Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:44Z

Wii Health[edit]

This game does not meet any notability criteria, it has not been confirmed (WP:CRYSTAL), and there are no reliable sources, just a blog post. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the article:

Wii Health Pack

to the debate as it appears to be about the same subject. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such game has been announced by Nintendo. The onl such mention is in a blog, and the guy offers no proof of the game. TJ Spyke 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, this article is about something that might have been "hinted" at by the company. janejellyroll 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hint, but not an official announcement. McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A comment in a blog isn't a basis for an entire article. As of now, no notability. Gan fon 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article states the source and it states that "Wii Health" is one of the excepted to be released for the Wii. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.88.18 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The article also says that little is known about it, and that somebody mentioned it on their blog. That's not notable, that's crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL. The source provided is trivial and not reliable, so we have basically a prediction not backed up by the facts. --N Shar 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS states "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources" due to verifiability concerns. Without a verifiable source, the article is just speculation per WP:CRYSTAL.--Kyoko 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a message left on a blog. It is a blog post itself. There is a difference, and because he is paid by a reliable news source to write the article... McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The blog mention does not actually make an explicit claim that the game exists, and the insinuation it does make is just not strong enough to serve as the basis of an entire Wikipedia article. That the subject does not meet any WP:SOFTWARE criteria means that there very likely is not enough reliable information right now to develop a fair, verifiable, encyclopedic article. The article can be recreated when better information is available. Dancter 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is indeed a mention of an announced "Health Pack" in the Iwata Asks interview series,[1] and a search for "Health Pack" does pull up articles confirming an announcement.[2][3][4] Game database entries and SPOnG articles are notoriously unreliable. Not much is reported other than an announcement and a bare description. As a note, it seems the game has been covered on the list of Wii games for quite some time, but no new reliable information has been shown since then. At this point, I withdraw my delete vote, which should not be construed as a vote to keep. Dancter 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't speculation either. McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's still not a clear fulfillment of the notability criteria, especially where depth of content is concerned, per the primary criterion. In any case, you should note that my vote had already been withdrawn. Dancter 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gamasutra, Next-gen, IGN, t3, cubed3, gameworld, and Nintendo have all mentioned it. That should satisfy the criterion. McKay 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said before (in another way), it's the "non-triviality" qualification that is of concern. Pretty much everything that can be said about it at this time is covered in the list of Wii games. Dancter 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Leebo. JPG-GR 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above also seems to be pure nonsence as wellOo7565 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not patent WP:NONSENSE! McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until (if and when) it actually exists. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason. Should we also delete Final Fantasy XIII until it exists?

Delete Appears to be patent nonsense — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should review WP:NONSENSE McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that this is nonsense. It's certainly crystal ballery, but I can understand why someone created an article for it. Maxamegalon2000 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct. It's not nonsense by either definition (jumbled characters or irreparably confused prose). It's decently formatted and in proper context, it just doesn't have any solid footing to stand on from a verifiability standpoint. Leebo⁸⁶ 12:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though it feels like piling on. Philippe Beaudette 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I have found a few articles that has talked about it including one on the official nintendo website. iwould have thought you people would have found it.User:Martyn1987 PS. Look at the bottom of the page under footnotes.
Delete As a avid video gamer, and a Wii owner, I find this article to be unhelpful at best. Perhaps one day there will be enough information on the subject to make a legitimate article, but until that time, it shouldn't exist. -Adun 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this fictuos goo that doesn't have proof I say at least we expempt it from the Wii game series until we have evidence from more than blog this is not the rumors section in egm this is wikipediaMarioman12 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait till E3, then let it have it's article. 66.114.186.37 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for irrelevant future information. Generally not relevant at the minute.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, RS ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a non-administrator attempted to close this as delete. Please note that non-admins obviously cannot delete articles. --- RockMFR 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RS ffm ^yes? 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Geoff B 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The product name is currently uncertain (the blog post and Miyamoto comment use different names) and that's the only information on the product. Sockatume 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Just because it hasn't been officially announced yet, doesn't mean it isn't coming. Nintendo has referred to it a few times. It's coming, it's a game, and it's probably going to be a game very important to the gaming industry. I maintain that this article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.113.133 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 February 2007
~~KEEP~~. WP:CRYSTAL clearly refers to WP:VERIFY. We've got sources IGN cubed3 t3 gameworld network. Sure the title is uncertain, but we've got a much better idea than Harry Potter 7 did in early december. Yes, they're based off a blog post but WP:RS mentions possible exclusions for a blog post. Joel on Software is clearly a blog, but it's established who he is, and it's just like he's got a weekly column in Dr. Dobbs or something. The same thing clearly applies to Matt's IGN blog. He's an employee at a reliable news organization, who gets paid by the News organization. Sure, we should treat such posts as weaker sources, but if we have that to work with, then we should go after it. McKay 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that "some blogs have hinted at a game that may or may not be called Wii Health and this is the premise, but it's not confirmed" is enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. There has always been a plan to write 7 Harry Potter books according to the author, so that was not in doubt the way this is. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEPWoah, more articles I missed from before. This seems very relevant. Nintendo interview Apparently, it was "announced by Shigeru Miyamoto at a conference held in mid-September" according to nintendo. Covered by reputable sources gamasutra and next-gen. McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, these IGN cubed3 t3 gameworld network are all blogs talking about the same original blog post. They don't count for anything more than a rumor, not as reliable sources. And these two (gamasutra and next-gen) are definitely better, but they're trivial. Each one mentions the game for only a sentence. The requirement is usually multiple non-trivial written publications. Basically, a source should be used if the subject is the focus of the article, not mentioned briefly. These don't meet that. Leebo⁸⁶ 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made two comments, one about IGN being not notable, and the others about being trivial. I think this is where there's some disagreement.
1. Blog posts being non-notable There is nothing in Wikipedia policy (that I'm aware of) that specifically excludes blog entries. It does say things about comments to a blog post being non-reliable, but doesn't specifically exclude the blog posts themselves. Take a look at Joel Spolsky He writes a blog Joel on Software. In his WP article it mentions how he is openly gay, yet there is a single posting in his blog in which he states that he has a boyfriend. Is his blog reliable enough that we can make assumptions based on it? Yeah, that's about himself, so we can probably assume that his information is reliable, but do you understand where I'm coming from? I've made the point before, that I think that this IGN blog posting, is notable. This isn't some random livejournal post. This is IGN, a reputable news source. This blog is a blog that he gets paid to write by the aforementioned news source. It is, in all actuality, IGN publishing it. Clearly, this should be considered notable. The fact that other people reference it in their blogs is actually part of the RS criteria! Should I go through the RS criteria for non-scholarly articles? Google("wii health") has 43,000 hits. I haven't been through all of them. I haven't even been to the second page. Sure, a bunch are probably referencing the IGN blog post (Heck, that single blog post probably satisfies notability, though probably not encyclopedic)
2. Gamasutra (et al) mentionings "trivial" 1) The trivial section doesn't say anything about 1 page news briefs having a 1 sentence mention being trivial. It does say that one sentenece in an entire biography is trivial. The Health pack mentioning in gamasutra is approximately 1/6 of the article. It is not a directory entry, and it addresses this topic directly. Next-gen also addresses the topic directly, and is not a directory entry. Several sentences on the subject matter are included.
3. Nintendo's article (okay, so maybe no one has refuted it (except you did use the word "rumor"), but I feel it necessary to bring it up again.) I mentioned Harry Potter 7 and how it was notable even before it's name was certain, and the response was something to the effect of "well, JKR has always said that there'd be 7." Maybe that isn't good enough reason. If so, I haven't heard a good enough reason. If not, then "announced by Shigeru Miyamoto at a conference held in mid-September" should be reason enough to satisfy WP:CRYSTAL right?
Really, I think that there's reason enough to include it according to wikipedia guidelines. McKay 06:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Syla[edit]

Completely unsourced article that seems to be based on first-hand information about the company. The speedy delete spam tag was removed by an IP editor who has only made edits to this article and an article about the company's founder. Fails WP:CORP. janejellyroll 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be self-promotional. Gan fon 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Syla and Sylvie Cachay, self-promotional and fails WP:BIO respectively --⁪froth^T 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Syla and Sylvie Cachay -- a walled garden. WP:N is the main issue, but the latter also fails WP:V. The author asserts that "[Cachay's] work has been featured in international fashion magazines inluding Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, and trade publications such as Women's Wear Daily," but 1) we don't have verification and 2) even if it's true, her work may be notable without her being notable. --N Shar 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about Sylvie Cachay. Should I add it to this AfD or create a new one? janejellyroll 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I shouldn't respond to another thread (I'm new at this XfD stuff), but I think Sylvie Cachay should be added to this AfD nom. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam - ghits Results 1 - 6 of about 8 for Syla luxury swimwear and Results 1 - 10 of about 17 for Syla luxury swim wear fails WP:N Jeepday 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it seems like this swamwear is just about to come out so lets see if it does thats all i am sayingOo7565 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ganfon (seems to be self-promotion) — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Philippe Beaudette 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only probably self-promotion, it lacks enough significance. -Adun 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam DUBJAY04 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant. It does appear to be spam as mentioed by a user above.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- as mentioned, self promo/spam. --Spufum 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per froth ffm ^yes? 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Barker[edit]

Stub article has no references and no claim of notability. Does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO Inkpaduta 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no context. Gan fon 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO also the article Wargames Research Group is referenceless as the single link to subject web presence is a dead 404 link. Jeepday 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO. (How did this one survive for so long?) JPG-GR 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Failing WP:N is occasionally it's own reward it would seem. Jeepday 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, unsourced, sub-stub, and does not even try to establish notability. (How did it survive so long? I agree, JPG-GR) — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--- Barker is significant within wargaming. Maybe it was a quick stub at the time but the article needs to be brought up to speed not deleted. Given that Wikipedia manages to find space for an article on every Pokémon character, I don't see why this needs to be deleted. At least, you could discuss this with some people with some knowledge of the subject. m.e. 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC) （article author）[reply]
- I've added material to the article to establish notability. As I said, the article needs work — it is a stub — but it should be kept m.e. 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if more information or sources are found, this could be a veritable article/stub. I believe we should give them some time to find information, but if none is provided, delete. -Adun 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without references DUBJAY04 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does fail WP:BIO and is not relevant, what makes it worse is the fact its got no refs.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:SPAM. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:20, 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. --Core desat 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Stepien[edit]

