch with the Adelaide music scene and not only is this band 'The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls' highly respected (and only) psychobilly band but they are a a highly respected and popular band in general. Within a year of coneption, the band has been added to the hugely popular 'Scorcherfest' bill and one of the biggest events in the Australian Psychobilly/Rockabilly calander, the annual Kustom Kulture Weekender. This page provides useful information for psychobilly fans from around adelaide and south australia who might not otherwise have heard about this band. I have also looked over this DOA site and I found it to be a good site and thorouly reliable. — Raul69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One review on a site of questionable notability itself does not equal notability. The guideline is "multiple non-trivial written publications". Also, T3hllama, these are not supposed to be "votes", this is a discussion. The standard format is that you place your opinion (whatever it may be, keep, delete, neutral, etc.) in bold and then explain it. You should read about the articles for deletion process. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more sources emerge. One review in one insubstantial source does not meet policy.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have received an email from Kyle O'Donnell, editor in cheif of DOA. here is a excerpt:

"DOA has been around since 1999 and offers new content (album, mp3, and concert reviews as well as features, interviews, etc.) every weekday. We have a dedicated staff of writers chosen by the editors (myself and Jenn Patton). We do not accept content written by anyone not on our staff. Furthermore, DOA receives about 30,000 unique visitors per month.

We are dedicated to helping preserve the spirit of independent music and a number of links to DOA reviews already exist on various wikipedia pages."

as he says links to DOA articles are already used as references on other wikipedia pages. if this is the case then this shows that wikipedia has accepted DOA as a reliable source priviously, so why do you not in this case. --T3hllama 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some articles use links to DOA does not make it ipso facto a reliable encyclopedic source. We are not doubting that this source exists, or that it does what you say it does (namely, that it reviews music in the Adelaide area.) However, having been reviewed once in a minor local newspaper does not meet the guidelines at WP:N.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOA is not a minor local newspaper. they are an international e-zine review music from all over the world not just my area. i feel that some research should be done by people before they dismiss a source as unreliable, such as actually looking at the page or contacting the editors.--T3hllama 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an international ezine with only 30,000 readers actually makes it less of a notable source than if it were a local newspaper. Furthermore, one can't leave it up to every editor to contact the management of a magazine and prove its notable. Everything has to be self-contained within the article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while a small readership does indeed make it less of a notable source, a readership of 30,000 is still quite large. i can assure you that if any further reviews are written they too would be credited.--T3hllama 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't even class DOA as a single source who has written about the band. "Send us your CD/single/MP3 and we'll review it" sites are astonishingly common. Footnote 1 of WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." In my opinion review sites such as these do not meet this standard, they are not writing about the band as such, just the music they have been sent to review. One Night In Hackney 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as stated the subject of each revue is chosen at the discretion of the editors. they do not review every MP3, CD or single sent to them. they choose songs or CDs to review based on their own impressions of the song or CD. writers also search for material as well as seleting from the material sent to them. they arent a cash for comment organisation.--T3hllama 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such disclaimer on the site, or in any message purported to be from anyone involved with the site posted here. That isn't relevant to my point anyway. My point was that a band is considered notable if a writer independently publishes an article about them. Reviews of songs or CDs are not covered under that in my opinion, otherwise every band that has ever been reviewed in more than one fanzine could be considered notable. One Night In Hackney 06:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a review by an independent person is not considered to be an article about a band what do you consider to be a relevant article about a band?--T3hllama 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My previous point was clear and unambiguous and clearly outlined my position. It should also be noted that ignoring Wikipedia (and mirrors) and Myspace, the band has 14 unique Ghits. One Night In Hackney 07:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if your previous point had been clear i would not have need to query it! i shall ask you again. if u do not consider an independent review to be an article about a band what do you consider to be an article about a band? also, having checked out the Ghits you pointed out i would like to say taht if it was not for this wikipedia page i doubt the band would feature on a site in russian. 14 unique Ghits when not including wikipedia and myspace is also significant i think. the band are also waiting on a full review from a german based psychobilly magazine to be published in the near future. in this case it was the magazine that contacted them asking for a CD rather than the other way around. would that be a suitible article or do you dismiss all review as unsatisfactory? --T3hllama 08:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my previous point. I will take no further debate in this debate over a totally non-notable band. One Night In Hackney 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. --RaiderAspect 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i have a futher query. if this page is not notable, despite all the information on it, and this is grounds for deletion, then why are no all stub articles deleted? surely a stub, having hardly any information at all can be considered notable. --T3hllama 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other similar articles is not a reason to keep or delete the article in question. Leebo⁸⁶ 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not whether the article is complete or sourced or whatever, but whether the subject is notable. It comes down to a question - could a complete, encyclopaedic article meeting all Wikipedia policies be written on this topic? If the answer is "no", it shouldn't be here. If the answer is "yes", then the article needs to diversify its sources. Simply being a good band in the opinion of its fans does not qualify it. Note this is not an indictment of anyone or of the band - there's a band I'd *love* to write about, is big on the local scene here in Perth, sells out concerts at local venues, has been on the Big Day Out lineup twice, gets daily Triple J airplay and is about to release what could be their breakthrough album. They're still, however, not notable at this point. Orderinchaos78 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. No albums, no indication of chart success, no indication of major label signing and, regardless of the status of DOA, one review does not equal multiple independent sources. Nuttah68 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. This isn't a debate about DOA, but about whether this article should be deleted. Re previous comment, I wouldn't list "major label signing" as a criteria though, as numerous bands have become extremely notable without one (John Butler Trio comes to mind). Orderinchaos78 09:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not having adequate verifiable sources to establish notability. As the sole verifiable indicator of notability, "Delusions Of Adequacy.net" isn't good enough. Testimony about how good or important something is will rarely sway opinion in an AFD debate. Here is the place to discuss the article and relevant guidelines - the article is the place to show notability. Shaundakulbara 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:BAND. It's not an issue of inadequate verifiable sources, it is more the fact they would not exist at all because this is a small obscure band that hasn't made it DanielT5 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 08:55Z

Mental Toughness

Poorly formatted slab of original research. Reading the article, you'd almost be convinced that "mental toughness" was a concept invented in the mid 1990s by Dr. Peter Clough... Pascal.Tesson 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, unverifiable piece of work. And yes, it does give the impression that this Dr. Clough discovered mental toughness... .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also smell a whiff of spam, given the "USEFUL LINKS". Edeans 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is WP:OR.--Sefringle 23:15, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:56Z

Over 9000

Non-notable internet meme based around a YouTube video. Dave6 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete! This article is hardly encyclopedic. Bryanw03 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable meme. (Note: I reformatted Bryanw's opinion to conform with Afd conventional usage.) YechielMan 05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's ~~OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!~~ a non notable Internet meme that really has no place in Wikipedia. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of Google hits for "It's Over 9000" and "It's Over Nine Thousand" is not over 9000. No sources provided. In short, non-notable internet meme, as stated by nom. --N Shar 06:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion. --Dennisthe2 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the spirit of WP:NFT. This meme lacks any verification to indicate actually significance.-- danntm ^T _C 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Nine Thousand?! I mean Delete It's on the List of Internet phenomena page (I put it there) and that's the only place it should be at. JuJube 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/COI wrapped up in an allegedly notable meme. Only one of the first ten ghits [13] is relevant and that is the video itself. No assertion of notability and no independent reliable sources cited. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OVER NINE THOUSAAAAND!!!!. Also delete. No reliable sources... yet.... --- RockMFR 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we kept this, we might as well start cataloging YTMND videos to boot. RFerreira 08:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it’s not been reported by any reliable sources. And until that happens, as much as i love over 9000, it has no right to an article El cid the hero 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet meme which is choking on non-notability, no reliable sources. (jarbarf) 18:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scouter says that this article's power level is not high enough to overcome WP:WEB. If deleted, expect OVER NINE THOUSAND sockpuppets to clamor for its return. Thunderbunny 00:38, 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) 2007-02-09 08:56Z

Village blackout

Fails WP:NEO. The article topic is a tent marketed by http://www.villageblackout.com/. Otherwise, there are fewer than 50 nonwiki ghits for this term. The only way to save this article is to find a noncommercial name for a light-proof tent, and to rename the article accordingly. YechielMan 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be a form of mild spam. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot tell if this is spam or a hoax, but in either case nn. Edeans 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, should have been a {{prod}} not a AfD. Jeepday 14:55, 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) 2007-02-11 06:03Z

Virginia Marangell

Nonnotable author. The article was created by one user, apparently a family member, and is not written in the proper style. A web search shows less than 100 nonwiki ghits, which is disappointed for a recent author with multiple published works. YechielMan 05:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet the primary notability criterion, or the notability criteria for WP:BIO; additionally, I am unable to locate any sources with which to verify the location contained within the article at the present time. While the subject is a published author, searching for awards or multiple independent reviews fails to yield results. A possible conflict of interest might also exist, as the creator's username is similar to the subject's name. Kyra_~(talk) 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 09:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources attesting to notability can be provided. janejellyroll 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - she has an entry in Contemporary Authors. It appears that one of her books was published independently and the rest may be self-published. --lquilter 02:31, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:57Z

Roleplayers Hall

Very non-notable web forum. No verifiability (reliable third party links, reviews, etc). Google searches for Roleplayers Hall return hits only from free web forums such as Invisionfree. It seems very much like a vanity page as well, given all the screennames provided. It's extremely far from meeting WP:WEB. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the primary notability guideline as well as the notability guideline for web content. A preliminary search for reliable sources fails to yield anything with which to verify the contents of the article. Kyra_~(talk) 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sample excerpt: "...perhaps the "most interesting" person to ever grace RPSH with their presence. He has disappeared shortly after many attacks on his sexuality, identity, and general conduct on the forums.....but alas he returned." Not notable. - grubber 14:57, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:57Z

Timothy Dees

I'm 99% positive this page is a hoax, but someone obviously put a lot of effort into it. I tried putting a 'prod' on the article; a new user User:Dodgers7878 (who I suspect is a sockpuppet of the author) immediately showed up on my talk page to try to rescue the article. When I didn't buy what he had to say, he immediately deleted the 'prod' and 'hoax' tags. The only sources for the article are a journal that Google doesn't know about and a couple of blog posts that anyone could have written - not suitable per WP:RS; and Google has never heard of a cricket player named Timothy Dees that died of spontaneous human combustion. Request speedy delete if I can get concurrence. RJASE1 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC) RJASE1 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the author(s) should probably be punished for perpetrating the hoax - kind of a shame, though, they put so much work into this. :) RJASE1 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete full of original research and likely hoax, but be lenient to the authors, give them a second chance. Wooyi 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blog sources are hardly reliable... .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am likewise 99% convinced this is a hoax. That other 1%, however, makes this ineligable for Speedy Delete. Shaundakulbara 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shouldn't we keep this until we either have a Timothy Dees to put up, or it has been proven wrong. I mean does anybody have anything to counter his 'sources'? Whubbard 01:03, 5 February 2007 (EST)
- Comment Yes, we do: Policy. Resolute 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a national team coach dying of spontaneous human combustion would have made the legitimate news. I'll stake my claim to the last remaining 1% that this is a hoax. Resolute 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check out this interesting attempt to source the article from Wikipedia itself. This edit was made after this article was nominated - we're going to have this kind of disruption until the article is deleted. RJASE1 06:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of 3 references to a newly-established blog. The blog contains 3 articles - the 2 referenced plus one about how great the Faroe Islands economy is doing - partly due to "demand for smoked salmon". Trouble is, there has been no commercial harvest of salmon in the Faroes for 5 years [14]. Unable to find anything on Dees or the supposed economic expert quoted in the economy blog article using google. Unable to find anything on blog owner "Midalson" using google. Seems like blog created to provide referential support for this likely hoax article. Further, no google hits on "Jens Norbinson" the alleged author of the first reference. --TRosenbaum 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear hoax. created and edited by single purpose accounts - presumably all the same person, and solely referenced to an unimportant blog - Peripitus (Talk) 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoaxes with hoax references are particularly distasteful. You'd think that a successful cricket coach and former player would show up in this search, but you'd be wrong. And that journal article? Not here, here, here, or even here. And this one is short enough to read through, too. The only thing that's not a hoax is that this is why blogs aren't reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's pretty plain all edits to the account (except for stub tagging, etc.) are coming from the Nashville, Tennessee area and are likely the same person. The details can be found at the sockpuppetry case here. By the way, the article is evidence for the sockpuppetry case and probably shouldn't be deleted until that case gets processed (though the backlog over there is horrendous). RJASE1 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "death announcement" blog article referenced (3) quotes 3 individuals: "Dr. Haan Djorkwald", "Bjorn Baverwold", and "Jens Munichwold". Is it a coincidence that all three names end with "wold" or ("wald") and that one is a "Djork" (dork?)? No google hits on any of the "wo(a)lds". I think the blog is as much a hoax as this article. --TRosenbaum 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got me. Thanks for being so polite and thorough. Winkers6767 15:18, 6 February (CST)
Comment Probably we should archive it as a classic hoax on wikipedia in WP:BAD to admonish future like-minded editors. Wooyi 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWinkers6767, you disgust me. Have you no respect for truth? You pervert all that is good and holy. Shame on you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.73.164 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please follow WP:CIVIL and do not give personal attacks. Wooyi 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for defending me, Wooyi; the Faroese people thank you. I would be honored if Timothy Dees had a place in WP:BAD. Winkers6767 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not defending you personally, but I was only discussing concerns that is in accordance with wikipedia rules. Also I would not consider being put into WP:BAD as an honor and this type of hoax should not be encouraged. I sincerely hope you, Winkers6767 would instead use your talent to make constructive edits to wikipedia and be a responsible editor. Wooyi 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize. I just get really wound up at such wickedness. I suppose we're all capable of such things. I should have taken into account total depravity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Giving hoaxers recognition by perpetuating their hoaxes as examples only encourages more hoaxing - don't give recognition. Oh, and since the primary author (Winkers6767) requested deletion above, the article can now be speedily deleted per WP:CSD, criterion 7. RJASE1 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punch in the Face RJASE1, you were clearly the hall monitor in high school and never got over it. You can speedily delete yourself. Yes, Wooyi, I know you weren't defending me. I was just trying to be nice. Jerk. Oh, and that was a personal attack. Winkers6767 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The failure to report the cricket scores correctly gives it away if the rest of it didn't!! Howzthat?--Slp1 03:52, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:01Z

Fielding Fowler, Comedian

This would have been proddable if not for the minor claims of notability. Still doesn't look like a prominent enough comedian for an article. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. The link to USA Today is to an article about ads on cellphones, which contains a very brief quote from Fowler on that topic. Further, the article merely claims Fowler was "heard" on The Bob & Tom Show, not that he was a featured guest. His name does not appear on a lengthy list of "Friends of the Show" on their website, composed mostly of comedians [15]. Edeans 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding Fowler WAS an invited guest on the Bob And Tom show. Listened to the Archives from Novemeber 2005. They chatted with Fielding about his comedy for several minutes

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 08:59Z

Middle verse of the Bible

The references are blogs or other unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and no reason is given why the claimed fact is notable. A book can be notable without the fact of what is the middle verse being notable. It may also vary depending on which version is used. Fails to meet WP:RSand WP:V. Even if it were verifiable, there is no proof it is notable, as would be shown by coverage in multiple independent and reliable publications, so it fails WP:N Inkpaduta 05:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Intriguing, but that's not a valid "keep" reason. We know all about WP:ILIKEIT. But nonetheless, would it be valid for inclusion into Bible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- ...and I did it again. I'm done for the night after correcting a link. --Dennisthe2 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not well sourced and doesn't really explain significance. Possibly it could be better though if it explained why the middle verse would have any special meaning and dealt with the fact a "middle verse" would be different in Catholic or Orthodox bibles.--T. Anthony 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn and likely OR. Edeans 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and weak references. --Pi (π) 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there's some possible use here in debunking an internet meme, I don't think there's enough to justify inclusion. -- Bpmullins | Talk 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge, theologian wading in here.... this is non-notable as there is no "middle verse" of the Bible (depends which Bible, and where you're counting from) and even if there were - "middle" has no numerological significant. --Madmedea 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete although I've come across this topic a few times over the years, this article on it is mainly original research. Totnesmartin 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mostly original research.-- danntm ^T _C 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is original research and it acknowledges being original research. It is also a non-notable topic that does not assert any potential notability.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above--Sefringle 03:35, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:00Z

Computious

Prodded as a non-notable fictional character, subsequently removed stating... actually, I'm not sure what the argument was. Something about women purchasing the cards a lot. Anyway in addition to notability, there's a sourcing problem. By which I mean government records are the only reliable sources. Amark moo! 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's go through those sources one by one, shall we?
- 1. Trivial.
- 2. Trivial.
- 3. Probably not reliable.
- 4. ~~Who knows?~~ Legitimate.
- 5. Not reliable.
- 6. Not reliable.
- 7. Citation is not of a specific article.
- 8. I would find it odd if this source were about the subject, since no one would refer to a greeting card using the verb "deal." Paragraph referenced by notes 5-8 also suggests that these sources are not independent.
- 9. Trivial, merely a catalog listing.
- 10. Trivial.
- 11. Irrelevant to subject.
- 12. Not independent -- there is a conflict of interest, as you will see if you read the text.
- 13. Irrelevant to subject.
- 14. Irrelevant to subject.
- 15. Not independent.
- 16. Irrelevant to subject.

--N Shar 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This thing reads like an advertisement, complete with embedded (tm) tags. CoI AdSpam. /Blaxthos 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Edeans 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: #4 is listed as "Who knows?" I think it unlikely that this article is about a different "27-year-old Washingtonian who discovered she had a yen for cartooning while studying Chinese [and started] selling her own line of greeting cards". This does not dent in a major way the notability argument, in my opinion, but it challenges the nom's assertion that "government records are the only reliable sources". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Heh, that's my list, not the nom's. The word count reveals that the source is non-trivial, which was what I was concerned about -- thanks for doing the research. And, as you say, the notability argument is not seriously changed. --N Shar 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DMG413 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You editors are tough, but I respect your intent to maintain integrity. Haven't done enough homework to understand publication requirements. Looks like it will take a few years to meet notability standards (one book has been published, but more in the works). Comment to N Shar: not everyone engages in fiction when presenting references! We have hard copies and pdf's of all references, including the article referenced in Note 8 -- newspapers take liberties with word play in their headlines when the subject allows it. Ciao, Neutralw 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't mean to accuse you of faking anything (although I guess it came across that way). However, the number of times I've thought I knew what an article was about and been wrong, or cited the wrong article, etc. is quite astonishing. You are certainly right about people taking liberties with wordplay, though. --N Shar 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to get your reply, N Shar. It's great that there's a community like Wikipedia with collaborative brainy types. I'll contribute when better prepared.Neutralw 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 09:01Z

Gedza (computer virus)

There are hundreds of thousands of computer viruses, and most have not been written about in reliable publications. Has no references to show it is more notable than hundreds of thousands of other viruses. Inkpaduta 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virus Information Library does not indicate high risk or prevalence. No non-trivial reliable sources from quick Google search. --N Shar 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable at all --Pi (π) 11:42, 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) 2007-02-09 09:02Z

"If I..."

Non-notable song. Speedy for does not assert notability? Freekee 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. --N Shar 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fraggle 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the song, what about the band? ~ trialsanderrors 09:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band itself BARELY notable, song definite no. -- feb^talk 14:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And the band's page was full of incorrect wikilinks - they weren't the band's albums! (maybe someone had something to do with them, but they were definitely not by this band) :( SkierRMH,06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Bubba hotep 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I loved the film, but that's a Speedy. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 06:00Z

Worldwide MediaWorks

The article does not verifiably demonstrate the company's notability --A. B. ^(talk) 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also see:

Article talk page for a list of related articles
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Delgrosso somewhat related AfD

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability /Blaxthos 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete says worked with some of the largest names on the Internet but see no evidence cited--Hu12 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected, nominator concurs. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 09:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck drill string

Content of Stuck drill string has been added as a section of Drill string. As such, and given the insignificance of "Stuck drill string" as a topic in its own right, Stuck drill string should be deleted. TRosenbaum 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drill String. This way, the contribution history is preserved, and users searching specifically for stuck drill strings are guided automatically to where they may find this content. -- saberwyn 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Redirect but don't know how to do that yet myself. --TRosenbaum 06:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close; redirected. For future reference, see Wikipedia:Redirect and Help:Redirect. --N Shar 07:25, 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) 2007-02-11 05:59Z

Plane Ride From Hell

rumored wrestling event with interest only to wrestling fans. I'm not sure if it happened, but it does not deserve it's own article, either way. Booshakla 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Hardly sounds interesting, even if real, and a Google search turns up no meaningful results. Heimstern Läufer 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Depends what search terms you use. Add WWF to it and you get a number of sources: [16] It's also covered in Scott Keith's book "Wrestling's one-ring circus". Given the breadth of sources, I'd say it's fine as far as references are concerned, but I still don't think it's notable and important enough to have its own article (see my comments further down). --Dave. 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Scott Keith a reliable source, especially considering the numerous factual inaccuracies in his first book. The problem with the sources is that none of them really say the same thing. For example PWBTS reports The Torch stated Curt Hennig started the fight, while 1Wrestling reports that Jerry Lawler stated Curt Hennig didn't start the fight. There are too many conflicting and unconfirmed reports about what happened, and I don't believe rumours and speculation are appropriate. For that reason I think it will always fail WP:V. One Night In Hackney 08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And a comment to Heimstern, being interesting or not is not a requirement for things to stay on Wikipedia. Kris Classic 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Perhaps "of general interest" is more what I'm looking for. Heimstern Läufer 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A one time event that is only notable to wrestling fans. Put it on a wresting wiki instead. RobJ1981 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly more can be found out. As far as it being of interest only to wrestling fans, you could apply many things on here as that. OsFan 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To my knowledge, this only made a splash with the Internet-savvy wrestling fanbase; any coverage of a "Plane Ride From Hell" in reliable sources are for completely different events. This article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom.--IRelayer 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet fans may be the only ones to know, but why should that restrict others from knowing? EricVenken 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— EricVenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This was mentioned in UK newspapers, see here. But even so there's no confirmed report of what actually happened, only rumours and speculation. One Night In Hackney 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's mentioned in Curt Hennig's profile along with Michael P.S. Hayes's. It could use some expanding, but that is what Wikipedia is about. Let's give it a few months. If the article stays barren, then maybe delete it because Lord knows there are a lot of articles languishing. Besides, how many wrestling articles really belong here? It'll just get created again and again... 144.126.208.61 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:V - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That is policy and non-negotiable. One Night In Hackney 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally agree with that reasoning. Just because it is mentioned on a few pages doesn't mean it needs it's own page. The only way that this alleged incident deserves mention is within the articles of the people that it affected the most (if proven). I know for sure that there were other events that have been tacked on to this story that are totally false. Booshakla 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable, unreferenced, trivial event. Montco 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it can be referenced through published works, both internet and hard copy, and doesn't actually fall foul of WP:V and WP:NOR, the overall relevance of it is pretty limited, and I don't think it deserves an aticle of its own. It is noted in the trivia section of WWE Insurrextion, and that's all it needs. Therefore I agree that Deletion is appropriate. --Dave. 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone said above, it's already mentioned at Curt Hennig. It doesn't appear that there's enough to be said about it to warrant its own article. - grubber 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What difference does it make if the article stays? Let's be honest here. We really don't have a grasp on the wrestling aspect of Wikipedia. There are literally thousands of articles that are pointless. Why this one? BennyLittleton 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— BennyLittleton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It fails WP:V which is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe point of articles for deletion is to discuss what is pointless and what isn't. If you feel that there are thousands of others than are equally pointless then nominate them for deletion and we can discuss them. If nobody nominates them they won't be discussed. --Dave. 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I feel strongly about keeping this page alive. There is trouble with verifiability, but it's universally accepted that Henig lost his job because of the incident along with Scott Hall. This was a fairly big incident at the time. Hayes's mullet was definitely cut. I don't understand why these things, which are commong knowledge among Internet wrestling fans (who BTW are the ones who do all the productive work here), need to be cited. UT4LIFE 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— UT4LIFE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per what UT said. HrothgarFan 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — HrothgarFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]

Keep This is one of those borderline issues. I see both sides, but I don't think it's too big of a deal. I mean, it does fit the category of professional wrestling slang. You bring up the term to most smart fans and wrestlers, they know what you mean. I think we also need to realize how big this was at the time. This might be more of a context of the time issue than anything else IMO. TeenageWasteland1980 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — TeenageWasteland1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]
Delete, unsourced unimportant trivium, wouldn't even be worth a paragraph in an article Sandstein 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verfiability is such B.S. We can't verify who killed JFK. That doesn't restrict us from writing an article on it. ISHBOO1111 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — ISHBOO1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DeleteThe user who created the site has been banned, I would go so far as to say he created the other pages to protect his baby. TheCars4Life 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes he was, thanks for noting that. There is a possibility that there are socks voting. Booshakla 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing interesting here, P.S I bet some of those Keeps above are from the same person! IP check or setup another vote for this may be in order. Govvy 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:04Z

Lewisville High School

Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. No real claim of notability made, not linked to any articles except to lists other schools, no independent sources cited. Appears to be vanity article that's more or less a school brochure. talk to Ytny 07:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If LHS' article is deleted, then it stands that all public school articles should be removed. Yes, this article could use some more content and some extensive clean-up, but that alone is not a reason to delete it. Wyv 08:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but a lack of notability is a reason to delete it, and you're making a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I see nothing wrong with deleting all public school articles be deleted if they don't make any assertion for notability - this just happened to catch my attention because I was looking at previous edits by a vandal. As far as I can tell, this is just an unremarkable high school that doesn't meet the criteria inclusion. talk to Ytny 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but why is a public school not, on its face, notable? Yes, Wikipedia is not simply a collection of facts, but it is a collection of encyclopedic knowledge. Scale says that not everything is notable (for example, we don't have articles on every person in the world), but most things which are limited in scope are (such as schools, cities, counties, discovered stars, etc). The existence of Lewisville High School is very notable for those of us who live around it. LHS has played a large role in both the immediate area and by producing otherwise notable people who have graduated from it.

The page you indicated, WP:NOT#INDISCIMINATE, gives examples which are stated lists or small blurbs. Public school entries, not just the entry for LHS, rise, in my opinion, above a stated list or small blurb. Simply because a school article might not be notable outside a given area doesn't mean it's not otherwise notable. Wyv 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The nomination makes two claims as justification for deletion, citing failure to meet WP:N and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This well-formed, thorough and well-written article makes explicit claims of notability regarding its multiple state football championships. Claims regarding WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE cannot be taken seriously, nor can they be properly addressed, as none of the specific areas that WP:NOT specifies are mentioned. In general, WP:NOT is used rather bluntly to mean "anything I have arbitrarily decided doesn't merit an article in Wikipedia for which I won't bother to come up with an actual reason". The content, form and thoroughness of the article in question are ample rebuttals of the claim in this case. Alansohn 13:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn's comprehensive reasoning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It meets my personal criteria for H.S notability. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has claims of notability, such as 2 state athletic championships. Edison 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are no school notability guidelines with any meaningful consensus, so other criteria have to be used. This article meets WP:V and can surely grow into one that meets WP:N from what is there. I just spent an hour adding an infobox and straigtening up (when I should ahve been sleeping, thank you very much), but was unable to add much in the way of independent sources--not because there aren't any, but because there are too many Google hits to go through--more than 13,000 for '"Lewisville High School" texas'. The local papers don't seem to keep stories in open archives long, but there's lots of sports and band stuff and a $200 million local bond issue for the school district (hmmm... do you think that some independent sources may have written something about that?). The high school is over 100 years old, has changed campuses three or more times, and has over 3000 students. It needs local editors to find sources for encyclopedic information that they already know of or to do more focussed searched for what they know must be there. I'm sure that the story of its growth and the development of the other four high schools in the district must be incredibly boring, compared to, say, Japanese football, but the simple solution to a strong personal aversoin to school articles is to click the random article button and read up on the Pokemon character or 1950s soap opera or whatever. This article should have been tagged some other way to ask for cleanup or citations. Is is very annoying to have to do crisis managment like this whenever a high school gets put on AfD with no prior effort to improve things.--Hjal 08:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article indicates why it stands out from its peers. Winning a few championships is not notable: it happens to every school from time to time. We need to see real notability ( a special partnership with industry, special teaching methods, a tradition of producing great athletes or biochemists or whatever - just give us something that marks the school out ). Importance in the local community is not enough ( if it were there'd be an article about every local bar and post office ): we need to know why someone who isn't from the local community should be interested. WMMartin 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather the point of the debate, I think. Is Wikipedia limited solely to topics of a "large" interest, or are obscure-to-those-who-don't-live-there articles allowed? If so, where is the "large" drawn? Major cities? States? Countries? There are sovereign nations in the world whose population is dwarfed by the mildly-recognized suburb I live in. Who gets priority? Honestly, I don't see a problem with Wikipedia having an article about every local bar and post office. Computers can contain and organize huge amounts of data; the search function here and in major search engines is so good that there's not "wading through the crap" any longer. I think there should be a bias towards more information and more articles on more subjects, not less. Wyv 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the comprehensive reasoning provided by Alansohn above. (jarbarf) 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above and for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Silensor 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments cited by Alansohn. Several factors, including the size and age of the school play into the notability. RFerreira 08:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per commenters above. I really don't want to say "If we delete x, we have to delete y too", but since LHS is in the same district as Hebron and Marcus high schools (which are highly notable, at least in texas), it shouldn't be deleted (at least on because of a lack of notability). Until there is a set critera on what makes a school notable or not, it is better just to only delete the poorly written ones for now. Zadern et 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response For what it's worth, there is a proposed criteria for schools at Wikipedia:Schools, and this high school fails each one. In absence of a notability policy for schools, we have to go by WP:N, which requires the school to be the subject of multiple, independent and non-trivial coverage, which isn't the case here. Most of the information comes from self-published sources, and the one (i.e., not multiple) independent source that's cited makes no case for the school's notability - what school hasn't had some sort of construction done?

Being in the same district as other schools doesn't cut it either, because notability doesn't transfer simply because of geographical proximity. And the school having a band or a state champion football team doesn't really separate the school from any other.

While the opinions here are overwhelmingly in favor of keep, you can find the majority of those arguments in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. I have yet to read one argument that actually makes a case that the school meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Ytny (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Response There are more sources now. BTW, you are repeating yourself to little effect. The current Wikipedia:Schools is unlikely to get consensus and WP:N does not require that articles about the construction of a school seem "notable" or interesting to you. The existance of the articles demonstrates "notability" by definition. A school is not a person (or, for that matter, a grandmother). Typical persons (and grandmothers) get a few short mentions in the news over their lives--birth, marriage, death--their construction jobs are not written up unless they are extraordinary, whereas every major school project gets multiple coverage because the community is interested (as they are in championship teams) and the publishers think that it is notable (as in the dictionary, "worthy of note"). And, if you don't like using the "Show preview" button, the next time you add a couple of paragraphs, you might not want to mark the last of five edits "minor."--Hjal 08:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the "Show preview" button didn't show me that those redirects were dead, and I made one error and added a short sentence, those are the three minor errors. And I'm not sure where I'm repeating myself. I simply addressed the arguments made based on Wikipedia policy, and if that's repetitive, well, WP hadn't changed since I last commented.

I did notice a section about football records were added, which is at least a claim to notability (though I wonder if the state championship scoring record might be more appropriate in an article about high school football in Texas and I'm actually surprised there isn't one).

The question you have to ask though, is what distinguishes this high school from other schools? Why should anyone who doesn't have vested interest in the school care. Stuyvesant High School has multiple Nobel-winning graduates. Glenbrook North High School has pop culture significance and national notoriety through a hazing incident. Little Rock Central High School has historical significance. You can certainly make a case with the football record, though honestly, I'm not sure if that's enough. But that's up to the closing admin to decide.