An unencyclopedic article on a Canadian poet and musician who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The address of the subject’s record company, Ego Trip, is the residence of one M. Stepien. His books, “accepted” by three universities, are unrecognized by Amazon.ca and Chapters.Indigo.ca (the country's two largest booksellers). The publisher “H. Bear Publishing” has no web presence. All article references are drawn from the Ego Trip website. The article originates with and has for the most part been edited by Stephenmcd, a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Weak keep’’’. The three entries under “Sites about specific albums and works” are probably reliable sources which just establish notability, although the third entry, a newspaper article from the Mississauga News, appears on a Tripod.com page rather than the newspaper’s own site. (However, the newspaper’s own site only offers articles from the past 14 days.) Victoriagirl's points are all valid ones, but I think that a review in Exclaim and one in ChartAttack.com provide a measure of notability. -- Eastmain 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point taken. That said, I should add that Stepien's albums are in no way issued by an "important indie label" (just one of the criteria found in WP:MUSIC). In fact, nearly all the CDs offered for sale on the Ego Trip Records website are single copies of new or used discs by established artists like B.B. King and Aerosmith. The fact that one Stepien CD (out of a discography of ten titles) was reviewed in Chart is not, particularly notable - the magazine is very devoted to the independent scene. Exclaim, too, is devoted to the independent scene, and reviews literally thousands of CDs every year (many only on the web). Victoriagirl 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And so I add my vote. Victoriagirl 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Clean-up Seems notable, just needs to sound more encyclopedic. Gan fon 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO most of the "references" on the article are primary sources, web pages belonging to the subject and or his "publisher", there are a number of news releases none of which seem to have meet been actually published The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person Jeepday 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't clean up what's not there. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails just about every criteria there is. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per aboveOo7565 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay delete Force a clean up. If they don't make it acceptable within a reasonable period of time, get rid of it. -Adun 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be not internationally known and definitely fails WP:BIO!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of the article's edits are done by the same user whose only contribution is to edit this article. He has one other contribution, and that was to put this artist's name in a list on another article (see WP:VANITY). Also fails WP:BIO Fundamental Dan 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO,fake assertions of notability are worse than none IMHO ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please review the three references which I consider independent: a newspaper article from the Mississauga News (the text is posted on a Tripod page, presumably because the newspaper doesn't have extensive online archives), the review in Exclaim and the review in ChartAttack.com He is not a world-class musician. Victoriagirl's comments about Exclaim and ChartAttack are correct, but I think that all three qualify The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person if one accepts that a record review makes the musician the "primary subject" of the review. He passes, even if some primary-source material in the article should be moved from "references" to "external links". --Eastmain 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the point being made about the WP:BIO statement ("The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"). That said, I note the guideline fails to define "multiple". In Stepien's case, he has been the subject of one article and one of his ten albums has occasioned two reviews from publications dedicated to covering independent releases. This amounts to a total of three pieces about Stepien and/or his music. Of these, the most recent, the Chart review of Brodie, dates from October 2000. The longest of these published works, that found in The Mississauga News, amounts to less than 500 words (I should add here that in the article he identifies himself as the founder of Ego Trip Records). Again, each of these pieces concerns Stepien as a musician - as already noted, he clearly fails the "criteria for musicians and ensembles" in WP:MUSIC. One more observation concerning Stepien's literary profile: the claim in this Wikipedia article that his book "The Palimpsest mind of Christian Stepien" was "critically acclaimed" is backed up by a press release in which the book is not mentioned. What is included, however, is a claim that the book/CD I Fall into Oblivion garnered "rave reviews from those in the literary community". The press release provides no further information. I can find no evidence that the book was ever reviewed. A google search combining "i fall into oblivion" and Stepien results in only three hits: this article, a post made by the author on youtube and a similar post by the author on dabble. Victoriagirl 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I'm not at all convinced of notability here, I do want to sound a note of caution. Certainly nothing in the article as written passes our notability guidelines, but at least on the music side a couple of things point to the remote possibility that he could meet them under certain circumstances. As far as the magazines go, Chart and Exclaim! do pass WP:MUSIC criteria themselves, as they're the only two Canadian music magazines currently in publication which focus on a general readership (as opposed to a music biz insider perspective). That said, however, the type of attention the magazines give can be an issue: if either magazine has done an actual article on him, then he's certainly keepable, and if he's actually charted in either magazine, then he's certainly keepable. But if all he's got is one capsule review in each mag, then that doesn't really pass the "non-trivial" part of the core WP:MUSIC criterion. Similarly, New Music Canada being what it is, the fact that he has a profile on there points to the possibility that he's gotten airplay on CBC Radio 3, which would give him WP:MUSIC criterion number 10, but as I can't vouch for ever having heard him on there, I simply don't know if that's happened or not. So, to be honest, I'm a bit ambivalent at this point — if he has actually received more substantial coverage than what's currently noted in the article, then I'm willing to change my position to keep if that information is added. But if all he's got is two reviews and an NMC profile that's flown below Grant Lawrence's radar, then he's a delete. Bearcat 08:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi everyone. I've been away from this site for a bit, and just noticed the comments for deletion. As far as how the article is written, I'm not used to writing encyclopedic entries (as one of you have noticed this is the only page I've worked on in Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure I got the hang of it before creating more sites) so I understand when users complain about my...embellishment, if you will (I'm speaking in particular about the "critical acclaim" reference. I understood the comments made in Christian's bio as meaning "critically acclaimed", but I guess if it doesn't explicitly say "critically acclaimed" I shouldn't have used that term). With regards to articles on Christian, I personally have 5 newspaper and magazine articles on Christian, however I don’t have a website and am not sure how to get that information onto Wikipedia (can I source an article or information source that’s not online?). One of them I believe makes reference to his touring with Chantal Kreviatzuk a few years ago, if that makes a difference at all. Before setting up this page I tried to find out what the Wikipedia criteria was for Musician’s and Writer’s, and it appeared to me at the time that Christian had met those criteria. I could really use some help in fixing the page, because I’m sure Christian fits the criteria (it’s more my lack of research and writing skills that are being called into question). If someone could make a short list of what Wikipedia is looking for (or give me the link to where it’s listed), I’ll try to find references that prove he fits the criteria. Thanks for the help, Stephen. Stephenmcd 17:30, 9 February 2007
Delete due to notability and likely vanity. Rkevins 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha as Practical War Machines[edit]

This article was deleted before (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines), I'm renominating it to be deleted again. The article was confusingly located in the Talk namespace, with a blank article page, so I moved the actual article part to the main article space. The article itself is a mess of speculation and original research, and reads like a post an anime message board, not an encylopedia article. Delete Transfinite 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gan fon
Delete Interesting original research (and opinion), Impossible to make into a real article. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and speculation. also fails WP:V Jeepday 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if it continues to get recreated, protect. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does read like a forum post, and looks like OR — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mechs are freaking awesome, and this 'article' is quite interesting, but it truly does not meet any article criteria, as it more of an opinion paper than a real article. I suggest the person who wrote this page save a copy, then delete. -Adun 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely meets WP:NOT as-well as WP:OR.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is interesting, though Fundamental Dan 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no possible way this could be anything other than OR ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as article recreation. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR essay.-- danntm ^T _C 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fascinating OR. I've saved a copy for my own interest. JoshuaZ 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. Would be nice if it could be merged into the Mecha article, but that isn't really possible. I'd fully support this article existing in the future, but sadly how it now it hasn't go a single source. Probably would be better off starting from scratch. Mathmo ^Talk 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is original research and an essay. However, I shall note that those who wish to save it, I have currently (and temporarily) userfied the page here. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazesh[edit]

Incomplete AfD tagged several weeks ago by an anonymous editor. Completing this listing. No opinion. ~Matticus ^T_C 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks hoaxish, but I'm not certain. Google search is not revealing, but the language barrier may be a problem. --N Shar 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited assertion of notability, need sources. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO ghits low and most hits are junk. Jeepday 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted, unsourced, fails WP:BIO. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without sources DUBJAY04 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, fails WP:BIO (though case could be made for notability if the article's assertions are true, and it were sourced). Fundamental Dan 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Warriors 6[edit]

Unverifiable, game not yet announced, and everything in the article were just speculations from different forums. Wikipedia not a crystal ball, etc. _dk 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I have no doubt Koei will release this (they release like 4 Dynasty Warriors game every year), I can't find an announcement of this game. TJ Spyke 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Link provided doesn't even announce the potential upcoming release of the game — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like TJ said, we all know its gonna happen, but i also cant find any links Thebiggameover 06:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premature article... - Denny 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We all know they plan to make it, but Koei could go bankrupt tomorrow, or be taken over by a CEO who really hates the series, or whatever. It's not encyclopedic until it actually happens. ShaleZero 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-balling, when the game's inevitable release draws near then some details will emerge for someone to actually write an article. I just hope Sun Jian's voice actor doesn't make him sound like he's got a cold this time around.. QuagmireDog 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it contains no references and consists purely of speculation. Additionally, the speculated character list also violates WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based purely on speculation. Game has not been announced. Violates WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL. --Schlechtentag 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Pokemon characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:45Z

Eusine[edit]

Per WP:FICTION. Eusine appears to be extremely minor, appearing in what appears to be a couple of episodes and as one trainer in the video games. I don't think merging this would be appropriate as he is that minor of a character, not even appearing more than 1-2 times. This would go under List of Pokémon characters#Other minor characters. This should also probably be pruned down to remove all instances of one-show wonders, starting with deleting Eusine. Prod contested. Hbdragon88 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge into list of Pokemon characters per WP:FICT. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Pokemon characters and redirect — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge It just seems so minor, but if it really is important then merge into list. Whilding87 07:28, 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 delete. This has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. --Core desat 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch given names[edit]

Delete all these lists per nom and per WP:NOT#IINFO Ohconfucius 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO; same for all these lists of given names. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, not the job of an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The process is to Transwiki. We're not deleting because it's nonsense, just post to the right wikisite. BuickCenturyDriver 07:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fundamental Dan 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pure list and with no encyclopedic content, this should be transwikied. --Dweller 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Very useful, but not right for the wikipedia encyclopedia as-is - Denny 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Not good for here, but WikiBooks could take it. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, already transwikied to Wiktionary. --Core desat 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English given names[edit]

Delete all these lists per nom and per WP:NOT#IINFO. Just as well it excludes all names borrowed from other languages, but that is nebulous and hard to draw demarcations. Admittedly, it survived AfD once before, but consensus can change. It's all been said before, so there's not all that much more to add. Ohconfucius 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO; same for all these lists of given names. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, not the job of an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fundamental Dan 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Very useful, but not right for the wikipedia encyclopedia as-is. - Denny 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks. There are loads of books on names, and books on choosing a name are popular. These articles would make good foundations for WikiBooks on names. Fg2 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Fg2. This is not useful for an encyclopaedia, but it would work for WikiBooks. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Useful for WikiBooks, not for here. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, this has also been transwikied to Wiktionary already, and is not appropriate for Wikibooks. --Core desat 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech given names[edit]

Delete. There seems to be broad agreement that list of this type are based on arbitrary criteria, and constitutes indisciminate information. This list is no exception. Ohconfucius 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#IINFO; same for all these lists of given names. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, not the job of an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fundamental Dan 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Very useful, but not right for the wikipedia encyclopedia as-is - Denny 00:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks per above. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary or Wikibooks per above. -- Hrödberäht 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. - Darwinek 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G4. Sandstein 06:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Kronkite[edit]

Non-notable neologism describing a sexual act. Article has no reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V), and fails the WP:NEO notability guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nn neologism. Semperf 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I knew I heard this recently. It was a joke on the daily show this past week. Outside of the joke, it doesn't appear to exist. The fact that the author can't spell "Cronkite" correctly doesn't lend me much confidence. GabrielF 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as reposted deleted content per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sloppy Cronkite. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like OR to me — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:06, 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) 2007-02-13 09:42Z

Dynasty Muzik[edit]

Non-notable record label (WP:MUSIC). Savidan 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, needs sources otherwise. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, unsourced, only ext. link is to a Myspace, and "He is cool" violates NPOV — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough (yet ;)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no references.-MsHyde 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Rkevins 08:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G12. Sandstein 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarding photography[edit]

Written as an instruction manual no encyclopedic content. Daniel J. Leivick 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, WP:NOT (instruction manuals) plus is not linked to by any other article. Roadmr (t|c) 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per not an instructions manual, and speedy delete per having been unquestioningly lifted from another source, so tagged. Ohconfucius 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant copyvio SubSeven 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of instruction manuals. WikiHow exists for that purpose, though the copyvio would need to be fixed even for that site — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:09, 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 Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Childers[edit]

Minor league baseball player, never in the majors, so non notable. →Ed Gl 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the reference on mlb.com, Childers has played in the majors. That qualify. 205.157.110.11 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After further research, Childers did make appearances in the majors in 2002 and 2005. Players who reached the majors are generally considered notable. BryanG^(talk) 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped to have this information in the article before I put this on afd! Would have saved trouble. Anyway, withdraw nomination per article improvement. →Ed Gl 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:41Z

Lusophobia[edit]

For those not up on their latin, Lusophobia refers to hostility of Portuguese people. The problem is that the term is not in widespread usage - as evidenced by a google search which reveals only about 300 non-wikipedia results.[5] Upon searching scholarly databases such as JSTOR I discovered that the term "lusophobia" has been used by some legitimate historians, but only to describe a period of intense animosity towards the Portuguese in 19th century Brazil. This subject is addressed in only a single sentence in the article. The rest of the article reads like an essay countering the mean things people have said about Portugal. These things are either not racist (for example one can note that a country is poor without showing hostility to that country's people) or uncited. Since there is so little legitimate content here, and the article remains almost entirely unchanged since its creation in 2005, I believe that deletion is appropriate. GabrielF 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a previous AfD was closed as no-consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lusophobia. GabrielF 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has improved a tad since the last AfD and is actually in better shape then some of the stuff listed on Category:Racism. It is an antiquated and scholarly word so G-hits is not the best parameter. It an encyclopedic subject relavent to Wikipedia's coverage of ethnic racism. This article could certainly be better but AfD is not a substitute for clean up. 205.157.110.11 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if we take out the stuff that's irrelevant and/or uncited we're left with what? Three sentences? Barely more than a dictionary definition. Even among scholars the term is barely used. I counted about 10 unique articles that used the word. Also, since nobody has seen fit to fix up the article in nearly two years and the Portuguese wikipedia article is only a sentence, I don't see much chance of future improvement. As to your point about other racism articles, I agree, a lot of them are crap. That's why I nominated Hibernophobe and Anti-Iranianism for deletion. Being better than other similar articles is not grounds for keeping.GabrielF 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Not enough to be an encyclopedic article, but still notable in a more dictionary-meaning sense. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT I agree that this article is a dictionary entry and a lot of stuff irrelevant. Jeepday 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the term seems to legitimately describe a historical period of anti-Portuguese sentiment in Brazil, per Google Books and Google Scholar results. More general use seems to be informal and thus inappropriate in the article, particularly the section that seems like it should be Stereotypes of Portuguese people or some such. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per immediate above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. If the article could stick to the stated topic and not mix all sorts of random tidbits of history, it would be so much better. I'd like to give the article a chance for improvement for now. --Kyoko 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, it's not a record of the historical period. Dicdef. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soapboxing. Couldn't even find the word on OED, it's by all intents and purposes a neologism. Lampman 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dhartung —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Vonce (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The article may need to be improved, no doubt, but it deals with a real phenomenon. Who cares if the word is unsual? Let me just add that it's not at all unsual in Portuguese and in Portugal! The Ogre 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sourcing for an article, and if we had access to more historical Portugese texts likely easy to expand further. - Denny 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the articles on Portugal and the Portuguese language. The vast majority of cultural groups have not been oppressed on a large enough scale to warrant a separate article, especially if the conflicts have been limited to standard reciprocated xenophobia between groups. NetOracle 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: collection of unrelated trivias put together. There's mee-too tendency on Wikipedia in last couple of years to invent "XYZ-phobia" like article for every nationality. I would label it as OR but that's offense to word research. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article isn't good yet, but it may and should become. This is no reason for deletion. Deletion would also look like a lusophobic act... Velho 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Colchicum 03:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as other similar articles on "phobia" topics.Biophys 03:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dhartung. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable prejudice. Never heard of it before.--Sefringle 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. --bainer (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Justice (Max Payne)[edit]

Delete or Merge Is just plain not notable enough for its own article; perhaps needs to be cover in the main Max Payne 2 article, but not here. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no content worth merging. No reference to any sort of real world significance. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly include some sort of reference in the main article. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you know or want to know about Max Payne, it is notable. Keep. Dfrg.msc 06:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by that logic an article about me would be acceptable because my friends know and/or want to know about me. Oh wait, I have no friends.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say almost the exact thing the person above this said; "wanting to know about Max Payne" does not merit this article's creation. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's perseption of notability does not merit the deletion of the article. Dfrg.msc 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of fact, there are notability criteria laid out in WP:NOTE. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge into a condensed summary in the characters section of Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. — brighterorange (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, lacks multiple sources which are independent and verifiable. Edison 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Brighterorange DUBJAY04 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This and all other fictional TV shows in Max Payne. Articles like Lords and Ladies (Max Payne) are in-universe jokes with no relevance to the outside world. - hahnch e n 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, doesn't meet standards... - Denny 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment magazine. NetOracle 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Brighterorange --Esun 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a running theme throughout the series and quite unlike anything else I've seen in any other game. Mathmo ^Talk 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best Chainsaw Merge to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne (along with Lords and Ladies and Address Unknown, though those also appear in MP1, but there's not really a lot to be said about them that you could cover in an encyclopaedia...) a notable running gag in the game, but sure as heck not notable as an article of its own! If it were repeated in Max Payne III, IV and V, maybe then, but since it's (as of yet) in only one game... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The first part, per Bright Orange & Wwwolf, into the character section of Max Payne 2, then redirect. QuagmireDog 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brighterorange -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:39Z

A.R. Horvath[edit]

Non-notable fiction writer. An internet search verified that he wrote the books in question, and the article writer produced some good additional information, but I don't think he meets the notability guideline for authors. YechielMan 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If as is, the article is more about the author's book than about him; the inclusion of material blatantly promoting the book ("back cover blurb"?) as well as prominent, gratuitous linkage to the author's website and online forum fall under WP:NOT (soapbox: self-promotion and advertising). Significantly revamping the man's bio and shifting focus away from the book would perhaps save things, but not as it stands now. Roadmr (t|c) 02:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I wrote the the thing, I suppose I should put in my two cents. I suppose it is true that the writer is 'non-notable' but then it is noted both in the article and in the publisher's information that his book has only been out since December of 2006. I am unaware of much info about him for the bio but I did have the book so that info is is properly sourced. When I learn more about him I will be glad to update the bio more. Also, I had intended to make an article for the book itself in due time. At anyrate, the core of my argument is that it isn't fair to single him out as 'non-notable' when he is so new and that wiki sourcing rules require me to focus on the material I have in hand. That would be the book. He already has reviews on Amazon.com that are favorable, so perhaps he won't be 'non-notable' for long. What's the harm? Delete it in 6 months if he turns out to be a nobody.

Straboandlivy 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that in such a case, it's preferable to recreate the article in 6 months after he wins the Pulitzer Prize rather than keep it here in case he becomes notable in the future. This is also a hedge against self-promotion and vanity, which this does not seem to be.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that does seem to be a bit outlandish, don't you think? There are plenty of authors on wiki who are not Pulitzer Prize winners, and it seems to me that if you agree that this is not 'self-promotion and vanity' then you are actually employing the opposite argument: 'just in case it is self-promotion and vanity, we're going to delete the sucker.' Do I understand it correctly that if I were to email the man up and get some more biographical information to put in here this article could fly uncontested? The initial editor said the article was fine (thanks!) but it was notability that was his concern. It doesn't seem like both arguments should be able to fly at the same time. Straboandlivy 06:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulitzer comment was a joke. But to your point, notability is the concern - however, I'm not sure what the "other" argument you refer to is. If the article is in really bad shape, that is not a call to delete it; also, calling up the author to get biographical info is a no-no, as wikipedia requires third-party sources. The rule of thumb is, if you can't find a reference to someone in a reliable third party source, then he therefore does not meet the notability requirements.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I thought about the no independent research rule after I posted. The other argument was the 'self-promotion' charge that the other gent was making. I will investigate whether or not there are third-party sources available. I still wonder about that provision in this context as he is a new author. I'm not sure its worth belaboring the issue. And I got the joke. ;) There are all sorts of obscure authors on wiki, which is why I didn't respond with humor. Well, off for now. Straboandlivy 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Straboandlivy! as others have pointed out, the issue here is that Mr. Horvath is still not such a well-known author and it appears as if the article about him is attempting to use wikipedia to boost his internet profile. I believe that first the author has to gain notoriety and reputation, and only then perhaps should the wikipedia article be added, as notoriety is a requirement for biographical articles on living people (and dead people too, at that). A very clear example I found is Eoin Colfer, author of the Artemis Fowl books; altough the first one was published in 2001, nobody bothered to add an article about him until mid-2003 (see here and it's not even the earliest version). Notice, too, that he is listed as having written the Artemis Fowl series, which by then was presumably successful enough to prevent information about the author being questioned since he was already notorious, like what's happened here with Mr. Horvath. As for the "amazon-o-meter", it's also not enough to have the book sold on Amazon; for example, John W. Creswell and Harry Wolcott, both authors of major books in the field of qualitative research which are sold on Amazon and presumably have a respectable level of sales, are not mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. In a nutshell, the correct order of events is first for Mr. Horvath to become a successful author in his own right, and then for someone to add an article about him in here. If there's interest about the person the article will thrive, be added to and will eventually turn into a fine biography. Otherwise it will end up in AfD again, which would be quite unfortunate. Roadmr (t|c) 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the author appears to acknowledge that it is too soon, there are insufficient secondary sources, and the writer's first book has only been out a couple of months (and has not set the world alight). Guy (Help!) 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Of course the third-party sources provision applies, as WP:RS is a foundational policy of Wikipedia in the first place, and new authors especially should only be included when they exist, to prove that they are notable. Obscure, by the way, is not the same thing as un-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NNDUBJAY04 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article creator acknowledging this author is NN. Fundamental Dan 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's published a series of books. He seems notable enough to be here. --Lee Vonce 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreate later (no set date) based on more press coverage/sources turning up for him in mainstream or genre press. Don't salt it. - Denny 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work but the subject matter is notable. Aye-Aye 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now, recreate later if notability reached Remember, you can create articles later on. If somebody so desires, they could write up a whole new article on this guy and post it again next week. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:35Z

Philbert de Torres[edit]

Unsourced article on subject who was an unsuccessful contestant on Canadian Idol and Pinoy Pop Star. The article, written somewhat in non-NPOV tones by Big2entertainment, describes him as "musician, composer, actor, independent film director and producer". Initially I could only find mention of his TV appearances for the above 2 shows, and all trivial at that. Prod once, removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with comment "Doesn't appear to be vanity, finalist in two reality shows". I beg to disagree. The article is vanity by any other name: he has only produced his own films and posted then to Youtube - a search of which would clearly show that Big2entertainment is none other than the subject himself. 27 unique Ghits, most from Wiki mirrors. One entry in imdb. Subject fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V. I move to delete. Ohconfucius 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the COI issues, being in the top 32 on Canadian Idol is not notability. As for Pinoy Idol it does not say how far he went, and being that this is a subject created page I can't imagine that it was too far. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total lack of sources and references Alf photoman 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI DUBJAY04 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fundamental Dan 19:04, 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. This is on Wiktionary already, so no need to transwiki again. --Core desat 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number One With a Bullet[edit]

Contested PROD. This article is on a phrase and simply explains the phrase's etymology and use. That seems more like a job for a dictionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's really not much to be said about the concept of being "number one with a bullet" as it's just a phrase with meaning as described on the page, for, as is also mentioned, the music charts (from which this phrase was derived) do not allow the possibility for actually being number one with a bullet. I don't see much hope for expansion of this beyond various examples of usage, which makes it no less a dictionary definition. Prod was removed on the grounds that the phrase was once very commonly used. I would argue that it's still not all that uncommon a phrase, but that there's nothing particularly encyclopaedic to be written about it. GassyGuy 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Delete It appears to be a good dictionary definition, however, one that may not belong here. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:N the lack of notablity is strongly supported by Special:Whatlinkshere/Number_One_With_a_Bullet Signed Jeepday 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, Wiktionary already has an entry for wikt:number one with a bullet at the proper capitalisation that could be expanded, but I'm not sure I'd recommend transwiki of this one, especially as there's also an entry for wikt:with a bullet. GassyGuy 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is dicdef at best and unsourced. Fundamental Dan 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the wikt entries cover it. TonyTheTiger 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if published references available for verification of etymology; delete transwiki otherwise The article appears to be more than a simple dictionary definition, as it goes into pretty good detail as to the specific origins of the phrase. (By contrast, a dictionary would merely explain what the phrase means, how it is pronounced, and at most a couple of words about the word origin). So my vote would be Keep... except the references for the story about the origin of the phrase appear to be a little dodgy at first glance. Therefore I will recommend Keep, but only if the references check out and/or are expanded to include a published source. I would also recommend that the article be expanded to include some notable examples of use of the phrase in pop culture, etc. Deletion only seems necessary if the information in the article can't be verified. Dugwiki 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there actually is an etymology at the wiktionary entry, as well as a mention in Wikipedia at bullet (disambiguation) about what a bullet means on music charts. GassyGuy 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was saying that the dictionary contains a very short description of etymology ("from the practice of Billboard magazine of putting a bullet sign in front of some chart entries."). This article expands on that, going into greater detail. That increased level of detailed background information is one of the differences between a dictionary entry for a word and an encyclopedic article about the word. Dugwiki 16:44, 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 Emerald City Miracle[edit]

The result was Speedied per G4/A1 Duja► 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is for a mundane playoff game. There is no proof/legit a source that states the game is actually called the Emerald City Miracle - a Similar Article about the game has already been created and deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The tony romo game ShadowJester07 ►Talk 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 - no context. This article has also been speedily deleted once before as Emerald City Miracle. Resolute 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior AfD, and Speedy, and contemplate a bit of salt on the last two titles. SkierRMH 06:29, 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 Merge to Australian Idol 2006. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:33Z

Klancie Keough[edit]