And remember that WP:N is a minimum threshold, not a "Two articles and you're in" pass. Mentions in the local paper are certainly worth considering, but construction news and sports scores are trivial to all but those within the community. Ytny (talk) 23:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tap-Out Connection

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hyundai Kia Automotive Group. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:05Z

Hyundai Innocean Communications

non notable company Xokien 07:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this seems to be non-notable. fraggle 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyundai Kia Automotive Group. MER-C 12:27, 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) 2007-02-09 09:06Z

Zardon

non notable project Xokien 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No google hits. fraggle 09:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The project began on January 29, 2007." Enough said. MER-C 11:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 ghits, brand new "project"... failest the returnest thou nigh to oblivion from whenst thou have foully issued adjudication. SkierRMH 22:50, 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) 2007-02-09 09:06Z

Whizler

non notable website Xokien 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advert. There don't seem to be any google hits (related to the site). fraggle 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly an advertisement. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:07, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:07Z

List of trivia and cultural references in The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius

nn list of trivia, which is discourage on WP. Other lists of trivia have been deleted in the past (Steely Dan), and this is far less notable than that. Booshakla 07:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. Extreme fancruft. fraggle 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fragglet /Blaxthos 09:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geez. This article is just a list of references people noticed while watching the show. janejellyroll 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that is nortable and not OR with the article on the show. There's no need for a separate article on the subject. 23skidoo 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire. OR should never be tolerated. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate OR trivia.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. JuJube 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 05:48, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:59Z

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report

We all know that Stephen Colbert is the most important and influential human who ever lived, and that his pearls of wisdom rival those of Ghandi, his put-downs surpass those of Wilde and Beecham, and every word he utters is peerless prose to be cherished for ever, but nonetheless I don't think we need an article for things made up on the Colbert Report one day. Seriously, this stuff belongs on Wikiality ("the truthiness encyclopaedia") not here. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Prevous Afd in September 2006. Result was no concensus. WJBscribe 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm lost for words and we should certainly lose these. An indisctiminate and pointless list of single source neologisms - Peripitus (Talk) 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. These are non-notable neologisms, putting them together in a list doesn't help. Verifiable impartial sources about the words (not just mentioning them) are required. And I completely agree that things made up on the Colbert Report one day do not require an article to themselves. Fortunately. WJBscribe 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think truthiness is the only one with any real notability... and it has its own article already. If any of the others bear mentioning, a line or two in The Colbert Report will cover this. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. fraggle 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article on this show. The fact the show has coined phrases like truthiness is verifiable, but not every one of the neologisms used have become notable. Pick some of the most frequently used and make a subsection of the article on the show. 23skidoo 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Truthiness. Some of these are notable (see Wikiality, Factiness), though the list does need pruning. Cheers, Lankybugger 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his fanzombies are on notice. JuJube 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just too arbitrary, because the Great Colbert coins too many terms to determine which are worthy of an entry.-- danntm ^T _C 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with truthiness. Edison 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colbert regularly coins so many non-notable neologisms that a list is pointless; the only notable ones, "truthiness" and "wikiality", are already described elsewhere. Krimpet 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as required and then redirect. Mathmo ^Talk 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colbertcruft. AgentPeppermint 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I mean... its nice to have a list and everyone... truthiness and everything... I dunno. Someone convince me that this list isn't useful. MrMacMan 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. Just because Colbert is top of mind to many WP editors does not mean everything on the show should be in an encyclopedia. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dposse 15:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the many other examples of "List of neologisms coined in X show/book/other". There seems to be a lot of comments voting to delete that hint at some kind of personal disagreement with Colbert or his politics, and we should be careful not to make a decision as to the worthiness of the article on that basis. --Sanguinus 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 09:08Z

MyMovieStream

non notable website Xokien 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fraggle 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB --MaNeMeBasat 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete - even setting aside WP:WEB or WP:CORP, it wouldn't appear there are any obvious sources of information (revenues, customers, market share etc.) to expand or justify this micro-minimal stub, or anything compellingly notable about the company in the online DVD rental milieu. - David Oberst 07:52, 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 delete by Jimfbleak with the reason of "advertising". Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualVue

non notable Xokien 07:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fraggle 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - second person spam. So tagged. MER-C 09:49, 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) 2007-02-09 09:09Z

CarbonZero

non notable companies Xokien 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fraggle 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No external sources, seems to be a non-notable corporation. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:23, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:09Z

AnimeCon Louisville

Website given shows that it is an event specific to a local library, no information available on attendance, and there is already a page on another anime con in this city that shows relevance compared to this one. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability and no additional third-party reliable sources can be found. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, its biggest claim to fame is this Wiki page. --PatrickD 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article, this isn't even really a con, just four local anime clubs meeting at the same library they usually meet at. The linked article claims "more than 200" attennded, and the pictures all suggest a small gathering. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 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) 2007-02-09 09:17Z

FuyuCon

Convention has not happened and there is nothing notable about it to make it worth of an article. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The convention is too far out into the future to guarantee that it will be held, much less generate reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree... --PatrickD 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least until it happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:57Z

No Brand Con

Convention averages less than 700 attendees, cites no sources, reads like an advertisement, and gives nothing to make it notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable convention. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Wisconsin's only anime convention, it is notable. I've also added two third-party sources on the talk page so that they can be used to improve the article. And that's not counting the information we can mine from AnimeCons.com on basic facts. Wisconsin newspapers should also be checked for potential sources. --Farix (Talk) 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...but it needs to be cleaned up. --PatrickD 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the number of people in attendance is one way to show notability, it should not be seen as the only way to show notability. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reasoning and third party sources recently provided by Farix. (jarbarf) 19:05, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:56Z

Kiwi Foo Camp

Seems to be an offshoot of Foo Camp. However, in its own right it isn't notable. It had a speedy tag, but due to controversy (especially from Geek Zone), I am submitting this to AFD. I suggest it be merged with Foo Camp, however others want it deleted. I'll let the community decide. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A call for calm: As the person who added this to AFD and reversed the speedy deletion nomination, could I please remind people to assume good faith? Some people saw it as having no real context, or being advertising. That in itself could be argued to be against good faith, but in my opinion honest mistakes happen and that's what I'm seeing here. There is no conspiracy to remove new articles from Wikipedia! Some articles are appropriate, and others are not appropriate. Many people (so far) have agreed with my suggestion to merge, so it doesn't do anyone any good to say that there is a group of editors on Wikipedia with a vendetta against Wikipedia!!!!! Please, everyone calm down. I know how these things go, as I've gotten upset over AFDs also, so I have some sympathy. However, every time I've been upset I've gotten up a lot of people's noses and either my behaviour (or percieved behaviour) has caused people to argue for deletion, or has caused a redo of the AFD. Never a good idea! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The controversy stems from the lack of due process - so far, I've seen no real justification for deleting the article. I can assure everyone that there is no spamming, promotion or advertising going on here. Please assist by explaining why the article is objectionable. It's not the greatest thing that's ever happened in the world, but it does have significance to Kiwis, and other such unconferences are listed in Wikipedia already. If New Zealand events with historical bearing are not considered important and Wikipedia intends to delete all other similar things entries as listed in the unconference entry in the name of consistency, fine, I'll accept that.Juha 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was perfectly in process to add a speedy deletion tag. However, as there is some controversy, I am taking this to AFD. Please, incidently, when you add a comment, please use the following to sign your comments: ~~~~. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, forgot to sign that comment. Still getting used to the Wikipedia interface. --Juha 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No probs, we were all in that boat once :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merging with the Foo Camp entry is probably OK, but doesn't that make it messy? --Juha 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, if Kiwi Foo Camp is a notable event then adding a section about notable events would be fine. Just remember to cite your sources. The article doesn't have to be deleted, merging is fine. Besides, if we merge we tend to redirect to the original article. Anyone who types in Kiwi Foo Camp would get redirected immediately to Foo Camp. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta bu shi da yu: Firstly, thanks for your more helpful tone. In my view we have been subject to needlessly hostile editing today. (I should note that my own name did not appear in the original text; it was in the new text created by Juha after mine was deleted.) I have written an entry outlining what happened and noting significant elements of the event on the Talk page for the original article - if I need to reiterate that information here, just let me know and I'll do so. Please accept that we are simply trying to create a concise article relating to an important event for the New Zealand tech community, and one which will take place annually. If required, I am happy to write a studiedly neutral new entry for the event (I am a working journalist), but I genuinely struggle to seen where Juha or I have done anything wrong. Russb10 09:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, firstly, nobody has done anything wrong. It was perfectly fine to create a new article, but then it was perfectly find for someone to think it was spam (though perhaps not in saying so out loud, as this is really going against Wikipedia:Assume good faith). However, notability is a bit of a vague and nebulous concept on Wikipedia (and in fact, pretty much everywhere). For instance, my wife (if she would ever edit Wikipedia, bless her soul) would not find Kiwi Foo Camp notable, whereas I do find it somewhat notable, though not enough for an article in it's own right. The problem with the existence of the article is not with it's neutrality - this can always be fixed - but with determining just where the article should exist on Wikipedia. My take is it should go into Foo Camp, until it picks up over a few years. After a few years, it could then by split, but only after some consensus. Would there be a problem with merging it into Foo Camp? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ta bu shi da yu: I guess it would be an adequate result for the article to be merged with the main Foo Camp article, even if the two events have different organisational teams and take place in different countries. But you wrote this on Geekzone: Your article may be found notable, but one of the arguments on the talk page should not be used - the argument that the Foo Camp article was how people found out about Kiwi Foo Camp. This isn't what I said, so allow me to clarify: The main Wikipedia Foo Camp article is Google's top result for the relevant search: it is the most linked-information about Foo Camp, and by definition the primary means by which people find out what Foo Camp is. For a hostile editor to muse that it is "spam" and therefore ripe for deletion seems destructive in the extreme to me. I appreciate everything you say about Wikipedia's status as an encylopedia, but I really think you could be a little stronger in your criticism of the unfair and irrational editing that has gone on today.Russb10 09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I too was stunned to see a good-faith article being labelled as spam when it clearly didn't hawk anything. That said, maybe the best thing is to learn from what happened and be glad that the Wikipedia process worked in the end and brought the article to the AFD stage. Not that I understand how that happened, but either way, if it causes too much grief to have the Kiwi Foo Camp as a separate article, merging with the main Foo Camp one seems to be an acceptable compromise.

In case it's necessary information, like Russell I too am a working journalist in New Zealand. I have no connection with O'Reilly or any other entity represented at the Kiwi Foo Camp. There is a not so nice irony in that Wikipedia was held up to the Hon Judith Tizard as a contrast to the state-sponsored Te Ara online encyclopaedia of New Zealand... the former being much more useful to Kiwis than the latter due to the richness of the content. --Juha 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in the course of seeking to do the right thing here, I have read the grounds for speedy deletion in the Deletion policy: Pages that are suitable for immediate deletion and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion; examples include patent nonsense, advertising, pure vandalism and certain housekeeping situations - or, as the line below sums it up, "utter rubbish". This is simply not an accurate description of the original article, yet it was marked for speedy deletion within minutes of creation. It was then, so far as I can tell, deleted even though the hangon tag had been posted, and while it was being edited. New text was then retagged for speedy deletion on completely different grounds. The only reason this article has gone to AFD is this hostile editing.Russb10 11:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main foocamp article. Appears to be just a regional variation and once off so far. Perghaps if it keeps going then it can be expanded. Article name also appears confused, is it "BaaCamp" , "New Zealand Foo Camp" or "Kiwi Foo Camp"?? The main site lists the first two while the article usus the third. - SimonLyall 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second the Merge from SimonLyall. As per his suggestion, might warrant its own page once it becomes a more establised event, as opposed to a one-off. --noizyboy 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have nothing to do with Kiwi Foo Camp, I didn't help organise it and I didn't attend. However I would like to make some observations... Whether something is notable or not is a very relative thing that relies on what people are interested in. Personally, I don't find some things that are in 'real' encyclopedias all that notable, never mind Wikipedia. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is digital allowing millions or billions of pages. 'Real' encyclopeidas are limited in size and therefore someone has to decide what is notable and what is not (or what they believe SHOULD be notable) for the average reader of that encyclopedia. Wikipedia allows us to search through thousands of artists and read about their different albums. A 'real' encyclopedia might have an article about The Beatles but not every single one of their albums. A 'real' encyclopedia might have a entry about a popular TV show but wont list all the episodes along with information about what happened in them and when they were first aired. If something is notable to a group of people, not neccersarily you or a Wikipedia admin, and isn't spam or advertising, then it should be allowed on Wikipeida. If you aren't personally interested in this topic, you don't have to read it. Stop applying old thinking to a new, digital, medium. Peteremcc 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is incomprehensible. There is no context whatsoever for me to even determine if it is notable or not. It has no sources. It needs major cleanup.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Dmz5: It would have been nice to have the chance for a cleanup. The article has been under threat of speedy deletion since a few minutes after its creation, and the original text, which was concise and straightforward, was summarily deleted. The article was then deleted again, while it was being edited. Had it been allowed to exist for so much as a day without this aggressive behaviour, it might have been possible to make a better decision on its merit. I am happy to join a consensus on a merge if it means some text can actually be worked on (I'm assuming our hostile editor is also bound by this consensus and won't then try and delete the main article). Assuming the decision is to merge, who then does that job?Russb10 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to Foo Camp. I don't feel strongly about this; if the article was cleaned up more and given additional sources, then it could be kept. When I first saw the article, it was rather difficult to determine what the article is about. The very first, deleted, version was better in my opinion. I've cleaned it up a little bit. Is there no press coverage of the event which could be linked to?-gadfium 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Changing to a Weak keep, since the article is now better referenced, although the only clearly reliable reference is the Dominion Post one, and the mention of the Foo Camp is in passing.-gadfium 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There will be press coverage soon (weekend and Waitangi Day public holiday here). Also to be added: background information with sources on why ministers David Cunliffe and Judith Tizard's attendance was a milestone for the country, plus material on the public discussion on the government's strategy on digitising content. Of course, there's no point in putting any of that up with the axe of sudden deletion hanging over the article.--Juha 23:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That might seem like a chicken and egg scenario, but there are very many articles which have been saved from AfD because someone improves them substantially during the process. Also, no one is really arguing for outright deletion of this article any more, only for merge, so the contents are likely to be retained whether as this article or as a subsection of Foo Camp.
  - Nothing is likely to happen in terms of deletion or merging for five days from the creation of this AfD. If the press hasn't covered the event by then, I doubt that they will do so.
  - I was going to point out that other individual Foo Camps don't have their own articles, but Science Foo Camp does.-gadfium 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's interesting to note that Jimbo Wales attended the 2005 Foo Camp, and appears to be arguing that the presence of someone at a Foo Camp helps to establish their notability here. I wouldn't want to take this as too much of a precedent.-gadfium 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted elsewhere, the original text was mine. Yes, there is sourcing material steadily emerging (the event concluded only two days ago), including mainstream press and online coverage. Minister Cunliffe's undertaking to focus on internet peering policy (sourcing is available for the precise quote) signals a significant regulatory direction. But I agree: it's difficult to justify working on it when it has already been summarily deleted twice in a day. I'd also appreciate some guidance on what coverage is considered robust: do detailed blog entries count, or must it be conventional media? One potential issue with merging is that it seems likely that it will quickly outgrow the main Foo Camp entry, to the point where it may have to be split again.Russb10 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your help gadfium. I have added the Cunliffe quote, with sourcing, and will fix some of the grammar and add other information over the next day or two. I'm grateful to get an indication of where we need to go with it.Russb10 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, blogs are not normally considered acceptable. See Reliable sources. Ideally, there would be an article on nzherald.co.nz, since Herald articles stay online indefinitely, but an article on (for example) stuff.co.nz (which removes material after about a week), or which wasn't online at all but could be looked up in a public library would be fine. Something on a radio program would be better than nothing. I don't know enough about Idealog to know whether it qualifies as a reliable source, but I linked to your article in it anyway since it has more detail than the Wikipedia article.
- Yes, merging to the Foo Camp article will unbalance that article in the short term. However, having such a detailed report of one event may inspire others to add similar reports of other events. I assume that there will be a main 2007 Foo Camp, which is yet to happen. If the New Zealand event does become annual, then it very likely will be split out again, but the intention of the organisers immediately following the first event is not a strong guarantee that repeats will happen.-gadfium 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could live with a merge-and-split, and I fully understand your caution, but a 2008 event does seem far more likely than not. At least one lead sponsor has already committed, as have several overseas guests who couldn't make it this year, and the venue is available again. Sourcing for the minister's peering quote currently lies with a blog transcript, but audio and video of the session is pending.Russb10 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested at what happened at Kiwi Foo Camp. There was a body of knowledge created there and this is an appropriate place to record it. I want to read about it, and I wasn't invited :-) I'm amazed at the cut-throat action against new pages, I've never seen this before. Bwooce 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: A call for calm: Ta bu shi da yu, I was grateful for you starting the AFD process so we could at least bring some sense to proceedings. I did assume good fath when I saw the original speedy deletion notice and immediately tried to meet the request (even though, as gadfium implies above, the original text was not, as policy requires, anything like "utter rubbish"). But what happened subsequently - including the deletion of the article twice while it was under a "hangon" tag, and the borderline abusive attitude of one editor, who came up with serial justifications for the article's summary removal - is a bit hard to square with an honest mistake. This has been a confusing and not particularly happy experience, but I'll draw a line under it now. I'm happy to be held to a high standard and just get on with putting together a good article.Russb10 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that editor meant to be abusive, though as I've said before, WP:AGF could have been better adhered to on all sides. I should note, however, that one editor does not constitute the entire Wikipedia editting community, of which there are thousands of us. However, I appreciate that you are willing to move forward, and it's great to see many constructive comments coming forward on this AFD now! At the risk of sounding like upper to middle management, I hope we can all move forward now in the most constructive way possible. </plattitude type comment>. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this does demonstrate the peril of writing an article about something to moment it happens. I am not sympathetic to "there aren't any sources but there will be in the next few days when the newspapers come out." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your advice, if not your sympathy, Dmz5, I shall endeavour to follow it. In the meantime, I have been able to edit the article now it is in a more stable space, and believe it to be in reasonable shape for a two-day old article. Do feel free to assess my work.Russb10 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Just to note that there are some useful comments on the Talk page for the article itself, including an explanation of the event's sigificance from a delegate, and a suggestion that pictures (of which there are many available for use) would be a useful addition. I'm not in a position to add pictures over the next few days, so if another editor wished to help, I would be grateful.Russb10 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this event is much more notable than many which have survived the AfD process. I think that the presence of a serving Government minister and some of New Zealand's most successful business leaders is enough to establish notability. I am uncomfortable with the tinge of OR about the article itself, but in this case I'm confident that will change as the long weekend ends in New Zealand and press coverage comes in. Orpheus 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The OR thing is a bit tricky, given that Juha and I were the only full-time journalists in attendance, and I'm unwilling to manufacture a media story to support my own case (although I will cover parts of the event in my Listener column). I'd also argue that this is an area where expert bloggers (and there were many of those) are more likely to be credible than mainstream journalists. But I gather Chris DiBona will be discussing the event on TVNZ's Business programme tomorrow morning, and I'll link to the video when it appears online. I think I may have already noted that video and audio from the ministers' sessions is pending their clearance and will be incorporated when that is forthcoming and the material can be posted on other sites.Russb10 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment - well, original research applies more to concepts than physical reality, so I'm sure that the article itself will pass the test. Difficult to make up an event, after all. Some of the commentary may not, but that's part of the editing process. Orpheus 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep:This event was invitation only and happened during a public holiday /long weekend which may help explain the delay in external reports. It is notable in bringing together 150 of the NZ internet leadership entrepreneurs in a small but geographically spread country. Mamy of these people had not met face to face previously. As such it is much more significant for NZ impacts than perhaps the related conferences in the U.S. It could be included inside the main Foo Camp article but deserves at least a section of its own. Jakemp50cz 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the relevance and context of this article would be improved if the original Foo Camp entry were to provide a clearer definition of the Foo Camp concept. At present, it explains who initiated it and why, but not exactly what it is; you have to go to the "unconference" page to learn that a Foo Camp is differentiated from an unconference in that it is an invite-only event (there may be more to the idea than this also! I should note that I've only reviewed these pages because I was interested in the debate, and the topic itself is new to me). I can see how the main Foo Camp entry could be considered to be bordering on self-promotion, as it does kinda come across as "Tim O'Reilly's Big Idea" - but in my view, better presentation of Foo Camp as a concept in its own right (followed by the introduction of O'Reilly and his team as the creators of the concept) would make the entry more informative and encyclopaedic in style. This would also provide a better context for the Kiwi Foo Camp article, either merged or (a less cumbersome alternative, I think) as a page in its own right.SM Flynn 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While notability is in the eye of the beholder, I think this is clearly notable to the right audience. I agree with Russb10 that expert bloggers are probably more reliable sources here than a mainstream media article. I don't think merging with Foo Camp will really work. -- Avenue 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colour me totally bemused by this little storm. There is nothing contentious at all in the nody of the article or the subject. This has been a significant event for the NZ tech industry, as an attendee I have already been asked to talk about what happened at foo camp. For a country of about 4 milliion with a thriving little IT industry events like this one stand out hugely, as does the native and overseas guest list. To some extent Wikipedia is recording IT history in our country the making. If we can have entries on Wikipedia about trainspotting (that is of no interest to myslef or my wife) then I am totally surprised that information regarding kiwifoo camp is contentious. Donnz 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, why do you call it a "storm"? Deletion is a normal part of Wikipedia. No regular Wikipedian is making a big deal out of this! I should point out, however, that we are not a news source. Try another site for this sort of thing. If the event is notable, then it should be kept, just don't say that we are here to record IT history "as it happens". That will almost never be the case! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, just because a few people have signed up to edit does not mean they have not followed Wikipedia for years or understood and followed many of the debates that have take place. This one has been a surprise and I stick to my "storm" the analogy. By the way, when I was researching what the hell foo camp was in the first place I came to wikipedia, and sure enough there was an entry with some very useful information for me. No reason why that information on kiwifoo should not be available to others in the future. Seems to be a very US centric POV to suggest a merge into the foo camp article. Donnz 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (since I have alreadyed voted to merge). I am concerned about this article in several ways. The first is that participants at it are obviously basking in the post-conference glow and are predicting that major NZ IT policy changes will come out of the conference, this remains to be seen. The second is that since the conference was private and has a minimal website or other presence it will be difficult to varify (especially after a year or two) what occured or even who attended, current information is a few photos and half a dozen pages of summary. Compare the conference say to the National or Labour annual caucus retreat, they have plenty of cabinet ministers and their effect on NZs future is likely to be much greater. The knowledge Wave conference a few years ago also had a lot of hype that didn't pan out. I really think the article should be kept merged in until it is obvious it had a lasting affect. BTW to those new to wikipedia, this sort of debate is normal, imagine a newspaper getting a glowing report from a conference that included the phrase "meeting marks a historical turning point for a country" , should the paper accept and print it as gospel? - SimonLyall 09:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one would welcome articles on all those subjects you have mentioned. It would also be interesting to annotate them as time goes by and relevancy becomes clearer.Donnz 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep". Really. Enough already. And I'm sick of the patronising comments about people who are 'new to wikipedia'. I've been an editor since 2004, and I think the behaviour displayed in this process is downright rude - and I'm not talking about the initiator of the AFD process, but the actions prior, and some of the comments since. Fastred 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which comments are you specifically referring to? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: re: imagine a newspaper getting a glowing report from a conference that included the phrase "meeting marks a historical turning point for a country" , should the paper accept and print it as gospel? Of course not, and I removed that wording at first opportunity. It doesn't appear there. The article doesn't make grandiose claims. It also now lists quite a number of those who attended, many of them with their own WP articles. I'm happy to debate the article's merit, but I'd be grateful if we could focus on what's actually there.Russb10 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. The event does not seem notable enough to be listed as a separate event, there seems to have been little or no press coverage, not every event in the world needs a wikipedia article. I am commenting here as an ordinary editor, please take my comments in that spirit only. Not a decree.--Jimbo Wales 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully as an ordinary editor you know that "delete and merge" would violate sections 4-I, 4-J of the GFDL (by failing to maintain an edit history for the content being merged) . Maybe you meant "merge and redirect", which would be of greater benefit to any searching for this, and also discourage repostings of the same article at the same "Kiwi"-specific title. — CharlotteWebb 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, move to a temp subpage of Foo Camp, then make a permanent note on the talk page where the history is. Then delete the redirect. However, a far better thing would be to merge and leave a redirect to Foo Camp. I can't see how that would cause any problems :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a New Zealander, working in and around the IT industry, this article is both informative and interesting to me. The event was unknown too me before this, and is now of interest. The New Zealand event, from what I understand, is quite distinct from it's American inspiration, so a merge would not serve either article well. Nothing in the article seems spammy or soapboxy to me. As the target audience for this article - it is relevant and interesting to me. Sycophant 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My preference remains a keep, because this was a distinct (if related in various ways) event to the main US Foo Camp. But if the consensus does go to a merge, sense would dictate that the article on Science Foo Camp (which was directly staged by O'Reilly) undergo the same process. As others have noted, the main Foo Camp article needs improvement and clarification.Russb10 21:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and no merge. The event is the first of its kind out side of the U.S. and Europe and of clear significance in New Zealand (including influence of government policy on copyright and the internet). It seems to me that it wouldn't be up for this discussion if it wasn't for the ill considered use of speedy deletion in the first place (a cursory google search by the hasty editor would have proved that the article didn't fit the policy for speedy deletions). -Christiaan 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Deckill er 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Net Senshi Productions

Another non-notable organization that operates anime conventions. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable and a simple Google search bring up no reliable sources to draw information from. Most likely original research and I suspect that the article was written by someone associated with the group (WP:COI). --Farix (Talk) 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI and WP:OR. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foreign object (professional wrestling). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:52Z

Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

a nn topic, very specialized and borders on original research. Comes off as an essay and isn't really doesn't need it's own article. Violates various aspects of WP:NOT Booshakla 08:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - It seems that the lengthy comments by User:John Dalton were moved to the bottom by another editor to ease readability of the debate. Please place new comments and !votes above the "comments" heading unless you want to respond directly to him. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep See comments below. John Dalton 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to point out that the above user created the article, so they have a vested interest in the article and their discussion should be heavily discounted. Personally, this is one of the worst pages I have ever seen on WP, and there is no reason whatsoever why it should be kept. It's the most cruftiest topic I have ever seen. Booshakla 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling); it's not worth having a separate article just for this. —An gr 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge All of the sources offer only a trivial mention of the use of thumbtacks. Definitely non-notable. Resolute 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Doesn't need an article of its own. Is mentioned in Hardcore wrestling already. Existing article Thumbtack explains what they are. Sources aren't about thumbtacks, they just discuss them as part of the wider issues. --Dave. 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. If its already mentioned in the other articles noted above. I'm happy to delete --Madmedea 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Angr -- Whpq 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial plain and simple.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is actually strong case for deletion, maybe it will be mreged, and no case to keep it. The page is total dreck, unencyclopedic, and it doesn't belong here. And I suggest that you don't write long ditribes insulting the other editors and cluttering the page. The afd guidelines do discourage those with a vested interest (like creating the article) from voting, or at least having their opinions discounted. And if you don't like it, tough. There's plenty of other notable articles to create or fix, and this is not one of them. Booshakla 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge The first two sources only mention thumbtacks in passing, and don't substantiate either claim. The third source is a thesis by a University student, and fails WP:RS and possibly WP:OR in my opinion. Fails WP:V. One Night In Hackney 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling).Edison 05:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, borderline notable but trivial nonetheless. Normy132 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Weak Merge) John Dalton makes a strong case in his dissection of the AfD in the comments below. Booshakla's stated reasions for deletion are weak on their face and mostly opinion. However, I would agree to this articles merger with Foreign object (professional wrestling) as Angr suggested (assuming such a merger won't put Foreign object (professional wrestling) in danger of exceeding WP:SIZE ) --Vladamire Steelwolf 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment After some contemplation, I've decided to change my opinion to a Strong Keep and remove my support of a Merge with Foreign object (professional wrestling). If the WWE's Spanish announcers' table deserves it's own entry, something like Thumbtacks, which have been used in multiple matches in multiple promotions, certainly has the notibility to deserve it's own entry. Also, Foreign object (professional wrestling) appears to be a general discription of the use of Foreign objects in professional wrestling rather than going into specifics about the items themselves. --Vladamire Steelwolf 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that people will look at this edit made by this user [17] which I find very insulting and harsh, saying that WP editors should have an IQ requirement (I have college degree) and that I am stubborn and worthless. You are totally wrong, and very disruptive. Booshakla 18:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the Spanish announcers' table has an article is an argument to be avoided, that article is not under consideration for deletion. One Night In Hackney 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Everything in this article can go in the foreign objects article. This article is a stub, and it always will be. It cannot be expanded without the insertion of random information. This unexpandable stub's purpose would be better served as a part of Foreign object (professional wrestling). -- The Hyb rid 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to request for an early close on this AFD, it is pretty clear that consensus has been reached, and the arguments aren't leading anywhere. Booshakla 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Foreign object (professional wrestling). There is some stuff worth noting, but not enough for its own article. TJ Spyke 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is such an absurdly minor and insignificant branch of wrestling that we can be rid of it. Add it to a list of things used in the field, but most of the article is unattributed, and probably unattributable (I removed four references that did not support the statements they were attached to). Clearly fails the primary notability criterion, which requires multiple, independent (of the subject and each other), reliable sources on the topic. Chris cheese whine 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A first proposal for deletion has already been answered on the talk page of the article. I reproduce the original proposal and its rebuttal here.

Original Proposal:

essay, nn, uncyclopedic

Rebuttal:

I object to this proposal for deletion. I refute the arguments put forward for deltion as follows:

essay. By essay, I presume that the proposer is referring to the policy that is not to contain essays stating a personal opinion. This article is not an essay and contains no personal opinion. Every sentence is a fact and is drawn from a reference independent of the author, as such the accusation of essay status is false.

nn. I presume 'nn' means non-notable. Notability states "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." This article draws from four independent sources. In addition three of the sources are peer reviewed. As such the article well and truly exceeds the criteria for notability and has a stronger claim to notability than most Wikipedia articles.

uncyclopedic. According to the Category:Articles_which_may_be_unencyclopedic page, unencyclopedic means the article fails to pass Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The claim of unencyclopedic is false as the article passes all these tests. The proposer needs to point out which, if any, tests on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not this article fails.

As directed in the template: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.", so I am removing the template.

The original proposer has gone on to reinstate the proposal and modify the reasons given. The proposer seems to be taking a shotgun approach, where if enough allegations are made one will hit the target. To answer this new set of allegations:

nn. Already answered above. This article exceeds the notability guidelines.

very specialized. Specialization has never been a reason to delete from Wikipedia. By the same criteria any one of thousands of physics, mathematics, or any field of endeavour that requires a high level qualification would also have to be deleted.

borders on original research. Nearly every aspect of the article comes from a peer reviewed publication. The allegation of original research is baseless. One or two statements do not yet have references, but these are not original research and are definitely not grounds for deletion. Again, if every article that had a minority of unsourced statements was deleted nearly every Wikipedia article would have to be deleted.

essay. Answered above. There is no point of view or personal opinion being pushed in the article. Essay seems to be the proposors personal point of view, with no objective basis.

doesn't need it's own article. Personal opinion of the proposer. Please back this up with reasons based on Wikipedia policy.

Violates various aspects of WP:NOT. A sweeping statement. Please state exactly which aspects of WP:NOT are being violated.

I will point out that the proposer has made no attempt to answer the rebuttal given to the original proposal to delete. Instead the proposer put up another proposal with modified reasons. The proposer seems to think that it is not necessary to justify his/her position but that it is sufficient to just repeat it.

To quote from Wikipedia:Deletion_process: "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." and "So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing."

What it says is that the deletion process is not a popularity contest. Rather it is to be policy based. Let me answer each commenter:

Booshakla: You are putting words into my mouth. Your conclusion is baseless. Yes I did create the article. No I don't have a vested interest in it and personally have no interest in professional wrestling. I am defending this article to prevent abuse of the Wikipedia deletion process. Every objection you have to the article has been answered, yet your only response is to repeat the allegations louder. As per Wikipedia:Deletion_process you need to prove that the article violates policy and not attack the messenger.

Simply calling for deletion is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. At the minimum you need to be able to back a call for deletion with valid arguments. Better still contribute to improve the article in question.

An gr: Merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling). That is a useful suggestion.

Resolute A source does not have to be specifically about a topic. For example, many species of plants or animals only get a passing mention in publications, but would rate a mention in Wikipedia. Be careful that your opposition is not subjective.

Dave. As above for your point about sources. A useful point about the Hardcore wrestling article, though overlap between articles is not a reason for deletion. Being a complete subset might be. Articles may need to repeat material to be self contained.

Madmedea You point about notability has been refuted. If this article violates the notability guideline, so do most in Wikipedia.

Whpq this is not a popularity vote, so "as per above" does not contribute anything new to the discussion.

Dmz5*Edits**Talk* That is a personal opinion and has no place in this discussion. Please back your position by referring to policy.

To restate. The only "vested" interest I have is to prevent abuse of the wikipedia deletion process. So far there is no case for deletion and a weak case for a merge. John Dalton 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It is not necessarily helpful to commandeer an AfD page in this way.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have real concerns with the direction the AfD process heads at times. My understanding is that the AfD process is not about voting. As such there is no need for abstention from voting due to interest. Rather than being a vote the keep/delete statement is a one word summary so each reader knows where the commenter is coming from. I understand the AfD process to be about putting forward the pros and cons of deleting an article in accordance with wikipedia policy. Once the cycle of pros and cons has run its course hopefully a clear answer has emerged on what to do. It concerns me that some see the process as a "yes/no" vote where the majority rules. Are my concerns shared? John Dalton 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some questions to consider. What if there was an article called "Use Of Daggers By Roman Gladiators". Would you have the same feelings towards that article as to this one? Are your attitudes towards this article being influenced by wrestling being seen as "common man's" entertainment? Do you think the "scholarly" field of gladiators is more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than today's wrestlers? Why? Hopefully these questions will aid people's objectivity. John Dalton 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the use of daggers was a side-issue in terms of the overall topic of gladiatorial combat, and there was already an article about the use of other weapons or other styles of gladiatorial combat than the norm, then yes, I would feel the same. Hence my suggestion that this can be covered in or merged with Hardcore wrestling or Foreign object (professional wrestling). In my opinion, the use of thumbtacks is a complete subset of Hardcore wrestling. --Dave. 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at _best_ this information should be a tiny section of a wrestling article. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Foreign object (professional wrestling). Referenced information that seems fairly likely to be looked up by wrestling fans. VegaDark 08:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a totally asinine assumption. Who is going to search for this page using those exact terms of the page title? Booshakla 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. One does not need to type in the exact terms of the page title. If one types in the text "thumbtacks wrestling" in the search box, a list of possibly matching articles is returned with Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling as the first result. -- Whpq 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about WP:CIVIL, I'm right. And would anyone ever type in that for any reason? I'm not certain. Booshakla 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reconsider being WP:CIVIL, as it is an official policy. -- Whpq 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is doubtfut that anyone is going to use this exact title as a search term but as per Whpq you don't need to type in the exact term to be able to find it. And as per above, please try and stay civil. VegaDark 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure a standalone article is warrented, but a merge to Foreign object (professional wrestling) is a good idea. Suggest an interested party do a merge instead of just dropping it on the closing admin.--Isotope23 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is trivial to the point that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Liberal Classic 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Govvy 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo-Dachi (Second nomination)

Event has only achieved less than 500 attendants last year, has not been updated to its best since the last AfD, and doesn't appear that much content is available for the article. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomo-Dachi — result: keep

Keep I would like to protest the decision to suggest this article for deletion for a second time. Since its last proposal, the article has improved tremendously; it has achieved a 'B' rating from the 'WikiProject Anime and manga' and has been edited and added to by at least a dozen people.

The convention is small, but so are most conventions in the United Kingdom, most of which have their own articles which have never been prompted for deletion. This is also the largest and first convention on the island of Ireland and is recognized for that fact across the British Isles and beyond. I have put a lot of work into this article, as a lot of other people have so please forgive me for sounding more than a little upset here. I vote no, however I don’t know if my vote can count. Butch-cassidy 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I see you have gone through most of the UK's conventions and proposed most of them for deletion. Butch-cassidy 11:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was put up for deletion in suspected bad faith. However, even if it is Northern Ireland's only anime con, it still doesn't establish notoriety because it has less than 500 attendants and is only had one year. I have only put up a handful of UK events, because if you take a look at Minami Con, you'll notice that it has less than 500 attendants, but because it is the oldest in the country, I ignored it.

Also, there is no bias here just in case--I am an Irish citizen as well as Canadian. Any UK or Irish con is being put up due to its notoriety. Being the first convention on the isle doesn't establish notoriety simply because it is not the first UK con, which Northern Ireland is a part of. If this convention was say in Cork or Dublin, then I'd be leaving it alone. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to completely disagree with you. Tomo-Dachi was the first anime convention to ever be held on the Island of Ireland which is a separate entity to any political borders; even Wikipedia has its own article on the Island as well as the countries that are on it. By your logic a convention could never claim to be the first on Cyprus because one side is Turkish controlled and the other Greek.