Nominated as failing WP:CRYSTAL. Unsuccessful contestant on ~~Canadian~~ Australian Idol, who works on her sister's farm and who would fail WP:BIO. She is rumoured to have signed a record deal in December. Ohconfucius 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previously survived AfD as part of bundled nomination for Joseph Gatehau. Ohconfucius 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the record it is Australian Idol, but it doesn't make a difference. Until she comes out with an album and there are some articles about her, there is no need for an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails WP:MUSIC -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see on the previous nomination that the contestants meet WP:MUSIC. I am interested in understanding why -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being in the top 12 contestants on a TV show does not satisfy some policy that automatically makes her notable, that I am aware of, so she would need multiple independent reiable sources giving her substantial coverage, and I do not see that. The article has a scary section about how she is going to travel to Nashville with a talent agent. Hope it works out, but that does not make her notable. Inkpaduta 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be validly receated if and when this trip to Nashville results in a genuine record deal, but until then she's just 12th-place-getter on a TV show. Jeendan 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Australian Idol 2006 for now. Contestants from the show can be mentioned there. RaNdOm26 05:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not Speedy Keep - the previous AfD asked to hold another one off for 12 months to see what would pan out. That was agreed upon, so it is out of the question to have another debate until that time has elapsed. In any case, this should not be deleted, but should be merged as per RaNd0m26 - as KK is definitely notable as far as Australian Idol goes. JROBBO 12:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reading of the 2006 log suggests a 12-month stay of execution was proposed but not actually agreed to in the previous AfD. All that was agreed was there was no consensus for deletion. That said, seeing as there's genuine support for these performers and Wikipedia is not paper, I'm changing my vote to merge with Australian Idol 2006. A separate article would be justified if/when the Nashville tour results in an actual recording contract. Jeendan 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Random26 - show is notable, this particular contestant is not (at least for now) WP:CRYSTAL does not really allow for possible future notability. Orderinchaos78 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, failed game show contestant, make a mention of her on the game show page if you must. Lankiveil 04:11, 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 and keep because the article has been substantially improved. YechielMan 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-month[edit]

Fails WP:OR. I looked for evidence that astronomers use the term "half-month" in the precise sense that the article implies. I have not yet found such evidence. This is one of the easier articles to rescue from Afd - just provide one source, and it can stay. But I wasn't able to do that myself. YechielMan 02:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gan fon 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to find a source for this from some text I have, and the internet. I am unable to find sourcing for this term. The articles author is encouraged to provide sourcing. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but correct error. A half-month in astronomy is not defined as in the article, but as specified in this source and this source (the second is from NASA, don't tell me it's not reliable). --N Shar 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query A little confused, you speak of a one time mention in an asteroid/space object naming convention, thats not wide use, if thats the only context. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N Shar. The half-month or (perh. more often) halfmonth just denotes the first or second half of a month (days 1-15, days 16-end) for certain observations. A bit of a dicdef, but worth explaining. I've never seen the precise version given in the article used. --Dhartung | Talk 10:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, it's also a somewhat archaic term in accounting. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I managed to find a couple of usage examples in astronomy articles, so keep, but please please someone expand the article; maybe it belongs in wiktionary? Roadmr (t|c) 16:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced pointless stub article. Nothing but a dictionary definition. Should we add "Quarter month," "Eighth month," "Sixteenth month," etc., ad infinitum? Inkpaduta 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful as an astronomy term. Also as noted, it's a useful accounting term. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is dicdef and will only live a stubby half-life. </humor> Fundamental Dan 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and keep. Thanks especially to N Shar, I was able to rewrite the article into a respectable stub without original research. I've never done a non-admin closure before, but I'm going to try one now. Let me know on my talk page if I mess up. YechielMan 23:50, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:33Z

Roxane LeBrasse[edit]

Borderline case. Unsuccesful contestant having had, in 2002 as part of 1990s band The Rockmelons, the single "I Ain't Playin" which reached #79 in the Australian music charts. Certain cleanup candidate - I intend to copyedit out all the overly flattering prose if this survives AfD. Ohconfucius 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless neutral sources can be added Alf photoman 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El chulito (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as lacking proof of notability, and not meeting WP:BIO. Inkpaduta 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being rejected from the Idol series is not notability. Fundamental Dan 19:21, 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) 2007-02-13 09:31Z

Quisha Wint[edit]

Stub article (since June 2004) about a failed candidate in Canadian Idol who fails WP:BIO with no assertion of notability, although ~~this fact is disputed by User:Viridae, who opposed speedy by removing~~ [Edit: an administrator removed] the tag outright. No noteworthy achievements since the show. It's about time this article was expunged. Ohconfucius 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Leitao. Viridae ^Talk 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. --Haemo 04:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references, no sources and hardly an article. If it should greatly improve by end of this AfD I could reconsider Alf photoman 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Photoman. Inkpaduta 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per So You Were On (Insert Name Here) Idol... Fundamental Dan 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the creator of this article, and I agree that now there is no purpose for it. -- Zanimum 14:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:30Z

Dream for Kids[edit]

Non-notable local charity organization. Article created by Ucmagic (talk · contribs), who is Rich Ferguson, the spokesman for the charity. – Þ 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be non notable and no source are provided. Rich Ferguson may meet notability criteria but this organization does not. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as good-hearted but non-notable organization, lacking multiple sources independent of the organization. Inkpaduta 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI DUBJAY04 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, COI issues... - Denny 00:37, 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) 2007-02-13 09:30Z

Sarah Loverock[edit]

Article about a failed candidate in Canadian Idol who fails WP:BIO with no assertion of notability, although ~~this fact is disputed by User:Viridae, who opposed speedy by removing~~ [Edit: an administrator removed] the tag outright. No noteworthy achievements since the show. Ohconfucius 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Leitao. Viridae ^Talk 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed game show contestants are not notable. Resolute 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable. Turgidson 05:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Resolute. Inkpaduta 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per So You Were On (Insert Name Here) Idol... Fundamental Dan 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. - Denny 00:37, 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) 2007-02-13 09:30Z

Tyler Lewis[edit]

Second nomination - article deleted at AfD in March 2006 and recreated, so I suppose it could have been speedied. The subject is a failed candidate in Canadian Idol who fails WP:BIO with no assertion of notability, although ~~this fact is disputed by User:Viridae, who opposed speedy by removing~~ [Edit: an administrator removed] the tag outright. No noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Leitao. Viridae ^Talk 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed game show contestants are not notable. Resolute 04:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable. Turgidson 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Resolute.Inkpaduta 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per So You Were On (Insert Name Here) Idol... Fundamental Dan 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. - Denny 00:37, 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) 2007-02-13 09:29Z

Brandon Jones (singer)[edit]

Article about a failed candidate in Canadian Idol who fails WP:BIO with no assertion of notability, although ~~this fact is disputed by User:Viridae, who opposed speedy by removing~~ [Edit: an administrator removed] the tag outright. No noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Leitao. Viridae ^Talk 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed game show contestants are not notable. Resolute 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable. Turgidson 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Resolute. Inkpaduta 17:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. - Denny 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed idol contestant, no apparent notability outside the show. ShadowHalo 19:30, 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. --bainer (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Leitao[edit]

The subject is a failed candidate in Canadian Idol who fails WP:BIO with no assertion of notability, although ~~this fact is disputed by User:Viridae, who opposed speedy by removing~~ [Edit: an administrator removed] the tag outright. No noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I easily found multiple, independent, reliable published sources having the subject as their topic and have added these to the article. Sancho McCann 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the speedy deletion template during a run on the backlog at CAT:CSD. CSD A7 specifically says no assertion of notability, notability is most definately asserted, the article stating she was a canadian idol contestant (as I already said on your talk page). All that said, having flash in the pan fame for being on Candadian idol (or any other "idol show") does not in my opinion make her notable. Viridae^Talk 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is not the flash in the pan fame for being a Canadian Idol that makes her notable -- it's the multiple, independent, reliable, published sources having her as a primary subject that make her notable. Notability is permanent and does not diminish if the frequency of publications decreases with time. Sancho McCann 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realise what you are saying, but considering the amount of publicity generated by the program itself, all those non-trivial sources must be taken with a pinch of salt. Ie, because the program and therefore contestants were being marketed as commodities for the duration of the show by corporations with a huge market reach, then to be dropped once they are off it I don't think they are still notable - will someone really care about her in 100 years time? Viridae ^Talk 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I agree, but the notability guidelines don't consider our (your, ohconfucious's and my) reservations about this type of subject being included. We should propose some changes to the guideline. Since the topic of this conversation is changing, perhaps we should move this conversation out of the AfD as well, I've started a discussion on Ohconfucius's talk page.Sancho McCann 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, if ONC agrees to having it there. Or it can be a sub-page of my talk page if you want. Viridae ^Talk 04:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed game show contestants are not notable. The sources included in her bio do not establish her notability independant of the Canadian Idol show. As such, her mention should be on that article only. If her band meets WP:BAND at some point, then the article should be recreated, but not before. Resolute 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The editors have at least added some references, but on examingthem the references do not make a strong case for notability. Her fame is as a failed Canadian Idol contestant, and several of the references are press releases from the Canadian Idol site, which is arguably not independent. References 2,3, and 4 are press coverage from July 28-30 2005, that she was booted off the show for low vote totals, and certainly count as one good reference. Ref 5 is a press release from the Canadian defense department listing 15 acts on a morale boosting tour, and she gets passing mention as part of one of the 15 groups. Ref 7 is only trivial coverage in a story about a skater, Elvis Stoiko, mentioning that he recorded a track with her for the album. She and 2 other contestants were put in an album, "Braided.". Did it make it big in Canadian pop charts? There is no evidence that it was a hit. There was talk they might go on a tour. Did they? No sign of it. So in summary she has the potential to be notable, but is not there yet. Most of the sources are not really solid ones, being press releases or trivial passing reference. Inkpaduta 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree that, of the 7 references, the two from CTV fail independence, two are "trivial mentions", 2 others are strictly of local interest, whereas national sources are required, so there is thus only one good reference. In short, she fails WP:BIO. I would hesitate having even a line about her in the Burnaby article. Ohconfucius 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mainly due to the Canadian defense dept. listing plus the others. It adds up to notability for me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ashley is not the focus of that article, but rather is simply mentioned as being there. This would be considered a trivial mention per WP:N. Resolute 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that the Canadian Defense dept hires tens of thousands of contractors. By that logic, any article indicating the name of an individual or corporation which supplies the DoD would suggest notability. Surely that's pushing the boat out a long way? Ohconfucius 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, closer examination of the article, it appears that she does not even perform for the DOD. The paragraph is about Casey LeBlanc, and merely talks about them together in 'Braided'. Trivial upon trivial. Ohconfucius 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I included that reference not to establish notability, but to give a reference to her new music group. Sancho McCann 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per So You Were On (Insert Name Here) Idol... She could get there some day, but is not there yet. Fundamental Dan 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I couldn't find the "so you were on ... idol" reference you mentioned. Where is it on that page? Sancho McCann 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a better link would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.P. Calderon (2nd nomination), which is basically an article about a Survivor contestent that received a Keep AFD result recently after some otherwise heated debate. Dugwiki 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Insert Name Here bit was actually a link that pointed to WP:NOTABILITY. It was my attempt at humor on a day that I did not get much sleep. I was trying to point out that just being on a TV reality show is not enough for notability to be established. FYI, I actually did work on an article with this title in my user page area. I just am not sure if I will keep it, since I have a quirky sense of humor that some folks do not get. If you want to check that page out, it is at User:Fundamentaldan/idol. Sorry for the confusion. Fundamental Dan 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While most of the other related afds have no published articles included in their references, this article does. In fact, it seems to have multiple articles specifically about this person from different verifiable published sources. That alone would meet WP:BIO 's notability recommendation of "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." (Most of these are not "trivial" articles about her.) And beyond that, it looks like she has minor references indicating possibly notable appearances outside of Idol too. So while most of the other similar articles about these contestents don't have sufficient verification of notability, this does and should be kept. Dugwiki 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Enough material to at least merit a small article. - Denny 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as television fancruft. Everybody will have their 15 minutes eventually. NetOracle 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reality finalists meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that game show contestants meet WP:BIO again? Resolute 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "[T]elevision personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Idol isn't a "game show." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If you are to quote from WP:BIO, I suggest you did it properly: it actually says " Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. It is weighted against contestants, and members of the audience who are plucked out to participate in the proceedings Ohconfucius 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's assumed that said personalities - like these - are "notable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is. It is a show where people compete for prizes. Textbook definition of a game show, no matter what misnomer is applied to the sub-genre. These people are not personalities, but contestants. No more notable than a loser on Jeopardy!. Resolute 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That very much belittles the social and cultural impact these people have in relation to actual "game shows," as opposed to reality television, which is an entirely different beast. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The social and cultural impact of these individuals is virtually nil. You might argue that The Idol series of shows has had an impact, but that does not automatically transfer to every failed contestant. Resolute 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How aware of the Idol phenomenon are you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Very, however that doesn't address the point. Even you refer to the show when talking about the phenomenon, not the contestants. There is no evidence that Ashley Leitao has any notability separate from the show. Resolute 15:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There doesn't have to be. Her "notability" exists because of the show. She's "notable" on her own because of her achievements there. We wouldn't remove Donald Faison's article because his "notability" is tied directly to Scrubs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Faison is best known for Scrubs, yes, but he has also starred in several major movies and television shows. His notability is not tied to any one show. Leitao has zero notability outside of being a contestant on Canadian Idol. What little information can be said about her belongs in Canadian Idol (Season 3), unless she establishes any kind of independant notability. She may do that with her band, but that would be crystal balling at this time. Resolute 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Independent notaiblity is established, not that it has to be. That's the point.--badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Resolute, so, the difference is the Faison became notable individually when he attained multiple sources of notability? (Not sources like "media references", but sources like "tv show a", "news event b", "tabloid controversy c", etc). The current guidelines don't require this, they require only that multiple published references exist, (I am assuming this means even if they are because of one source of notability). However, this could make sense as a change to the notability guidelines for people... that they must have multiple sources of notability, not just multiple references to one source of notability. For example, mayors would pass this test not automatically, if the only articles about them are because they won the election; they would pass this test after they made their next decision that causes multiple articles to be published containing them as a subject. Again, this isn't part of the guideline yet, so my vote is staying as keep, but it makes much sense to require multiple sources of notability (almost amounting to prolonged notability) for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will introduce this in the discussion on the WP:BIO.Sancho McCann 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if you assume the only reason she has received independent published articles is due to her being on Idol, and even if you assume Idol is "just a game show", that still is enough to meet notability guidelines. Articles about people who are solely notable for being on a game show are allowed, provided they receive multiple published sources. Otherwise we wouldn't have Category:Game show contestants, which is mainly to handle articles about people who are only notable for having been on a game show. Additional coverage outside of multiple published articles about her being on Idol is therefore icing on the cake and not actually mandatory. Dugwiki 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I would suggest that outside of the local paper article on her, all of the coverage she has recieved is trivial, and incidental. The articles are about Canadian Idol, she just happens to get mentioned for being that weeks loser. While it is poorly defined at present, I would suggest that the "notability is not newsworthiness" caveat of WP:N would apply: just because she was in the news does not make her notable. I could find multiple, independent articles on every violent criminal in North America, but that hardly makes them all notable. The problem here is that the hype and popularity of the Idol series of programs is creating unwarranted focus on individuals who otherwise wouldnt merit any kind of mention. There is no reason why these minute little bio's of singers that contain very little other than the songs they sang on the show can't be left in the season articles for foo Idol. Resolute 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Djsasso 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe being in the top 12 of Canadian Idol warrents notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (without prejudice against recreation with more content). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:26Z