I did not mean to suggest that you were bias but I feel that you are wrong to nominate this convention based on a numbers game as you clearly stated in your deletion reason. And to correct you, Tomo-Dachi has run twice, and a third time due this summer. This is not a one off con but an established one and the largest in Ireland. Butch-cassidy

Keep Convention's status as the first convention in Ireland gives it notability. Attendance should be expected to be low in the early years, and I don't see how that's a fair metric in an expanding fandom anyway. --aniki21 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not the first in the United Kingdom, which Northern Ireland is a part of. Northern Ireland may be on the Isle of Eire, but it is not a part of the Republic of Ireland. If this was in Dublin with the same statistics, I'd be leaving it alone. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Northern Ireland is also a part of the island of Ireland, and Tomo-Dachi was the first anime convention to take place on the land mass. It was started before any conventions in the Republic of Ireland, so bringing Dublin into the discussion is confusing the issue. I can see no strong argument for removing this article, and you've certainly done nothing to provide one. --aniki21 15:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't yet decided on this one. However, I do want to say that attendance figures aren't the sole measure of notability. Since this is the first and only convention in Northern Ireland, it is notable. But the biggest problem I have with the article is lack of references to reliable third-party sources. If I do decide for delete, it would be for that reason alone. --Farix (Talk) 13:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may lack references, but so do most convention articles at this time. I don't think that that should be a reason for deletion. --PatrickD 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it's the first anime con on the island of Ireland makes it notable (regardless of where on the island). I've also added another external reference. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the number of people in attendance is one way to show notability, it should not be seen as the only way to show notability. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I really want to be nice and just say keep, but I really can't see any anime convention really being notable enough to warrent its own article. In all honesty, how much can you right about an anime convention without coming off sounding like an advertisement? I mean, most cons don't really contribute anything to history. And seriously, my hometown with a population 399 has held bigger musical festivals than this (I know we got Trout Fishing in America one year, seems like some other famous artist too once...).--SeizureDog 13:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet notability criteria Orderinchaos78 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Orderinchaos78 on the criteria, however if more notability sources are needed, I will trace them down for the article. Mystcb 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Just because it doesnt have alot of 3rd party sites? thats not a good reason to delete. less then 500 members? thats also not a good reason to delete. some conventions start off small and then get bigger as the years go by. Maverick423 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment from what i just read Third-party developer or just simply third party are more like a bunch of wanna bes. they are people that live off the recongnition of more successful companys because they cant get to that level by themselvs. so tell me why should we even want 3rd party sites if we can go straight to First party or second party ones? i dont know but thats just me Maverick423 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable convention. Being the first con on the island of ireland is notable. Well written, sourced article as well. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-02-11 05:50Z

Order of Nine Angles (2nd nomination)

Satanist order. Prior AfD was overturned at deletion review. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the deletion was overturned at deletion review - why is it being nominated again? How is that a procedural nomination? --Madmedea 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obscure, but referenced article about international group. Just needs a tidy. Totnesmartin 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (bordering on abstain), there referneces are rather tricky to check up on. Another user on the previous AfD mentioned trouble finding out if the sources even exist. Plus there is the whole hosting on tripod which raises doubts. As is the nature of this I've seen nothing conclusive yet to say this should be deleted, merely gut feelings and other parts of it not quite checking up. Hence a weak delete. Mathmo ^Talk 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [18]The group is referenced several times in books. Said books exist, follow that link to see them. I agree that the article doesn't simply reiterate what's written about the group elsewhere - but it did originally include a rather detailed summary of their writings (from the Tripod mirror, sure). There is recorded audio material by a member of the group out there too. And, I'd like to reiterate, the previous AfD for this article was started by a known sockpuppet, and the votes were 4-2 for a keep. Davidicke 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like I said in the first AfD, I had trouble verifying the sources. The fact that it's hosted on Tripod is also a concern. With domains being so cheap (less than $20 if you shop around), it's tough to imagine any notable organisation relying on Tripod to host its official site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective. Does it objectively matter where their site is hosted? Davidicke 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is obvious that not all the books listed under "references" have actually been used as references, or the article would be a lot longer. If no one can independantly verify this (or at the very least, track down one of those books) the article could certainly be deleted.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A person mentioned on the first nomination something about the ISBN numbers not even existing. Mathmo ^Talk 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At least some of the sources are real. That said, this article needs substantial cleanup. The sources need independent evaluation, and the article needs to make note that much of the writings about the group from outside the occult community focus on concerns over how it hybridizes occultism with white supremecy. References to start with include Investigating Religious Terrorism and Ritualistic Crimes by Perlmutter, Dawn (CRC Press, 2003. ISBN 978-0849310348. See especially p.140) and Into a World of Hate by Ryan, Nick (Routledge, 2004. ISBN 978-0415949224. See especially p.18) (cited in the article, although with a different title and publisher). Serpent's Choice 08:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I agree. This used to be a much larger article, but looks like it was pared down tremendously before the first AfD began. See the answers.com article for comparison. Davidicke 3:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the sources provided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the one who put forward the deletion review, and I wanted to note that one person in the first AfD said, "The article clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability given the range of published non-partisan sources listed." Whichever way you vote, I hope you'll add which Wikipedia policy your vote is based on, just to clarify your stand. Davidicke 23:34, 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 Speedy delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webkinz recipes

Unencyclopedic. Listcruft. WP is not an how-to guide. I am sure you will think of some other reasons for deleteion. -- RHaworth 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of recipes or a cookbook. Pretty sure the fact that the ownership tag is in the article (ie, "All Rights Reserved", and "courtesy of Webkinz") makes this a copyvio of some sort, or if it isn't a direct copyvio, it is certainly not suitable for Wikipedia, as all contributions must be released under the GFDL. Kyra_~(talk) 10:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - self-acknowledged copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 12:32, 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 Merge to So Weird. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:18Z

Music of so weird

This has got to be redundant information that does not need its own page. Nekohakase 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and then redirect notable content already covered in main article. Madmedea 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect; the So Weird article already includes this information in a better form. SkierRMH,00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to so weird. ShadowHalo 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:46Z

RS250-Squid

WP:NOT a memorial. I hate to be insensitive about someone's death, but there really isn't any evidence of notability in this article, and WP isn't the place for memorialising a friend or colleague. Walton monarchist89 10:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual, WP:NOT a memorial. Resolute 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since not notable. Tikiwont 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a biker myself and have seen good guys die way too young. This poor guy was just 22 - really tragic and very, very sad. However, this article does not pass WP:BIO and will have to be deleted. HagenUK 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undetermined I am Andy/RS250-Squid and the subject of the article in question. While I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not, I would like to point out that the article concerned has been the subject of continued vandalism by several people after a link to the page found its way to a couple of forums that I am a member of. I would like to assure HagenUK that I am not dead, and indeed, I apologise on behalf of the person who edited the entre to state that this was the case, for any distress caused. RS250-Squid 12:33 7 February 2007
Comment- Well that is of course good news, but being alive is by itself also not a reason for having an article. If you want, the page could be userfied, i.e. moved to your user page User:RS250-Squid (keeping it history) or you may want to copy it (without history) or create a fresh userpage yourself, keeping in mind Wikipedia:User page. Tikiwont 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Here's a tip. If you want to delete a page you created. You can always use the template. db-user. Retiono Virginian 19:13, 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 delete a7 no credible assertion of notability; g7 blanked by creator. NawlinWiki 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian tonna

This article has a assertion of notability at the beginning which is the only reason I didn't place a speedy tag on it. I'm not sure if it is the language barrier or what, but much of the article is just silly: "His father attacked a cat in his own yard. Ian is said to have been traumatised, watching his father go mad after the cat. Ian's mother was really angry because the cat ruined their beautiful garden." Completely unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. janejellyroll 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Moreover, this page has just been blanked by the author. Tikiwont 15:10, 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) 2007-02-11 05:45Z

Aquarius (gay hotel, Patong Beach)

This page has been previously speedy deleted, but has since been recreated. Sounds too much like an advertisement and is of limited notability. Qarnos 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've asked the article's creator to re-read the notability guidelines before editing further. -- The Anome 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hotels can be somewhat of a grey area, so I checked their website, and according to this page they have just 26 rooms. Doesn't seem notable enough for an article, and I doubt we have many articles for other hotels or motels of similar size. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is a gay hotel which means it targets a niche. As such I wouldn't be surprised if a review existed in a gay magazne somewhere. But this is of course mere guesswork, expect if I check back here again I'll decide down on the delete side. Mathmo ^Talk 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same reasonas Starblind. Chupper 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You cant keep an article like this just because it is 'the only one', in this case gay sauna in Phuket. If you keep this article, you might as well list all gay hotels abroad - your just opening floodgates. --PrincessBrat 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems unique enough to me, it just needs work Towsonu2003 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, reliably published sources are included per this search. Addhoc 14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ziemel

An IP editor removed the speedy deletion tag from this page, so I'm bringing it here. Very little context and zero sources of this "personality." Most of the article is the lyrics to a song in a foreign language. Fails WP:N and WP:V. janejellyroll 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Kamope · talk · contributions 11:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to nom this for speedy myself but you beat me to it. Patent nonsense. -- Qarnos 11:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - insufficient context/copyvio/nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 12:31, 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 (and redirect). Bucketsofg 04:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabs

Delete - Fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:COI, WP:V and WP:N. Article is filled with weasel words and peacock claims and has no reliable third-party independent sources, despite claims that they have been covered in many. The Kinslayer 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel this article should be deleted as well, since it deals with the lead singer: Fabiola Gatti. The Kinslayer 11:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that... MER-C 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable self advertising. Phaedrus86 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Fab (semiconductors). The number of tags on this article is impressive. --N Shar 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, appears to fail WP:MUSIC criteria: can always be recreated later when/if WP:MUSIC criteria are met. -- The Anome 00:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundry (electronics) and delete the other. Fails WP:BAND, and probably WP:VSCA (now that is a helpful essay). ShadowHalo 01:01, 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. DS 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat wank

Dubious verifiability; we don't need an article on every entry in Urban Dictionary. No G-hits for the term defined. Previously speedied as G1 by NawlinWiki. riana_dzasta 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shaundakulbara 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether verifiable or not is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang.--Anthony.bradbury 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and virtually empty anyway. Wikipedia is not a place for dicdefs, if you'll pardon the excruciating pun. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism, 1020 ghits. MER-C 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also found Lipid intercourse (created by same user) has been prodded. Does this need a separate AFD nomination, or can it be considered for deletion here as well? Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as redirect to non-existent article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverfied neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Virtually no text, plus other reasons given. Mathmo ^Talk 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Starblind. JuJube 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD R1 - failed redirect to non-existent article. --tgheretford (talk) 20:45, 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. While the suggestion that the talk page be used before coming to afd is a really really good one in my opinion, it's not a requirement, and to date no consensus has emerged that it's even desireable. - brenneman 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli slang words

Isn't this English Wikipedia? None of these words are in normal English vocabulary afaik. jimfbleak 11:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first article to be created of forign slang words (Sri Lankan Tamil slang, List of Trinidadian English terms). I think it is of important value since it gives a better impression of a country's culture for the English readers. Acidburn24m 11:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between an encyclopaedia article on a particular slang, and a dictionary of slang words. A list of slang words is the latter, not the former. Notice that Sri Lankan Tamil slang actually makes some attempt to discuss the slang. A long laundry list of slang word dictionary entries does not make an encyclopaedia article about the slang that they are a part of (any more than a long list of jokes makes an encyclopaedia article about a type of joke — see Aviation joke (AfD discussion)). It makes a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, at least provisionally. I see a blank talk page, which suggests that this AfD may be premature. There's the germ of an article here about Modern Hebrew profanity here, which would sit well alongside our other articles that discuss profanity in various languages. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the article is on Modern Hebrew profanity it is also poorly named. Nuttah68 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Mathmo ^Talk 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since it provides one source. The fact that the article discusses non-English words is never a valid deletion argument. However, as Uncle G pointed out, the article as it stands is more appropriate to wiktionary. Latin profanity is a good example of how non-English slang can be discussed encyclopedically; I'm fairly confident that this article could be improved to something approaching that standard, as, due to the unique circumstances of Hebrew, linguists have shown interest in studying the process of the creation of all that slang, so there should be enough reliable sources on the topic. cab 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki only if sourced properly by end of afd This would a pretty clearcut transwiki to Wikitionary case, if it weren't for the general absence of reliable sources (same rationale for other "foreign slang lists", if they are properly sourced, per WP:NOT#DICT/WP:Pokémon test). Currently fails WP:V before we even get to WP:NOT. We can speculate about whether a richly detailed academic article on Hebrew slang using a list format will emerge in the future, but there's no evidence of this in the current article. Bwithh 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of dic defs. Transwiki if someone from Wiktionary confirms they need the info. At the end of the day Wkipedia is not an Israeli Urban Dictionary. As an aside, there is no indication of which languages each term is common to or whether they are common to all parts of society. (Languages of Israel) Nuttah68 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't realy appropriate for an English encyclopedia...--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Smerdis of Tlön. Use Straw poll on talk page WP:STRAW, or WP:RFC first. WP:AFD is jumping the gun. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sandstein 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article about Israeli slang, it is simply a list of slang words. Unmaintainable listcruft. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:41Z

128 Wellington

Unsourced article about non notable community Tikiwont 12:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a lot of other organisations refer to this Also is a Heritage Building, thus another claim to notability. ^Talk 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete: it's a community centre. ...so? Kripto 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. The article doesn't mention that it is a Heritage building, but I don't think that's sufficient to establish notability anyway.-gadfium 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. I'll relist both in one AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall women

I put this up again so soon due to the results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 30. Essentially lists like these are not allowed as it's feared they constitute original research or something, so this isn't per se a discussion. The list will be deleted, most likely regardless of what anyone says. Still I worried about speedying it and thought some could vent for sentimentality sake.--T. Anthony 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Do we really need stuff like this? -- Qarnos 11:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this list completely useless, it is by definition original research. There will always be contention over what "tall" actually means? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found nested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziemel, for some strange reason. MER-C 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now consensus do delete List of tall men has been affirmed in DRV, the continued existence of this list is incongruous. WJBscribe 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all those reasons the others ought to have been kept. Mathmo ^Talk 18:00, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:19Z

Torsten Lilliecrona

Notability not shown. Even if arguendo notable, there's no useful information here. Delete; recreate later as a proper article if in fact notable. --Nlu (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Defintely notable, but poorly presented. I'll try to add some references. Tikiwont 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a fairly prolific actor (see the partial filmography at the Swedish Wikipedia article about him, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsten_Lilliecrona ) and in addition the TV series where he was one of the main characters is re-run every year in Swedish television even after 40 years. (Unfortunately the Wikipedia article about the series in question is also rather poorly written, though I think it is being cleaned up now). One printed work which includes Lilliecrona is Myggans Nöjeslexikon (Myggan's Encyclopedia of Entertainment), vol. 10 (1992).--Bonadea 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I think Tikiwont has added enough sources to the article to prove WP:N by now :-) --Bonadea 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its like ususall on this page.. all not american articles get deleted. dont use your power just because you want to use it for good things insted guys. /matrix17
Keep per Bonadea. -- TexMurphy 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assertions of notability by editors & offers to find references. --lquilter 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently sourced this individual meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is based on references provided and the comments by Bonadea above. (jarbarf) 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bonadea, definitely meets WP:BIO no questions asked. RFerreira 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page is definitely not a deletion page. /matrix17

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Other talk page discussion moved here.--Kchase T 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eden aurorae

A World of Warcraft guild with little evidence of notability or verifiability, and the article was created by a guild member which brings up WP:COI issues. "Eden Aurorae" Warcraft guild returns just 27 unique Ghits[19]. Also nominating:

Tales of the Past
Tales of the Past II

As a machinima series apparently worked on by members of the guild, again with little evidence of notability (32 unique Ghits for "Tales of the Past" machinima[20]). Tales of the Past II was formerly prodded. There is evidence of some minor news coverage of Tales of the Past II on its article page, but it's hard to tell if it's anything more than just a passing reference on a general article about machinima (and it's only one source, not multiple). ~Matticus ^T_C 13:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable, unverifiable, unencyclopedic in tone, conflict of interest.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Drat (Talk) 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete World of Warcraft guilds don't belong on Wiki unless they are notable in some good way. If this article is allowed to stay, then may as well let Wiki get flooded by WoW guilds again. RedKlonoa 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. Drat (Talk) 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the talk page: As stated on http://www.dr.dk/Tema/worldofwarcraft/20061110110445.htm "Tales of the Past II" er downloadet over 140.000 gange fra nettet, hvilket placerer den i Top 10 over de mest sete danske film det seneste år." Transletes into: Tales of the Past II is downloaded over 140.000 times from the net, which places it in the Top 10 of the most seen danish movies during the latest year.--Kchase T 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lily Allen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:21Z

Maggie May (dog)

Article originally {{prod}}ded with: "Not-notable, a stolen dog does not an international outrage (or notability) make.". Reverted by Lilyfan87 (talk · contribs) (spelling corrections, {{fact}} tagging, and wikification reverted as well) without comment.

Delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lily Allen. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep shes an important dog!!! :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 February 2007

Delete - has Wikipedia really come to this? Sigh. Akradecki 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and pass me the valium. I'm hysterical Madmedea 16:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So bleedin' what? Totnesmartin 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This dog isn't even in the Lily Allen article. Totnesmartin 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lily Allen. C2r 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Lily Allen per all above.--WilliamThweatt 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Lily Allen. Celebrities' pet dogs might merit mention in their owners' articles, but shouldn't have their own articles. And yes, as far as I'm concerned that should go for Tinkerbell, too. Bearcat 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [in raspy voice] And Toto too! Akradecki 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do I really need to give a reason? JuJube 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't wikipeoplemagazine. I can't think of a single dog whose kidnapping would cause "international outrage". Unless this was the subject of a major UN resolution, I see nothing notable about this dog that is even worth merging into another article. Agent 86 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lily's article. Everyking 07:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After being nudged by Lilyfan87 (talk · contribs), delete - not an individually notable "thing". Thanks/wangi 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it made the BBC news but it's only notabe in relation to Lily Allen. Malla nox 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - won't hurt to keep all two lines of the article in the Lily Allen article. DB (talk) 04:00, 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) 2007-02-11 05:40Z

Matthew Titone

New York attorney and unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the Senate in the November 2006 mid-term elections. Garners quite a few Google hits, and may be notable by association with his father Vito Titone, or as a gay rights advocate, hence the AfD. Still, does not seem to have done much of note. Canley 13:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:41, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:40Z

List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture

Unencyclopedic trivia. Not suitable for a general encyclopedia imho. kingboyk 13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "not encyclopaedic" is not a reason for deletion (can't find the policy page but I just read it). And actually this page is well referenced, about notable cultural references to a notable band - seems to fit all the key Wikipedia criteria. Need a far better argument than that to consider it for deletion. Madmedea 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: [21] --CastAStone|^(talk) 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a tough one. Ultimately, it's just fancruft of the highest form. However, many, many other pages have sctions on pop-culture references and this would likely be in the AC/DC article itself except it's too long.--Velvet elvis81 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles because other articles transgress the same policies or guidelines... The idea is that ultimately they'll all get cleaned up. --kingboyk 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is a compendium of WP:TRIVIA -- Whpq 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclusionary criteria are potentially limitless, which makes it a great example of an indiscriminate collection of information. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the potential for inclusionary criteria may be limitless, it does not necessarily mean information is collected on the article indiscriminately. One-off live performances, for example, are deleted, as are other non-notable references to the band. Everything is well-referenced, and the information included in the article is useful — it shows AC/DC's influence over film and television directors/writers and also their influence over other musicians. Again, only the notable references to the band have been covered, not trivial/mundane ones. At the very least, if the editors here do not think the information warrants its own article, I think part of the article should be merged into the main AC/DC page, as in my opinion showing a band's influence on popular culture is quite important. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we delete this, all the articles on Category:Representations of people in popular culture should be deleted, as well as Pink Floyd trivia (which has been nominated and kept) No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 03:37, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:39Z

2007 OHL All-Star Classic

Article is an incomplete copy of an OHL game report found here. Article adds no new information that is not already stated in Ontario Hockey League or Ontario Hockey League history. Single game events in junior hockey have questionable wikivalue as stand alone articles. Flibirigit 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant information. Flibirigit 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple, reliable sources are included per above searches... Addhoc 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Playtech. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:38Z

Casino Tropez

This article does not establish notability. There are about 100 Playtech casinos, all pretty much identical. Casino Tropez is just one of many that is no more interesting than the rest. A search at http://online.casinocity.com/search.cfm will pull up a list. It would not be appropriate IMO to list this one, as it's hard to then argue against the inclusion of the other 100, which are no less (or more) notable.

Some Playtech casinos are more notable than this of course, such as Betfred (which has three wikipedia articles relating to sporting events it sponsors), as well as a substantial b&m presence in the UK, and a notable founder, Fred Done (http://www.inside-edge-mag.co.uk/football/features/93/the_players.html). Golden Palace would be another example of a notable Playtech casino.

OTOH, a google search for "Casino Tropez" [22] brings up nothing but gambling spam.

The article will never become anything useful, and all relevant content is in the Playtech page. Nssdfdsfds 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While the above is not accurate (the article establishes notoriety via the eGaming Review reference), and its pure nonsense to say the search brings up nothing but "gambling spam", since the company is privately held and does not have the more significant notoriety of, for example, Golden Palace, it doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB with any certainty. It isn't that far away though, so I would redirect it to Playtech until such time as the company plainly meets WP:CORP or WP:WEB. 2005 09:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that being number 40 in eGaming Review's top 50 establishes notability. Such publications are notorious for being advertising driven - pay for placement, there's not a single 'top x' casino article I've seen not driven by sponsorship. Here's a good example: http://online.casinocity.com/news/news.cfm?ArticleId=67959 "Slotland.com has been nominated in the “Best Mobile Operator of the Year” category of the prestigious annual eGaming Review Awards". Hmm, really. Slotland casino is awful, horrible software, poor games, notable only for paying massive commissions of 25% of deposits (not profit - deposits!), and hence popular with affiliates.

In any case, even if it is a fair source, I don't believe there are even 40 online casinos listed on wikipedia, and for good reason (spam with little to distinguish most of them, as they are just skins on the underlying software - all Playtech, Microgaming, etc. casinos are pretty much identical). Nssdfdsfds 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc

Redirect per above comments and searches. Addhoc 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; as a Coventrarian myself, I know of the Dun Cow public house but I don't find enough information in this article to suggest that it is notable above the many other public houses in the city, precincts, suburbs and environs therein. (aeropagitica) 09:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Cow (Coventry)

Delete:not encyclopaedic, although some of the non-pub related text might go on another page. One of the sources is an interview of a person, which without more specifics being provided, sounds like original work. If some of the material in this page is original work, it is not clear which text it is. Snowman 11:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing here that indicates these pubs are any more notable than any of the other 20,000 pubs in the UK. Nuttah68 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hereby recuse myself from this debate ( CoI ). However, if this debate is closed with a deletion I hope the way will be left clear to future re-creation if/when references and better evidence of notability can be found. WMMartin 16:41, 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 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezenhemmer Plastic Bags and Child Rearing Utensils Party

having 72 members and a maximum of 102 votes in a country of 9 million and a small website without it's own domain name hardly qualifys as noteible. Samuel 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia is not the place to make something non-notable appear notable. This is no different than WP:NOT for things made up in school one day just because it involves grownups.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I mean, is it really less notable than any of the 'political parties' on List of frivolous political parties? Aelffin 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would argue that it is less notable than for instance the Donald Duck Party (which is the other Swedish entry on the List of frivolous political parties). The Ezenhemmer people got 102 votes in 1994 but only 1 vote in the 2006 election ( http://www.val.se/val/val2006/slutlig_ovrigt/handskrivet/R/index.html ). I'm afraid I can't find any results for the 1998 and 2002 elections, but it is clear that Ezenhemmer is a historical frivolous party and I can't see how that fills any definition of notability.--Bonadea 21:15, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:38Z

Informal social control

Delete Original research with no claims otherwise Shaundakulbara 03:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd say redirect to some other behavior/sociology page, but not sure since the one here is a mix of several. So just kill it. DMacks 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of WP:OR, no references/citations. The way the first sentence reads, looks like it might have been cut out of a longer work, as the referent ("These" rules) is missing. SkierRMH 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is also explained in the Social control article.--m3taphysical 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 09:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Strategic Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

This page has been listed because it is an exact copy of an already existing page, List of USAF Strategic Wing assigned to the Strategic Air Command Buckshot06 05:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I've boldly redirected the article to List of USAF Strategic Wings assigned to the Strategic Air Command which is an exact copy. -- Whpq 19:03, 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. Bucketsofg 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous automobiles

Nominated as the question is how famous are really many of these listed cars are, also everybody has their different idea of how famous are these cars are and lets absolutely face it, even supercars like the Enzo Ferrari are far more famous that most of this lot which I don't see a list for as there it is rather pointless. Also this page is one day going to be littered with so-called famous cars that is going to be forgotten by the end of the year (eg all the cars from 2F&2F which I had to remove is all now forgotten). Garth Bader 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate collection of information, plus the POV issues of deciding whether a car is "famous" enough to make the list. Notable cars can have their own articles. Otto4711 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and undefinable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. One Night In Hackney 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Phaedrus86 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live365

I am considering to delete this page since it can be viewed as an Advertisement. Second, an employee of Live365 has changed the neutral viewing of the article. Liradio 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:WEB. Sony is designing products specifically for the website, so sayeth PC Magazine: [23]. Toronto Globe and Mail (more of a minor mention, but more recent than other sources): [24]--CastAStone|^(talk) 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - it does meet WP:WEB (just in my opinion, but it is popular and well known in its field of streaming radio) and although it fails the Alexa test, it has a higher rank than SHOUTcast, which also has an article. It could do with cleanup as per nom regarding the concerns with advertising, neutral point of view, verifiability and conflict of interest. --tgheretford (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - neutralize it. It seems to be a well-known webcasting service and the only one that shows up on my TiVo. --JJLatWiki 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a cleanup. Meets WP:WEB, with several references. SkierRMH,00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a major on-line music website, any conflict of interest issues should be resolved by other editors. (jarbarf) 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean it up. Let's don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It's a legitimate service and representative of the changing world of Internet radio. Many good articles started out as ads. Editors can fix it. 'A consensus will emerge.' Joe 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, but keep. Live365 is obviously one of the most notable and widely listened-to Internet radio operations. Bearcat 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean-up. Meets WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 15:50, 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 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naik Mohammedal family of Birote

This article is very difficult to read, is about a topic that may not be notable, and may be a copyright violation. It's creator has posted several similar articles also. Academic Challenger 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Mohammed Obaidullah Alvi to the nom. According to Molvi333 (talk · contribs) (aka Molvi (talk · contribs), apparently), this is an unsourced article about himself, and there are several related articles about his relatives and, apparently, entire family tree. I can't make heads and tails of this. See also: (not AfD-ed this time)
- Dhondi/Kareali language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apparently, a member of Pahari languages group, 0 Ghits outside of Wikipedia)
- Hill News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (is it notable ?)

Delete all as co-nominator per WP:COI/WP:AUTO for the start, incomprehensibility, and apparent lack of reliable sources. I am aware of systemic bias which can explain the lack of GHits, but I don't see much in the articles (especially due to huge background noise) that asserts existence of WP:RS. Duja► 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all verging on nonsense due to its incomprehsibility. No bias - but unless we can find an expert to explain what is notable about this family or some decent external references this has got to go. Madmedea 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no sources, looks and reads like original research. If I understood the articles correctly (which may be unlikely), they seem like attempts to legitimize the claimed link of certain individuals (or families) to Mohammed.--WilliamThweatt 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they're generally incomprehensible, poorly written (probable literal translations?), and non-sourced. Add in the COI and AUTO & it all ads up to delete. SkierRMH,00:28, 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 redirect to Ubiquitous computing, nothing sourced to merge at this point. Sandstein 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic computing

No mention of notability. This article contains nothing of value, and could probably be redirected to something else Montchav 12:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect). I've heard of this, and is a popular concept. I suspect it could be on wikipedia already, bit sleepy now though to think of what it could be. Oh well. If it doesn't, keep instead and expand. Mathmo ^Talk 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequately referenced. WMMartin 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's not notable and too vague. --Tunheim 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - A Google search on "nomadic computing" returns 216,000 ghits. A brief scan of the top 5 hits suggests that there is a real topic here. --Richard 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubiquitous computing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:37Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 09:22Z

Redneckopoly

not notable. Nssdfdsfds 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion/citation of notability, popularity, etc. There are dozens of *opoly knock-offs, parodies, local-interest variants. DMacks 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, only reason anyone gives a damn is probably because of the earlier Ghettopoly. JuJube 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DMacks. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable.--WilliamThweatt 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and no reliable sources.--Sefringle 23:42, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:22Z

Robert Maloney (doctor)

Contested speedy. So mostly a procedural nomination. This doctor is known as an expert of LASIK. Earlier versions of the article were badly inappropriate [25]. I doubt that there is much value in the current article but arguably meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like somebody posted their resume. Unless I were shopping for a doctor, which is not appropriate here, I cannot see the value of the present article. Magichands 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First post was against the guidelines but it was more of a history of the guy. I found it and posted it. If I did it wrong I then tried to make it right but I guess you guys don't want it. Fits in with this: Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion:

The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

Strong keep The major media references are enough. Whether or not he is noted as a scientist, or noted as a physician, he would be noted as a video personality on major networks. Six of them. And then, looking at what is called the "badly inappropriate" earlier version, I find in his CV sufficient documentation of notability as a physician. Sure, we don't want the whole thing, but I've added back the key positions, and awards, and editorships, and the over 50 peer-reviewed papers in top-rate journals; and the patents--I almost forgot the 4 or 5 patents. All clinical research, not fundamental science, but that counts just as much. I can get the PubMed citations if challenged. Good case for not relying on speedy for N, & I'm glad someone contested it. DGG 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Rhodes Scholar. there was so much I didn't spot it the first time through. I'm going to have to abridge the bibliography; it is not up to date anyway, there will be more by now. DGG 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it actually was a contested prod, not a speedy. .DGG 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Informative and notable. Dwain 00:08, 25 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, ST47Talk 11:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Being the subject of news coverage is one thing, opining on a subject on the news is something rather different. Eluchil404 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. —David Eppstein 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. John Vandenberg 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ruthlessly remove any text not verifiable from reliable sources. CiaranG 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is renowned for his role in laser eye stuff. WP:BIO established for this reason IMO.--Dacium 02:00, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:36Z

The Knock-Out/Tap-Out Connection

nn tag team, short-lived, don't need an article, their own pages are fine Booshakla 07:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They were only together for a few weeks, only wrestled 1 match together on TV, and were only referred to by this name once. TJ Spyke 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tag team cruft. Short lived teams don't need articles here. RobJ1981 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more tag team cruft.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Govvy 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. If anyone figures out a good way to merge/rename these, that doesn't require AfD. W.marsh 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom

I'd like to put Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom for deletion, along with all its subpages. These pages are really crap. Maybe redirecting to Music of the United Kingdom would be good, but otherwise the page needs massive reshuffling - the music trends dealt with in these pages is just folk music, and doesn't seem to mention any other sorts of music. I've talked with the article creator, but deletion may be the best thing to do with this, IMHO Montchav 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the other pages that would be deleted too are:

English Music

1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010

Scottish Music

1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montchav (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Weak Keep with conditions, unless there is a Celtic-Anglo-Saxon folk music time line in existence already. Its not a bad encyclopedia topic, its just badly organized and lacks much information. It also isn't written into sentences. This should be flattened to maybe three articles, one for 1500-1899 for all three regions, one from 1900-1959, and one from 1960 on. It needs sentences, complete with capitol letters, commas, verbs, and periods, like this one. But it doesn't really fall into an encyclopedic category or any other criterion for deletion.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems inevitable that occasionally you will find one whose original author has lost interest in it, and no one has stepped forth to move it ahead. It also seems inevitable that you will find a page whose focus has changed from what the originator had in mind. This may have happened to these pages. Neither of these events is grounds for deletion. Timelines for music, though, serve valuable indexing functions and serve the needs of human browsers. Not averse to merging the pages per CastAStone's suggestion. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pages but re-use the information - there are good pages on the development of music in the UK: Music of England, Music of Scotland, Music of Wales, and Music of Northern Ireland - which deal predominantly with the folk tradition. Any useful information from these lists could be added to these and then the all the mini list articles be deleted. Madmedea 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this one the more confused I get - without a decent criteria/definition of what goes in the list it just becomes a repository of random information - and therefore an example . of WP:INFO. --Madmedea 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename? Maybe move it something like Folk music in the United Kingdom. --Montchav 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (original AFD nominator)[reply]
- Moved to Folk music in the United Kingdom, being bold. I will change the links to there after the closing of this AFD if necessary. --Montchav 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regretted doing that!. There isn't really any reason any of the subpages contain the specific bits of information they contain. Most of the articles are about folk-ish musicians, but some are not folk at all, and some aren't nearly as notable as other musicians. I'm going back to my delete opinion. --Montchav 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question If you regretted doing the move; would you like it to be undone? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Undo the move please It wasn't based on much logical thinking. After that, I'll try to leave this AFD debate alone. --Montchav 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Done ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or Merge, per nom. I would suggest combining into Timeline in English music, and Timeline in Scottish music only, without the births and deaths entries. --Vsion 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merging, renaming, and cleaning up are probably all called for but none of that involves deletion. Eluchil404 09:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:24Z

Ajit Kumar Doval

Fixing abandoned AfD. I give no opinion. CastAStone|^(talk) 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He easily meets WP:BIO from newspaper coverage. I've added links to a couple of sources and taken off 3 of the tags. It still needs more cleaning up. Mereda 12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETION.He doesn't meet Wiki criteria of notability. This way Wikepedia shall be reduced to indexing of each and every human being if we don't delete this page.Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable individuals and not a referencing/cataloguing of individuals. Benjamin us 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's first edit. The user also prodded Rahul Gandhi [26] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utcursch (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Mereda seems to have established notability.Baka man 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Googling for Ajit Doval and Ajit Kumar Doval indicates notability. References are available, and should be added. utcursch | talk 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoput

Dicdef. There was only one highway at the time of SFR Yugoslavia, and it has its own article, as well as new motorways/freeways in successor countries. That makes the article basically a dicdef: "autoput is Serbian word for a highway, Croats call it autocesta and Slovenians avtocesta." I don't see any encyclopedic value. Duja► 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Duja► 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Especially a English-Whatever Dictionary.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Highway "Brotherhood and Unity". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:25Z
Delete as non encyclopedic. --MaNeMeBasat 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a dictionary. Addhoc 14:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:35Z

Sosa Entertainment

Non-notable record label. All signed acts are non-notable. Borderline WP:CSD#A7. Thanks/wangi 13:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I gotta agree with the nom. Sosa Entertainment gets more Google hits for a Sacramento DJ company than this record label.--CastAStone|^(talk) 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acts will become notable within following weeks and hits will also go up...I never knew you had to be recently established label but still have notable acts on Wikipedia. It will be updated as soon possible as videos have been submitted to MTV Base and Channel U--Tre Jean-Marie|^(talk)