Chikyunoinochi[edit]

The article fails WP:V (alone not a reason for deleting) and I could find no evidence that the topic passes WP:Notability. I haven't prodded it because the poem exists, but the online sources I found are in Japanese (so I can't judge whether they establish notability). I also didn't speedy it because this is a bundled nomination (see below). Searching for the title yields 1 unique result. Searching for "Chikyu No Inochi" yields 5 results. Searching for the author, "Satoshi Kadokura" yields 1,190 unique results, but I'm not sure all (or even most) of them are about the poet (the article doesn't provide much context and searching for +"Satoshi Kadokura" poet -wikipedia gives only 14 results). Please do not judge solely on the basis of Google hits (or maybe see if there's anything in the Japanese version of Google)--I am only providing the results I found so other editors might explore it. If anyone can give sources (print or electronic) establishing the notability of the poem and its author, I will happily withdraw my nomination(s). If no such sources exist, then both articles should be deleted. Black Falcon 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article on the poem's author as I couldn't find any reliable and non-trivial sources on him and currently the only claim to his notability made in the article is the poem. Black Falcon 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chikyunoinochi~~, no opinion on Kadokura Satoshi at this time~~. Kadokura's page on the JA Wiki can be found here. It was created in December and a few different editors have worked on it. He appears to be mainly a songwriter, for fairly famous Japanese musicians, and has about 23,000 Ghits under his kanji name (門倉聡). If the result of his stub is to delete, it should be without bias against future recreation. If kept the name should be flipped to Satoshi Kadokura to reflect proper naming order per WP:MOS-JP. Dekimasu が... 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict): Comment: There is a Japanese wikipedia page which may or may not be for the same guy ja:門倉聡, where he is described as a song writer (but, not a lyricist?) for some quite notable songs. I'm withholding my vote on the person until there is more evidence. As to the poem, I can't dig up anything of any relevance in Japanese either ( 地球の命 ). So Delete the poem. Neier 07:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you're probably right. I turned up no real indication of anything through the poem's title or using hiragana on the given name. Result: reconfirm delete on the poem, delete Kadokura Satoshi as well, unless someone wants to write an article on the songwriter. Dekimasu が... 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the poem Keep the songwriter per the above comments. Inkpaduta 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as A1 and A7. The author might be notable, but the poem itself has few to nonexistant sources (even in japanese) and the article asserts no context whatsoever. A translation of the title of a poem does not an article make. Wintermut3 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom - per Dekimasu, if the articles are deleted I believe it should be "without bias against future recreation" unless, of course, it is recreated containing exactly the same (one-sentence) information. Black Falcon 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment to the comment by nominator I agree that this should be held without prejudice, it MIGHT be notable, or expandable should more content arise, I just don't see anything right now that vouches for notability independant of the poem's author's own. Wintermut3 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I agree, my comment was not in response to your post, but was rather directed to the closing admin. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, hardly any context or information at all. Just wanted to note that it's amusing how the discussion here is like a hundred times longer than the article itself. ShadowHalo 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this file, which lists the entire poem, dates it as an innovation of this year, thus it is probably not notable. As an aside, the title is mispelled; it should be Chikyūnoinochi as per Hepburn romanization. --Curtmack of the Asylum 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, but only on WP:RS issues; once there are sources, this should be reconsidered. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:24Z

AMAY Business Center[edit]

I couldn't find any reliable sources asserting the existence or notability of the shopping center; no sources backing up the claims in the article. (I had prodded this article, and another editor had added a prod-2 template. However, the article's creator removed the prod, so here we are.) BuddingJournalist 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for references (thought this might be a fixer upper) and could not find anything. Seems to fail WP:N and WP:V. The article claims the business is still under construction so in the future an article may be in order, but not now. Jeepday 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, looks like it's unsourceable. Hence not notable, formally unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the article, it is just opening, so the article could be recreated in the future if there is adequate independent reliable coverage. It claims to be the largest shopping center in the former Soviet Republics, but the size is not given in square meters. The article sounds almost like a Babelfish machine translation. Maybe a shopping center fan will help out and look up sources and rewrite it. As is, it does not make the standards for notability, verifiablity or reliable sources, or the WP:MALL proposal. Inkpaduta 17:46, 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) 2007-02-13 09:21Z

Jake Felton (author)[edit]

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}}.

Absurd spoof autobiography. Fiction/Fantasy. No notability whatsoever. Non-existent references. Steve.Moulding 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What evidence do you have to back your claims? dool325 03:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - ISBN numbers in "resources" are for other books. Googling for "skibumj12" gets you nothing. I had a speedy delete at the top of this page, but it got removed by User:Dool325. --Bkkbrad 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is not a speedy deletion. We should give the authors a chance to reconfigure their sources, in the meantime leaving the page up with the tags at the top so people know what's going on. Let's give the authors the benefit of the doubt here, it could all be an honest mistake. dool325 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an email based service. Here is an example of one of his releases Press Release

First, concerning the temperatures: The frigid Arctic air that has gripped our region over the past few days is, whether you like it or not, on its way out, and replacing it will be more seasonable temperatures--highs in the mid 30s and lows near the 20-degree mark.

In terms of precipitation--well, there's little reason to celebrate. The jet stream trough remains positioned just a bit too far east to permit any significant winter storms; instead, all we'll get is the occasional Alberta clipper that delivers a dusting of the white stuff.

This weather pattern, however, may change in the not-too-distant future . . .

As of now, we're tracking two potential winter storms, one on the 13th and one on the 16th. Now these systems are still forming over the Pacific ocean, so whether or not they'll even impact our area is exceptionally questionable, thus any attempts to estimate their exact paths or calibers would be hugely inappropriate, to say the least.

Nonetheless, more details will emerge over the remainder of the week. We'll keep you updated . . .

Next press release on Sunday; please stay tuned.

skibumj12 Weather Service

As you can see from the above reference, the Service does indeed exist. Since it is not acclaimed much by those not subscribed to it, one should not expect Google results.

Delete article about this "aspiring writer, pilot, and weatherman" per WP:BIO. We shouldn't get in the way of his aspirations, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gsearch reveals only 159 ghits, of which 76 unique, and which show that the most well known Jake Felton is an american Jockey. No hits on Amazon for Jake Felton, so Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Ohconfucius 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs obvious hoax. Article makes numerous outrageous claims and backs them up with a number of books that do not exist. I wish there was a speedy category for hoaxes but since there is not this will have to do. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ludicrous You have no proof that this is a hoax. Give the authors a chance to provide legitimate sources. If in a few days they do not, then you can go ahead and delete it. Otherwise, you are defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. dool325 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because he and skibumj12 exist and does not mean the whole bio was not something this 23 year old made up in a day. It is neither reliable or notable, and is verging on the patent nonsense and potentially speediable. Leaving this on wikipedia for one day is one day too long, IMHO. Ohconfucius 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For one, the referenced ISBNs are for another author/book-title altogether. I think you could contribute much more effectively in other ways to wikipedia instead of writing this rubbish. -- Regards Steve.Moulding 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the writing style; the author should write for uncyclopedia! --Bkkbrad 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying that it could be a hoax page, but at least give them a chance to back up the sources instead of forcing your fascist agendas down the public's throat! I ask you just to behave responsibly and give them a chance to back up their sources. End of discussion. dool325 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dool325 needs to relax. No one here has a fascist agenda to my knowledge. The creator of this page has shown bad faith by referencing books that do not exist in an obvious attempt to game the system. No real reliable sources will be provided because if they existed they would have been used in the fist place. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the AfD expires, this article that would appear to fail WP:BIO even if the accomplishments listed were referenced. Jeepday 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-check The Bibliography of the article now references an exclusive interview with the author in question, Jake Felton, himself. Since the specific contents of the interview were never released, the argument you all have posed regarding faulty, non-existent sources has no backing seeing as you have absolutely no way to disprove the occurrence of said interview. Find some proof. magicdan25 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not a verifiable source. Also, I noticed that your only edits on this AfD. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Bkkbrad 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V and WP:RS as to why an unpublished personal interview is not a source. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to supply said interview, would you withdraw your complaint?

--— GuidedByPavement (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

If the interview was published in a reliable source that met WP:RS then we would have one source. This would not meet WP:NOTE which requires multiple sources. If multiple reliable source are provided then by all means I would change my vote to a keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, no, but I would love to read it; I'm honest when I say I like your writing style. --Bkkbrad 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains, you have no viable support to disprove Jake Felton and his legacy's existence. Because of this lack of evidence, deleting this article would only result in the deprivation of many Wiki readers to learn about a great, young thinker. It only seems just to allow the article to remain so the knowledge of his excellency can spread, and once such excellency does spread, concrete sources can be provided for you naysayers. magicdan25 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevent. The burden of proof is on the editor, not the reader. Unless you can prove Jake Feldon's legacy, the article fails Wikipedia's polices. Resolute 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Magicdan, this is the wrong way around. Wikipedia does not exist to advance people's careers or bring "dark horses" to the public's attention, but rather to document the already known. We can't have articles created about every up-and-coming young thinker/writer/entrepreneur, for at least a couple of reasons:

For most of them, not enough verifiable information is available, so the article may fall into a state of inaccuracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be allowed to lapse into an inaccurate state.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That is, a person is included, or not, based on what that person has done so far, not on what they are poised to do in the future. For example, I may be planning to swim the English channel in record time, but until I actually get around to making the attempt (and succeeding), I am not eligible for inclusion.

--N Shar 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very least until this dissertation is published. If and when that occurs (which I doubt it will), he might have a claim on notability. Until then, I have no objection to "the deprivation of many Wiki readers" from learning about someone who very possibly doesn't exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable bio. Borderline nonsense Resolute 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, but it's rather difficult when this young man's dissertation is on both "the Study of Female Golf Course Architects in the Latter Portion of the Twentieth Century" (acclaimed for its "astonishing grammar"!) and "geriatric psychoanalysis," when he has contacts with Hildegard von Bingen (who lived in the 11th and 12th centuries), when his weather service has a higher accuracy than NOAA's and is acclaimed not only for its accuracy but its "spelling and grammar," when he is preparing to write a highly classified essay on the Civil War with the apparently non-existent Phillip Grudzina, and when his upcomming book is Jerry Panner and the Chamber of Mysteries. I say this is most likely a hoax. --N Shar 05:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. I deleted everything from the article that was clearly hoax material (e.g. the assertion that Hildegard was his "mentor") as well as the bogus source and irrelevant external link. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How did you determine that the biographical info was not a hoax? If you are going to remove most of the article, during a deletion debate, why not blank all of it? I suggest that it be left as submitted during the deletion debate, as a gesture of good faith. Otherwise it looks like gaming the system by blanking most of it so people see only a fraction of what was created. No reason the article creator could not revert to his version. Inkpaduta 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a judgement call. I deleted stuff that was obviously a hoax. Bare biographical detail is not, and there has already been an assertion that the skibum thing exists. Furthermore, there is plenty of precedent for taking out the egregiously problematic parts of an article during AfDs; in many cases, that is what gets them saved. And if the creator reverts, I will revert back as vandalism.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stupid hoax, delete it now and stop wasting everyone's time with this trash. JuJube 09:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's really nothing more to say. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stupid hoax, delete it now and stop wasting everyone's time with this trash. maybe now wouldn't be a great time to point out that the fact you are wasting your time trolling has nothing to do with my creation of the article.