Read WP:BAND for guidelines.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the page's author stated, the label does not have any notable acts. If the acts do eventually become notable, then there should be an article. ShadowHalo 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"Will become notable" does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Lots of things will be notable in the future, at which time they will be included in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the page must satisfy WP:NOTABILITY to be a valid article. Also, although WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, it clearly applies, just so you know. Also, be aware that the COI policy also states: avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, which you have done.--IRelayer 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new track gets heavy rotation on Channel U and is being playlisted on BBC 1Xtra aswell as many pirates around the country! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.48.172 (talk) 12:35, 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. Bucketsofg 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gekko (emulator)

This is a non-notable emulator (there are no sources cited for any third party media coverage). The only information that is provided at all is from the emulator's forum. The general entry is not encyclopedic, as it credits Internet aliases for creation of the software. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information are not provided from the emulator's forum but from general emulation forums. Also, all emulator articles contain aliases as author names. Gekko should not be seperated from the rest, thus your comment has no impact on the deletion of the article. Authors are allowed to keep their real identity off the internet. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

Gekko's forum, any forum... it doesn't really matter. No forum should ever be used as a source. They're not reliable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just ridiculous. I've seen many emulators that don't have a website and post all news and releases on big emulation boards. Keep in mind that we're not talking about the latest NASA shuttle here. It's an emulator. I'm fine with following Wikipedia's standards and all but sometimes you need to use common sens too. In the emulation scene, places like Emutalk and Emuforums are reliable sources. You can't expect the emulator to make the frontpage news of the New York Times. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

I'll admit that sometimes the rules should be ignored for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, but I just don't see how an unreleased emulator with no attention outside of the emulator niche can be considered notable. Perhaps when it's actually released. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, good one. Seriously though. According to the rules, a release shouldn't even help since it will be posted on Gekko's website and no where else outside the emulation scene. Basicly, all emulators are breaking the rules. Great. At this point, I will let the administrator decide the fate of the article. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

Weak delete, unsubstantiated claims of "pressumed to be the best". Plus this is a very new development, released well under less than a year ago I think? Mathmo ^Talk 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been edited to be more neutral. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

Dear me. Have you people even read the talk page on gekko (emulator). If you read hard enough you will see that i have proved quite a many number of times why this article should not be deleted. I do not want to waste my time on arguing on a topic that i have argued upon before. please do not be pathetic and/or jeleous and leave the article alone. Thank you (P.S: I do not really like the moderators around here. Too much power. Uncontrolled power. But thats not for me to decide)TusharN 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TusharN (talk • contribs)

Comment Please provide some sources to back up your claim that it is notable (not including Gekko's creators themselves). I do not see this in the article or its talk page. Also, please refrain from personal attacks (comment on content, not editors). Leebo⁸⁶ 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (or as a compromise, userfy) no reliable sources within the article to establish notability. No user ranking or entry at the Emulator zone website. The article also fails WP:NOT#CBALL, without reliable sources to verify Gekko's future release from third party articles. There are also concerns (but not necessarily reasons for deletion) with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV as well. If it does establish notability within the emulation community after its release (with emulators like Gens, Kega Fusion or ZSNES for example), it could be added back at a later date. --tgheretford (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE or any other notability criterion. CiaranG 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Reads like an advertisement to me, and the only sources I found when I went for a look were non-notable mentions in forums. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad decisionsInstead of deleting the article. tell the authors how to improve it ! do not waste your time arguing! (to author too) waste or i should say utilize this time improving the quality of the article to an extent of satisfaction. DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE INSTEAD OF DESTRUCTIVE! how are we supposed to co-operate with such incompetance as ... you know who...*coughleebocough* -critic111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic111 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you'll tell us to cooperate with the article's editors and be constructive while calling someone incompetent. The problem is not with the article itself per-se, but more with the notability of the subject matter. I've actually tried to look for third-party sources for this emulator, but I've found nothing that verifies using Wikipedia's policy of reliable sources. No matter how professional the article itself might be, it still has no place here if it's not notable. By the page's admission it hasn't been released yet, and all my searches haven't turned up any sources which aren't forums or from the developer. And please read up on the policy regarding personal attacks, critic. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to me one emulator that does have something that falls under reliable source? Thanks. --Chrono Archangel 8 February 2007

Maybe and maybe not, but that's covered by the fact that inclusion is not an indicator of notability anyway. Regardless, a search for Gamecube Emulator on google doesn't turn up anything about Gekko, only things on something called Dolphin. Searching for an SNES emulator turns up ZSNES as the top search term. The question is not whether OTHER emulators have sources, the question is whether THIS emulator has sources. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you are using Google to demonstrate your point... Google is by far not reliable enough by Wikipedia's standards. I don't see what you are trying to tell me with your SNES exemple... all I can understand from you previous reply is that other than ZSNES no other emu has it's place on Wikipedia? Aniwa... Sure I shouldn't compare to other emulators, but if no emulators can acheive the notability requirements of Wikipedia, why have emulators on Wiki alltogether... --Chrono Archangel 9 February 2007

The question of "why have emulators on Wikipedia altogether" is not the issue for discussion here. It must be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's not possible or practical to say "all of [x]" are not notable, and simply delete them. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 09:25Z

Vixen Fyre

Porn performer article has as references only links to her websites promoting DVD sales. Tagged for lacking proof of Notability since Dec. 10. Fails to meet WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Doesn't even satisfy WP:PORNBIO which I do not agree is a consensus guideline. Inkpaduta 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: we dont want this site to be another Encyclopediadramatica--Cometstyles 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tabercil 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as not even reaching the minimal WP:PORNBIO criteira. SkierRMH,00:04, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:34Z

Durk Simmons

Non-notable writer whose only book was published by vanity press AuthorHouse. Claims to have rubbed shoulders with celebrities -- or, to be more precise, to have rubbed the shoulders of celebrities, in his job as a massage therapist. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reading that he was apparently only published by AuthorHouse tossed up all sorts of red flags. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep'"The claim is true, and can be backed up by either talking with celebrities or by referring to the myspace page for photos. Least we forget, one of the all time best sellers 'The Celestine Prophecy' was also self published. Additionally, Strings of Connection is currently in the 3rd phase of acceptance at the New York Literary Agency for publication with a 'real' publishing house. Toss me a bone and let it ride, eh? Durk

The claim is true, and can be backed up by either talking with celebrities or by referring to the myspace page for photos. Yeah, the next time I talk to Tom Hanks I'll be sure to ask him about that. Though whatever he says won't make a difference, since the point is that it's a trivial claim to fame.
...currently in the 3rd phase of acceptance at the New York Literary Agency... Then you best read this and this (about halfway down), then. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the subject meets WP:BIO, which does not contain a "toss me a bone" clause. CiaranG 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this page was started as a derogatory slam by DC101 (see history) I suppose I shouldn't care, but as it has already been established, and as I am a writer, non-notable or not, I see no harm in letting the page remain, and the work has received multiple reviews by independent sources per the criteria (http://tjbook-list.blogspot.com/search/label/Reviews%20by%20Katrina%20Stiles, http://witchgrove.org/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=926, http://tjbook-list.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html) Durk. And thanks for the heads up about NYLA, I didn't do my due diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.181.139 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yer welcome. But those are blog postings and forum postings, and therefore explicitly excluded as reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 07:22, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:26Z

Van De Kapp

Article is about a fictional surname from a movie, and unlikely to become more than a stub. At best, this should be a section of the movie article.

I'm not sure what I did wrong with this template, here's what I put in: {{subst:afd2|pg=Van De Kapp|cat=F|Article is about a fictional surname from a movie, and unlikely to become more than a stub. At best, this should be a section of the movie article.}} Kathy A. 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this name is not mentioned in the article Blood Diamond (film) and I get 7 Google hits for "Van de Kapp" + "Blood Diamond". As for the {{afd2}} template, you left out "text=" before the deletion reason in the last field. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you left out "text=" before the deletion reason in the last field." -- thanks! (Slapping self on forehead) I've fixed it now. Kathy A. 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless. Per nom. --CastAStone|^(talk) 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder, my reason was "Non-notable plot device, cruft, zero real world significance per WP:NOT#IINFO, unsourced, merely a plot summary". MER-C 12:15, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:32Z

Vaughn Anthony

fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Jefferson Anderson 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- TexMurphy 08:43, 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 Merge to Kearny Mesa. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:32Z

Convoy Street

I can't see how a street with no stated historical associations is notable enough for its own page on wikipedia. Some of the information could be merged into the neighbourhood article (Kearny Mesa) but even then it would be adding unverified material. Any opinions people? Madmedea 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom, no assertion of notability.--CastAStone|^(talk) 16:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main neighbourhood article, as this is the usual practice for non-notable streets and housing estates. Walton monarchist89 18:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that there is much here to merge. What is in the article appears to be both original research and directory information.--Kubigula (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:31Z

Food travelogue television series

No pages link to it. It's over a year old and still only one sentence long! Rebroad 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not assert the subject's notability. May be a neologism or protologism. --Charlene 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO; unsourced, no evidence that the term is in widespread use. Walton monarchist89 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as unreferenced/unsourced, probable neologism. SkierRMH,23:04, 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 No consensus to delete; but merging to a new article on Greek profanity seems like an agreeable approach. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:31Z

Malakas

It's a Greek word with no English usage; I can't think what the article is doing here (are we going to have articles on every term in every language?). [Besides, if everyone in England knows what it means, I'll have to stop using it...] Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a dictionary RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I see no third-party reliable sources that show this word is in use outside the Greek language, and even if they exist I'd prefer this to be transwikied to Wiktionary. However, I'm so happy to have met a nice new word today. --Charlene 16:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a (Greek) (slang) dictionary, and the main use of this article (see its Special:Whatlinkshere/Malakas What links here) seems to be explaining the use of the word in Talk pages. As for the "sources", there are lots of joke books in many languages about slang terms -- I remember one in French about "con". --Macrakis 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult keep while Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia or dictionary of slang, this is one of the more widespread terms. The citations aren't so bad (it actually has some compared to many slang articles). The word is not used in English, however it is very widely used (from my experience) in Greek. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I think it just about notable enough. However, is there a List of Greek slang that it could possibly be merged with? - Francis Tyers · 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's used in Greek: it's a Greek word. That's hardly the point, though, given that this is an English-language encyclopædia. I can't think why we'd have a list of Greek slang words either; do you think that we should have a list of slang for every language? And why only slang? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article title was merely an example, I'm not suggesting we have a list of "all" Greek slang, however the word is very widely used. I could see renaming being an option (perhaps to Malakas (Greek slang)) as there is another Malakas [27]. - Francis Tyers · 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, it's widely used in Greece; that's not our criterion for inclusion. They also widely use Kolos tou theou, Poustis, Poutana, k.t.l. — must we have articles on all those too? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kolos tou theou is not used not even in Greece... (where have u heard this term?). Poustis and Poutana are the Greek equivalents of English terms (no need to say which are they), and are used solely in Greece. But the word Malakas has a different meaning than any English word (and may be used in cases were different English words would be used). The fact remains that this is a word the foreigners know, especially those who have been in Greece, or those who live in the centers of the Greek diaspora (principally in USA, Australia, Canada, UK i.e. English-speaking world). Hectorian 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kolos tou theou might be just Cypriot, then. My comments below, though, stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is one of the most known modern Greek terms in the English-speaking world. For whatever reasons, it has become a very popular word in modern Greek culture, and is used in everyday speech, and not only. as a cultural phenomenon, its origins, usage and derivatives are presented and analyzed. Furthermore, we must have in mind that articles about slang words do exist (e.g. son of a bitch, asshole, etc), and I suppose none has called for their deletion... Hectorian 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out, there is no source to show that it's widely known, much less used, outside Greece & Cyprus. And of course we have articles about some slang terms — but they're English slang terms, because this is an English-language encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, this is the Greek word that most non Greeks know... At least, this is by far the most popular answer I get when I ask them if they know any Greek word (u know, the words 'acropolis', 'democracy', 'philosophy', 'mythology' are considered Greek loanwords in English). I would agree with a move Francis proposed, so as to avoid confusion with the straits and the peninsula in SE Asia (with the creation of a disambinguition page, though). Hectorian 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"To my knowledge" isn't good enough (and in any case, even if it were the best-known Greek word, why does that qualify it for inclusion in an encyclopædia? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unlike Re, where I voted Keep, there's nothing in the article to suggest that this term is used widely outside the Greek-speaking world. Would be notable enough to merit an article on the Greek Wikipedia, but not here. Walton monarchist89 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would definitely be a "delete" if we had an article concentrated on the etymology and the meanings of a word - Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we have Wiktionary. But "malakas" in Greece is something beyond that. Like zamanfou, this term has become a symbol of a neo-hellenic cultural phainomenon; it constitutes the symbolism of an every-day social attitude, and it illustrates a particular stance towards life. I understand that for a foreigner this is difficult to be understood, but in Greece the terms "malakas", "malakia" etc. are in the center of sociological, political, and even philosophical analysis. The current article may not successsfully illustrate the various aspects of this term, but there is room for improvement.--Yannismarou 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These would, if true, all be grounds for keeping the article in the Greek Wikipedia; they're all, however, irrelevant to this case. It's a Greek word, not in use in English-speaking countries. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP is an encyclopedia, which means it deals with things and ideas, and with words primarly as a way of referring to things and ideas. The idea of a 'jerk' (for which, by the way, there is not a WP article...) is cross-cultural: compare French 'con', Yiddish 'shmuck', etc. Of course, the nuances of the various words and their usage vary from language to language, but I don't see that they need separate articles; perhaps the current shmuck and malakas articles should be merged under the English name, 'jerk'.

As for the notion that it is the Greek word that most non-Greeks know, that sounds like original research.

Re Zamanfou, that should probably be merged with cynicism or something -- at least that's a word of Greek origin :-) .

--Macrakis 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, Stavro, you know that's true! Most people I've met from abroad say "malaka" is the first word they learnt when they set foot in Greece! That's hardly WP:OR; it's common knowledge! Niko Silver 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It's common knowledge" is almost the stereotype of original research. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to anything, but I'll never agree that "malakas" is not one of the most known Greek words in the entire world. Niko Silver 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To my knowledge, the best-known Greek word in the English-speaking world is spanakopita.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - out of place in English encyclopedia, and is not the best-known Greek word in English by any stretch of the imagination. Have a look: The English Language -Words Borrowed from Greek ◄Zahakiel ► 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Malaka~~ ...(sorry) I mean Keep! Interestingly, Malaka in English (without the straits etc) is actually used more than twice as much than Μαλάκα is used in Greek! And, yes, it is a cultural phenomenon compared to the dozens, so it's interesting to know. Doesn't hurt, not more than souvlaki, choriatiki or feta at least! (unlike tzatziki which can be quite harmful!) Niko Silver 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the search doesn't really tell you much. It includes lots of Greek-written-in-Latin (Greeklish) as well as Libyan, Ethiopian, etc. names. Secondly, frequency of use isn't the issue: there are lots of English words which are much more common, but don't belong in WP, e.g. "within", "putrid", "lukewarm", because they don't express an encyclopedic concept. Finally, even if the Greek word is somehow expressing concept that has a special place in Greek culture, say φιλότιμο or νονός, this is an English-language encyclopedia, so we put the discussion under the English equivalent, even if it isn't exact, e.g. honor, godfather, or in an article like "Anthropology of Greece" or "Pride in Greek culture" or "Greek social structure" or whatever. --Macrakis 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the "encyclopedic concept" in asshole, dork, bastard, son of a bitch, or the dozens?... And why shouldn't these be added to "Anthropology of English speaking populations" or "Pride in english speaking culture" or "English speaking social structure" or whatever? And why should there be five entries (!) for the same concept in English, and none for the most frequent Greek word? Especially when it's extensively used by the huge Greek diaspora in English-speaking countries? And again, what is the harm? (compared to tzatziki :-)) Niko Silver 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only one of those that is encyclopedic is the dozens, because it is the English name of a very specific phenomenon. As for "bastard", it does not have an article; it is in the illegitimacy article, as you must have noticed when you made the link. I don't think the others belong in WP under those names. I'd think that at best they belong in an article on Insults (with subsections on U.S., U.K., Japan, Greece, etc.) or English Profanity or something. Use by the Greek diaspora is irrelevant. You can see that it doesn't behave like a normal encyclopedia article in that there are almost no links to it from other articles, except Talk pages. I think the Spanish profanity article is a much better model for organizing this sort of information. --Macrakis 00:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then why, Macrakis, Coño has its own article? Coño deserves a place in Wikipedia, while malakas doesn't?--Yannismarou 12:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be happy to hear that I have put a mergeto|Spanish profanity on that article. --Macrakis 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy for the proposed merge, because IMO it is a wrong and uncyclopedic move. But I am happy because, at least, you remain consistent in your (wrong IMO) stance.--Yannismarou 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article provides one reliable and non-trivial source (the Karamitsiou paper), so topic may be notable. "Not English slang" is not a reason for deletion. If a topic has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it's notable. Articles about individual items of foreign slang certainly need to be linked from other articles (e.g. List of Greek slang) so that people can find them, but I see no reason that the notable ones need to be merged into such lists.cab 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Macrakis, an article on Greek profanity with Malakas redirecting to Greek profanity#Malakas would not be a terrible way of organising this. - Francis Tyers · 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second that, but that means don't delete, just merge into a non-existant (yet) article. Therefore it means expand and rename (and then create a redirect to the previous title). I'll just go WP:BOLD and try this. Feel free to revert me. NikoSilver 11:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll do my best, in order not to revert you (!), and I will not object this solution, although I'm not sure I agree (well, most probably I disagree!); I still believe that malakas can still stand as an article, maybe as a sub-article of Greek profanity, if you treat the socio-cultural(-philosophical) aspects of the term, and you include them in the current article. "Malakas" is not just "Greek profanity". It is something more, and something else; I understand it is difficult for a non-Greek to realize that, but when we see satirical TV shows or even modern Greek movies or even modern theatrical plays, we understand that we have to do with something more than mere "profanity". I think that encyclopedically we choke malakas putting it under the label of "profanity".--Yannismarou 11:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't question that "malakas" has a special place in people's, um, hearts. The question is simply how to discuss that in an encyclopedia. Interesting that there is no "jerk" article; on the other hand, it is understandable that there is a "nerd" article, because it is talking about an identifiable social phenomenon (which is cross-cultural, by the way). --Macrakis 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And why Coño has its own article? Coño deserves a place in Wikipedia, while malakas doesn't?--Yannismarou 12:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, it should be merged into Spanish profanity. --Macrakis 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Arguments for notability. Μελετητής said: "It's a Greek word, not in use in English-speaking countries." Well, I definitely disagree! It depends on how we use the term "use". We, the jurists, we know in our terminology a term "lato sensu". Well, lato sensu of course the word "malakas" is used in English-speaking countries. It is the most notable neo-hellenic word around the world, and, even for the non-Greeks who have visited Greece, "malakas" is something more than a simple word; they understand that they have to do with a socio-cultural term; a word-symbol. I don't say that everybody in the world knows the world, but, yes, many many people around the world, beyond Greeks themselves, know the term, and its broader aspects. Not many people in th world know the city of Larissa, but I haven't seen anybody here questioning its notability. And why, Coño has its own article? Coño deserves a place in Wikipedia, while malakas doesn't? For all these reasons, IMO, the above argument of Μελετητής is, at least, weak.--Yannismarou 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yanni, I agree with your reasoning 100%. However, the fact remains that presently the article does not reflect the anthropological extent of the word adequately (save Areti's paper). I'm sure it can be reflected better, and when it does, I'll be the first to {{main}} it out per Coño et al. Let's work on it. Niko Silver 12:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for greek profanity - Even if the word Malakas isn't used in English speaking countries wikipedia should try to counteract systematic bias anyway by providing info from different cultures- a non-Anglo centric way of looking at the world. Remember it is english wikipedia not England's wikipedia. I agree with the redirect to the page. While the page is not exactly of the highest integrity if some of those highly offensive words in English have an article then why should a page on greek words not exist? It does have a cultural aspect to it but I would suggest more professional sources are used even more to discuss it further, making in more encylopedic rather than verging on a dictionary which wikipedia is NOT. Moreover I would feel an article on List of Greek slang covering the greek profanities such as Malakas would be better suited. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, I've done my best in moving to Greek profanity and expanding with an intro. We can always {{main}} it out when it becomes bigger and when we include more academic views. I didn't touch the (now) redirect Malakas to direct it to the fresh Greek profanity#Malakas, in case someone wants to undo my changes. Niko Silver 12:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yannismarou.--Aldux 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable; merger might be good, but there would be a lot to merge. Everyking 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we agree that the merge into the new Greek profanity article is a good solution? If so, let's close the Afd and remove the tag. Objections? --Macrakis 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, but the article must get a proper Greek profanity article; not a malakas article named Greek profanity (and I still instist, Macrakis, that both coño and malakas deserve a place in Wikipedia! I also expect Μελετητής or you to ask for the deletion of the Coño article.)--Yannismarou 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what people (and especially NikoSilver) is thinking of, but the article Malakas is still being discussed here. It isn't acceptable to move it to a completely different name and try to turn it into a different article. I've moved it back and reverted to the article that's being discussed here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you. I had regretted that move myself, since I tend to agree with Yanni. Niko Silver 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Hectorian. Very informative and well-written article. Malakaville 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable per its usage by a famous satirist. Nardman1 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As bad as it is, this word is establishing itself in American English. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Happy I see again the article with its proper article. Like Nicos, I also thank you Μελετητής. Now the article is back in its previous form, I initiated some further improvements:

I added a new section about the criticisms the broad usage of "malakas" caused in linguistic and teaching circles of modern Greece.
I added a new section treating the sociological, sociolinguistic aspects of the usage of the term "malakas" through a construvist approach some authors adopt.

I know that the article still has flaws. "Trivia" needs trimming in another section, and I also intend to add a new section treating he usage of "malakas" in Art. If the article is saved, I feel most certain that we'll make it much much better.--Yannismarou 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What a μαλακία nomination. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or as they say in my country, "Την μαλακίαν πολλοί ηγάπησαν, τους μαλάκες ουδείς" (many have loved wanking, but nobody loves wankers)Rastapopoulos
Delete non english, already in el:Μαλάκας. --MaNeMeBasat 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's one of the most notable Greek words --xvvx 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 09:28Z

The Talking Yellow Shorts

This was nominated for deletion by someone who didn't finish the process, so I'm finishing the nomination. Appears to be a non-notable band, only a few dozen google hits, mostly from myspace Xyzzyplugh 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete States the lack of notability in the article. Sorry, guys.--CastAStone|^(talk) 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:BAND, no evidence of having released records, no independent reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't released any albums and has a "questonable following", as the article states. ShadowHalo 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete My first wiki, i have not been able to provide all souces yet and the band is releasing and album from my company. User:Codycomedia
Do Not Delete I've been living in Russia all my life and am a huge Talking Yellow Shorts fan. Here in Russia, they are huge. ~~User:vlad~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk • contribs)
- The following 2 votes are Codycomedia's 2nd and 3rd vote on this AfD debate:
- Do Not Delete i live in lake mary, these guys are huge here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codycomedia (talk • contribs)
- Do Not Delete dude, these guys rock out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codycomedia (talk • contribs)
Delete A local performance art group/band - I don't see any claim of notability here. Some advice: if you are going to use sockpuppetry in an AFD discussion, at least make the effort to create new accounts for each vote, and make the comments sound like they come from different people, Cody. --Brianyoumans 21:25, 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) 2007-02-11 05:28Z

The Platinum Brothers

Contested speedy, some notability and sources asserted. Doesn't look like satisfying WP:MUSIC. Procedural nom, no vote from me. Duja► 15:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for contesting so quickly is due in part to the fact that the person who asked for it to be deleted, did so as i was adding more to the page(i.e. i was still logged in, refreshed the page and saw the tag attached to this page. the significance of this page can be proven through the number of pages which already mention this duo on wikipedia and link here. it can also be shown through checking any other resource which mentions them or their work. therefore i think this page should stay. i would also like to mention the fact that their work on one of their 2005 releases was nominated for a music award and if needed i can add that reference to the page. other than that, the discography speaks for itself. i am still in the process of adding to their releases. i have a list of almost 40 major(i.e. charted) releases from them. --Superkat2 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I marked it for WP:SPEEDY, it provided little real info, and a google search turned up nothing of interest, it resembled a page that was the usual "Highschool/College kids posting the band they made a few songs for and maybe played at a local bar". Right now, I find their notability fairly questionable, and their page in definite need of cleanup, but i've seen far less notable bands pass AfD, but then, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- feb^talk 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; no third-party reviews, record label or sales figures. A link to their MySpace does not constitute adequate sourcing per WP:BAND. Walton monarchist89 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 01:27, 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 Redirect to Future Publishing in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:28Z

Tech.co.uk

New article. While I believe it does assert its notability (and therefore not a candidate for SD), I don't believe it meets WP:WEB. The site is still in beta for starters. ↔NMajdan•talk 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This page was marked for deletion while it was still being worked upon, less than 10 minutes afer creation. I think it is fine for WP:WEB, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it! I don't think the fact the site is in Beta is really relevant to whether it's included on Wikipedia or not. There are some pretty good articles on the site TBH. Robertpauljames 16.45 5 February 2007 -- Robertpauljames (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why is this marked for deletion? It's clearly only a stub currently - and it's hardly going to be a comprehensive article such a short time after creation. bobbs11 16.45 5 February 2007 -- bobbs11 (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I marked it for deletion because I believe it fails WP:WEB. If you feel other wise, feel free to vote.↔NMajdan•talk 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The site is obviously new, but is notable because of its references I think. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.113.198.67 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC). -- 212.113.198.67 (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep I edited the page to make it more suitable for WIkipedia Garynorris2 12.55 6 February 2007 -- Garynorris2 (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. This article reads like an advertisment, is being edited by single-purpose conflict-of-interest accounts, and fails WP:WEB. This does not belong on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've not examined carefully enough to comment on the current worthiness of the article, but I do think that it is worth bearing in mind that it seems to be replacing websites for several well-known UK magazines. Therefore I believe that it will, in time, be more worthy of inclusion. In that case, it may be more worthwhile letting the article stand and be improved over time, rather than deleting, to be recreated when the website has gone live.

I feel I should also point out that User:Danielgrabham has edited the article and is possibly an employee of Future publishing, who run the site (the article itself lists a Dan Grabham as one of the staff). His edits seem to be minor ones, so I have just pointed out WP:COI to this user. However, given there are several possible single-purpose accounts involved, I am concerned that there may be further COIs and that there is some element of self-promotion going on. Of course, this is mere speculation, and I should assume good faith. Plus, even if I am correct, this does not make for an inherently bad article. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The damned thing is still in Beta, and there's no sign it's noteworthy. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single website of a notable publisher, not yet launched, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I am indeed the Dan Grabham that works for Future Publishing. I believed the minor edits I made to this article shouldn't be too much of a problem for WP:COI as they were largely error checking but of course I accept Ollie pointing it out to me. I have no knowledge of the users who originally made this article- they could, of course, be others in the company. Indeed, the article's existence somewhat surprised me a few days ago. I'm not surprised it's a candidate for deletion as we are still in Beta, but I would point out that the site will replace many others referenced on Wikipedia and will (hopefully) be noteworthy in a relatively short space of time. Danielgrabham 12:21, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:26Z

Pentagram (game engine)

PROD was contested after the fact. Prod rationale was "vaporware, unreleased fangame, no assertion of notability, no 3rd-party citations, possible advertisement". Unless the article is updated extensively to reflect something that has changed in the real world about this, I believe it should be deleted. GRBerry 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per prod. Only link is to their own site; no evidence of 3rd-party sources. Walton monarchist89 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who contested it and why? Anyway, Delete per prod rationale. Calabrese 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm wondering who contested this - I asked the prodder to be more careful in notifying the primary contributor to the article (me) if the article has been around for a while, but I'm not contesting the prod. The software is, technically, unreleased. So I'm saying delete until the thing is actually 1.0'd, it's included in some real software distro, and there's even some press out that discusses this. It's not really as famous as Exult. Yet. Let's resurrect it once it is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete CSD G1/A7. -- Gogo Dodo 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Adamzyk

To quote the page in its entirety: "Drew Adamczyk is the highly crdited genius behind the inventions of the wheel, the space shuttle, and cheese whiz. He is amazing. This is a scientific fact. Do not question this fact. Obey him. In your FACE, Charlie Baker. IN. YOUR. FACE." Enough said Emeraude 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Meets 5, maybe 6 criterion: G1, G3, G10, A1, A7, probably done in vio of G2 as well.--CastAStone|^(talk) 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. per above. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Although I'm worried about offending someone this amazing. GhostPirate 16:45, 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) 2007-02-11 05:26Z

Mike Salisbury

Not notable. Possibly the Natural Burial Co-operative and/or the Natural Burial Association of Canada would be, but not individuals in said organisations. Suspected link spam and vanity article; see previous nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury.

Delete, fails WP:BIO. This and the related articles seem to be part of a promotional campaign by User:Eulogy4Afriend. – Elisson • T • C • 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Person

According to Wikipedia subject-specific notability guidelines, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Mike Salisbury has been featured on a National Television Documentary ^[1], featured on several radio talk shows including the CBC, and CFRB ^[2] numerous regional and local print media including The Link ^[3] and The Toronto Star ^[4] and refferenced on numerous and authoritative web directories related to natural burial including, The Natural Death Center in the UK ^[5] the Alternative Funeral Monitor ^[6] and the Sapling Architecture, Planning and Landscape Information Gateway ^[7] ^[8]

According to Wikipedia guidelines, “What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms” Although Mr. Salisbury may not have been published formally; his thesis on natural burial has been subsequently referenced by several masters’ dissertations in the field of natural burial and related topics.^[9]

Salisbury is the president of the first and only organisation in Canada at this time developing natural burial products and services,^[10] and serves on the board of directors of Canada’s only national association of natural burial grounds.^[11]

Independent authors, scholars, or journalists have decided to give attention to both the emerging trend of Natural Burial in North America as well as Mr. Salisdbury's role as the leading advocate of natural burial in Canada. Because Mr Salisbury and natural burial has been featured in multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, the primary notability criterion to determine whether "the world" has judged this individual and topic to be notable has been met.

The assertion that this research is in some way a promotional campaign or vanity article is totally unfounded, this article is part of a much larger area of research I am involved in regarding the emerging Natural Burial Movement in North America including eco-cemetery, Joe Sehee, Billy Campbell, Mary Woodsen, Mark Harris and Tyler Cassity. While the merits of each of these articles will be debated individually, it is important to mention that these are WORKS IN PROCESS. It takes a remarkable amount of time to develop research and write these articles in order to clearly establish the notability and usefulness of these topics. I have identified these articles as stubs in order to encourage collaboration.

I would respectfully request that editors choose not to delete these articles before they have been fully developed and referenced. Eulogy4Afriend 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ""Outside the Box" - Jokinen, Tom - Producer" (webpage). DNTO/The Content Factory. CBC Radio One. June 22, 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "The Nightside with Mark Elliot" (webpage). NewsTalk CFRB 1010 - Standard Radio Inc. 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green Funerals" (webpage). The Link - Feature Article 130 by David Sheffield. 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "The Green Goodbye" (webpage). The Toronto Star. 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "The Natural Death Centre - Canadian Resources" (webpage). The Natural Death Centre. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
^ "Earthartist - Spiritual Burial Landscapes for a Greener "Beyond"" (webpage). Alternative Funeral Monitor. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
^ "Sustainability" (webpage). Sapling. August 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Landscape" (webpage). Sapling. August 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ Salisbury’s thesis was the first known scholarly research conducted on the topic of natural burial in North America. Subsequent research referencing Salisbury’s research include Hodych, Anastasia "Disturbing Ground; A Socio-environmental Model for the Green Cemetery in Manitoba" University of Manitoba, Department of Landscape Architecture MLA 2004 and Rabbe, Corrie The Impact of Religion on the Establishment of Green Burial Grounds in Canada” University of Ottawa, Department of Social Studies MA 2006
^ "Natural Burial Co-operative Members" (webpage). Natural Burial Co-operative. June 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-01.
^ "Natural Burial Association Board of Directors" (webpage). Natural Burial Association. Nov 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-01.

Eulogy4Afriend 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the notability criteria guideline, or chose to not understand it the way it should be understood. This is aparent from you referencing WP:BIO in the following way: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.", while a proper referencing would be "a topic is notable if it has been the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." You fail to include only one word, but oh, is that word important. Surely, Salisbury is featured in the references you give, but not as the primary subject in a single one of them. The primary subject of all the references you give is the natural burial movement (which thus is notable), not Mike Salisbury (thus not notable). Being the president/CEO/leader/manager/whatever of an organization that is alone in its field is not in it self something that makes the person notable. – Elisson • T • C • 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that you seem awfully hostile in your response, I will respond to your concern that Salisbury is not the primary subject of the references listed.

1. "Outside the Box" – a one hour documentary – ¼ of which featuring interviews with Salisbury about his work

2. The Nightside with Mark Elliot - 30 minute call in phone in radio interview with Salisbury

3. The Link - Feature Article by David Sheffield – an article about Natural burial featuring insight from Salisbury

4. The Toronto Star – an article about Natural Burial and interviews of Salisbury

5. The Natural Death Centre – web resource referring inquiries about natural burial in Canada to Salisbury

6. Alternative Funeral Monitor – Article about Salisbury and his company.

7. Sapling – independent review of Salisbury’s websites

8. Reference to research that references Salisbury’s work10. Natural Burial Co-operative – reference to appointment of Salisbury to president of Canada’s first natural burial co-operative

11. Natural Burial Association - reference to Salisbury’s appointment to Canada’s only natural burial association.

Now, I’m not an expert in all things wiki, however it seems to me that given the amount of media coverage referencing Salisbury’s work in establishing natural burial in Canada and the fact that Salisbury has been involved in conducting primary research in the field that has since been referenced by other researchers, arguably qualifies him as a notable person of interest.

I don’t mind debate, however it strikes me that editors could be just a little more responsive to authors who spend hours researching these things and trying to establish interesting and worthwhile articles. Eulogy4Afriend 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. He is there to speak about the movement, not about himself. – Elisson • T • C • 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the sources, I'm not finding anything notable about Mike Salisbury himself. All of the articles center on his organization. Cheers, Lankybugger 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, the sources don't really support his notability. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not the primary of any of the sources except some non notable ones.--Dacium 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think everything that he has done, when considered together, should be considered sufficient for notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:25Z

List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't need an article for each year the HDI was calculated. In addition HDI information for each year is free at the UN website. CG 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - List of countries by Human Development Index has updated data. Perhaps the content of the 2005 article ought to be moved to an archive file on the main article's talk page. Black Falcon 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current version is all we need. The HDI goes back to 1990. The raw values for each year are not comparable across years (due to changing formula). Wikipedia is not an archive of raw historical data. See also comments made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005. Colin°^Talk 11:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of countries by Human Development Index exists.--Dacium 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of countries by Human Development Index. Mathmo ^Talk 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would that be useful? There's no reason to link to it or for someone to search for it. Colin°^Talk 13:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment*. The article does not need to be updated because, although there has been new information gathered, people may still very well be interested in what the evaluation of past years may be for their own personal use or for comparison in an essay or research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.131.185.46 (talk) 05:36, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:23Z

Re

Wikipedia is not a (Greek) (slang) dictionary. This article may belong in Wiktionary. Macrakis 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (and as for Malakas). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - it isn't a dicdef, and provides detailed encyclopedic info on the usage and history of the phrase. We have articles on other foreign phrases in common use, e.g. Mea culpa. I think that WP:WINAD is sometimes over-used at AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa is used in English, re isn't. Even an English dictionary wouldn't include "re". We're not a Greek-English dictionary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That an article isn't short doesn't make it any less an article that comprises solely etymology, usage notes, and example sentences for a Greek word. Those are all dictionary article content. "dictionary" and "short" are not synonyms. Uncle G 18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Walton monarchist89, you claim in the Malakas AFD discussion that there's evidence that 're' is used in English. Where is the evidence? Is it in any English-language dictionaries? Anecdotes are original research. --Macrakis 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - sorry, my mistake, I was getting it mixed up with another word. Walton monarchist89 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is a dictionary defintion, and the word itself is not even in use in the English language. -- Whpq 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- wrong project. This goes to el:wiktionary. Jkelly 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reynolds number. Readro 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I promise to rewrite it to "assert notability" if kept (which I planned to do anyway, but it never got high enough to my priority list). The interesting thing about it is that it's an (next-to-meaningless) interjection common to all languages of Balkan language union. See the reference [28]; as such, it's an interesting ammendment ({{main}}) to the said article. I agree that, as written now, it comes to a dicdef. Disclosure: I'll invite (only) our administrator and expert on the issue to comment. Duja► 08:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as per Duja (and, yes, he notified me.) - the argument that it's not English doesn't count for me. Enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, but not about English, so if there's anything encyclopedic to be said about the word, it is relevant no matter what language it's part of. But the article should be not about its usage in Modern Greek. That, like with "malakas", is really just for wiktionary. It should be about its status as a marker of the Balkan Linguistic Union. As such, it's been the object of specialised research and thus verifiable and (borderline) notable. I wouldn't mind a merger into the BLU article though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duja, thanks for the pointer to the Brian Joseph article -- interesting, but it doesn't change my opinion about having a "Re" article in WP. Joseph's article is an extensive and fascinating study of the etymology of re/vre/etc., true, but I don't see why it argues for an independent article on the subject in WP. The article is certainly relevant to the Balkan Linguistic Union article, and probably to an article about informal terms of address (do we have one?). The fact that it is a Greek word is not central -- it is that it is not about a concept, but about a word. To be clear, I don't think we should have articles about individual English words and phrases like "you know", y'all (which does currently have a WP article), irregardless, etc. To the extent they belong in an encyclopedia, they belong in articles about Southern English or English discourse markers or Prescriptiveness in English usage or whatever. --Macrakis 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I basically omitted the weak (keep) part just because I wanted to sound firmer in comparison to the opposers; personally, I lean to the deletionist side, and this is IMO a borderline case, with no clear precedents and policies to judge on. In this case, I find the phenomenon widespread and interesting enough (WP:ILIKEIT, I know) to deserve an exception (merging into the BLU article is also an option, though it's fairly long). The word (bre) is also one of Serbian cultural icons/stereotypes, and I myself wondered about its etymology until I stumbled upon that article. Duja► 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. link to the article was originally provided by FP, I was just a messenger.)

Definitely keep for three reasons:

Per Duja's argument, which I had not thought (The interesting thing about it is that it's an (next-to-meaningless) interjection common to all languages of Balkan language union).
Because like malakas (whose proposed renaming I regard as a huge mistake), re is not just a "dictionary word", but something more, it is an symbolic element of the neo-hellenic culture. If the article is saved and Duja starts improving it, I promise that I'll also help.
I don't understand why we have to chase all non-English terms from Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created sections in the article, I cited some parts (by the way, one of the best Greek encyclopedias, The Helios, has an article for "vre"), and I created a new chapter for the expression "re gamwto" with emphasis on the legendary expression of Patoulidou "Gia thn Ellada, re gamwto" ("For Greece damm it!).--Yannismarou 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Έλα ρε, τώρα. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re! Notable, used, and a word uniting Balkanians for that matter! Niko Silver 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit; I notified Fut.Perf. only via e-mail just because I knew entire Greece has his talk page watchlisted, but I didn't take into account that the Epsilon Team has supernatural powers and acts like one mind and thus WP:CANVASS is futile. Duja► 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re you forget it was I that I pointed to you the existence of the article? Despite that, I missed it from my (huge) watchlist! It was a hint in the malakas afd that brought me here... Niko Silver 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As malakas, I missed both articles. But, one day, I saw the malakas AfD in Nicos' watchlist. And I thought: "no, re!" And I realized I had to stop the malakia, and do something. I thus decided to raise the banner of resistance: "for malakas, re gamoto!" And then I did a click in Macrakis talk page, and I learned about this AfD. And I thought again: "no, re gamoto!" I had a discussion with myself and I told him: "vre you, we must act here!" And he answered to me: "re malaka, stop speaking and do something". And here I am!--Yannismarou 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it's just a pity the closing admin will in all likelihood not be able to understand all the finer overtones of this very nuanced discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, all three of our admins voted here; we should have spared one for the closing :-)... bad tactics. Duja► 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fut.Perf. has made to my understanding a valid argument. "Enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, but not about English, so if there's anything encyclopedic to be said about the word, it is relevant no matter what language it's part of". If this article is to be deleted based on the argument that it is not english or used in english then wiki should start thinking about deleting Beylik, Devshirmeh, Ghilman, Dhimmi to name a few. Aristovoul0s 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a kind of dictionary defintion. The word is not in use in the English language. --MaNeMeBasat 09:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Τι έγινε ρε παιδιά; :-p --xvvx 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per FuturePerfect. /FunkyFly.talk_ 05:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:29Z

List of Svengalis

Unbelieveably subjective. Really, it's not a "list of svengalis" but really a "list of people who at one time in one article or another have been called a svengali" in which case it's unencyclopedic. Because someone was once called a svengali doesn't make them one and whether a person is in fact a svengali is ultimately an almost entirely subjective determination. Velvet elvis81 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. plus while Malcolm McLaren is listed as a svengali (with a citation needed tag), Tony Wilson, is listed as the "Sex Pistols' svengali (with a citation) which is just incredible. Pete.Hurd 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Svengaliis a pejorative term, implying excessive control for personal ends. Calling someone this could be libel, so a whole list of svengalis is just asking for trouble. Totnesmartin 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete - POV, unsourced, potentially libellous. Might even be eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}} (CSD G10). Walton monarchist89 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Walton monarchist89. JuJube 19:37, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dordick

Subject not noteable

~~Delete~~ per WP:PROF; no evidence of coverage by multiple non-trivial published sources. Walton monarchist89 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Sorry I didn't include any secondary sources. I guess I didn't read WP:PROF carefully enough. Heres one source: [29]. Still, I was not sure of notability when I created this page, and am still not sure. The only reason I created it was someone thought he was important enough to list on the RPI page under "Important Researchers", he is a department head, leads a research groups, patents, and has a chaired professorship. Danski14 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep, if Danski14 can add secondary sources to the article to back up these claims. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First hit on Google Scholar is in a major journal (Nature) and has 300 citations listed. He's 2nd author but the second hit (Enzymatic catalysis in monophasic organic solvents, Enzyme and microbial technology, 1989) is solo and has more than 200 cites. Clearly passes WP:PROF 3.3. —David Eppstein 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As I mentioned above, I (the creator) will add the link to the Physorg article [30] and any other major articles I find, if this page is kept. Also, I would like to mention that I have a suspicion that the nominator is mad at me for tagging his page The Orange Mangoes for speedy deletion, but I still think this discussion is fair. Danski14 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, lacking sources and references Alf photoman 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep holder of named chair at research university. Quite enough papers, as shown above. Mention of them should be put in the article , of course, and I assume it will. Dept head adds to it. Official university pages document the positions. (and I remind everyone that WP:PROF is not even a guideline, its a proposed guideline which after many tries in many versions has never obtained consensus. People discussing it on its talk page were hard to convince that it was actually being used at AfD debates in its present state. DGG 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Awards, patents, named chair, papers. John Vandenberg 17:13, 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) 2007-02-11 05:22Z

Western Pennsylvania Golf Association

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; no links except to related sites. Walton monarchist89 17:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. --MaNeMeBasat 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The School (Sapphire & Steel)

not notable? MsHyde 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sapphire & Steel, that article needs beefing up anyway. It is definitely not yet at the point of needing daughter articles.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all the other S&S audio articles that are also up for deletion as there are individual articles for this same company's Doctor Who audio productions. S&S may not be as well known as Doctor Who, but it is nonetheless a notable television series, and thus articles on authorized spin-offs such as this are fine. An alternate idea would be to combine the audio articles into one article on S&S audio dramas. But don't merge with the TV series article. 23skidoo 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per the Dr. Who dramas, assuming that they themselves meet notability. Artw 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the Dr. Who audioplays by this same company are in one article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_audio_plays_by_Big_Finish. Why are the less well-known ones about Sapphire & Steele split into 12 separate articles, with their own category?-MsHyde 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* Hi - as the person who created the articles then obviously I suggest that they're kept. The Doctor Who audio plays each have individual pages as well as being listed on the page mentioned: for example Storm Warning Edgrainger 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sapphire & Steel per Dmz5. WMMartin 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a notable-enough audio play. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:56, 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of finance topics

The stated rationale of the list is "This list is an attempt to categorize all financial topics." That's what categories are for. adavidw 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may agree w/ you but do not forget that we have thousands of lists and we also have a guideline for them. Please refer to Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia to have a concise explanation of the purpose of lists in Wikipedia. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very familiar with both guidelines you reference, but I'm not finding them too helpful in this specific sense, since they're mainly concerned with things like POV, verifiability, or notability. I've been looking for a guideline that says something like "Don't use lists to duplicate a category" or "Lists that offer no information beyond what a category provides are still totally awesome!". So, I can't really see how the guidelines justify either delete or keep. Lists vs. categories is an age-old debate, and I'd like to educate myself more if there's some guidelines I'm missing, or possibly help draft policy if there is some hole in the existing policy. If you know anything I'm missing, let me know here or on my talk. --adavidw 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a category can not feasibly contain the same degree of structure and information as that list shows. Mathmo ^Talk 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree 100% that a list can contain more information. However, this list doesn't contain any more information than a category would. The list is just a list of Wikipedia articles without any expansion or clarification. As to the degree of structure, categories could offer just as much structure with the judicious use of well named sub-categories. However, the current category implementation in Wikipedia seems designed to discourage this sort of tree organization, so I will concede the point that a list can structure things in a tree better than a category could, and this list is indeed well-structured. However, it's not well-maintained, and provides no more information about the articles than a category would, so I would argue that it's only marginally more useful than a category. If someone maintained the list and expanded the entries or at least the headings with a little bit of context, I'd vote "keep" myself. (Note, although I nominated, I haven't actually voted "delete" myself. I nominate what I feel are bad lists because if they really are bad they should be deleted, and if they're not, the process & consensus will help spur to make them better). --adavidw 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The Transhumanist 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) This page appears at Lists of topics#Social sciences and society, and is a prominent member of that collection of lists. Removing it would put a hole in that set, which is part of the Wikipedia:Contents navigation system which is accessed from Wikipedia's Main page. It is also accessed through Wikipedia's main navigation bar:[reply]

Comment - Being a member of Lists of topics which is one of the contents subsystems on that bar (and on Wikipedia:Contents - Wikipedia's Table of Contents), makes the Finance list one of Wikipedia's sub-tables of contents. Another example of such a list is the List of mathematics topics, which is comprehensive -- it has grown so large as to have expanded to about 200 lists, and some of those are huge. The Mathematics department takes pride in its lists, and their lists are much better maintained than the corresponding categories. One of the main reasons for having lists is that they can be centrally maintained (that is, on the list itself). Categories can't. You can edit lists directly, but with categories you can't, which makes lists much easier to work with (and a heck of a lot faster). Lists can include planned pages (as redlinks), categories can't. Lists show when a page has disappeared (it's link goes red). Categories don't have this feature. Lists have histories, so you can see when someone has removed a link from the list, and this gives you the option to revert (to get it back). Changes to the contents of Categories are impossible to track, and can't be reverted from the category page. It is therefore easy for removals from a category to go unnoticed. Subject lists like the one on Finance are especially important to Wikiprojects, and are used by them with the Related changes command on the toolbox menu, which allows them to monitor for changes (and vandalism) to each set of pages, without worrying that they are monitoring a partial list (due to removals). List entries can be annotated, varibly formatted, and further organized on the page. Category entries cannot. Lists can be compiled by collecting terms from the field (via cut and paste) and then simply linkifying them - you'd be surprised how extensive Wikipedia's coverage is nowadays - often times most of the links turn blue! Categories are much harder to build (one link at a time). Tree structures can be displayed on list pages. Lead paragraphs can be added to each section, if desired. Images can be added to enhance the presentation, as is done on some of the math lists. There are so many reasons to keep lists. The Transhumanist 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories don't replace lists and lists don't replace categories. If only for visibility of editing (changes in lists are detected by watchlist). Also a list includes subtopics signalled by a redirect to more comprehensive articles, and thus which are not present in categories. --Pgreenfinch 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:58, 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 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher punk rock band

This article was Prod'ed as "nn band" but I feel they are a borderline case and it could be argued they meet our notability criteria for bands. So I'm opening this for a broader debate without a specific recommendation. if the article is kept, it should probably be renamed to "Fletcher (band)" Gwernol 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn defunct punk rock band. Edeans 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article asserts that the band's work was "well received by UK music press" but does not provide any references. Unless these references can be provided, the article should be deleted. ShadowHalo 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree it should be changed to fletcher(band) — 82.9.16.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Be aware that this is a discussion, rather than a mere vote, and votes should be backed up with reasoning if they are to carry weight. Please explain how you think the article meets the requirements of WP:BAND. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "well received by UK music press" means nothing without supporting references. Until then they are well short of meeting WP:BAND. Nuttah68 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agreed, references are needed. The following information will appear on the main entry (with references)as soon as I have sifted through the many magzines and press cuttings. Bear with me as I am still learning how to edit information on Wikipedia. The band had very good reviews for both of their releases in Metal Hammer, Big Cheese, Rock Sound,Fracture and Kerrang. These are the main rock magazines in the UK. Dexter Holland (The Offspring) personally reviewed the EP in Big Cheese magazine and gave it much praise. There are also many great reviews online. Big Cheese magazine also dedicated a double page spread to the band for an interview. All these statments will be backed up by references, but some time is needed.

Fletcher should definatley be considered 'notable.' They were the only band on an independent label, and the only English band to open the Deconstruction festival in front of 20,000 people, where they were also interviewed for Radio One. They were indeed a prominent figure in a prominent UK scene for 5 years. I believe it meets points (3), (4) and (10) of the 'notable' criterea

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zasto

Contested speedy of page that contains nothing but an unexplained image, created by account with history of nothing but useless edits. Be alert to socks. DMacks 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC) DMacks 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-empty, tag replaced. It's pretty much a given that the person who removed the tag was the creator. JuJube 19:40, 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) 2007-02-11 05:21Z

Pat Cottrell

This has already been speedied once, but slightly more notability is now shown in the article. However, I still believe that this person is non-notable. Delete from me. J Milburn 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC; no evidence of notability; no coverage by independent sources. Only links are to his own and his band's websites.Walton monarchist89 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most definately fails WP:Music. Cricket02 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Find it absoulutely pathetic that a 16 yearold moron from England can evaluate entries as he does. This pubetic jackass needs a life. Hey dude drop me your real address in England, and your real name, and your real phone number..etc.. WE'LL SEE WHAT'S UP. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
Comment: Is this 'abuse me in deletion discussions' week? Yes, I am 16. Yes, I have hobbies that some consider odd. Guess what? I have a fair understanding of Wikipedia policy, and, as far as I can see, this article does not meet Wikipedia policy. J Milburn 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude you are nothing but a nuisance. Stop deluding yourself. Don't you see the pathetic irony. You are a COMPLETELY UNNOTABLE INDIVIDUAL WITH NO PUBLIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!Yet you fly all over this site judging individuals who do have public accomplishment. You are a pubetic loser who has nothing better to do than abuse the public access features of Wikipedia. You are nothing but a troll. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC unless sources are provided. As an aside, the author of the article may do well to assume good faith and tone down the attitude. Nuttah68 18:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Trolls are having a hey day here at Wikipedia. How can little dweebs who have ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC ACCOMPLIHMENTS be allowed to be GATEKEEPERS here. How ironic. The most pathetic of nobodys with nothing better to do than play dungeons and dragons can scan Wikipedia and delete accomplished individuals. Silly system Wikipedia. You have allowed a haven for trolls. Wikipedia is a haven for trolls as proven by the many UNNOTABLE DWEEBS who are allowed to abuse the public access features of this site. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
Comment: Ah yes, Dungeons and Dragons. You know what? I have heard this whole rant before. You are not proving anything, and the only thing you are achieving is that you are amusing me somewhat. J Milburn 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: J Milburn is a very well-respected Wikipedian with a keen knowledge of this encyclopedia's accepted policies and the immature behavior by Paul Conners (talk) here is completely unacceptable. Please read WP:Music, WP:V, WP:RS, for starters to see exactly why this article does not meet the basic standards for this encyclopedia. Cricket02 18:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes to the citings have been made to Pat Cottrell. We have cited to a website which validates the existence and nature of material in the entry. However we want to restate our protest that Wikipedia is being overun with editing and deleting trolls such as Wilburn and Cricket02 et all. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
- Note to administrator: It is noticed by Paul Connors that "ONLY AN ADMINISTRATOR" can delete a file. Well I would expect that as an ADMINISTRATOR you would be willing to identify yourself. Is there a phone number you can be reached at? If not I would have to ask what on Earth qualifies you to be an ADMINISTRATOR. ADMINISTRATORS have POWERS and with POWERS comes RESPONSIBILITY. RESPONSIBILITY means identifying yourself with your birth name and phone contact information. Or is all that stuff just too real for you? Just asking since you obviously are OK with having a bunch of troll run this site. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
- Also there is such a notion as PROBABLE CAUSE. You are allowing these trolls to run around the site and instigate deletions that amounts to suppressing the legitimacy of Wikipedia. THESE TROLLS ARE NOT SEEKING OUT ENTRYS RANDOMLY. THEY ARE TARGETING ENTRYS WHICH GIVE THEM THE BIGGEST PERSONAL THRILL. LIKE BAD COPS. Is this the kind of public relations Wikipedia wants?? unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
Comment: No one who has taken part in this discussion is an administrator, and, even if they were, they would have every right not to reveal personal information about themselves. Accusing people of being trolls can be interpretted as offensive, please stop doing that. There is still nothing in the article that prooves that this person meets the Wikipedia policy on the subject. As for the matter of why this article has been 'targetted'- it appears to be about a non-notable subject. Wikipedia isn't about everything, only notable topics. J Milburn 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kid once again. What you have to say is absolutely meaningless to me. You are a certified nobody (Troll). You perfectly illustrate the downside of computers getting cheaper and cheaper. The fact that you are too timid to identify yourself in a way which would allow yourself to be contacted, yet you are enthusiastic about your trolling Activities proves my point. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
- TO: Wikipedia (generally),

It is a pathetic shame that Wikipedia allows trolls to undermine the credibility of the site. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)

Comment: You are welcome to contact me on my talk page, if you really feel the need to. Why do you need to know anything about me? Why do you have anything to say to me that you can't say here or on my talk page? J Milburn 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No troll I'm not here to be your friend. So no not interested in your "talk page". You are a troll. Trolls are afraid to identify themselves. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)
Comment: No one is questioning the existence of the subject, just the notability. I looked at the new cited material, the first link is a personal website that is nonexsitent [31]. The next is a band website [32], proves existence, yes, but not notability, anyone can have a website. The next link is listed twice, [33] and proves that the "Your're Big Break" show exists, yes, but does not mention this person was ever a guest, and even if it did, I still don't think the subject meets the notability guidelines for WP:Music. I still stand with Delete. Cricket02 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this discussion is just that, a discussion on Wikipedia guidelines and trying to reach a consensus of many, either delete or keep according to the notability guidelines set forth by many. It is a fair system in my opinion, and your're right, only Admins can delete this article, but an Admin will come here and read the comments and delete only if consensus warrants. Admins are voted in by the same process by the way, by a fair consensus. Cricket02 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To: Wikipedia (generally),

Look at the last entry from the troll..."you can talk to me on my talk page..." Please I'm not here to be your friend. Sorry troll not a taker. It is so pathetic that Wikipedia attracts so many trolls and lets these pathetically lonely nobodys be the gatekeepers for who is notable. Please. Wikipedia is crack cocaine for these patheticly lonely people. The sense of "power" these trolls get by entrenching their pathetic selves here at Wikipedia "deletion central" must be unprecedented across the web. Wikipedia please change your evaluation process. You are a haven for patheticly lonely and meaningless people. unsigned comment was added by Paul Conners (talk •contribs)

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

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

The result was Merge to Eco-cemetery. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:20Z

Billy Campbell (doctor)

not notable. His green cemetery might be notable, but not himself. See also related cases Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sehee, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Woodsen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Cassity, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury (2nd nomination). habj 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. This and the related articles seem to be part of a promotional campaign by User:Eulogy4Afriend. – Elisson • T • C • 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elisson. --Dhartung | Talk 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge the stuff about Billy Campbell (and also) Merge the rest to Eco-cemetery. Note: Most of the *article is about an Eco-cemetery and not about the man himself. —Pengo 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Delete this walled garden. The individuals are not notable, as there are no reliable sources on the subjects, but the movement or the cemetary may be. Ohconfucius 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed to Weak delete. On reading the references supplied, I would say that the subject is probably known within his realm, and to those who are genuinely seeking a green trip to the beyond. HOwever, subject still fails WP:BIO or mergeto eco-cemetary, as eloquently explained by Elisson. Ohconfucius 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Person

According to Wikipedia subject-specific notability guidelines, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Billy Campbell (doctor) has been featured and referenced as the pioneer of the natural burial movement in North America in numerous television programs, radio shows, national newspaper articles, magazines and online resources including:

LA Times, “Crying and Digging” ^[1]
The New Yorker Magazine, “California Dying” ^[2]
The New York Times, “Eco-Friendly Burial Sites Give a Chance to Be Green Forever” ^[3]
Slate Magazine, “Death Not Be Manicured” ^[4]
Grave Matters, “Natural Burial” ^[5]
Environmental Science, “Going Out Green” ^[6]
AARP Bulletin, “Green Graveyards - A Natural Way to Go” ^[7]
AFC News Source, “Green Burial” ^[8]
The Arizona Republic, “Green Burials - A Simple Return to Earth” ^[9]
The Boston Globe, “`Green' burials usher in the ultimate recycling” ^[10]
Society for Conservation Biology, “Last Wishes” ^[11] *Environmental News Network, “'Green' Burials Growing in Popularity” ^[12]
Forbes.com, “'Green' Burials Growing in Popularity” ^[13]
FCA Biennial Conference 2006, “Being Green - Burial Without the Box” ^[14]
Green Burial Council, “Advisory Board” ^[15]
INC.com, “Goodbye and Thank You” ^[16]
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Rest in peace the green way” ^[17]
Spirit of MATT, “Eco Friendly Resting Places for Loved Ones” ^[18]
Seeking Solutions with Suzanne - Comcast, “Green Graveyards” ^[19]
Richmond Times Dispatch, “Green burial: ecology friendly” ^[20]
MSNBC News Channel 10, “Green Burial” ^[21]

It is clear that numerous independent authors, scholars, or journalists have decided to give attention to both the emerging trend of Natural Burial in North America as well as Mr. Campbell’s role as a pioneer in the natural burial movement.Because Mr Campbell has been featured in multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, the primary notability criterion to determine whether "the world" has judged this individual and topic to be notable has been met.

The assertion that this research is in some way a promotional campaign or vanity article is totally unfounded, this article is part of a much larger area of research regarding the emerging Natural Burial Movement in North America including eco-cemetery, Joe Sehee, Mike Salisbury, Mary Woodsen, Mark Harris and Tyler Cassity. While the merits of each of these articles will be debated individually, it is important to mention that these are WORKS IN PROCESS. It takes a remarkable amount of time to develop research and write these articles in order to clearly establish the notability and usefulness of these topics. These articles have been identified as stubs in order to encourage collaboration.

While each of these articles are related by subject matter and reference each other as related articles they are also related to eco-cemetery, cremation, and promession. The body of information at this point may be specific in nature however they are certainly not a walled garden.

I would respectfully request that editors choose not to delete or merge these articles before they have been fully developed and referenced. Eulogy4Afriend 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Crying and igging" (newspaper). LA Times. 2005-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "California Dying" (magazine). The New Yorker Magazine. 2005-08-29. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Eco-Friendly Burial Sites Give a Chance to Be Green Forever" (webpage). The New York Times. 2005-07-13. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Death Not Be Manicured" (webpage). Slate Magazine. 2006-12-27. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Natural Burial" (webpage). Grave Matters. 2006-11-06. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Going Out Green" (webpage). Environmental Science. 2006-12-24. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green Graveyards - A Natural Way to Go" (webpage). AARP Bulletin. 2004-07-07. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green Burial" (webpage). AFC News Source. 1999-05-19. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green Burials - A Simple Return to Earth" (newspaper). The Arizona Republic. 2006-08-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "`Green' burials usher in the ultimate recycling" (webpage). The Boston Globe. 2006-05-05. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Last Wishes" (webpage). Society for Conservation Biology. January 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "'Green' Burials Growing in Popularity" (webpage). Environmental News Network. 2006-07-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "'Green' Burials Growing in Popularity" (webpage). Forbes.com. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Being Green - Burial Without the Box" (national conference). FCA Biennial Conference 2006. 2006-06-05. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Advisory Board" (webpage). Green Burial Council. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Goodbye and Thank You" (webpage). INC.com. 2006-11-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Rest in peace the green way" (newspaper). Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 2005-07-15. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Eco Friendly Resting Places for Loved Ones" (webpage). Spirit of MATT. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green Graveyards" (television). Seeking Solutions with Suzanne - Comcast. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green burial: ecology friendly" (Newspaper). Richmond Times Dispatch. 2006-04-16. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
^ "Green Burial" (television). MSNBC News Channel 10. 2006-05-04. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

Eulogy4Afriend 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the notability criteria guideline, or chose to not understand it the way it should be understood. This is aparent from you referencing WP:BIO in the following way: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.", while a proper referencing would be "a topic is notable if it has been the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." You fail to include only one word, but oh, is that word important. Surely, Campbell is featured in the references you give, but not as the primary subject in a single one of them. The primary subject of all the references you give is the natural burial movement (which thus is notable), not Billy Campbell (thus not notable). – Elisson • T • C • 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge. Merge with eco-cemetery. While he is notable enough to be mentioned in a secondary fashion in the articles Eulogy4Afriend posted, there is not indication he passes WP:BIO on his own. Vassyana 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with relevant articles and redirect to eco-cemetery. I don't understand why people invariably create articles about the leaders of movements rather than the movements themselves. In this case, as is usually true, the concept is bigger than the originator. --N Shar 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this search. For the avoidance of doubt WP:N states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." The WP:BIO wording quoted, in my view, is a contraversial and less significant guideline. Addhoc 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:18Z

The Death Mill

This "history" is entirely fictitous and is based on a Halloween attraction. Epolk 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being fictitious and unsourced; or possibly rewrite to describe the Halloween attraction itself, if it has any claims to notability. Walton monarchist89 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and per tags on page.--Sefringle 23:44, 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) 2007-02-09 09:30Z

Guy Asulin

fails WP:BIO, "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level." Yonatan (contribs/talk) 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ↔NMajdan•talk 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, he is only 15 and nowhere near the level of a first-class competitive sportsperson yet. Qwghlm 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he clearly does not satisfy WP:BIO at this point in his career. Would be perfectly happy to see the article recreated in the future if he makes it into the recognised first team squad of Barcelona or any other professional club. On an irrelevant aside I find it quite sad that he apparently already has an agent running his life for him at the age of 15.... ChrisTheDude 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still some way off meeting WP:BIO - fchd 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 15 years old, probably has a lot of promise ahead, maybe he makes WP:BIO in the future. Georgeg 00:09, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:16Z

Cem Kurtulus

The article itself does not show how the person is notable. It explains that he/she has been published in several presumably Turkish magazines, but there is nothing further of note. It also lacks sources. A cursory web search isn't able to find anything notable about this person (the results are either copies of the Wikipedia article, pages that don't say much, or pages I can't read). Finally, no updates were made nor sources added for several months after being tagged 'notability'. Saligron 10:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — perhaps a Turkish user could find some relevant info as google search finds mainly Turkish sites (not surprisingly) Rayis 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 12:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, additional references seem to confirm notability, but article needs work to avoid further nominations for deletion Alf photoman 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep not that I can add such information, but that there are a number of people here who do read Turkish & they should be encouraged to find sources. The en WP is supposed to be language neutral, so keeping out pages on the basis of the argument above is not really right. DGG 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason for my nomination is that the article has not stated for a long time how the person is notable nor cites multiple independent sources. If either of these are done (though both is obviously preferrable), I would have no issue with keeping the article. (I can't judge if a web page is a non-trivial source if I can't read it ...) Saligron 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Showing that "Metarialistic Generation" is notable in its own article would also be acceptable. Saligron 01:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He has at least one published book that is available for purchase: [34]. One of Turkey's leading papers, Zaman (newspaper) has an article about his and efe murat's poetic manifesto: Şiirde yeniden manifesto modası (Manifest Fashion in Poetry, again)],13/09/2005. The co-written book is this: http://www.yasakmeyve.com/?p=p_63&sName=madde---efe-murat,-cem-kurtulu%FE ISBN: 975-6198-06-0. That's all I could find. I'm for a weak keep. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about this man will not be maintainable if there are no sources in English. Note that there is a link over to a corresponding page of the Turkish WP, but there is no article about him there. EdJohnston 06:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References were added after nearly everyone in the AfD had commented. --W.marsh 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contemporary poet published in at least five literary magazines and about whom an article was written in a national magazine - that's about as notable as you get as a contemporary poet in any language. --Charlene 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references provided, and although English language references are preferred, non-English references are acceptable when English ones are not available. -- Whpq 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article about this man will not be maintainable if there are no sources in English --> dear EdJohnston, you cannot expect a contemporary national poet to have information in English! This is not an acceptable reason for deletion! What's more, the fact they don't have an article about him in trwiki it doesn't mean he is not notable enough... it siomply means that trwiki is not complete yet, as many smaller wikis are today... --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 13:52, 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) 2007-02-11 05:15Z

Inka Auhagen

Singer and actress has appeared in TV competitions, on recordings and in movies, and is related to or a friend of notable people, but apparently does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N. No refs presented in the article. Found fewer than 200 Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia and mirrors of Wikipedia. Inkpaduta 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and in a year's time, not much has been added to article. on camera^(t) 18:53, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:15Z

Sickles High School

as well i am doing for big Brother 1984 he does not know how to sent things to afd not my personal thoughts on this matter The article sets out details of a non notable school. Oo7565 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Silensor/Schools reasonOo7565 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per nominator. (It's not often you can keep per nom....) --N Shar 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your reason for voting speedy keep? The nom even says it's a NON-NOTABLE school. TJ Spyke 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator voted keep and stated that he was nominating the article because Big Brother told him to. --N Shar 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established, little more than a directory. TJ Spyke 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As you will see from the article's talk page I prodded this yesterday. It's an entirely non-notable school. Jules1975 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is neither asserted nor demonstrated. Further, references/sources are inadequate. WMMartin 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jimbo Wales [35] and continue to improve through the normal editing process. Silensor 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep wait a second... listed for deletion and then voted KEEP by the nom... and this isnt already closed as a speedy keep?!?!?! wtf? Speedy Keep. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. Excuse me if I'm a bit perplexed as to why this was nominated for deletion. RFerreira 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jimmy Wales comments, linked to above, appear to contradict Wikipedia's policies on notability. This school appears (from the information given in the article) not to satisfy the general guidelines for notability nor the proposed notability guidelines for schools. As far as I can see, articles on non-notable schools get deleted frequently. With the greatest of respect to Mr Wales, I don't agree with him. Wikipedia is accepted as not being a list of everything, which is why articles on non-notable schools or non-notable anything else get deleted. To my mind there is no difference between 1000 school articles on nn schools written by 1000 individuals and 1000 articles on nn schools written by one person.