- It was an impolitic comment by JuJube, but I doubt that accusing anyone of trolling is really valid here. There have been any number of attempts to assume good faith on what is an increasingly obvious hoax, and as a general rule experienced contributors take a very dim view of attempted hoaxes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accusing anyone, you mean, except the article's editors.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's always that, yes. Although I'm never too fond of the term anyway, and vigorous defence of a hoax (after all, creative writing is something people feel defensive about on occasion) may not strictly be trolling. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was impolite, yeah. I'm not apologizing, though, because I have an intense hatred of hoaxes, and reading this discussion page makes it all too obvious that it is one. JuJube 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and anyone who claims they can predict the weather with 99% accuracy has to be lying. --UsaSatsui 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anything lacking sources and references cannot be taken seriously in an encyclopedia Alf photoman 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Everyone DUBJAY04 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Perhaps there is a home for the article and the comments of the person wanting to keep it in WP:BJAODN. Inkpaduta 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I have to say I agree with magicdan. There is no substantial proof that this is a hoax. Maybe its just that he isn't that well known to the international community. IKar00000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.95.131 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 February 2007

(Interestingly, IP Address 69.248.95.131 is located in East Brunswick, NJ) Steve.Moulding 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Then he's not notable. --UsaSatsui 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no substantial proof that this is a hoax? Really? So a 15-year-old founding a weather forecast system with "a near 99% accuracy" (a statistic which would be unlikely even if he were a professional weather forecaster) doesn't seem a little bit odd to you? Not the fact that his mentor is one Hildegard von Bingen, who died in 1179 and very probably never met a golf course architect of either gender in her life? Not the fact that he's editing an essay by an author who (according to another contributor to this discussion) doesn't seem to exist? Not the fact that his novel bears an uncanny similarity in title to a very well-known book which already exists? Not the fact that his forthcoming dissertation is on a topic which comes very close to being nonsensical? Not the fact that his "grammar" is praised to the highest heavens and nothing else? Simply put, there's no substantial (or insubstantial) proof that this is anything but an increasingly obvious and increasingly tiresome hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is apparently a hoax, agreed on that. - Denny 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a hoax. The nominators disagreeing with deletion have also either failed to provide verifiable evidence that it is not, or appear to strongly misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines regarding inclusion and the concept of "burden of proof". --Haemo 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the burden of proof requirement is at WP:V#Burden_of_evidence and says 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 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has no merits. Rkevins 08:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Devil May Cry; can unredirect it once the game is released or when there is at least some reliably-sourced information. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:56Z

Devil May Cry (PlayStation Portable)[edit]

Highly speculative article that provides no reliable source outside of a release schedule that is subject to change at any moment. Jonny2x4 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The simple fact that a DMC is in development for PSP is not enought to warrent an article because that is the only info on it. Article can be re-created when info is known. TJ Spyke 05:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question I'm not a gamer... but how is a "series" a game? Is this some odd use, or is this a planned series of games, or an individual game in a series... as an outsider it doesn't make any sense. SkierRMH 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a game in the Devil May Cry series. I think they entitled it like that so people don't assume it's a port of the first Devil May Cry game. TJ Spyke 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Latest articles about this on either Gamespot or IGN date back to 2005, and I see nothing on Capcom's website about this being in production or coming soon. --lightspeedchick 17:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Hell, in a few months it'll be notable, and I can see the train wreck waiting to happen with "recreation of deleted material". -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be crystalballism. Also I don't see any reason to worry about it being deleted as a reacreation because for that to be the case the new article would have to be substantially identical to this one. By the time of an offical confirmation there would be enough new info for to add so a speedy deletion would not apply. --70.48.173.37 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, recreation deletions don't have to be the same. Change to Weak Delete due to lack of sources. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship COD to GameFAQs Useless fancruft (delete) NetOracle 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an excellent example of crystal-balling. Takes several sentences to say "It's on Capcom's list, we don't know anything else about it". QuagmireDog 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the game isn't officially canceled, this article should be kept. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:50, 10 Feb, 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I'm leaning towards keep as well, as games are considered in development until it is announced that they are cancelled or the company goes under. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 09:20Z

List of porn stars who are lesbians[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesbian porn stars

Basically listcruft that has no encyclopedic merit. This is really a glorified category listing, which nearly mirrors similar categories already established on WP. Thus delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR. JPG-GR 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research... - Denny 04:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced OR. Also violates WP:BLP 23skidoo 05:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a violation of BLP to "accuse" someone of being a lesbian? Isn't that like accusing someone of being tall or Catholic?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not speedy - OR is not a criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD#Non-criteria). I don't think WP:NOR is the best reason for deletion in this particular case as it is a list, with information possibly taken from the individuals' articles. However, I'm generally leaning toward deletion as this subject is better handled by existing categories and the list is quite incomplete. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. List of people in arbitrary profession who have an arbitrary attribute, which cannot be verified from reliable sources because the only sources which cover them are inherently unreliable. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: unverifiable. No need for this sort of article. --Austinsimcox 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The orientation of porn stars is unverifiable on this scale. What is portrayed in content or in biographies often deviates from truth. NetOracle 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletewhat's already been said.--TheAlphaWolf 04:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of music[edit]

POV essay, non encyclopedic Alex Bakharev 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:OR, this article contains zero encyclopedic content. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't conform to WP:NPOV, it nearly complete original research, and it's not written in an encyclopedic manner. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Leebo. How about Wikipedia is not a place to post your term paper? JPG-GR 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The obvious POV is bad enough, not to mention the fact that the article itself reads like a bad high school essay. Only "source" at the end of the page is a login page for an online academic resource repository. TheLetterM 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:OR and/or WP:COPYVIO. Not encyclopedic, content can not be salvaged by editing. Jerry lavoie 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not speedy per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Some of the content is factual, some of it is purely opinion. In any case, it doesn't belong on WP. Any mainspace article whose entire principle is based on the notion that the reader should or should not do something is hopelessly unencyclopedic. Black Falcon 06:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. As above, not a speedy candidate, but still unsalvageable. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just an essay DUBJAY04 17:24, 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) 2007-02-13 09:00Z

Jack Castillo[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC Alex Bakharev 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal, unless sources asserting the notability of the subject are provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:16, 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) 2007-02-13 08:59Z

Bob D. Caterino[edit]

Notability not asserted Alex Bakharev 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, most of the bio is unsourced, whatever links or sources it provides are mostly links to blogs discussing the subject, and his "book" is only sold in electronic form with no indication of sales or reputation; none of these establish sufficient notability thus fails notability requirement of WP:BIO. Roadmr (t|c) 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no references.-MsHyde 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note that my prod and Alex AfD note were removed by creator without comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:29, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW Pea ceNT 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 37[edit]

Non-notable highway in California. A great many state or local roads have dangerous sections; no especial indication of deadliness as compared to others. Edeans 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, well sourced. Easily meets WP:NOTE. It doesn't need to be the deadliest highway in the world to get an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is not only a state-numbered highway but a major one. --NE2 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a GA for crying out loud! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.Passes any notability test, numerous precedents for keeping articles on numbered roads, and those are for articles of much lesser signifcance and citation.--HowardSF-U-T-C- 04:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. WP:POINT violation, bad faith nomination of a WP:GA. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major state highway. Plus well-written article too. --Polaron | Talk 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It's a state highway, that's enough. The fact that it's a particularly famous one and a Good Article is just gravy. I hate invoking WP:SNOW. but can we close this? --UsaSatsui 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Edeans, please work to reach consensus on what roads are notable enough to be kept before nominating clear keepers like this one. To do otherwise is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The US Roads WikiProject is currently discussing possible ways to accompany the less-notable roads, but this one certainly doesn't fall into that category: this is a highly-notable roadway with extensive useful information. To the nominator: please do not disrupt Wikipedia with nominations such as this. --Thisisbossi 05:08, 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) 2007-02-14 02:53Z

Structure of the British Army/Alternative Structure[edit]

Page is a, now out of date, POV fork. Subject is reasonably covered on the Structure of the British Army page which reflects the issue in significantly more depth and is up to date. Use as a draft page now superseded and leaving in place risks nugatory effort to bring it up to scratch in competition with existing article. ALR 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, deletion is simpler all round. --Mlongcake 11:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with previous comments by Dunc Archive to talk:Structure of the British Army/Alternative Structure and note its existence at talk:Structure of the British Army. Keep forks out of the main namespace. Archive DUBJAY04 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note moved from WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete draft. There's no value in keeping things like this around. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 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) 2007-02-13 08:59Z

Iron Chef Natto Battle[edit]

This is apparently the only article for an individual episode of Iron Chef. Since Iron Chef episodes will most likely never be the subject of multiple reliable non-trivial published works, they are unlikely to ever meet the primary notability criterion. No sources, no article. A Train ^{take the} 05:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only episode I can imagine coming even close to qualifying would be the one featuring American chef Ron Siegel, and only because both of his hometown papers sent reporters to Japan to cover it. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish I could say that such things are notable enough to deserve their own article, but I think the Iron Chef article is descriptive enough, covering the Notable Challengers, and in the process naming and briefly describing some significant episodes. LordAmeth 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the episode is the subject of multiple non-trivial references independent of the show, it should not have its own article. -MsHyde 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only thing notable about this is the notariety of natto, but that isn't really enough.MightyAtom 03:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a protest vote. I feel sorry for poor Iron Chef which has more general notability than most anime series. Yet we have droves-upon-droves of such unsourced articles about anime. (i.e. List_of_Naruto_episodes) If one of those is brought up for a deletion vote we'd have fans of the series raise a fuss and the article would invariable be kept. This is a serious flaw of the AFD system. --Kunzite 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian Idol 2004. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:57Z

Courtney Murphy[edit]

Stub article (since Oct 2004) about an unsuccessful candidate in Australian Idol who fails WP:BIO. There have been no noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really should add "Wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow account of "reality" TV shows" to WP:NOT. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy This is really becoming too much DUBJAY04 17:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.-MsHyde 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - Denny 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless TV fancruft. NetOracle 02:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Australian Idol 2004, but don't delete it!! You can see from that page that the other competitors are there. RaNdOm26 04:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reality finalists absolutely meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are so many of them and many of them don't do an awful lot after the show finishes up. If its like Shannon Noll or someone then yeah sure because he developed a following and career after the show and has been written about everywhere. But after looking on Google I really can't find anything that makes this one's post Idol stuff notable at all. Definitely list him on the main page as per Random26 but I don't think half of the stuff on this page belongs there.DanielT5 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Random26, while noting DanielT5's comments about content. Orderinchaos78 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, failed game show contestant, make a mention of him on the game show page if you must. Lankiveil 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Australian Idol 2006. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:56Z

Lisa Mitchell[edit]

article about an unsuccessful candidate in Australian Idol who has chosen to go back to school. At the moment, she fails WP:BIO. There have been no noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. Although there is much promise held out in the article for her future career, it falls within the realm of "crystal-balling" Ohconfucius 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless she can be shown to have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I don't see any evidence of that here. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete... Not notable. - Denny 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless TV fancruft. NetOracle 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't delete, merge and redirect it to Australian Idol 2006. All finalists can be mentioned there. RaNdOm26 04:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not Speedy Keep - the previous AfD asked to hold another one off for 12 months to see what would pan out. That was agreed upon, so it is out of the question to have another debate until that time has elapsed. In any case, this should not be deleted, but should be merged as per RaNd0m26 - as LM is definitely notable as far as Australian Idol goes. JROBBO 12:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reality finalists absolutely meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Random26 - the show is notable, the contestant is not. Orderinchaos78 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect was going to vote delete but this is a better idea DanielT5 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, failed game show contestant, make a mention of her on the game show page if you must. Lankiveil 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Australian Idol.--cj | talk 10:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a finalist in a very popular reality show. --Oakshade 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could have value. Rkevins 08:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Australian Idol 2006. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:56Z