So far as this particular school is concerned, the information in the article does not in my view suggest that it is notable and therefore I maintain it should be deleted. Obviously if someone can improve the article to indicate that the school is notable then it can be kept. Jules1975 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we make a wiki entry about this school for sickle cell anemia then we have to talk about peanut butter. lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.101.71 (talk) 20:42, 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 Agri (people). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:13Z

Aagris

Does not meet requirements of WP:V and no citations or references in article Nv8200p talk 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - subject of article is notable (a historical ethnic group is inherently notable), but the article needs sources. Walton monarchist89 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if it is verified/sourced as an actual ethnic group; however, if not sourced, it should probably be deleted. SkierRMH,23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks verifiable, but confused. One newspaper uses "Agris" as a plural for members of the "Agri" community[36] and there's already a stub article on Agri (people). Mereda 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agri (people) per Mereda. Addhoc 12:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New York Heart Association Functional Classification. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:12Z

New York Heart Association

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New York Heart Association Functional Classification unless enough information can be found to merit its own article. Walton monarchist89 19:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although better might be to American Heart Association. The NYHA was a precursor and longtime affiliate of the AHA, but seems to have ceased activity in the late 1980s (there are a couple of court actions -- bequest-related -- after that). It was a nationally active public health group just after WWII, but the NYHA classification is now updated by the American College of Cardiology and the AHA, though retaining its historical name. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 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) 2007-02-11 05:10Z

Marudhuri Raja

The brief unreferenced article says he is a "famous dialogue writer in Tollywood," without citing any references to show it. The claim that he wrote for 3 movies is unverified. As is, fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:V. Perhaps someone with access to publications about Telugu cinema can find refs and improve the article to make it keepable before the conclusion of the debate. Found about 1,000 Google hits, but most were blogs. Inkpaduta 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unverifiable; no evidence of notability, no independent sources. Walton monarchist89 19:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:17, 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) 2007-02-09 09:31Z

Forty Six and Two

Looks to be a neologism regarding a pseudoscientific theory. Tool writing a song about it doesn't necessarily make it notable. Only reference is a high school paper (there was an UrbanDictionary reference, too, but I removed that for obvious reasons). I would have just speedied this except there wasn't really any criteria to do it with. JuJube 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO (and possibly WP:NFT, if the source is a high-school paper). One source isn't enough to show that this theory is widespread. Walton monarchist89 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a low tolerance for undersourced pseudoscientific nonsense, especially when it isn't stated clearly in the article how nonsensical it is. —David Eppstein 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the other editors here.--Atemperman 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge information like this would be better if it was mentioned on a article that has to do with higher intellagence or chromosnes Maverick423 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is simply rambling pseudoscience. --Tunheim 22:39, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:31Z

Heragonaphobia

Obviously a WP:HOAX. Can't find a single thing about it on Google. --Адам12901 ^Talk 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not necessarily a hoax, but a neologism with no sources to demonstrate widespread usage. Walton monarchist89 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list, containing such interesting entries as "fear of chickens," "fear of sermons" and "fear of road travel" has no mention of this term, and it (the list, not the term) appears to be fairly long. I can't find anything on Heragonaphobia, there or elsewhere; it is possible that the term is simply mis-spelled, but it would have to be very mis-spelled, and would still need to be deleted at this entry and recreated under the proper title. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Lachanophobia...fear of vegetables. --Адам12901 ^Talk 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. —An gr 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Want Candy (2007 film). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:10Z

Candy Fiveways

This is a non notable film character who's bio is written like that of an actual person. AniMate 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rewrite - it's certainly written in an in-universe style, so needs cleanup to comply with WP:FICT. However, that doesn't necessarily make the character non-notable. Walton monarchist89 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But is this person notable? I can't see too much evidence that they are... J Milburn 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the character is apparently from the movie I Want Candy (2007 film), and as per WP:FICT should be merged, but the level of detail here is just excessive for a single film. Not to mention the lack of references. Furthermore, the contributions from User:Mynameispiers looks suspiciously like they may be part of an advertising campaign. -- Whpq 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busted. I am Spartacus - I am the author. I am the producer of the film. I believe in wikipedia. I want to fit in. Every single fact in this entry and the movie entry is true and is verifiable, but the links would be academic footnotes rather than hyperlinks to broaden the reader's understanding. On the other hand you will see links from mainstream, acting and career. i believe this is a justifiable entry. We are a small British movie that is about to be released in a tidal wave of publicity. People are going to expect wikipedia to explain who Candy Fiveways is, particularly as we will be wilfully blurring the line between character and actress. All I can say is that last night we had a screening for 450 people who laughed so long and loud that they missed some of the jokes. If the style is wrong tell me. I am passionate about this. That can't be too bad. Does someone want to come to a screening? On the issue of too much detail, I cannot agree. Are we running out of space? mynameispiers 21.13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless rewritten and sourced per above searches. Addhoc 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not telling if this film character is going to be notable, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, merge it into the article for I Want Candy (2007 film). If Candy Fiveways turns out to be a notable character, we can always start over. AniMate 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-02-11 05:08Z

Oxford Futures

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no independent sources to demonstrate notability. Only link is to the company's own website. Walton monarchist89 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added independent sources, credible online sources demonstrating notability --Derigable 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be cited now, which may or may not show some measure of notability--Hu12 06:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for failure to assert notability (A7).--Kchase T 13:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMLOUNGE

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 19:36, 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 Speedy Delete by User:BradBeattie. --NMChico24 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chadd Broda

Notability in question. 0 ghits: [37] NMChico24 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, and it could even be speedied, as far as I see it. J Milburn 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The user who created this page is a vandal. - Big Brother 1984 02:20, 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) 2007-02-09 09:32Z

Pokémon theme songs

A list of theme songs isn't that important. Lots of shows have many theme songs and so on, it doesn't mean it's notable (or even important enough to non-fans of the show) to be here. Listcruft better suited for a Pokemon wiki. RobJ1981 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I say this because of the fact that, generally, a musician is deemed notable if they performed a theme song, and as the song is making them notable, then the song is notable too. Keeping them all in one place is much better than having a batch of one-line stubs. The theme songs are important, and there is obviously too much information there to have it in the Pokémon article. And no, I am not a Pokémon fanboy. Shame the article is unsourced. J Milburn 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MARromance (talk • contribs).
Keep, There's a difference between being not notable and "most won't care". Do I care? No, but theme songs are not on the same level as say.. List of pretty dresses that BlahBlah wore. People write, sing, and produce these songs, even if it's just for a kids show. I know it's a gray area for a lot of this stuff, and maybe theme songs is floating on that gray area, but we don't seem to have an issue with massive theme song listings and I can see how they are notable. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, seems to me these ought to be attached to the main Pokemon anime series article. Lots of anime have a long string of different openings and closings (Maison Ikkoku springs to mind), but they don't require an entire separate music article. Take out the pics and this is quite the stub of an article. Snarfies 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the images aren't really vital (which then brings their fair use status into question). A merge would be ok, I guess. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. JuJube 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since these theme songs are for a large cartoon series watched by very many (sadly), and songs with that big an audience are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. Mathmo ^Talk 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Theme songs are important and look how long this list is... you want the pokemon list to be even bigger? MrMacMan 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello. Theme songs especially these often provide a distinct reference point and with the pokemon show reaching its 10th birthday makes it more noteworthy. This article is coherent and to the point. Thumbsup. Please keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.169.170 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Albuquerque, New Mexico. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:34Z

Albuquerque Trivia

nn facts, trivia should not have their own page, especially for a mid-sized city Booshakla 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything sourced and relevent. Delete the rest. J Milburn 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia -- Whpq 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia is unencyclopediac--Sefringle 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have saved a copy and will merge the essentials at a later date -- Jameshands 16:47, 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) 2007-02-09 09:33Z

Fairpoint Communications

Company lacks coverage by third party independent sources. Questionable notability. Alan.ca 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I started this article, and would like it deleted --Bill Clark 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Apparently Bill became frustrated with the WP process after a mass deletion of his hard work. This vote for deletion seems to be out of frustration. --Kevin Murray 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it does give credibility to the article. Robert Moore 08:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The "lack of coverage" statement cited in the nomination is not supportable. It is a publicly traded company on the NYSE that was spun off from Verizon. Searching on the ticker "FRP" turns up ample coverage. Dhaluza 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Alan, you failed to do proper due-dilligence prior to nominating this article. 90,000 plus G-hits should have given you a clue that this was merely a poorly referenced article in need of TLC and a new edditor who would have benefited from your guidance rather than rejection. This is an embarassment for WP. Shame on you! --Kevin Murray 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 90,000 is an overstatement because a fair number of those google hits are duplicates of the same press releases covered in different papers. And once you get past the first few hundred, you also start getting a fair number of false positives where the company's name is coming up in a directory listing. That said, I did find enough independent, non-trivial sources to satisfy myself that a balanced, properly-sourced article is probably possible. Keep for now. The page is barely a day old. Give it a chance to grow. We can always revisit the decision if it proves to be unexpandable after a month or three.
  By the way, others researching this company should also check for references under its predecessor name YCOM Networks.Rossami (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the 90k includes junk, and I'm not saying that it asserts notability, but it should give Alan a clue to look a bit further. --Kevin Murray 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here is a link to some articles if someone wants to do some research. M2 Update, that is a paid service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:34Z

The PlatinumBoyzNYC Fraternity

Non-notable, advertisement, vanity page. Take your pick. No hits on Google. Gump Stump 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatant self-promotion/vanity. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11. Caknuck 23:37, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:35Z

The Comedian's Comedian

Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Comedian's Comedian- Archive 1 Gnevin 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as apparent {{db-repost}}, and still no assertion of notability. DMacks 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason I created this article was that there were about 50 dead links pointing towards it. So obviously all the other authors of those articles think it's worthwhile mentioning...

And the fact that even the BBC reported on it, even though it was a show by their competitor, leads me to believe that this was not just another "best of" show, but something with a bit more weight. --Frescard 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really surprising that a list of 50 well-known people (notable enough to have wiki pages) is linked from about 50 wiki pages? And even if it were 10K pages, WP isn't just a self-referential asylum. The article itself really needs an explicit explanation of the selection and why it's notable, not just a listing with some un-explained refs. If it's cast as a list of people selected by peers, it might be notable enough and distanced enough from "some TV show" to survive.DMacks 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Speedy Delete and Salt as repost of copyvio content Bwithh 02:50, 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) 2007-02-11 05:07Z

John Harris (novelist)

No real assertion of notability, has been on my watchlist ages, and never improved. I don't think it is bad enough for a speedy. Still, delete from me. J Milburn 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is a published author with a series of books to his name meeting WP:BIO. TRhe article is a stub and I've marked it as such, as well as doing some minor tidying. -- Whpq 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry, which part of WP:BIO does he meet? J Milburn 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. For example, there is a review in the New York Times at [38], and the series was successful enough that his daughter continues writing the series. -- Whpq 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, that is one review, yes, it isn't enough on its own. I personally couldn't find any. J Milburn 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The author died in 1991, so I don't think online reviews will be very common. He has a long series of books published by a real (non-vanity) press, and the books apparently are well-known enough that people collect first editions. -- Whpq 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah, that would explain me not finding anything. This guy is almost certainly notable then, but we are gonna need more sources on him. J Milburn 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. Aye-Aye 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq - lack of modern reviews is no reason to delete. Bob talk 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course not, but we are yet to find older ones. J Milburn 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Continental Airlines. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:06Z

List of trivia associated with Continental Airlines

junk trivia page, doesn't need it's own page Booshakla 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevent and sourced with the Continental Airlines article, preferably in the text, and not just some vague list. Delete the rest. J Milburn 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as tricia -- Whpq 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge genuine trivia back to Continental Airlines and Rename the remaining article to Continental Airlines in popular culture. Caknuck 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Trivia", to me, is the exact opposite of "encyclopedic". If any of the trivia on this list actually has some substance to it beyond being interesting, then it can be incorporated into the appropriate article, but this article itself has to go. Agent 86 20:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decriminalization

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. After substantial consideration of the arguments presented, that's about all I can say, except that the principal question - at what height should the lists start? - appears to me to be less an encyclopedic fact in need of sourcing, but a matter requiring the community's editorial judgment, i.e., consensus and discussion. Policy is of little help here, as several people have noted. I suggest a half-year moratorium on any further deletion requests. Sandstein 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall women, List of tall men

(AfD1|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4|AfD5)

A potential candidate for the List of most protracted deletion topics on Wikipedia. The back history of deletion discussions is documented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 30. The last full discussion (AfD4 above), which lead to a delete was overturned after review of the deletion review (Note to all editors: Please please please always log a bolded opinion), and I'm listing both lists here for consistency. Please also note the parallel discussions on List of short men. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion (yet). ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT. I've already registered my feelings about height-based lists on previous AfDs, plus I feel its ease of vandalism far outweighs its encyclopedic import. JuJube 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, note to the above. The ease of anything being vandalised is not a reason for deletion. If you are really worried then add those pages you fear for the vandalism to your watchlist. Mathmo ^Talk 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course I agree that "easy to vandalize" is not a reason for deletion, which is why I've stated my REAL reason is WP:NOT and not enough encyclopedic merit. Please read editor's posts completely before getting snarky on them. JuJube 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT is extremely broad please state specifically which part of it applies, likewise "encyclopedic merit" is also rather vague. Mathmo ^Talk 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Indscriminate collection of information". Which it is. JuJube 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is a list of the tallest people in the world/in history, or a list of people notable for being tall "indiscriminate"? Black Falcon 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it is. "Notable tallness" would be established by any passing mention by any short journalist. Such statements as "Barack Obama stands above the crowd" or "Bill O'Reilly towers over his guest", recorded in media, will be "notable tallness". Are those guys tall? Yes, but where does this end? Damn near everyone over 5'10" has been called tall by someone, somewhere, and 5'10" is going to result in a list ten times as large as the current one. This will actually be a very big problem for politicians, because it is actually part of the spin system to drop mentions about height, since it's a fact that tall politicians tend to be elected more readily. Mentions of notable height are quite spammy for many occupations. As for "tallest people", if you mean only the tallest person in the world at any given time, this will have a very glaring bias for Westerners (Wikipedia already has a terrible problem with such bias), and if you start trying to break it up by geography you inevitably run into all the POV problems that border disputes bring in. Who's the tallest person from China? What if they live in Taiwan? It's just another invitation to different messes, no less tendentious, and no more useful for this encyclopedia. All the information about height can and should be noted in the individual articles of each separate person, so no information need be lost. — coelacan talk — 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see why these are continually recreated- what on Earth defines 'tall' and such? Unmaintainable, vague, POV-ridden list-cruft. Also, can I note that the above editor actually gave no reason for keeping the article. This is NOT A VOTE. J Milburn 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, getting sick of repeating myself. The first voter didn't exactly list their reasons either, rather a vague reference to comment they made on other AfD's. Well, I've stated my opinion on others too. Regardless, I see your point. Probably edit in something more worthwhile later. Mathmo ^Talk 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These aren't continually recreated at all. The list of women has never been actually deleted and the one time that the list of men was deleted it was overturned on DRV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For values of overturned which include sending it back here with the equally unencyclopaedic women list for a wider debate. Nobody has yet addressed the problems of arbitrariness, original research and systemic bias identified at the last AfD. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the only argument provided for deletion was that the list's inclusion criteria are "subjective". However, this (in my opinion, misapplied) criticism would extend to all lists that are not naturally-bound to a relatively small number. A list of countries or capital cities, for example, is bound to a maximum of 190-250 entries. A list of the largest suspension bridges and of the tallest buildings and structures (both of which are featured lists), although still finite, are much larger (in the thousands in the former case and the hundreds of millions in the latter). That does not mean they are not encyclopedic and/or impossible to work with! It is a useless exercise to try to impose a level of rigidity on Wikipedia that is not present in the English language itself, and that indeed diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia itself. Black Falcon 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually inaccurate. There were other reasons for deletion, including bias, original research and unmaintainability. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate concern, Any standard could seem to be defining things here that aren't defined in the real world. Because of that it probably does need to be limited to tallest or we need someone with a better understanding of "tall stature" in medical usage than I have. I've read some on the matter, but probably not enough.--T. Anthony 14:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rename: to address some concerns about the articles, I propose they be renamed to List of tallest men and List of tallest women (and edited accordingly) or to List of men notable for their height and List of women notable for their height. Black Falcon 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with a renaming or other stricter criteria. Listing people who are of exceptional, world record height makes sense, women who happen to be over six feet, not so much (I personally know at least half a dozen). I'm liking "tallest," in line with List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Height is objectively measurable and verifiable, the list is not fundamentally POV, it's just got some scope issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That makes sense. A list of the tallest people, who have become notable for their height and height alone, would be a good list. Just throwing anyone who happened to be quite tall is a bad idea. J Milburn 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel a bit too sapped on this one to repeat myself, suffice to say that I have not changed my mind since the previous discussions on the topic. Agent 86 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft. I know plenty of tall men and women, but I would not add them to this list even if I could source the claim. This is a list of people who are notable in their own right, who also happen to be tall (which is, in itself, an arbritary claim). I believe that for inclusion in such a list, a persons primary claim to notability should be their height - and if that is the criteria, then such a list would have no more than a few entries. -- Qarnos 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list could be modified to include people who have been noted in a WP:RS for their tallness. There are plenty of these kinds of people (and not just basketball players). Black Falcon 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - World's records in human physical limits are indeed notable. Picture the sales of 125 million copies of Guiness World Records every year. Evidently those people find world record's notable. Perhaps we should super-combine this discussion with all World Records. Let's delete track and field records while we're at it and baseball records and every other World's record. I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Wjhonson 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list. The argument that Guinness World Records holds such information is not convincing. First, Guinness typically lists only the tallest person - that is, they maintain a single entry, not a list of all people who are alleged to be "tall". Second, Guinness is not an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irretrievably POV. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, if I may ask, is particularly POV about the article? Claims of "tallness" can be documented, if that is the problem. Black Falcon 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'Tall' is POV. I am 6'2"- am I tall? In some communities (The Netherlands, for instance) I would not be considered tall. Some communities (like those made up of pygmies) would consider me giant. J Milburn 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tall is a relational adjective, by which I mean one that describes an objects in relation to others. Relational adjectives are a normal part of everyday English. Wikipedia cannot be more specific/rigorous than the English language (or, in fact, any other language) allows. As for you personally, does a reliable source note you as being notably "tall"? If it does, then by all means add your name to the list. If not, then don't. If you don't like that, then how about List of tallest men/women? Black Falcon 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question is, what reliable sources are there for determining whether height is notable? Record books? In that case, a great deal of names should be stricken from the lists. Shrumster 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I most certainly agree: many, many names should be dropped from the lists. As for sources, not necessarily just record books. For historical figures, history books might be used (most books about Russian history note that Peter the Great towered over most of his compatriots). For contemporary figures, any number of sources exist, including record books, almanacs, news articles (such as [39]), etc. (by news articles, I am of course not referring to such things as: "the murdered has been described by witnesses as tall, dark-haired, etc."). Black Falcon 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, however, I think the scope of the article should be interpreted as either "List of notably tall men" or "List of tallest men" (which would be included by the former). One's height is surely objective, and notability for one's height is just as easy to evaluate as notability for any other quality. — brighterorange (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Height as a value is objective. Height being described as "tall" or "short" is subjective. In the same way as weight is objective, but calling someone heavy/light is subjective. Shrumster 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete. The lists, by virtue of their scope as proclaimed by their titles, are inherently POV. "Tall" is highly subjective, depending on where your POV lies. The "list of tall women" article, for example, has a lead entry that is U.S.-specific. Separating the "basketball section" makes the list even more subjective and POV. Why accord a special sub qualification for a specific sport? Because to use the article's own set "rules" would put too many names into the "basketball" section. Because of this, the article is internally inconsistent. Bringing the other list into consideration, one can see that they aren't consistent as sister-lists as well. As of now, the male list starts at 6'5", with a separate section once more for "basketball". NPOV is impossible with these lists, as with any list that uses a subjective descriptor. In order for the lists to be NPOV, they'd have to be named something along the lines of List of men taller than 6'5" or something similar, and by using a value-limiter in the title, the lists would then make no sense. Wikipedia is not a list of trivia, not an almanac, and it is definitely not Guinness Book of World Records. Shrumster 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes wikipedia is the Guinness Book of World Records. We have at least one thousand articles regarding Records of some sort. This one is no different. Wjhonson 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While you are entirely entitled to your own opinion of what Wikipedia is, I shall point you towards WP:INN. Oh, and these lists aren't even records. They're indiscriminate lists of people whose height just happens to be higher than an arbitrarily set value. It might even be construed as original research, a big no-no in WP. Shrumster 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand your position and arguments. However, please also consider the following. Firstly, it is possible to set a value that is selected by non-Wikipedians (e.g., some height research institute). Secondly, the article can be renamed and edited to fit a new purpose--that way the criticisms will be addressed and the editors of the new articles won't have to start from zero. Black Falcon 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form the list is subjective, but can be altered to become objective without deletion of the whole thing. Height is not inherently subjective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Options - these are our options, as I see them (please add to the table if you can think of any others. Although I can see how the delete option is seductive (no effort required), it also leaves us with nothing for an article and leaves WP worse off (IMHO, of course). Black Falcon 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option	Effort required?	Result
Keep as is	No (close discussion)	The articles are kept and discussion moves to the talk page.
Delete	No (close discussion)	The articles (and any useful info they contain) is lost from WP ~~A precedent is established for deleting any list (including featured lists) that is not naturally-bound at a small number (e.g., a list of continents).~~ No such precedent is set. A precedent would be set for the removal of lists whose inclusion criterion is made up by editors rather than being taken from reliable secondary sources.
Rename to List of the tallest men/women	Yes (edit article to fit new title)	A list of the tallest men/women is created (currently, throughout time, by region, etc.--that's a technical issue for the talk page). Problems include: lack of reliable data prior to mid 20th Century, variation of height between countries (a 6'2" sumo is a very tall man in japan)
Rename to List of men/women notable for their height or List of notably tall men/women (or something similar)	Yes (edit article to fit new title)	A list is created that includes only those individuals whom a WP:RS lists as being notably "tall" or who are otherwise famous because of their tallness (e.g., the tallest man/woman alive).
Redirect to List of notable giants	No (all very tall people are already on there)	The only people remaining on the list are those who truly are 'tall', and are notable for the height (as opposed to being known for something else and happening to be pretty tall). This option is broken and inaccurate because height and gigantism are not synonymous.

- Comment I note that the "Result" entry for a "delete" consensus leaves out the upside of deleting the article. I suggest that there is, in that a number of commentators have opted for "delete" (and I don't intend to repeat what everyone has said on the topic to illustrate the point - they're there for the reading). Agent 86 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As requested, I added a fifth option. Proto::► 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename to tallest. . Frankly, I did not expect to vote this way, but I was judging from the title of the page. Upon actually looking at them, I find them exceptionally well done, and encyclopedic. The placement in the list is quantifiable--it isn't like a list of best known anything. Though it is necessary to pick where to stop, the inclusion of individuals depends on objective criteria. (i.e, there are no problem with POV), in almost all cases the data is trustworthy, and the less-than-perfectly trustworthy ones are indicated, so it's V) . Observably physical charactertics of people are of general interest, and people are interested in this particular property, for it is conspicuous (deliberate choice of word). As others have written aboutthem in multiple sources, they meet the general criteria for N. There is even N for the individual people, because there are WP articles for almost all, so it was demonstrated for each such article. The virtue of the name change is that it emphasizes he objective nature of the determination along a scale. Then do not in general involve questions of BLP, for the individuals here are here because the information is known publicly, and many of them have made it the basis of their career.

In other words, they meet the criteria. and there is no basis for excluding them. The repeated discussions indicate that this verdict has met consistent an long-standing lack of consensus, and the present discussion just continues to show there will be none. Therefore, by our rules the list stays; possibly the renaming will help.DGG 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are POV problems, as I've pointed out the previous debates. One such problem is that any cutoff point favors 20th and 21st century Westerners, especially Scandinavians and to a slightly lesser extent, Americans. This has been noted by several other editors before I'm bringing it up here. The POV concern that I noticed and brought up in previous debates is that arriving at a particular cutoff point is arbitrary, and since there's no "good reason" to choose 6'5" instead of 6'3", someone who wants their favorite person included can always come along and change it, and no one else can have any legitimate argument why they're wrong. An example, below in this very debate, is User:Dudo2 who wants the list changed back to 6'3" so that Lou Ferrigno can be included. Is Dudo wrong? If so, why? If not, why? There's no rationale argument one way or the other, so POV pushers will forever move the criteria around, just like they've done in the past. Now, as to the fact that this debate continues to be contentious, that's not an indication that there's no consensus for deletion. We've had many contentious debates result in deletion; the GIAA comes to mind. The fact is that one side here has consistently been arguing on basis of policy, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, while the other side wants to circumvent these requirements. A contentious debate can still reach consensus if only one side is backed up in policy. I do not believe that editors' passion is a basis for keeping articles. I've seen hundreds of very passionate AFDs go by, and the mere fact that there is a dispute should never be mistaken for "no consensus". Policy comes first unless there's a good case for invoking WP:IAR, and I've seen no such case here. — coelacan talk — 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The table above is based on a false premise and its argument against deletion on begging the question: that size is the only problem with these lists. The problem here is amply demonstrated by an analysis of the tall men article:

6'5" is an arbitrary number, WP:NOT indiscriminate. Over the past few months it seems to have varied between 6'1" and 6'7", none of which has ever been supported by a reliable definition from an external source, so...
6'5" as a threshold for "tall" is a number plucked out of the air - it is original research, there is no agreed definition of "tall" in the reliable sources. The same applied when it was 6'3", 6'7" etc.
There is a difference of nearly a foot between the average height of a Vietnamese and a Dutchman, the list is systemically biased and fails WP:NPOV. Here is the list of average heights from a tolerably reliable source:

Australia: 5' 10", 178cm

Brazil: 5' 6.9", 170cm

China: 5' 6", 168cm

France: 5' 7.7", 171.9cm

Germany: 5' 8.2", 173cm

Holland: 6' 1", 185cm

Italy: 5' 8.0", 172.8cm

Japan: 5' 6", 168cm

Sri Lanka: 5' 4.5", 163.9cm

Sweden: 5' 8.5", 174cm

United Kingdom: 5' 10", 178cm

United States: 5' 10", 178cm

Vietnam: 5' 3", 160cm

6'5" is normal for a basketball player, very unusual for a ballet dancer, the list is essentially a list of basketball players and some other people nearly as tall as basketball players. That makes it useless instead of WP:USEFUL, which is in any case not a grounds for inclusion.
6'5" was unheard of in the 12th Century, this list is also temporally biased - Edward I of England went down in history as Edward Longshanks, his height would be considered barely above average today.

Not one of these issues has yet been addressed. So: biased, indiscriminate, arbitrary, original research - against which we have WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. Deleting an arbitrary POV list sets no precedent whatsoever other than for the deletion of lists which fail policy. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias could exist in most any kind of list of anything. List of largest suspension bridges is biased against countries like Bhutan which can't produce things like that. List of tallest buildings and structures in the world could be said to be temporally biased as only a few structures from before 1880 are listed. In addition this is about extremes of height and that can occur anywhere.--T. Anthony 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to each of your criticisms.

Arbitrariness - according to that reasoning, any list that does not include all objects (the universe of applicable cases) to which it refers (e.g., all 50 states of the US) should be deleted. There are a great many topics which this would automatically exclude. Furthermore, as noted above, the title and focus of the article can be changed to include either only the "tallest" individuals or individuals who are noted for their height in reliable sources.
Original research - renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well.
Systemic bias - renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well.
Uselessness - that is your personal opinion, to which you are of course entitled. Oh, and, renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well.
Temporal bias - renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well (or add a historical figures section).

Essentially, you make a good case for improving the article, but not a very convicing one for deleting it. Black Falcon 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And deleting a list for not meeting a level of objectivity that is not afforded by the English language does set a precedent and a very bad one at that. Black Falcon 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A List of tallest men could address all of these biases, by listing the tallest men of each country, the tallest men at each point in history, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, of little empirical value to an encyclopaedia. Too subjective. Do not rename - List of tallest men ought to redirect to List of notable giants. That is the article that compares with what Black Falcon mentions (such as "largest suspension bridges" This article is like having largest suspension bridges and then having an extra article, on bridges that are pretty big but we're going to arbitrarily pick a cut off point, or bridges that are notable for other things but are also pretty big. If there are any really tall people on the article in discussion, they are already on the gigantism list, making the people truly noted for being tall duplicate entries. We also already have (very good) encyclopaedic articles on the topics associated with the very tall, to complement the giant list, at Gigantism and acromegaly. Proto::► 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by the nominator, also note List of short men is at AFD, too (and again is made stupidly pointless by List of people with dwarfism). Proto::► 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, again, that dwarfism, like gigantism, is a medical condition. Black Falcon 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these articles should not redirect to the List of notable giants article, as the latter is "solely for people with medical conditions in the gigantism family". Moreover, how are extremes of height not relevant to an encyclopedia? Also, these article, if renamed to "List of tallest men/women" or somesuch, would not be like an "extra" suspension bridge article--it would be the equivalent of the suspension bridge article. But then, according to the "subjective" criticism, even that list should go: why does it not include any bridges below 290m in length? According to the "subjective" criticism, that list should be deleted unless every suspension bridge in the world is included in it. Otherwise, any cut-off point is "subjective". Black Falcon 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People ith gigantism are not necessarily giants, just as people who are giants do not necessarily suffer from gigantism. The two terms are not synonymous. That being said, the point is moot, as the article is now at List of people with gigantism (it was moved from 'List of notable giants'). I still back deleting this article. Proto::► 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as well as List of short men and list of short women. Poor catagorization.--Sefringle 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "poor categorization"? Thank you, Black Falcon 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for both. Not only useless listcruft, but completely subjective and therefore O.R.--WilliamThweatt 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would support renaming/refocusing the article as outlined above? Black Falcon 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there a really very good external / official / legal criteria for being "tall"? (and of course one that doesn't count everyone who's above the average height of a person / group of people, which would cover half the world's / group's population). If there isn't some source then I think the criteria would basically be someone's (or a group's) point of view. A sourced list of the absolute tallest men / women who've ever lived would be OK though. FredOrAlive 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information/collection of all facts from history/record of events from the dawn of time/ect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but WP is (or should be) "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge", such as extremes of height. Would you support renaming/refocusing the article as suggested above to List of tallest men/women or List of men/women notable for their height or something similar? Black Falcon 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup I agree that listing folks by height is itself a bit silly, however, listing the world's tallest men/women is not. This information is verifiable, and it makes up a major portion of the Guinness Book of World Records reason for existence. So there are people notable for being tall. Thus this article should exist in some form. FrozenPurpleCube 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Cleanup Unless there is a prohibition of lists at WP, then it should stay. The NPOV issue is nonsense. Height is measurable with a ruler; tall is subjective, but it becomes pretty obvious that the list will become non-notable when the threshold for inclusion becomes too low. --Kevin Murray 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think it should be? Proto::► 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/cleanup. These articles seem far more encyclopedic than I would have expected and - as long as verified - I don't see any problem with them. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On consideration though I think it should be by nation rather than height. Like the 1 or 2 tallest people per country. (In cases where we know the tallest in said country) Two for cases where there are two claimants or there's a living and non-living example of tallest. Then maybe an additional section for historic and legendary people like Peter I of Russia or Mary I of Scotland.--T. Anthony 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to see a list of the tallest men and the tallest women. I do not want to see a list of slightly (3 inches) above average famous people with different standards for easch national and ethnic group. Tall is tall and notable. If it is all basketball players, so be it. It is an editing task, not an AFD function, to set the bar, but height is extremely objective. I might want to know the names of men who are over 7 feet tall. Edison 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dodging the subjectivity trap, cleanup and rename Restated below. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the definition of tall according to a consensus of reliable sources is?.... Guy (Help!) 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we're moving toward retooling this as tallest or among the tallest. However "tall stature" is not a single height, but is instead a range that begins several deviations above average height. That beginning will vary by nation, but there should remain a subset which is tall in all nations. For example Endangered species might be defined differently in differing placing, but there is almost certainly a limit that no nation goes below in defining the matter. What is tall in the tallest average nation, I believe that was the Netherlands, should be tall stature with all nations. That might sound ethnocentrically biased, but there's no reason every nation must be equally represented in all lists. In addition to that the 99,8th percentile of Vietnam would add up to about as many people as the 99th percentile of the Netherlands anyway.--T. Anthony 08:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was more of a move to tallest and edit article accordingly. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the individuals on the list have been scientifically documented and are the biggest (tallest) people ever recorded. I don't see how it would matter what country they come from, etc. They are simply known to be the tallest, period. - Gilliam 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the definition of tall according to a consensus of reliable sources is?.... Guy (Help!) 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maria Sharapova is the tallest, period? -- Qarnos 07:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the idea is among the tallest. The standard can be raised if this is switched to tallest. If that occurs women and men should still probably be treated separately due to their being treated separately in anthropometrics or height studies. The Dutch starts women at 201 cm (6 ft 7) I believe. This might be too restrictive, but perhaps not. Women like Ekaterina Gamova and Anne Donovan would still remain.--T. Anthony 08:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're going to replace the arbitrarily chosen height with an arbitrarily chosen centile? Sorry, that doesn't fix the problem. It's still arbitrary. T. Anthony's comment is a perfect example of the problem: setting the height bar in order to give the preferred number of inclusions is wrong in so many ways! Guy (Help!) 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I shouldn't have mentioned the Dutch standard, it was just an example. Anyway no percentiles and standard deviations are not arbitrary. It's the method medical science uses when defining "tall stature" and "short stature." I can get you the information from the National Institute of Health or Cornell or one of those if you need it. Here's Scholar Google results for tall stature. I think it's 3 SDs above average height. I need to learn more about standard deviation to quantify that, but it's not something I invented. If you want to argue with places like the Royal College of Paediatrics go ahead though.--T. Anthony 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Addendum. In normal distribution it seems 3 SD is the 99.73002039367% percentile. If I can find something on that, or 3 SD above average height, this would go along with the Pediatrics site. I'm concerned I won't find anything that specific, but the issue isn't impossible I'd think.--T. Anthony 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There are roughly 6 Billion people in the world. Assuming a reasonably normal distribution, three standard deviations would give us a list over 16 million long. Even 6 standard deviations would be a list over 12,000 long - and that's just for people alive today. That's not a maintainable standard. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        People seem to have trouble understanding lists of people and your statement is a good example of that. Lists are not intended to list every person in the world who fits the topic. Take for example List of people with epilepsy, which is a featured list. According to the Epilepsy foundation 2.3 million, in the United States alone, had epilepsy in 1995. The List of people with epilepsy is not intending to list the millions of people in the world that have epilepsy, but is instead about notable cases. All lists are bound by Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability. Maybe 4 SD would be better as even more limiting, only 1 in 15,000 people would fit that if I read it right, but I couldn't medical validation for that.--T. Anthony 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Limitation to "list of people with condition xxx who are primarily notable for other reasons" is the normal interpretation for such lists. That did not seem to be the intent in this case given the wording of the comments above. Thank you for clarifying. Rossami (talk)
        
        Actually, 6 sd would give us only 5.9196 people. Only 0.00000019732% are 6 standard deviations away from the mean (multiply this by 6 billion, divide by 100 as its a percentage) and you get 11.8392--however this includes both 6 sd above and below the mean. In any case, no one is proposing to include all 8 million people who are three standard deviations above the mean (the remaining 8 million are below it)--either only those who are notable of their own right and are on WP or (more likely) only those who are notable for their height. Oh, and those 6 people above 6 standard deviations should definitely be included. Black Falcon 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My apologies. Your math for 6σ is correct. I slipped a digit when I estimated it last night. More evidence of the dangers of editing when tired. Thank you for catching it. Rossami (talk)
Keep..per black falcon.--Iwazaki 11:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ primarily because this was just put up for AfD.--Wizardman 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... where it was closed as "delete", appealed at Deletion review and sent back here for re-evaluation by the community. The normal standards about renominations don't really apply in this case. Would you please clarify your opinion about the article itself? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright then. Change to reluctant delete. I love this list it's always fun to look at, but the numbers are just way too arbitrary.--Wizardman 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps renaming to List of tallest men/women and editing the article accordingly would help? Cheers, Black Falcon 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's still an arbitrary criterion and it's notable people who happen to be tall, not people who are notably tall. I might support that list, but this list isn't that list, so the idea that we should keep this list because that list would be good seems a bit odd. I will re-evaluate if work is done to turn this list into that list. GassyGuy 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the criteria are so arbitrary as to be indiscriminant. The other lists proposed (list of tallest and list of notble for height) could probably be created in line with policy but don't think that these lists would be a good foundation to build them on. Eluchil404 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt has been shown that government and governmental agencies criteria can be applied for the definitive standard of tall.Halbared 07:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query "Definitive" according to whom? Shown by whom? Shown where? GassyGuy 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not OR, nor an indiscriminant collectio of info. Well sourced article with a point, which seems to have been improved immensely each time is was nominated for deletion. DavyJonesLocker 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition of tall is arbitrarily chosen, as is the length of the lists, as is everything else about these lists. They serve no encyclopedic purpose; they're merely lists of trivia, arranged in an original way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Make this a List of men over 6 foot 6 inches and we could let it ride as non-arbitrary. But I doubt that would pass an AFD either. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is discussion ongoing to change it to a List of tallest men to bypass any claims of "arbitrary" standards or to use a definition provided by a medical institute on height (e.g., the Royal College of Paediatrics). Black Falcon 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not commented on the proposal to change the title to "List of tallest men" because I do not understand it. Tallest is a superlative. By definition, there can be only one. How do you have a list of tallest men? What are you really proposing? Rossami (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for pointing this out--the correct title would be List of the tallest men (by time period, region, etc.)--this of course presupposes that such a rename (and not some other change) will receive consensus support. In an effort to keep the title short, I had overlooked the consequences of leaving out the "the". Thanks again, Black Falcon 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure that it fully solves the problem yet. What limits will be imposed to keep the classifications from proliferating inappropriately? "Tallest man in the world" - sure. "Tallest man in the 18th century" - okay (though I don't know how you'd ever prove it). But at some point you get to "tallest blue-eyed plumber in Akron with a mole on his left forearm". What criteria do you propose to define the limits of the parsing? Without some idea about possible controls, this appears to merely shift the subjectivity to a different area. Do you have a mock-up of how you think the proposed article might be laid out? Rossami (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I love the example! Here's how I propose we keep out plumbers with heterogeneously-pigmented skin from the list. If the title remains List of tall men, then it should include only notable men above a certain cutoff point (specified by an internationally-recognized height institute). As this is somewhat difficult, it may be renamed List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height (in which case List of short men should be merged into it). In these two cases, subjectivity is removed by listing only those people who are notable for their height according to one or more reliable sources. As for my "by time period" comment, I didn't mean to list the tallest man in each century (although I realize that's what it reads like). Instead, I meant having a section for historical figures who are notably tall (e.g., Peter the Great). I hope this clarifies my intention somewhat--I would be happy to have your comments. Black Falcon 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (A-Dust 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. WP is not an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That one almost made me spit out my coffee. If wikipedia isn't an online database... what is it? I think it is. Wjhonson 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. See also WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. — coelacan talk — 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear god, make them go away - in other words, delete and delete. How there is anypossible question that "tall" is 100% subjective is a complete bafflement to me. I had hoped with the recent deletion of the list of tall men that at least half this battle was over, but alas the conflict continues. Drive stakes through their hearts, bury them at crossroads, sprinkle holy water and chant voodoo spells but make these ridiculous lists disappear. Otto4711 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are in the United States, your proposal would need the approval of, in order: the Forest Service, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Justice headed by John Ashcroft. How about we just rename the lists and revise their content to List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height (I've written a potential draft of the inclusion criteria for the latter at User talk:Black Falcon#re: List of the tallest men)? "Tall" is a relational adjective, but "notable tallness" is not subjective. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List with clearly defined scope, topic and inclusion criteria. -- User:Docu
- It is most certainly none of those things, which is why it's on the deletion block again, because the scope has never been decided by consensus and never will be. You must have mistaken these for some other lists. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coelacan, please remain WP:CIVIL. The only reason these articles are "on the deletion block again" is because the prior discussion was inappropriately closed and the decision to delete the article was overturned at DRV. Please do not (deliberately or not) mislead people--you may say I am not assuming good faith and perhaps I'm not. However, why should I assume good faith given strong evidence to the contrary--you were one of the most active participants in the DRV and are thus undoubtedly aware of it. Black Falcon 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are mistaken. The DRV resulted in relisting not because the AFD had been incorrectly closed, but only because the two AFDs had come to separate conclusions and DGG and others asked for a bundled relisting only so the result would be consistent. Unless I'm badly miscounting, the DRV had 10 "endorse deletions" and only 5 "overturn/relists", at least two of which were only for the sake of bundling. In any other case, this 2:1 margin would be a clear endorsement of closure; the only reason this was relisted was for the consistency that would result from bundling the two. The "on the deletion block again" refers to this entire recent deletion, AFD4/DRV/AFD5 as a piece, and it is indeed here because the inclusion criteria are arbitrary, that's why AFD4 began. I'm not misleading anyone and I'd appreciate it if you continue to assume good faith instead of making insinuations about my intentions. Considering that multiple editors above have repeated the fact that the list is arbitrary, I see no reason for you to pick out my statement and say it's misleading, when I'm reiterating others' words. — coelacan talk — 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - My sincerest apologies, then--I should have at least asked you to clarify your statement. When you wrote that the articles are "on the deletion block again", I naturally assumed you were referring to this AfD specifically, in which case "arbitrariness" is not the reason (instead it is the decision at DRV). The DRV resulted in overturn/relist to bundle the two together for consistency and due to a lack of consensus on the closure. The actual count for the DRV is 12 "endorse deletions" and 12 "overturn/relists" (I think it comes to 10-5 if you count only those who typed Endorse, Overturn, or Relist). Again, I apologize. I should have assumed good faith. As it turns out, by pointing you to WP:CIVIL (for the comment "You must have mistaken these for some other lists."), I did not follow a parallel policy (WP:AGF). -- Black Falcon 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries. Thank you for reconsidering my intent. I may also have counted the DRV wrong; and as we're here already I'm not going to go back over it again with a fine-toothed comb. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for User:Docu's reasons. Also, WP:INHERENTLY FUN Noroton 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, WP:ILIKEIT? — coelacan talk — 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No (but it's an interesting page), more like: Back in the real world, people are interested in this, Wikipedia is inherently well placed to construct such an article and Wikipedia should play to its strengths. Knowing who is known for being tall and who happens to be tallest are both useful in limited circumstances (and Wikipedia is, if I may be allowed this heresy, actually meant to be useful, and all Wikipedia articles are only useful in limited circumstances), and no encyclopedia has ever been opened only for serious purposes. Wikipedia need not be quite as serious as Holy Writ or the instructions for defusing a bomb.Noroton 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start the article at around 6'3-6'4 so people like Lou Ferrigno, who were known to be tall for their profession could be included. --Dudo2 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what would be the rationale for choosing 6'3" instead of 6'1"? Why is one more encyclopedic than another? Sounds like you're making a synthesis of your own wp:original research for inclusion criteria here. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. The proposal that we can og by "List of tallest men" is actually the same article, all these people are among the tallest in the world. The three letters don't make any difference. The proposal that this should be "notably tall men" is also going to be indiscriminate. Who's notably tall? What does this mean? I've seen men in America who are 6'1" be told "hey you're tallll." That's not particularly tall, but if someone wrote it down somewhere, suddenly "their tallness has been considered notable." This would probably make the lists worse instead of better, since when it was 6'5", while this was arbitrary, it wasn't painfully long. "Noted for tallness" would extend down under 6'. No way. Anybody can be claimed to be notable for anything; it would only take one short journalist to add heaps of people to these lists. Such citations of "notable tallness" can surely be noted in the subjects' articles if someone would like to include them. No need for that information to be lost, but it doesn't constitute inclusion criteria. — coelacan talk — 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a useless list, and I just can't see how one can objectively determine what is tall. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia should really be stripped of all its lists. It's been out of control. Usedup 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, let's turn Wikipedia into the driest of academic exercises. Squeeze anything interesting out of it. Let no reader ever crack a smile, raise his eyelids any higher or have her heart beat any faster than a dull thud. We truly need to squelch these eruptions of normal human interest. I'm sure that when we do, we'll all feel more important, more dignified, more serious. Of course, we'll still have the porn-star, pokemon and video game articles, so it won't be a total loss. (These comments don't mean to imply any description of the sentiments of Usedup or any other particular editor here, just a strong suspicion that these sentiments seem to be behind some editors' comments.) Noroton 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your strong suspicions are probably off-target concerning most of us here. I haven't got a problem with amusing or merely interesting lists or articles, as long as they are objectively bounded. These lists may be interesting to look at, but they continually erupt in very heated arguments and a lot of bad blood arises as a result of them. The reason is that there are no, and can be no, objective criteria for when to stop the list, and so arbitrary measures are taken to choose a cutoff. Because they're arbitrary, everyone's reason is as "good" as anyone else's. For example, I want the list of men to stop at 6'5" or 6'6" to keep it short, Dudo2 wants it to be 6'3" so Lou Ferrigno will be included, and we've had others arguing that it needs to be low enough for Hans Christian Anderson, I've seen requests for 5'10" and 2 meters, and no one is "right", and no one is "wrong". If it were something objective, someone would be "wrong" and they could get over their pride and acquiesce to that, but in this case everybody's "right" and things get heated because no-one should have to back down and give in. On Wikipedia we have WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS policies that everyone has to abide by, and these policies are fair and apply to everyone so they defuse most situations. But these lists exist outside of policy. There is no verifiable objective way to bound the lists, and policy doesn't come into play to cool things. I'm saying that since the policies can't be made to apply to these lists, the lists have to go. I don't want to scrub Wikipedia of intersting content, but I do want our battles here to be about objective things that can eventually reach a conclusion, instead of screaming at each other in the dark. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton's mirthful comment hits the nail on the head.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tale of Two Brothers

This is a story, the text of which is in the public domain. Originally, I helped the editor move it to Wikisource, which they did, but this article was never actually deleted. I don't know what to quite class it as, but I think it needs to be deleted, and so I am bringing it here. J Milburn 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not an encyclopaedia article - just a story. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's been wikisourced, and there is no encyclopedic content herein, the original should be deleted. SkierRMH,00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after removing unencyclopedic content. The tale of two brothers is perfectly capable of having an encyclopedic article written about it without having the whole narritive here. In fact, if we remove said content, there is more here worth saving than many other stubs have. I'm going to fix this now, if noone minds... Thanatosimii 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There. Still needs work (catagorization for one), but clearly there are now better alternatives than deletion. Thanatosimii 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after revisions by Thanatosimii, who has created a solid stub article.--Alabamaboy 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice work, I didn't think it was salvagable. Certainly worth keeping now, I will work on the article a little further. J Milburn 21:08, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:05Z

Trinity Convergence

This hasn't been improved in the time since it was tagged, and does not appear to be notable. Delete from me. J Milburn 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant spam. Nardman1 15:26, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:04Z

Sammie Rhodes

Notability is not asserted per WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Prod was contested, thus this AFD. As such, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. If notability can be established, we can recreate it at that point. Tabercil 22:56, 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 speedy delete. W.marsh 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragin' Reagans

Seem somewhat lacking in notability, only 1 google hit. Amongst the usual problems: fails WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, intramural sport programs are non-notable by default. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Cundiff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:02Z

BA Johnson

This article has been pegged for notability, then prodded. The prod has been removed with a short note placed on the talk page. No notability is claimed in the article. Fails WP:MUSIC and there isn't even a concordance between the title name and the name in the article. Unless there's something missing from the article looks like a delete to me --Richhoncho 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, B.A. Johnston seems to fail WP:MUSIC, although he has apparently toured the eastern half of Canada.[40] --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for his style, he's toured across a major country (large one at that) & played internationally, has released 5 albums, has been featured on a radioshow, and is influencial in two local music scenes (halifax, hamilton). so technically, he stays. 142.176.139.204 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. Addhoc 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-11 05:01Z

Zeotrope Theater

Fails WP:NOT hard, article is unencyclopedic in nature and tone. Thought about Prodding it, but figured to get other opinions via AfD. (and before I get clobbered about hating on a local landmark, I live in Franklin, and while I'm sad to see the theater go, it just does not reach the threshold of notability). SirFozzie 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability as a historic structure, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a poorly-sourced biography, non-notable, very likely a hoax and now blanked. (aeropagitica) 09:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Byars Jr.

Very long, very strange screed. Most of it is blatant violation of WP:BLP, and my senses are telling me this a hoax. The references are either irrelevant or very tangential. IMDB has a single reference to the film, with the name Billy Byars included, but I can't dig up any other info. RJASE1 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To RJASE1;

Because you are ignorant of the subject matter does not make it a "hoax". Please give examples of: "blatant violations"? "irrelevant references"? "very tangential references"?

RJASE1 wrote..."IMDB has a single reference to the film, with the name Billy Byars included, but I can't dig up any other info." That's the point, I have spent two years "digging up" the information. Are you under some strange assumption that "Google" and/or "IMDB" should be your only source? Try leaving your bedroom and visit a library for real research. However, if you are housebound and insist on only using the Internet, you must be able to find more then one reference to Billy Byars. When I get a chance I'll help you out.

Ballog 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Ballog, you must remain civil. There is no reason to insult another editor. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ as Byars is/was real but this article is very problematic and needs a thorough cleanup. SOme of it appears to be original research (admitted above). The best place to start looking is probably Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung:

I don't believe suggesting to someone that "Googling" is not the only possible research, nor even research at all, is being uncivil. I do believe that calling actual professional research a "hoax" is uncivil, childish and igonorant. Especially when all one has to do is send a message to the author and ask questions.

Also, please, in this type of discussion forum, it may be best to refrain from "wiki speak". "Weak Keep"? Could you put that in more concise language?

All my Best, Ballog 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Reply: Ballog, I repeat, please remain civil and stop the personal attacks (words like "childish and ignorant" are unacceptable, and you could be banned if you don't stop). Please also assume good faith of other editors on the project. These are Wikipedia policies that you must follow.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand my vote summary of "weak keep", but if you will familiarize yourself with deletion policy and other discussions on articles for deletion you will see that this is necessary shorthand for a busy part of Wikipedia. My argument is that Byars, the subject, is a topic worth having in Wikipedia, but Billy Byars Jr. the article, as it stands, is a problem article that needs trimming and cleanup to comply with Wikipedia policies, including the sacrosanct biographies of living persons policy. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 5

February 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung:

Please understand "ignorant" is not a pejorative. It means "lacking knowledge". It does does not mean dumb or stupid.

Since I am obviously "ignorant" of "wikiworld" I would still like to be educated as to why calling someone's research a "hoax" in not considered "uncivil", especially when the researcher could easily be "messaged" with any questions.

As for "trimming" the article, I understand we live in a world where young adults have a "child like" attention span and can't be expected to read an article that would take them longer than 60 seconds to read, but perhaps we can begin here today and show young people what articles should be. Finally, breaking-up articles into different pages with fun hyperlink clicking may be all the rage for a tiny minority, but it gives most people a headache.

I hope you take my comments in the cooperative spirit intended.

Best wishes, Ballog 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

- Comment. WP:HOAX is a particular guideline at Wikipedia and a valid rationale for deletion. By raising it, RJASE1 legitimately asked the community for consensus on whether the article was valid and verifiable enough to keep. That is a label placed on the article, not on an editor. You can't be incivil to an inanimate object, but editors are assumed to be real persons and we should all respect that. My reference to trimming was not in regard to attention spans or for brevity, but because much of the article appears difficult to reconcile with our strict policies requiring verification from reliable sources. We can keep the article if a) the article can be trimmed to encyclopedic information about the man that b) demonstrates notability. Anything that cannot be cited, but could be considered libelous, such as accusing someone of manufacturing what would today be considered child pornography, must be removed immediately, and the person wishing to keep it has the responsibility of justifying it by coming up with sources. Anything that involves synthesis, conjecture, or conclusion that is not citable to a secondary source is considered original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia, which is by design and policy a tertiary source. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want to apologize for using the word 'screed' and will remove the 'hoax' tag, since I'm willing to concede that this person existed. But the only fact about this person that I am willing to accept at this point is that he produced/wrote the film mentioned in the article. I don't see how that makes him notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion if there is nothing else published about him. All the gay porn stuff has got to either be referenced or removed immediately because it's potentially libellous. - RJASE1 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the internet sources don't back up any of the substance of the article. The book source appears to be difficult to obtain and amazon gives a different year of publishing, possibly a change of publisher or a plain mistake. I'm uneasy about having so contentious an article with only these sources on Wikipedia. Malla nox 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed vote). I have reviewed the article twice and as many of the sources as I can, and I find nothing indicating that Byars was truly notable. The only thing that might make it notable is the child pornography investigation, but the article states that the LA Times explicitly did not cover it. Many times the article relies on original research (e.g. tax records), conjecture, or weasel words to arrive at a conclusion. This article may be of interest to some publication, Ballog, but it is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the author:

(Believing that being involved in "gay porn" is "libellous" shows a personal prejudice and bias)

-This is how "difficult to obtain" the book sources are:

Books:(All of which mention Byars)
"Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981. Everest House.
- Library of Congress #HQ144.L56 ISBN:0-89696-197-4
- Many used copies for sale via the Internet
(Google: Children In Chains by Clifford L. Linedecker)
-Numerous copies available at libraries across America.
ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991. G.P. Putnam's and Sons.
-Library of Congress #HV7911.H6S86 ISBN:0-399-13800-5
-Many used copies for sale via the Internet
(Google: "Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers)
-Numerous copies available at libraries across America.
ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

-"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976. Vanguard Press.
-ISBN#0814907733
-Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in Americaby Robin Lloyd)
-Numerous copies available at libraries across America.
ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

Magazine Articles:
-Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972, p. 18.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Monte Davis, "Genesis Child", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

also:
A brief Internet article on the scandal:
http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/exp/cliffsrc.html

Dhartung wrote, "...Not notable...": Let's see, Son of J. Edgar Hoover's and Dwight Eisenhower's friend Billy Byars Sr., who was a multi-million dollar oil baron who owned what has become Exxon/Mobile. Both Byars are constantly mentioned in the JFK assassin theories. Oh yes, Byars Jr. arrested in what "The Meese Commission" called the largest child porn case in history. And don't forget, Byars Jr, was the employer of Loretta Young's son who pleaded guilty in the case.

Dhartung wrote, "...The L.A. Times didn't cover it": It was the lead front page story on Saturday October 27, 1973. The paper also wrote on the the later trials.

Dhartung wrote, "Many times the article relies on original research (e.g. tax records)": LOL. God forbid the online community is exposed to actual original scholarly research (althought I don't know of any tax records being used). I see, it's better to use second hand unverified information. Good point.

The article was almost completely sourced earlier today and yet it is still flagged.

Please see similar Wiki articles, with less sourcing, on men such as:
James Whitey Bulger
Hugh Hefner

Is it possible here at "wikiworld" articles are not judged on their merit but rather how much grief the author gives the "editors"?

Ballog 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Attention Dhartung and RJASE1: I have received a private message from a longtime Wiki user who informs me that your behaivor here has been abusive and that you are not "administrators". I have been advised to contact a Wiki administrator if your abusive behaivor continues. Also, Dhartung, I have read some of the pages you have created. Shall we continue to discuss "sourcing" and "notability"? I mean really, "Clint Hartung", "Bettye LeVette", "Phillip Perry", "Miles Copeland Jr.", etc. Your bio articles are some of the least referenced on Wiki and concern people far less "notable" than my mailman.

Ballog 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Comment. I freely admit I am not an administrator - I spend most of my Wiki-time on anti-vandalism patrol. That is, however, not relevant to this debate. My bottom-line point is that the article fails verifiability criteria per WP:BLP and WP:OR, and includes potentially defamatory claims. If the non-complying material is removed from the article in its present state (and it needs to be, sooner rather than later, unless it's verified, per this policy), the little remaining material is not enough for the article to pass WP:NOTE and the whole article should probably be deleted. I'm sorry if the author was offended - nothing personal. I recommend the author read WP:OWN. RJASE1 04:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ballog, your behavior is less than stellar and can earn you a nice fat block for running afoul of WP:POINT. Whether or not you feel as though you're not getting a fair shake, stop (and I never thought I'd use this phrase) being a dick. I'm not an admin either, but that doesn't mean I can't give you a heads up. JuJube 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJASE1: You continue to fail to cite specifics. Please cite any potentially defamatory claims which have not been sourced or referenced. You also confuse good sourcing with "convienence" of verification by you. Simply because you can't read the contents of a book or magazine online does not mean it's a bad source. The fact that you might need to pay a fee at a web site or visit a brick and mortar library to verify a source does not make the source invalid.

Admittedly, there has been confusion about the term "original research" here. My original research (original because I am the first to research the material for this subject) is all of previously published materials. Items such as United States birth, death, social security records, etc. are official records and are just about the most reliable source available. So to are state sex offender lists. Wiki's definition of "OR" is information that has not been previously or seperately published. The information I cite has been previously and/or seperately published.

Simply by repeating your false claims again..."If the non-complying material is removed from the article in its present state (and it needs to be, sooner rather than later, unless it's..", does not help your argument. Once again, you fail to cite specifics. This constant repeating of unsubstaniated claims can be viewed as evidence that your are simply being abusive and attempting to "flame" an article.

I previously cited three books, a magazine article, an internet article and The Los Angeles Times as sources confirming that Billy Byars, who owned Lyric which produced pornography, was arrested in 1973 for charges specified in the article. Now, please explain to me how this does not meet the criteria for sourcing?

Final request RJASE1, cite "specific" violations or stop the abusive behaivor.

24.60.54.59 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

RJASE1:
Stop being a "wikigeek" and using "WP"s to make your arguments and retorts. Can't you think for yourself? Do you really need to rely on material written by others to protect yourself. "WP"s are for the "Berkley" crowd who chant "group think" sayings like "Bush Lied, People Died" Use your own God giving brain.

24.60.54.59 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Comment Despite the increasingly humorous incivility on the part of Ballog, I am persuaded that this article basically passes WP:N and WP:V, the two bones of contention. However, it's a complete mess, nearly incomprehensible, and essentially needs a total rewrite. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stubbify and recreate , or delete. The problem here is that many of the occurrences are in fact notable, but they are notable as crimes. However, the subject of the article appears not to have been convicted of them, and the indictment was (according to the article itself) never prosecuted, so an attempt to discuss them from the standpoint of trying to demonstrate the subject's guilt is an obvious violation of BLP. Similarly the criminal actions of others are discussed--in some cases safely, because they have been convicted, but in some cases not, which is also a violation of BLP.

BLP is not a technical WP matter--it is a basic principle of fairness in any encyclopedic source, and it is also the basic way of avoiding libel for any publication.

Personally, i would have deleted or at least blanked the entire article as it now stands as libel.

That does not mean an article cannot be written, for the subject of the article is unfortunately notable, and sufficiently notable that an article would be appropriate even over his objections, and enough verifiable non BLP material found. But the present article is so obviously full of prejudicial and unsupported testimony that it cannot reasonably stand. WP is not a court of law. DGG 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, let's discuss notability. What we have here is: son of an oilman, "boy film" producer, apparently well-known as someone J. Edgar Hoover once threw a quote at, but not prominent in the JFK assassination, once indicted but not prosecuted for what the Meese Commission did call "the first child pornography ring".[41] Is that notability? I'm unconvinced at this point. How does he pass WP:BIO? --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stubbified it. After slogging through the whole thing, I would definitely classify it as libelous, particularly as none of the "charges" are backed up by anything but one editor's sleuth work. Furthermore, a lot of it was not supported by anything but opinion - the paragraph about Zipper magazine stated only that "it's obvious that Byars published it." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Keep as the stub it now is. Per {{WP:BLP]] potentially libellous material must be well referenced, and oerehaos some of the disputed material, if it is indeed referenced to reliable and verifiable sources, could be restores. But Ballog has gone way over the line with personal attacks, on this page and on the article's talk page, where he complains that "It appears that the "lifer Wiki geeks", who mostly live in their mother's basements, will remove the article shortly." Wikipedia is not a blog where one wins by flaming anyone who disagrees. Please read and follow WP:NPA.Edison 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if only for the history, which violates BLP in so many ways... we won't even get into the incoherence of it all. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I categorically support the stubbing of this article, obviously. I am open to arguments on how the subject is notable per sources acceptable to make an article adhering to WP:BLP. But an article under the guise of a biography that is little more than slugfest of controversies just will not cut it. Currently, such an article seems to be the intent of the article's primary author. Elaragirl's suggestion that the history be deleted should definitely be followed if this article is kept. Folks, let me suggest that there hundreds, even many thousands of BLPs on WP that are as bad as this, basically hidden from everyday view. They are awaiting our proactive discovery and most diligent intervention. CyberAnth 11:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, I've independently verified a number of the sources the author cites: the L.A. Times on microfilm years ago (it's online now), the J. Edgar Hoover biography, the Warren Report, the best-selling Robin Lloyd book. The sources are all genuine. (On the other hand, they'd fail the quality test being demanded here: Lloyd sources nothing, the Hoover bio is where the now discredited story of Hoover in drag came from.)

I have read the Original Research policy. I´m not sure I fully understand it, but it seems more a barrier against people who take a handful of facts and conclude that everything's due to the Patriachy or the Illuminati. This merely takes scattered facts about a man and puts them together. There are no Big Theories involved, and no twisting of facts to a predetermined conclusion.

Yes, the article sounds strange. The subject is strange - and interesting. Style questions I won't address, it's easier to fix style and organization than content.

Regarding the statements that are potentially libelous, they are all from public sources. The Warren Report failed to verify its facts and see that the "child pornography ring" wasn't a ring and no charges were brought based on child pornography, and that the only movie mentioned in the L.A. Times was from the description entirely legal.

An analogous case, also from Los Angeles, was the McMartin school satanic sexual abuse scandal. One cannot argue that there should't be an article on it because the charges were false. They were false, and the first of many similar charges. The charges against Byars were false too, or at least never proved. Some of the charges were found false by a jury; part of the article is an interview by another of the falsely accused where he says that he pled guilty but the police were ready to frame him.

The persecution of child pornography has been a significant excuse for the attacks on civil liberties over the past thirty years in the United States, especially on the Internet. A great deal of the "original research" on which those policies have been based is, frankly, a crock. Byars was one of the first victims. A comparison of the facts, presented here, against the lies, in such places as the Attorney's General's pornography report, is illuminating. Keep.

REVERT to last version by Ballog
Keep
Comment Much discussion and many comments however absolutely no specific violations cited. Most comments are vague, uncivil and personal attacks against editors with other opinions. (Please review Wiki guidlines)

Comment - How I love unsigned comments without a single shred of recourse to, oh, actual policy? This. Article. Is. Unsourced. With. Sources. That. Are. Reliable. The guidelines are clear, and the article needs to be cut down to a stub until someone more .... neutral ... can source everything stated. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Stub and Rewrite, per Elaragirl, including the need for new editors. If my vote isn't really an option, count me as a Delete. ThuranX 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to delete because the sources are reliable?
Ballog 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Neutral? This is not an "issue" oriented article where any type of "view" was taken. What biased view was taken and what was the controversy. I missed the controversy, and I wrote the article.
Ballog 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

I believe 9 seperate requests for "specific" instances in the article where a fact was stipulated without reference. Not one reply.
Ballog 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Actually it would appear that User:Elaragirl is of the opinion that the sources in this article are not reliable.--Isotope23 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I don't believe my English professor would be able to correctly read that and many other comments here. It must be "New Grammar", you know, like "New Math".
Ballog 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Regarding libel, several references were removed to the late "pornographer" Guy Strait. It's not libel, since he's dead and it's famously true. According to the Chicago Tribune, Strait "was one of the nation's leading pornographers ... he had cornered the market on the production of ‘kiddie porn'."(Chicago Tribune, 17 May 1977, p. 1-8.) The articles are reprinted in Sexual Exploitation of Children, Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) pp 428-42. The "statement of Guy Strait, producer of child pornography" appears in the same volume on pp 23-28. Mr. Strait was also the founder of the first gay newspaper in San Franciso in 1961, which at the time took courage.

There were objections to "the first child pornography ring [...] brought to public view." (Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (1986) PART 3: Law Enforcement Recommendations. Chapter 3, paragraph 5.) I agree that the charge is false. However it was made by the Attorney General's commision, which failed to check primary sources or court records before perpetuating the accusation.

The article does not qualify for exclusion as "original research". While I agree that more footnotes are needed, I own or have read a number of the sources given, and the article is in line with available source references. The lack of footnotes is a correctable flaw. There is no ideological bias. I've read some "original research" - I recall something on the Ark of the Covenant being an electrical capacitor - but the only burning passion I see here is a desire for completeness.

Is it controversial? The man apparently has led an eventful and colorful life, and the article reflects that.

Regarding the notability of the subject, the scandal that ended Mr. Byars's company was one of the early events of the campaign against child pornography, still today used as the major argument for censorship and regulation of the Internet. The arrests were the first major appearance in the papers of LAPD sergeant Lloyd Martin who became one of stars of the 1977 child pornography panic, and who is now discredited.

One of the problems the author faces here is that the usual "reliable sources", aren't. The Meese Commission didn't bother to see if the charges were proved, but only that they were made. The headline in the LA Times said "14 Men Indicted in Sex Movies", there were no charges involving "sex movies" and the only movie mentioned was a nudist films legal then and now. The Chicago Times gives numbers for the child pornography market, and for Strait's income as the man with a corner on the market; the numbers are incompatible by an order of magnitude. The book by Robin Lloyd, a best seller with an introduction by a U.S. Senator, has no footnotes, but where one can compare it to the L.A. Times articles, Lloyd reuses the same incident three times, without telling the reader. His major contribution to the kiddy porn panic was inventing the number of "300,000 boy prostitutes" in the U.S.

The article is more accurate and even in its current state better sourced than the "research" on the topic that was the foundation for past and current public policy.

Child pornography may not be notable, but the attempt to repress it - or rather the repression done or advocated in the name of repressing it - certainly is. Mr. Byars was one of the first to be attacked under that banner. He's notable. Chapado 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the immediate BLP issue has been resolved, as the article has been stubbed, here are some specific example of unsourced, potentially libelous statements, Ballog:
- "Some of the photographs and films were attributed to a "Harlan 'Slim' Pfeiffer" [7] whom may actually be Byars himself", referencing photographs that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men."
- "Other Internet rumors contend "Glawson", who was an obvious favorite of Byars, was given the "rights" to the Lyric works", which is part of a completely unsourced paragraph.
- "One Internet poster claims "Terry Stuart" was "Byars first" (possibly meaning first lover or first model)".
- "this person basically ruined the film under the direction of Byars who was really only interested in displaying the naked boys."
- "One can be certain the writer obtained this biographical information from Byars himself who constantly felt a need to exaggerate his true experiences."

That's only going through about half of the pre-stubbed version. I wouldn't be suprised if there's more in the second half. Natalie 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie
Congratulations, you are the first of the people who wish to delete this article who took the time to actually read it (well at least half) and actually cite specific sections you have concerns about.

Now let us review your concerns:

"Some of the photographs and films were attributed to a "Harlan 'Slim' Pfeiffer" [7] whom may actually be Byars himself", referencing photographs that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men."

First, the Pfeiffer photographs have never been considered illegal and have always been available legally, as they continue to be today. It can not be considered libelous to credit someone with photography that is not considered illegal. Conjecture by an editor is not prohibited so as long as it is clearly conjecture. For example, in numerous encyclopedic articles of the past thirty years concerning Watergate, there has been much conjecture about the identity of Bob Woodward’s “Deep Throat”. The current Wiki article about Rush Limbaugh contains open conjecture about his addition to prescription drugs being the cause of his temporary deafness.

"Other Internet rumors contend "Glawson", who was an obvious favorite of Byars, was given the "rights" to the Lyric works.” "One Internet poster claims "Terry Stuart" was "Byars first" (possibly meaning first lover or first model).”

Again, these was clearly identified as a rumor and Usenet postings. Perhaps they do need a link to the Google archived source. (Note: The “favorite of Byars” issue is also contained in the book “Children in Chains”)

"this person basically ruined the film under the direction of Byars who was really only interested in displaying the naked boys."

This was clearly attributed to the 2006 interview with the Director of the film “Genesis Children”, Anthony Aikman. This sourcing question really isn’t even debatable.

"One can be certain the writer obtained this biographical information from Byars himself who constantly felt a need to exaggerate his true experiences."

This is a valid concern and should be reconstructed.

“ I wouldn't be suprised if there's more in the second half.”

Not a productive comment.

The article is nearly 10,000 words long. I’m sure you don’t think it should be reduced to one sentence because of the above few concerns. Ballog 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Comment, actually conjecture by an editor is prohibited even if clearly labeled. Please see WP:OR. If the Rush Limbaugh article contains conjecture about his hearing loss, that should be removed as well. WP:OR is very clear in the prohibition of original synthesis of thougth. Additionally Usenet postings are not WP:RS and even if clearly identified as such should not be used as a source or even included in an aricle. Wikipedia is expressly not the place for republishing rumors, particularly those that come from Usenet threads. Something else I've noticed that I'm not sure anyone has touched on is the "What ever happened to…?" section, which is completely inappropriate in the context of this article. This is an article on Byers and off-topic explorations of what happened to individuals who are not Byers don't belong in an article about him. Beyond that, Natalies concerns are valid and are a good reason to see this article reduced to one line at this time per WP:BLP.--Isotope23 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23
Thank you for interesting comments. Perhaps my use of the word "conjecture" is misplaced.
Would you also comment on why you feel the parts of the article that are sourced to the following references should be removed? Please also mention which of these souces you have read and have not read.

Books:(All of which mention Byars)
"Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981. Everest House.
- Library of Congress #HQ144.L56 ISBN:0-89696-197-4
- Many used copies for sale via the Internet
(Google: Children In Chains by Clifford L. Linedecker)
-Numerous copies available at libraries across America.
ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991. G.P. Putnam's and Sons.
-Library of Congress #HV7911.H6S86 ISBN:0-399-13800-5
-Many used copies for sale via the Internet
(Google: "Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers)
-Numerous copies available at libraries across America.
ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

-"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976. Vanguard Press.
-ISBN#0814907733
-Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in Americaby Robin Lloyd)
-Numerous copies available at libraries across America.
ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

Magazine Articles:
-Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972, p. 18.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Monte Davis, "Genesis Child", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

Thanks,
Ballog 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

"Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981

The only parts of the article clearly sourced by this concern Guy Strait and as this is a biography for Byars, those sections should be removed regardless of whether or not they are sourced as they concern an individual other than the subject.