Ricky Muscat[edit]

article about an unsuccessful candidate in Australian Idol who may have found his voice in Urban and House. At the moment, he fails WP:BIO. There have been no noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. The Ghits are inundated with media hype about Idol, blogs and forum chats. Trying to get a feel of what he has done after the show, Gsearch throws up 154 unique Ghits, of which the overwhelming majority hit upon Ricky's love for the House of Big Brother Ohconfucius 05:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. - Denny 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - he is not notable, but merge and redirect it instead to Australian Idol 2006, where all 12 contestants can be mentioned briefly. RaNdOm26 04:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not Speedy Keep - the previous AfD asked to hold another one off for 12 months to see what would pan out. That was agreed upon, so it is out of the question to have another debate until that time has elapsed. In any case, this should not be deleted, but should be merged as per RaNd0m26 - as RM is definitely notable as far as Australian Idol goes. JROBBO 12:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reality contestents absolutely meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, failed game show contestant, make a mention of him on the game show page if you must. Lankiveil 04:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Australian Idol 2006.--cj | talk 10:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Connor[edit]

Unsuccessful contestant on Australian Idol, and now a bit-part actor on Australian soap-opera. his imdb entry credits him with 5 appearances on Neighbours since idol. All in all, he's not even borderline WP:BIO, IMHO. Ohconfucius 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite the opposite actually.... I myself don't watch Neighbours, however, looking at the article, it says he is a regular character in the show since 2005, definitely more than "5 appearances". He also has his own character profile in the website. RaNdOm26 06:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has established notability beyond the game show as one of the actors in one of the top TV shows in Australia. 23skidoo 13:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continued career merits a stub, minor notability. - Denny 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays a major character on Neighbours, and IMDB is an very unreliable source to use as regards how many episodes he has appeared in. There's an article in the Herald-Sun about him today actually. --Canley 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb isnt considered a WP:RS at FA so deleting an article because Imdb doesnt have correct detail is only an indication of how unreliable imdb is Gnan garra 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "notability" established before Neighbours as a reality contestant finalist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable. He is a regular and major character on the show which is shown to millions of people in the UK, so is notable. Also what Gnangarra said. DanielT5 14:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. QazPlm 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe this AfD was even started. Kogsquinge 06:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if you look, one was started on all the unsuccessful contestants most of whom ARE non notable but this one and one or two others are different DanielT5 14:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very well known in Australia - he has featured in almost every Neighbours episode since he started in 2005 - he has appeared on other television shows including 'Thank god you're here', 'Australia's Brainiest' (quiz show), 'Ready Steady Cook' - he was nominated for a Logie for Best New Talent - Male (top television awards show in Australia). He has featured on numerous magazine covers. He is very well-recognised in Australia. (UTC)
Keep, I wish both Idol and Neighbours would go away, but there are a lot of dull people who enjoy Neighbours - enough to make regular actors notable. Lankiveil 04:08, 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) 2007-02-13 08:55Z

Necroism[edit]

Strong Delete Has been deleted before; nominated per prior deletion ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of a couple of shuffled paragraphs, this is identical to a previously deleted article. Nothing has changed since that deletion to indicate that this is anything other than a repost of previously deleted material. And you all know what gets done to that... Grutness...wha? 06:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a level of detail which is vastyl in excess of what is appropriate in a general encyclopaedia, a synthesis of material from original sources, and of little interest to anyone other than dedicated fans (who probably already know it). I did not say fancruft, I only thought it. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 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 Speedy deleted by Mailer diablo, repost. BryanG^(talk) 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Unwin[edit]

Previously deleted. I don't feel he passes WP:BIO; we don't need an article for every minor passing celebrity from a singing show. It's different if they have extreme media coverage, for instance William Hung, but in this person's case, there just isn't all that much.

Delete "inadvertently became a minor celebrity". The article doesn't explain how nor source the comments. or Speedy delete as repost per WP:CSD#G4 Ohconfucius 10:10, 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. --Core desat 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer features in Xbox 360 games[edit]

A good article, but certainly not one suitable for Wikipedia. It's a great example of something better for a video game Wiki and/or fansite. What's next to show up: list of single player features? A merge into Xbox 360 was suggested, but people don't seem to want it. For good reason: it would bloat the Xbox 360 article alot. But this article certainly isn't something that needs to exist here. It's a good resource that should be on a video game wiki. Many systems have multiplayer features and games, it doesn't justify making list pages of all the information here. RobJ1981 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of information is on the individual games pages. If it has to be kept, transwiki it to a gaming Wiki that wants it. TJ Spyke 06:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate amount of data to justify there. Whilding87 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TJ Spyke hit the nail in the head, that's where this info belongs. Roadmr (t|c) 17:08, 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) 2007-02-13 09:49Z

Brief History of Goshen United Methodist Church[edit]

Contested prod. Lacks a main article for the church itself, so a separate history page seems excessive. The church itself may not be notable enough for its own page. It's not apparent what is notable about the church in the page itself, and the references in the given sources may not be non-trivial or independent. Saligron 06:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy for lack of assertion of notability.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)w[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Nick Graves 17:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight modification of vote to: Delete both this article and its twin, Founding of Goshen United Methodist Church, and any other articles about this church that might crop up during this discussion. The editor's contributions also show uploading of a couple of pictures of the church, which ought also to be deleted. I don't know if those can officially be rolled into this discussion or not. Nick Graves 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Why have a seperate history page when there is no main page about the church. --Austinsimcox 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that after this article was put up for deletion, the article's creator made a duplicate article with a slightly different name, Founding of Goshen United Methodist Church. They should either both be deleted, or one should be a redirect to the other, or something similiar. --Xyzzyplugh 03:38, 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, since transwiki isn't an option, per Uncle G. --bainer (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord's Prayer in different auxiliary languages[edit]

Non-encyclopedic, might be a copyright violation Alex Bakharev 06:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Do not include copies of primary sources", I seem to recall... Guy (Help!) 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource if this article is not a copyright violation. --Kyoko 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, checking for (likely nonextant) copyrights on the older ones. The 1951 one might be a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above, but I can't imagine any way the Lord's Prayer could be considered copyrighted. 23skidoo 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any translation can be copyrighted. Better safe than sorry.--Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. FWIW, the Lord's Prayer is a widely used sample text featured in Mithridates style references, and I strongly doubt that the Lord's Prayer translation into Interlingua is copyrighted, especially since Interlingua itself is a revision of earlier conlangs based on Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the family tree of the language have to do with copyright? --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is that Interlingua is a revision of Latino Sine Flexione, from 1903. The translation given seems strongly influenced by the Vulgate's version of the Lord's Prayer. Not sure that there's enough originality here to worry about, even if copyright were claimed in the text. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Old Wikisource (not English Wikisource!) and delete here. —An gr 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Transwiki suggestion removed per Uncle G's comments below —An gr 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As editors could have discovered by following the link in Lord's Prayer, Wikisource already has this prayer in Esperanto and Ido (Patro Nia) and in Interlingua (Nostre Patre). It does not need extra copies. All of the above opinions to transwiki are therefore invalid. The transwikification system is not a means for Wikipedia editors to avoid dealing properly with Wikipedia's own problems. Uncle G 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And before anyone asks "What about Bolak?", I point out that there are (that a few minutes' research turns up) at least three different translations of the Lord's Prayer into Bolak. Apparently, this translation is not the one that can be found in La Langue Bleue Bolak, but is someone else's copyrighted translation. Wikisource won't take copyright violations any more than Wikipedia will.
  And, indeed, what about Bolak?. Uncle G 09:49, 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) 2007-02-13 08:48Z

Munted[edit]

Nonnotable "underground" neologism; see WP:NFT, WP:WINAD, WP:N. Tagged for speedy deletion, but fits no WP:CSD. Sandstein 06:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT covers this. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munt (alternate meaning) covers this, since this is the same definition as was deleted then. We've deleted quite a few neologisms and protologisms at both munted and munt. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munt. Uncle G 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of times this has been posted may be high, but until there are reliable sources that document both the existence and the notability of the subject, it isn't suitable content for Wikipedia. --N Shar 16:36, 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 speedy close. This is an inadvertent content fork that needs merging and then redirecting, not deletion. So tagged. Sandstein 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rutherford[edit]

Author's Name is actually spelt Edward Rutherfurd difference is the "u" in furd, maybe make it a redirect to the Edward Rutherfurd page Salavat 15:55, 8 February 2007

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as clear violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moneysauce[edit]

Neologism, no sources provided for the grandiose claims to notability; see WP:NFT, WP:WINAD, WP:N. Tagged for speedy deletion, but fits no WP:CSD. Sandstein 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up ~~in school~~ on the baseball diamond one day. Not verifiable. --N Shar 06:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or find convincing evidence this is a global phenonmenom. Whilding87 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless sources are provided to prove notability. riana_dzasta 11:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, I stubbed it.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:41, 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 Merge to Mount Berry, Georgia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:46Z

Mount Berry Square[edit]

A shopping mall that does not assert notability per WP:CORP, and none is in evidence. Bumped from speedy as this is a halfway decent article and I hear the notability of malls is a contested issue. Sandstein 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the one who tagged it as speedy. Sandstein raises good points, and it couldn't hurt to give this some exposure before action is taken. There is some information in the article but it is neither sourced nor indicative of notability. I tried to find something noteworthy myself but all Google gave me (before I lost interest) were references to stores that just happened to be there, i.e., trivial, passing references to the subject itself. I believe it is incumbent upon those who would keep this article to show us the multiple non-trivial, reliable published works required by WP:CORP rather than have me up half the night trying to prove the negative. Otherwise, I think we're firmly in WP:NOT#DIR territory. -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:10, 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church of Venice[edit]

Notability has not been established, and I doubt that a church of 300 members counts as notable (even if it is the third largest church in the circuit). Also, the only links are to the church and synod, which aren't verifiable per WP:V. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Адам12901 ^Talk 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to local area article; Fails WP:CHURCH in having its own area. Its size may be large but there are no non-trivial sources documented which explain the significance of its size. JROBBO 11:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - note correction that it's the largest in its circuit, and third largest LCMS church in Los Angeles (out of 27); also, Lutheran churches in the U.S. tend to be under 400 members (this one is larger than average for its LCMS district). In addition, Lutheran churches use congregational governance (each congregation is independent of the synod), which means that synod sources/materials count as an independent source. There are other ways in which the church qualifies as being notable, though they aren't in the article currently; there's a strong music program which has received coverage in local press, and a notable external mural has also been covered locally. (There are also a few notable members who have their own WP articles, some of whom are significantly involved in church programs - though I'm not sure how much external sourcing would be available to mention this.) I've added some other notes in the deletion proposal for another congregation; I don't think it's advisable to delete articles in an area that Wikipedia doesn't yet cover very well, even when they are still stubby. The article for Venice itself is already 31K, so I don't think merging is ideal; adding material to that article regarding every local church and religious group would soon result in moves to split off new articles again. MisfitToys 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add a note (which I've also posted for the other deletion nom) that this nominator has proposed deletion for numerous church articles in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleback Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church for two major examples); maybe it's not a reflex action, but it strikes me as an inclination to regard with caution. (And he's been very quick to use WP:CHURCH as basis for deletion, even when that proposed guideline has been in early draft stages and has not achieved general acceptance.) MisfitToys 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or failing that Merge. The article does nothing to assert notability. Even with 331 members making it the 3rd largest in the LA area, it is simply not notable. Vegaswikian 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've added some material on the church's artistic programs, with references; this should cover #1 and #8 under WP:CHURCH. MisfitToys 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California)[edit]

As far as verifiability goes, the first link is a personal homepage for an ISP. The second is the missouri synod profile for it. Notability has not been established (and I doubt that it could be). Because of those reasons I feel the article should be Deleted. --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value to local area article or something appropriate. Appears to fail WP:CHURCH and notability is not established by any references in the article that would help establish some notability under that guideline. JROBBO 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first link is the official site, so I don't think it matters much whose server supports it. I agree that the article needs better referencing, but I would note that there are less than three dozen articles for Lutheran churches right now (see Category:Lutheran churches) – only 24 in the U.S., and 11 for LCMS congregations (out of 6000 churches); I think some leeway might be allowed before we start deleting articles too quickly. I believe it's inadvisable to delete an article when it's one of the better ones in its subject area; patience is useful. Conceding the need for better referencing (I think it's virtually certain that there's been reasonable coverage of this church in its local press over 50 years), this is clearly one of the most substantial articles for a U.S. Lutheran church, and one of the few with more than one photo. WP:CHURCH is still in the draft stages (and is only a proposed guideline anyway), so I don't think its standards can yet be used as the primary basis for deletion. MisfitToys 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note also that this nominator has proposed deletion for numerous church articles in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleback Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church for two major examples); maybe it's not a reflex action, but it strikes me as an inclination to regard with caution. (And he's been very quick to use WP:CHURCH as basis for deletion, even when that proposed guideline has been in early draft stages and has not achieved general acceptance.) MisfitToys 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as author of the article, I can vouch for there being newspaper articles for the church, about its history, involvement with city programs, and other characteristics. When I return to Atwater where the church is located this summer, I can add the references for much of the information from these newspaper articles. The rest of the information comes from historical records from within the church. --Nehrams2020 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may not realise that WP:CHURCH has changed significantly - the guideline has expanded to include more categories for inclusion. I'm only a very narrow vote for merge at present (basically the lack of references) and I think it would be a waste to delete the article — are you saying the size of the church is significant for the local area or that the church would satisfy one of the WP:CHURCH categories? If it does and references is the only problem, I'll willingly change my vote to keep pending you finding the references. JROBBO 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an ad.--D-Boy 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Vegaswikian 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This church has been used as a polling booth [6], and a recent event at the church was covered by local press [7]. It is not unreasonable to expect that a well referenced article could be written over time, meeting WP:LOCAL. John Vandenberg 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --bainer (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Hill[edit]

Closer's notes
In determining the final consensus, the comments of several very new users were disregarded:

Dmchale (talk · contribs)
Grun4it (talk · contribs)
Lessthankate (talk · contribs)
Runningonsunshine (talk · contribs)
Shivore (talk · contribs)
SS Slacker (talk · contribs)

Furthermore the comments of unregistered users were disregarded.