"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991

Ignoring for a moment what could certainly be a wider discussion about considering summers to be an actual reliable source, the mentions and the sourced sections in this article are rather trival factoids. I'm rather neutral on them; they don't really add much to the article.

"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976
Am I missing something here? I don't see this cited as a source anywhere.

"Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972 :Nothing particularly wrong with this source or how it is used.
Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972
Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the sources themselves, but in one case they are used in a section that is formatted as a trivia section.

Monte Davis, "Genesis Child", Zipper Magazine, July 1972

Not sure if I'm missing something, but as with Lloyd I don't see where this is clearly cited.

As with the Linedecker source, this is used to source information about someone other than the subject, namely Christopher Paul Lewis. As with the Guy Strait sections, none of this is directly about Byars and other than mentioning him in passing I would take out the large sections on someone who is not the subject of this article.--Isotope23 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23
I wish you would have indicated which of these sources you have actually read.
Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981 and
Official and Confidential by Anthony Summers - 1991
are both used as sources for both Byars and Strait as well as other information. Are you actually saying that an article primarily about one man can’t contain information about anyone else? But if the article does contain information about someone else, it shouldn’t be sourced? Is that what are contending?

What I'm contending is that large sections of an article that are about someone other than the subject should not be in the article, even if they are sourced. It is off-topic. Passing mention is one thing, whole paragraphs should not be there. Beyond that, it is not clear where these are used as sources other than where they are explicitly cited.

"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976.
Am I missing something here? I don't see this cited as a source anywhere.

Yes, I believe you have missed something here.

Then the source is not clearly cited in the article... which it should be. It is impossible to determine anything about it unless it is correctly cited.--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972:
Nothing particularly wrong with this source or how it is used.

Great. So you agree that section should be returned.

"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991.
Ignoring for a moment what could certainly be a wider discussion about considering summers to be an actual reliable source, the mentions and the sourced sections in this article are rather trival factoids. I'm rather neutral on them; they don't really add much to the article.

It is used as an additional source to confirm Byars' arrest and his fleaing prosecutuion. The more sources you can cite the better. Not the reverse.

Only if those sources are actually reliable...--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.
Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with the sources themselves, but in one case they are used in a section that is formatted as a trivia section.

I have no idea what your comment means. Please see WP:TRIV. Bullet pointed sections should not appear in the narrative.--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that if Zipper Magazine was published by Byars, as the longer version of the article asserts, it cannot be considered a reliable source due to conflict of interest. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvin Jones, The Advocate, 1972, copyright Campfire Video - 2000."
As with the Linedecker source, this is used to source information about someone other than the subject, namely Christopher Paul Lewis. As with the Guy Strait sections, none of this is directly about Byars and other than mentioning him in passing I would take out the large sections on someone who is not the subject of this article.<

My same response at to Strait. Both are integral in Byars life and I know of no policy that forbids mentioning persons other than the main subject.Ballog 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

I can't point you to an explicit policy, but what is in the article is not "mentioning" it is whole paragraphs that go completely off the topic of Byars and onto another individual. It simply is not a good way to write a biographical article.--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think that having to spend two years locating information from sources that are not wholly reliable (Internet forums are not RS at all) simply screams NN, and even a Salon article that mentions him also points out that he was a teenager at the time. The non-libelous version of this article is all of one line, and it seems that the author is trying to pursue an agenda instead of sticking to verified fact. MSJapan 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan
“I would think that having to spend two years locating information from sources that are not wholly reliable (Internet forums are not RS at all) simply screams NN...”

The article contains about 1% of information attributed to Internet forums. You choose to ignore the remaining 99% of the sources (books, magazines, newspapers, official United States records) listed for the article. Perhaps you actually didn’t read the article but only the discussion here.

“...and even a Salon article that mentions him also points out that he was a teenager at the time.”

I am entirely confused by this statement. The Salon article is a source concerning Detective Lloyd Martin and the prosecution of child pornography. I don’t believe it ever mentions Byars. This Wiki article is about Byars entire life. What do you mean by, “he was a teenager at the time”? What time? Ballog 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Chapado

"Some of the photographs and films were attributed to a "Harlan 'Slim' Pfeiffer" [7] whom may actually be Byars himself", referencing photographs that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men."

Not libel. First, Byars was unquestionably producer of a film that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men". Second, there's a long tradition of that in Western art; see Germaine Greer's The Beautiful Boy. Third, photographs of nudity aren't illegal. The Genesis Children is on sale even now; at least one of Byars's magazines is in the New York Public Library.

Regarding the Salon article: it's wrong. The reference is to a meeting that supposedly took place between J. Edgar Hoover and Byars after the Kennedy assasination; Byars was born in 1936 and 27 at the time of Kennedy's death. The Salon author, you see, was unable to check his facts in Wikipedia...

...it seems that the author is trying to pursue an agenda instead of sticking to verified fact.

What agenda? He seems to pursuing facts, lots and lots of facts. Perhaps they could be better organized. There may be a lack of a narrative thread, but I can't detect an ideological one.

Several people have said the sources seem scattered. periferical, and unreliable. Yes. Who else appears in the Meese Report and one of the best-selling books focusing on the subject of the Warren Report? There's a real-life Forrest Gump quality to the man. And, as said above, while a lot of the sources are unreliable (Robin Lloyd, the Meese report, the LAPD accusations) an awful lot of public policy has relied upon them. --Chapado 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete After thorough review, I'm unconvinced a verifiable article can be created from reliable sources that asserts notability. As for Alger Hiss, any details about Whittaker Chambers are relevant to the article and any irrelevant biographical details on Chambers are correctly placed in his article. The comparison is null and void. One Night In Hackney 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to Hiss and Chambers was not directed to any article here on Wiki (I did not know that there was one), it was referring to thousands of articles about Hiss in actual professional scholarly articles. There is a world outside of Wiki. (FYI, a "comparison" can never be "null and void". Please see accepted definitions)
Ballog 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Comment Please see WP:TROLL. One Night In Hackney 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Please do not respond to posts here that are obviously attempts to flame and start a war. I have been assured people making such posts will be dealt with by Admins in the appropriate manner. Let us limit our comments to the article only.
Ballog 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Comment - can someone do something about the unreadability of this page?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm moving some of the off-topic commentary to Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Billy Byars Jr.. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Close and delete per WP:SNOW? One Night In Hackney 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW doesn't really apply, and I am still inclined toward my original keep vote, I was thinking more along the lines of moving most of the commentary above to a subpage. There are only a small handful of non-Ballog comments up there.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiki guidelines I have renamed this article to better reflect the original intent of the author. This should clear up many issues. Ballog 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

I've reverted this...Please don't move articles to a new namespace in the middle of an afd, this just creates all kind of confusion. If it is your intent to have a DOM/Lyric article then I'd suggest you start one from scratch or propose a move here.--Isotope23 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to learn and be cooperative. You have good points that this should not be a biography so I am attempting to comply. I'm sure it was just an oversight but you forgot to do that "WP" thing and cite the Wiki rule you are applying. Could you please "WP" and show the rule against renaming a page in the middle of an afd. I just want read it and continue my Wiki education. Thanks much. Ballog 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

There is no rule to cite (we don't have rules)... it's just not a good idea to move a page mid-AFD as it simply creates a ton of confusion. I'm not doubting you acted in good faith but it is a good idea to let this run it's course. If you want to start a DOM/Lyric article you should do it from scratch.--Isotope23 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal here should be a good article. Not for some "process" to run it's course or for someone to save face in an argument. When this article was created, the author did not label it a "biography", someone else did. By changing the name and removing the "biography" label, 90 percent of the issues would have been resolved. It is important to remember the actual goal here and not to simply focus on "process". Ballog 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Even if you move the previous version of the article to the other namespace, it would still have large tracts of WP:OR, have sections that were off topic, and have WP:NPOV issues. I'm not convinced a move would fix the problems here.--Isotope23 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were renamed "DOM/Lyric Studios" there would be absolutely nothing off topic. Everyone knows there is no point of view in this article so that appears to be just a new diversion to continue "process". Ballog 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

View it how you will... I have no illusions about changing your mind here.--Isotope23 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are cited in the article to substantiate notability. I notice that The Genesis Children is also unsourced, and a possible AfD candidate for notability concerns. Nick Graves 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ballog, the concerns about the content remain even if the article is renamed...WP:BLP applies to all articles, not just "biographical" ones. For example, I couldn't put specious accusations against Bill Gates in the Microsoft article. RJASE1 07:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains no "accusations", specious or otherwise, as is indicated by your continued failure to cite any specific instances. Next. Ballog 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

<sigh> The Bill Gates was a hypothetical example...I am going to be so glad when this discussion is closed. RJASE1 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ballog, I'm new here, although I have used Wikipedia for reference often in the past. I do not wish to tread on any toes or break any rules.

It would appear that a biography of a living person is particularly fraught with hazards for a new contributor. Nonetheless, Notability:

Billy Byars, Jr. was one of the principal figures in what the Meese commission called "the first child pornography ring";
"Child pornography rings" make a lot of appearances in the media, a new one having turned up in Austria during this discussion;
The specter of child pornography remains the artument most heavily used to justify regulation, censorship and eavesdropping on the internet, even after the 9/11 attacks;
At least one of those who later became notorious in the crusade against child pornography first appeared in the charges against Mr. Byars;
Looking at the primary sources, then the secondary sources, as done here, leads one to the conclusion that the secondary sources, (e.g. the Meese Report) would never withstand a Wikipedia deletion review.

Mr. Byars was an important if involuntary participant in an event that marked the start of a significant societal trend. That the charges against him appear unfounded only increases his importance.

Article quality: Yes, there are missing footnotes. Having read many of the sources cited, I am aware that nearly all of the claims made can be substanciated.

I'm also aware that in an encyclopedia, and especially in an article on a living person, there's an enormous difference between claims being provable, and being proven. The editor offered to add in the footnotes. The article being stubbed I believe prevents him from doing so. I'm certainly not going to try because there are too many rules of which I'm unaware.

There may be a lack of narrative thread, and perhaps there is content not essential to the topic.

Original research: Much of the world's knowledge is available in libraries, in microfilm or dead-tree format. Clicking a mouse can in seconds give you reams of information on something that happened last week or last year. Something that happened thirty years ago, however, requires you to get your hat and coat and go down to the library. Sometimes many libraries, as one defunct magazine may be in one, another in another, instead of bytes which are searchable from anywhere.

From the No Original Research policy:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

With the exception of interviews he conducted with people involved in events that took place over thirty years ago, it seems to me that that is precisely what Ballog did. It also seems to me that he's getting ragged for having done it in the library rather than on-line.

It takes time and effort to research that way. What can be found for a recent event on Google in two seconds can take longer for information not on the Internet. Two years, say.

But to suggest that the information is somehow less reliable, or less important, or less significant, because it can't be verified by anyone without moving from their desks, is provincial.

The article does not - with exception of the data based on interviews - violate the policy as stated above. The Policy also bars

"... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position."

Several people have suggested that's a problem here. I've asked someone to explain to me what "theory" is being advanced by the article, but no one has answered. It's just a collection of facts. I've put some theory in above justifying notability, but I don't think there's that much theory in the whole article.

Civility: Ballog's civility or lack thereof has been subject to sufficent comment here. I will not add to it.

I did find that there's a "Please don't bite the newbies" policy. I like to ask the others here to consider that they have put considerable effort - effort, not just gazing into space to find the right phrase, but shoeleather, squinting at microfilm, scanning chapters and footnotes rather than using full-text search, etc. - into producing an article, on a person whose strange life you find interesting. You post it. Someone says, "Jeez, I can't verify this in under a minute online. Must be a hoax. Let's delete it."

The lack of footnotes in a biography of a living person is a significant flaw, which unquestionably must be corrected. Trouble is, with the article stubbed, the editor can't correct it. I'm sure this isn't a Catch-22, but if someone were to say what the usual way is to proceed, that might be productive.

Also, while I realize that a long-standing community develops a mutually understood technical shorthand, to a newcomer it's crypic gobbleygook. "ABC, DEF, GHI! Q.E.D.! Delete! HIP HIP Hooray!" is roughly how it reads to the uninitiated. I note that early on someone said "HOAX" which is a technical term meaning something different than "Hoax!" That editor explained and even apologized. Unfortunately, that didn't stop the flow of acronyms.

Libel: This bears repeating. The material which Mr. Byars's company produced, of which his feature film The Genesis Children is an example, featuring nude young men and boys, was not and is not pornographic. Byars publicly defended the artistic merit of his productions. Much of his material freely and legally circulates today. No pornography charges were ever brought against him; none of his associates were ever convicted on pornography charges. One of his associates, the late Guy Strait, with whom he cooperated in distribution but apparently not production, was a pornographer and a child pornographer, but Byars himself was not.

There is a doctine heard in free speech circles, called the "chilling effect". If something is made illegal, people become very cautious about approaching the limit of what is illegal, and what can't be said because of fear of approaching the illegal extends the zone of what is effectively prohibited. Mr. Byar's work falls into the area of "chill" - it is not illegal, but rarely produced nowadays because the penalties for stepping over the line are so great.

Conclusion: The subject is notable; the article well researched, but badly footnoted. The style and organization can perhaps be improved, but that is more easily done than adding facts to a fine piece of empty prose.

The author is perhaps abrasive, but he's also in his first effort been met by what appears less an open community than a closed club, with acronyms in place of secret handshakes. He's had his research disdained because it was conducted with two years of gumshoe work rather than via Google. He seems to be pissed off at that. I would be too.

The No Original Research policy has been unfairly invoked against the article. While the first-hand interviews violate it, the vast majority of the article does not. While people have suggested that there's an agenda, they won't say what it is. I think there's merely a collection of facts. An encyclopedic collection of facts.

If the article is kept - and I think it should be - I assume there's a standard procedure for these cases. Perhaps it goes back in sections as the editor footnotes the material. Maybe the original interviews get left out until the editor publishes them elsewhere. There seem to be a lot of policies about what not to do; surely there are some as to the best or easiet way to do this. Perhaps they could be shared with the same open-handedness as the "thou shalt not" policies have been. Chapado 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to Successfully Complete Online Offers for Free Stuff

Nominated because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and PROD was removed by author -- TexMurphy 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, article was speedy deleted. -- TexMurphy 20:41, 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) 2007-02-09 09:36Z

Police Cats

How about you undelete this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlebot (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the show's alleged massive success, it's surprisingly non-existant. Also, it doesn't exist. masamunemaniac 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references provided, and none findable via Google. Fails WP:RS. -- Whpq 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Googling "Hirby Tronson" + "Police cats" returns one hit - this article. Many of the assertions - that the author of the series fell into prostitution, or that the series was banned in China - strongly appear to be hoaxes. --Hyperbole 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:HOAX. Metrackle 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a hoax, but is unverifiable either way. ShadowHalo 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-09 09:37Z

Lionel Richards

This article fails WP:BIO and is largely unreferenced. The efforts of Lionel in bringing change to Family Law in Australia were remarkable, and his death came at a very unfortunate time, as his efforts were only managing to realise positive results. I knew Lionel personally, and while his passing was unfortunate, Wikipedia is not a memorial and sadly this article fails to meet the minimum standards of notability. -- Longhair\^talk 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair\^talk 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems a worthy man and a sad loss but we don't do memorial pages. He was founder of OzyDads internet chatline , director of the Western Australian arm of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, WA state coordinator of Fathers-4-Justice. Unfortunately for the fate of this BIO I cannot find any news articles, only one mention in the proceedings of a government committee and a hint that he ran as an independant candidate ( and lost) for the seat of Freemantle in state parliment. Nothing that satisfies WP:BIO particularly with the lack of press interest. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately this article does not do Lionel justice. It doesn't assert notability and if the sources exist then I'm sure they would have been provided by now looking at the history.Ga rr ie 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing personal, but I cannot see the notability of the person as distinct from the cause. Jeendan 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under criterion G12 by Eagle 101, with reason: (Per CSD G12 - Copyright infringement, Please see our copyright policy. Find answers to common questions at our Copyright FAQ and Contributing FAQ.). Kyra_~(talk) 05:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (programming language)

NO assertion of notability to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(software). Unverified. Prod removed without explanation or corrections by article creator, moving on to afd i kan reed 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be basically a vanity page about one person's pet project. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as all revisions fall under criterion G12, blatant copyright infringement from [42] and [43]. So tagged. (had to use a custom {{db}} tag as there were two URLs) Kyra_~(talk) 23:58, 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 Redirect to bitch. AFD was begun by FreplySpang; completion of process to list here was procedural. Orignal nominator has requested redirection rather than deletion, and the article's content is already discussed at the target article. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR/WP:SK. Serpent's Choice 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biz0tch

Tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G1, then {{prod}}'d. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of l33t-sp33k. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Article is already redirected to Bitch. i kan reed 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather leave it open and kill it now. The same objections apply to the redirect. Who's going to search for Biz0tch? Urbandictionary we aren't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted the redirect, because it really interferes with the AfD. If the consensus is "redirect," only then should it be redirected. --Hyperbole 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy delete in that case then. i kan reed 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. --Hyperbole 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete w/o redirect. Never seen this particular one, and I don't want to see it again. --N Shar 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no redirect nonsensical l33tism. JuJube 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just for reference, I put the afd tag on the article and then changed my mind within a very short time to redirect it before filling out the rest of the AFD process. Hardly interfering with the AFD, since there wasn't one at the time. Sorry that I didn't leave a long comment explaining this; I thought it would be pretty obvious. Also, "I've never seen it" is explicitly not grounds for speedy deletion. FreplySpang 08:13, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:40Z

Istheshit.net

Was tagged {{db-web}}. Appears not to meet any part of WP:WEB and to skirt close to WP:ADS and its dear friend {{db-spam}}. No news reporting found, web hits all appear self-referential. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination, in addition to failing WP:WEB also is presently (and all previous versions) strongly POV. i kan reed 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alexa rank of about 42,000 [44] is not high enough. Fails WP:WEB. --Hyperbole 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horrible article, if fixed would fail all criterea mentioned above anyway. Artw 22:22, 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. Bucketsofg 18:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Andreou

Nom & vote...
Del on this n-n bio:

_ _ G-test

121 of about 376 for "Constantine Andreou" artist

_ _ My ProD nomination for it has led to moderation of the article's text that i called

the claim "one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene" that is so absurdly applied to someone w/ the G-test i've also cited above.

As to that charge that the article overreaches,

_ _ it was and is of course not the basis of deletion,

_ _ it should be seen instead as a "cautionary tale" to highlight the danger of uncritically crediting the principal author's assertions of notability, and

_ _ it remains relevant in that role, despite the newly moderated language.

With similar significance, this editor requires scrutiny in the spirit of Wikipedia:Autobiography, as one who either shares a surname with the subject, or has a sufficiently single-minded interest in him as to not mind the risk of being confused with a relative.

(In these matters, it would be reasonable to assume the "principal author" is essentially the only author: User:Kimonandreou seems likely to also be 68.235.80.153 (talk · contribs), whose interests 16 months ago -- in the IP's two hours and 7 edits of contrib history -- are essentially the early ones of Kimonandreou, whose first edit to anything came within the next 16 hours. There were 67 edits to the nom'd article before my ProD nom, with 51 of them by Kimonandreou, 3 by the IP, and 16 by others; excluding 7 self-described bots (D6 is one) and 2 canceling pairs (each consisting of a vandalism and Kimonandreou's reversion of it), those become 49, 3, and 7; the diffs and "m"s show 6 of the 7 are appropriately "minor"-tagged edits like spelling fixes, lk re-targeting, or redund-cat removals, and the 7th appears to be simply thumbnailing of the pre-existing portrait.)

_ _ The article name-drops some notables, without hinting at why we should regard their notability to be contagious.

_ _ The most interesting evidence is his receipt of 3 French-named awards and/or titles, in a 4-year period when he'd passed his 80th birthday. But awards so late in life raise questions about what they mean. Could it not be that the French hand out such awards to aging resistance fighters, not for excellence in their chosen fields, but in recognition essentially of suffering & long survival? Are they part of the pursuit of la gloire de France, to be sure that every artist associated with the country bolsters the perception of Paris as the heart of the art world, by ensuring they have a means of getting counted in attempts to measure how many artists owe something to the country? I have relatively little experience with artist AfDs, and no idea how these honors have been treated in the past.
--Jerzy•t 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Google test is innappropriate for articles that aren't recent. Additionally, artist seems to have received important awards. Am I missing something? i kan reed 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Only problem with Google test on old articles is that it can falsely suggest notability, due to unacknowledged copying from WP. What makes you imagine that lack of G-hits be less of an indication when the article is aged?
  --Jerzy•t 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Passes the notability bar, but seems to have some NPOV issues. I strongly suspect that there are far more Google results for this person in languages other than English. --Hyperbole 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Someone just needs to reword and expand the lead.. otherwise looks good. Danski14 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list of awards alone should have made it clear this artist is notable -- the French Legion of Honor is a (the?) major French award, period. (And if it's not clear to someone reading the article what it means, then they should go and read the article about the Légion d'honneur and other related awards, which explain, and give lists of winners, from which context a reader should be able to figure out the significance of the award.) Google hits test is biased for English language. And it's simply not as helpful for all kinds of other subjects. --lquilter 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep people do tend to receive awards late in life, so there is no reason for suspicion, and the usual criteria are satisfied. DGG 05:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ban the Google test from entering into these discussions while we're at it. RFerreira 08:23, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:41Z

Randy Conrad

I don't believe this article meets WP:BIO. The subject is not notable. As one user put it in the discussion page, Wikipedia is not an all-purpose information dump. The subject, IMHO, is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. There has been discussion on the page itself but by a limited number of users. I think it should be reviewed by more people to determine it's fate. WilliamThweatt 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly fails WP:BIO. The interview and the commercial apparently received only local news coverage, and we probably don't need this information on Wikipedia at all. But it certainly doesn't confer notability on Conrad. --Hyperbole 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemingly a waste of a good infobox and in-line cites. It's doubtful that the subject will have enough cultural impact to be called "encyclopedic" or to pass the 100 Year Test. Caknuck 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Noclip 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck, missing references and dubious sources Alf photoman 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see my comments on the talk page. This guy might be nice but he isn't notable. Fails WP:BIO Maustrauser 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, per above. Pem bro ke 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia isn't paper, etc. BabuBhatt 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia may not be made out of paper but it seems as if the only purpose this article serves is the make fun of the subject. (jarbarf) 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears non-notable with little chance of expansion unless he become a full-fledged actor down the road. Delete for now. --Nehrams2020 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, agree this doesn't pass muster with current biographical guidelines. RFerreira 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:46, 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) 2007-02-09 09:42Z

GScentral

Does not meet WP:WEB Dlong 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally prod'd this when it became apparent that this was a vanity article. i kan reed 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to hold any encyclopedic value as described in WP:WEB. Parasytic 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having been given time to give the article a neutral point of view, the editors still see it as an advertising platform, obvious by reference in first person and the use of terms such as "our Wiki" by Beavertailinc. This situation is not likely to change. 84.157.227.85 18:02, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:43Z

D.K. Rikabi

This is an obvious hoax (the mayor of Biloxi is A. J. Holloway, see http://www.biloxi.ms.us/Mayor/). KFP (talk | contribs) 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, this is a hoax. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No references, hoax, wikipedia is not a tool for anarchists. Danski14 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, lack of references Alf photoman 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete, Mayor Rikabi is a fantastic mayor and this marks the beginning of his great term and this article can chronical that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.21.139 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Do not delete, this is a factual article that does have references. References can be found on Biloxi's website. A.J. Holloway is a bad mayor anyway, and Biloxi needs a fresh new face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillionaire (talk • contribs)

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

Do not Delete,Don't delete. This article has the truth in it. More truthful then what Stephen Hawking spits. You should definatley keep this well written article A vote to keep it.
DO NOT DELETE,This article is informative and true and former Mayor halloway was a drunk and tore this city apart, I for one love Mayor Rikabi and would like to see this article kept, so his term can be followed. - guitarehero311 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.21.139 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Do not delete, I am asking for this article to stay up because I personally think this is educational, and this article gives people a chance to let them be known through out their communities so they could be used as references for some kids in high schools or junior highs who need interviews or first hand people to help them in projects. Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juba321 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Juba321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

delete just for the record, I notice the previous comments, all of which add up to supporting the motion to delete.DGG 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete just for the record i noticed they add up to do not delete. I also request for this article to be kept. It doesn't seem fair for people who keep valuable information for the commmunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wowsers123 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Wowsers123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not delete I am asking for this article to not be deleted, I personally like it and it holds true information. Biloxi is changing. - biloxipd

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

Do not delete Please do not delete this article. The face of Biloxi is changing from one of wasteful casinos to one of the people and Mayor Rikabi is facilitating that transition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddrummer12 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Daviddrummer12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete. Should have been flagged as nonsense. RJASE1 23:56, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:59Z

Fired Up (Jessica Simpson song)

Another unsourced article on a supposedly forthcoming single that hasn't been confirmed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aplomado ^talk 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there is enough information confirmed by label or management for a full article with cited sources Alankc 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided, no source for the covers, unlikely search term due to the parentheses. ShadowHalo 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The covers look fairly original to me. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not difficult to create a half-decent fake cover; the text on Image:JessicaSimpsonFU.PNG looks a lot like an MS Paint job to me. I object to the idea of using unsourced images uploaded to Wikipedia as proof that information in an article is true. Extraordinary Machine 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another rumored single article from User:DKfan1. There's nothing to back this one up either. - Bobet 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 09:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Tian Hann

Film director from Malaysia who is weakly notable against WP:BIO. Two movies (one was an anthology shared with 3 other directors) with no evidence of independent reviews, or any other "non-trivial published works". But he has gained "bronze awards" (not a main prize) from Malaysian Video Awards in [45] and 2003 [46] and the question is whether that's enough. I say delete. Mereda 13:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Per WP:BIO, standards of notability include: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers, a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following, an independent biography, name recognition, and commercial endorsements. We can't really measure "name recognition," but as for the others, I cannot find any features on Mr. Hann in magazines, I don't see any evidence of a huge fan base, I can't find any biographies (Amazon test), and I personally can't find any endorsements. Bronze awards (third place) at a notable film competition (for lack of a better term) do not make him notable, either. He would be notable if he had one first-place award and one third-place award, but the fact is that he only came in third place twice. Most of the information in the article cannot be supported by reliable sources because almost none exist. Delete. Srose (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, requires additional sourcing considering it is a living person Alf photoman 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the content was a copyvio of [47]; I have restubbed the article to remove the offending content. Found one non-trivial mention of him in a Malaysian publication; will keep looking for more. cab 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable enough. If it had been an US movie award, then this would have been easily settled. --Soman 10:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Soman. Whitejay²⁵¹ 04:28, 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 Deleted as a non-notable biography, no sources to assert notability included. (aeropagitica) 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron ryan

This page definitely does not satisfy WP:N. As well, it seems to be a blatant facsimile of this web page. On a minor note, the title is badly worded and there are no sources whatsoever. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that I would have given this a {{db-bio}} flag. But not, it certainly fails WP:VANITY.--Anthony.bradbury 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Anthony.bradbury, I would have possibly tagged that with the db-bio. However, it doesn't appear to pass the WP:N test, and without citations/references, WP:V as well. SkierRMH,23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aplomado ^talk 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a notable figure in Wall Street. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:45Z

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:46Z

Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace

I'm nominated this for deletion as first question is what has Wigger Trashleyne done to deserve a page on this site, nothing at all but appearing on a reality show called Big Brother. I don't think anything mentioned on that page after she left the Big Brother house warrants a entry on this site either. Dr Tobias Funke 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel that coming third in a reality show does not satisfy WP:NN, and what her family, friends or partners may achieve does not increase her notability level.--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK) as she doesn't appear to be notable outside of Big Brother. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AnemoneProjectors. This was a redirect till today anyway... --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect makes sense, at least until the new series starts. Darrenhusted 02:02, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:46Z

Left with Uncertainty

Author asserts notability based on a "new musical technique" or some such. I argue that using music to tell a story is not new, and this indie band is not sufficiently notable. Ginkgo100^talk 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Qarnos 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Once the jargon and promotional material is stripped away, we're left with a one-man concept album act, which is hardly a new thing under the sun. Additionally, the band/project remains stubbornly non-notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:BAND, and no, the concept of telling a story through music is definitely not new. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any time I search for a band in Google and the first thing that pops up is their myspace page, that's a massive red flag. This is a vanity page like 99% of the band articles that get introduced on this site. Aplomado ^talk 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the person who first inserted the Speedy Delete template. I was going to insert the reason later, but It's already been done. Oh well. Delete per nom. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:37, 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 Deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 07:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew James

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aplomado ^talk 23:18, 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 Deleted as false historical articles. (aeropagitica) 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War of Albany and Cornwall and related articles

There is no period referred to as the "Civil War of Albany and Cornwall" in Geoffrey's Historia, and no critical literature which calls it that either. The only sites on the internet using the phrase are Wikipedia mirrors. It contains no information that couldn't be accounted for under the names of the characters involved. Unless a non-Wikipedia-derived source can be found for the title, it should be deleted (.The same applies to other made-up articles like Interregnum of Severus, Civil War of the Five Kings, First War of the Two Brothers and Second War of the Two Brothers. Nicknack009 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Saxon Interregnum ➥the Epopt 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEll spotted. Added. --Nicknack009 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I'm not 100% sure how this information should ideally be handled, but this seems incorrect (the analogy of in-universe history for a fantasy entertainment springs to mind). It is strange how the succession boxes are being used, too -- a war is not a "legendary king". I have added AFDs to the other articles pointing here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLOHARDS

I speedied this, but was asked by someone to restore it. Appairently they have been covered by newspapers (my talk page has some links now). Although A7 specifies "not-notable groups" as speedyable, there are as of now no policy/guideline/proposal on nobility of groups (or I couldn't find anything at least). So I'll leave it up to the larger community to decide whether this meets nobility or not in their eyes. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sorry to the nom, but this seems notable. (unless we delete all baseball cruft as inherently non notable since they all think the "world" is USA plus 2 cities in Canada). anyway, when in doubt on the criteria, I fall back to the primary notability criteria. Amazingly, I found 2 sources in moments - Time and boston.com - they seem to be non trivial refs - I have added them to this page.Obina 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs to be worked on, but the creator brought these to my attention (I had placed the original speedy tag):

The Boston Globe, on three different occasions:[48][49] and [50]

Time Magazine's website (three articles):[51][52][53]

The New York Times:[54][55]

New York Newsday:[56]

The New York Daily News:[57]

And Sports Illustated:[58][59]

The article clearly needs to incorporate these, but I'd say they're easily more notable than most organizations of their kind. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Red Sox for a fan organization section or alternatively, this kind of thing is what trivia sections should be for (rather than the usual "Marge Simpson made a one-frame half-line jokey reference about this in issue #67 of the Simpsons comics" kind of thing) Bwithh 02:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not start an article on MLB fan organizations and use this as the initial contents. There must be others. Fg2 08:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I had never heard of this before, so imagine this hardcore Sox fan's surprise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 14:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above searches. Addhoc 14:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 06:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzan Presley (novel)

Novel of questionable notability. 700 ish google hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 05:58, 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 AMD K8L. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:55Z

Agena (processor)

Codenames does not reflect anything notable about the product, and failed to improve after putting up "lack of importance" tags. AMD64 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason stated above:

Redirect all three to AMD K8L, which is detailing them as specific variants of the K8L processor. Tikiwont 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per Tikiwont. Nardman1 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above... Addhoc 13:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ""Outside the Box" - Jokinen, Tom - Producer" (webpage). DNTO/The Content Factory. CBC Radio One. June 22, 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[2] "The Nightside with Mark Elliot" (webpage). NewsTalk CFRB 1010 - Standard Radio Inc. 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[3] "Green Funerals" (webpage). The Link - Feature Article 130 by David Sheffield. 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[4] "The Green Goodbye" (webpage). The Toronto Star. 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[5] "The Natural Death Centre - Canadian Resources" (webpage). The Natural Death Centre. Retrieved 2007-01-20.

[6] "Earthartist - Spiritual Burial Landscapes for a Greener "Beyond"" (webpage). Alternative Funeral Monitor. Retrieved 2007-01-20.

[7] "Sustainability" (webpage). Sapling. August 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[8] "Landscape" (webpage). Sapling. August 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[9] Salisbury’s thesis was the first known scholarly research conducted on the topic of natural burial in North America. Subsequent research referencing Salisbury’s research include Hodych, Anastasia "Disturbing Ground; A Socio-environmental Model for the Green Cemetery in Manitoba" University of Manitoba, Department of Landscape Architecture MLA 2004 and Rabbe, Corrie The Impact of Religion on the Establishment of Green Burial Grounds in Canada” University of Ottawa, Department of Social Studies MA 2006

[10] "Natural Burial Co-operative Members" (webpage). Natural Burial Co-operative. June 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-01.

[11] "Natural Burial Association Board of Directors" (webpage). Natural Burial Association. Nov 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-01.

[12] "Crying and igging" (newspaper). LA Times. 2005-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[13] "California Dying" (magazine). The New Yorker Magazine. 2005-08-29. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[14] "Eco-Friendly Burial Sites Give a Chance to Be Green Forever" (webpage). The New York Times. 2005-07-13. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[15] "Death Not Be Manicured" (webpage). Slate Magazine. 2006-12-27. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[16] "Natural Burial" (webpage). Grave Matters. 2006-11-06. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[17] "Going Out Green" (webpage). Environmental Science. 2006-12-24. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[18] "Green Graveyards - A Natural Way to Go" (webpage). AARP Bulletin. 2004-07-07. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[19] "Green Burial" (webpage). AFC News Source. 1999-05-19. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[20] "Green Burials - A Simple Return to Earth" (newspaper). The Arizona Republic. 2006-08-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[21] "`Green' burials usher in the ultimate recycling" (webpage). The Boston Globe. 2006-05-05. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[22] "Last Wishes" (webpage). Society for Conservation Biology. January 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[23] "'Green' Burials Growing in Popularity" (webpage). Environmental News Network. 2006-07-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[24] "'Green' Burials Growing in Popularity" (webpage). Forbes.com. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[25] "Being Green - Burial Without the Box" (national conference). FCA Biennial Conference 2006. 2006-06-05. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[26] "Advisory Board" (webpage). Green Burial Council. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[27] "Goodbye and Thank You" (webpage). INC.com. 2006-11-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[28] "Rest in peace the green way" (newspaper). Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 2005-07-15. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[29] "Eco Friendly Resting Places for Loved Ones" (webpage). Spirit of MATT. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[30] "Green Graveyards" (television). Seeking Solutions with Suzanne - Comcast. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[31] "Green burial: ecology friendly" (Newspaper). Richmond Times Dispatch. 2006-04-16. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[32] "Green Burial" (television). MSNBC News Channel 10. 2006-05-04. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]