Even after disregarding these comments, there was a comprehensive consensus in favour of keeping the article, on the basis that the article meets the notability guideline for web-specific content, which was the premise for the original nomination. Indeed, the most persuasive arguments, which were agreed with by a number of editors, argued that the subject meets all three of the criteria listed, having been the subject of independent works, having won an award, and having been distributed through several independent media, including print media.

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}}.

I read and like this webcomic, but it fails WP:WEB: it has a single item of third-party coverage that may or may not be reliable, and that is also not specifically about the subject. Sandstein 07:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It only fails WP:WEB if you think the WCCA is a non-notable award. As a 2006 winner and a 2007 finalist, those two items by themselves establish notability. Add in some third-party coverage (Editor and Publisher may or may not be reliable? That would be news to the entire newspaper industry) and you have an article that should be kept. For reference, the sad AfD debate on the WCCA is here[8] with the result being seven votes to keep, three to delete and the final result being a delete. That's a sad abuse of consensus. Don't let this be another one. TMLutas 19:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is one of the better webcomics that deserves its own article. This isn't some random, poorly rendered Comic Genesis abomination. Mr. Southworth is a well established and accomplished web cartoonist whose influence is significant throughout the webcomics community. Deletion would be a mistake. LCARS 04:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the comic has a significant amount of traffic, the information in the article is fairly basic, and contains little that is not taken from the strip itself, is supported by multiple outside sources, and, most of all, quite clearly exists. Hence it having a site, and such. Traitorfish 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote... Passes guidelines for notability: It is an article about a webcomic that receives a non-trivial amount of traffic. The comic in question is being prepared for syndication and has won a non-trivial award (the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award). In addition, the article is about the subject, according to its introductory paragraph. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this entry in Wikipedia: As a professional designer and novelist I can clearly state that this is one of the better comics on the web. Clean, crisp, professional, with a visual depth and quality beyond most comics. It is unique in its design, humor, theme and array of interesting characters. It is definitely worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Grun4it 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — Grun4it (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this entry in Wikipedia: Paul Southworth has been creating web entertainment for nearly a decade under the previous comic, "Krazy Larry". The comic is not fake, nor is the artist (I have signed artwork and I fed him once). This is art, this is good work and it should have an entry as any major web comic would. There is no formal peer review process here nor is there any special reason why web comics should be purged, so I can't even see the motivation. Save everybody! pseydtonne 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This stinks of personal vendetta. Someone seems to have decided that webcomics are not encyclopedic, period, but I don't see that published in any of the official rules. Can someone point me at the line where it says webcomics aren't allowed? Betsumei 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guidelines referenced above, this content is acceptable via the following passage:

"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]
The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]"

Considering it need only meet one of those, yet meets two, fairly well nullifies the argument against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.35.34 (talk • contribs)

keep I think that considering that Ugly Hill meets the requirements of "notability" (in quotes because those requirements are incredibly open to intepretation and opinion) then the burdeon is on the nominating party to show why the comic was even nominated in the first place. Do they even do research here or just nominate and assume that no one is going to check to see if they actually did a fact check first? Lessthankate — Lessthankate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: If Wiki is what it CLAIMS to be, that is an Encyclopedia - it has no right to judge what is notable or not, since that is only an opinion. Webcomics are a phenomenon of this century and deserve to be noted as such. An editors opinion is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.201.64 (talk • contribs)

Keep Odd that this happens on the heels of Brad Giugar's deletion controversy as well. Mr. Southworth is, in fact, a published author and has been a web cartoonist for quite a while now. Editing an article for accuracy is one thing; deleting it for claims of it not meeting standards is another, especially when said criteria have been met. There's no way to prove a vendetta against Mr. Southworth, but it certainly smells of it. Agentx42 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Just because the comic isn't well-known to all doesn't mean that this entry isn't of significant value. The comic has won a major industry award, has been printed in a book, and is from a long-established artist who is known in the industry. introp 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC) – The preceding comment was added by 207.42.84.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[reply]

Keep - I dont understand any argument for removing the entry for Ugly Hill. People above have already cited WHY. This many "keeps" with only a single request for removal looks to me that it is indeed a personal vendetta against the webcomic or its author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmchale (talk • contribs) — Dmchale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - smells like personal matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.33.100 (talk • contribs)

Delete fails WP:WEB...furthermore the attempted AFD gaming is disruptive and disturbing to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm hearing a lot of talk about how it fails WP:WEB. Ugly Hill is not a website, but rather, a comic featured on a website. The comic can also be found in printed form, in the book "Eyes of Liquid Rage." This is not an article about a website; it's an article about a webcomic. Runningonsunshine 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — Runningonsunshine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Ugly Hill is a notable work. It was recently picked up by a major comics publisher (Viper Comics) and will be distributed in print form internationally to comic book stores and larger book stores via Viper Comics and Diamond Comics Distributors. Official Press Release Toonhound 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I went over this with Evil Inc. Do i have to do it again? If it doesn't have enough sources, put a SOURCE tag on it. If you think it isn't notable enough CHECK! The Shroud 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personnaly I feel this is a mistake on behalf of whoever brought thsi topic up. Ugly Hill is a perfectly legitimate web-comic and has as much right to its own wikipedia entry as any other web-comic. As a fan of said comic I feel that deleteing the entry would be absurd. (Post by a concerned fan.)

This is a summary reply to some of the less ridiculous of the above comments. WP:N requires substantial coverage by multiple reliable independent sources. None such are cited for most of the content, which means that WP:V and WP:NOR mandate deletion as well. It's incumbent on those wanting to keep the article to find sources, not on me, as noted in WP:V. Being published as a book is not sufficient for notability, or else every one of the gazillion books on Amazon.com would be notable as well, but we' re not an index of books. Neither does the "award" confer notability, as indicated by the fact that the article on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards has itself been deleted for nonnotability. Finally, neither does publication by the apparently unremarkable publisher Viper Comics, whose article I will also presently nominate for deletion. Sandstein 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the webcomic's author has posted the following on his website: "ATTENTION: Ugly Hill is about to be deleted from Wikipedia! Click here to add your voice to the protest!". This is disruptive behaviour and an incitement to meatpuppetry; the comments in this discussion not made by currently active Wikipedia editors ought, accordingly, to be disregarded. Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that charges of "meatpuppetry," in a forum that encourages literally ANYONE to edit or comment, are an egregious case of the pot calling not only the kettle but the fine china black.Mzmadmike 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, the smell of deleting stubs in the morning. Joy. Y'know, before the web notability guidelines were turned into subjective mush, this article would have passed with flying colors. The comic is published and syndicated, and it is a siginificant search term on Google with over 81,000 hits. Certainly, you are correct in that if someone decided to make an article about one of the collections that have been published, it might not meet the notability requirements for published literature; however, a webcomic is most certainly a different medium.
- It also is of interest to note the rather interesting bias of the administrator who deleted the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Among other things, he says that the Times is not a notable source?!? Well, now, I would hardly call that particular paper non-notable. Hmm. Of course, I would say that your conduct in this matter has not been perfect. I can excuse abuse of AfD; after all, older accounts than yours have been guilty of much worse. I am more than slightly annoyed that {{Comicscene}} and {{Webcomicepisode}} do not contain a satisfactory fair use for you; they are sufficient for all of the other comics on Wikipedia. (Of course, as it goes, this last point no longer matters; I have obtained a more permissive license for an updated image.)
- Two wordy paragraphs full of ridiculous, half-baked, inscrutable text written by a slightly deranged man with a penchant for strange words should always merit a third such paragraph, which is the idea behind this particularly self-referential topic sentence. At any rate, although it would be my opinion that this article, and many like it, are worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, it obviously falls to the wielders of the almighty mop to make that decision, and my rantings are largely irrelevant because, as I stated before, I post under a declaration of No vote. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics are not special. They are subject to the ordinary notability criteria. Please state more clearly how I have supposedly abused process with this nomination. As regards the image, Image:Uglyhill.jpg, the copyright tag itself states clearly (at the bottom) that it is not a sufficient fair use rationale; see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. Sandstein 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I was beaten to making this reply because I was distracted by shiny objects, but feel that I should still write it. The WCCA deletion is in no way uncontested. It was done on a single admin's not-all-that-convincing opinion after a 7-4 vote for keep, with all delete votes cast before the article was sourced further. I'm taking it to DRV as soon as I can get a full night of rest to ensure that I'm up for the task, and currently intend to do so tomorrow.
  Furthermore, even without an article the WCCA's significance is not null and void. They're still a prominent part of the field - a field that, as has often been noted in AfDs, by its very nature receives press in the older media, the traditional standard of notability. --Kizor 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I appear to have misread the log. I thought I saw your name next to some rather collusive deletions. Since that isn't the case, I will indeed believe that this nomination is good faith, even if I do not agree with the philosophy that spawned it. Also, Image:Uglyhill.jpg is obsolete, although not in a manner that permits me to tag it for speedy deletion, so further discussion on it is superfluous. It has been listed on IfD. Also, notability is inclusive, not exclusive. A webcomic should be held up against (the increasingly useless) WP:WEB, and also against WP:BK if it is in print; however, since the article's subject is the comic itself and not the website on which it is hosted, it logically follows that any comic that is distributed over the web but is notable only because of its appearance in print should still have an article. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails our WP:WEB guideline. The vote canvassing by the subject of the article is deplorable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, AfD was not a ballot box. Pay attention to the words that people type and always assume good faith. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the unfortunately low the signal-to-noise ratio on this page, I'm going to say this loud to draw attention: The presence of meatpuppetry should not influence the decision one way or another. If we delete out of revenge for irritation, we childishly fail the goals of AfD and of the encyclopedia. That was rather strong, but I feel that this is a vital issue. --Kizor 02:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to our Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Meatpuppets policy, It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.... The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. What policy tolerating meatpuppetry are you referring to, Kizor and MostAwesomeDude? --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where's my Yoda voice...ah! There. *ahem* Strong in the ways of the rhetoric, this one is. Careful we must be, mm, yes. Seriously, you can put away the flawed conclusions. It's better to be civil than to be accusatory.
  - The purpose of AfD is to reach a synthesis on the best course of action to take on an article which one person in the community thinks does not belong here. It is not a ballot box, and we are not voting, hence the name of this project (y'know, formerly "Votes for Deletion?") Do as you want with the meatpuppets and sockpuppets. I couldn't care less, either way, whether or not you block or ban them. But, do not simply discount someone's words, especially when they are acting in good faith. While it may indeed be inappropriate to endorse "stuffing the ballot box," as it were, it is even worse, especially for an established, seasoned editor, to forget to assume good faith on the part of newcomers. There's a reason we do not bite new editors, and that reason is that we must assume that they are here to help. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forgive me for being irritated, but I said none of those things. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not state, imply, joke etc. etc. that I tolerated meatpuppetry beyond having a weaker negative reaction to it than you. Sure it sucks, but it's not relevant to the article and it should not be relevant to our decision. --Kizor 09:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep per Webcomic notability guidelines for Awarded or featured webcomics for the The 2007 Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Let's wait untill 19 February for that. Otherwise, merge with Viper Comics. JackSparrow Ninja 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted elsewhere, these are not Wikipedia guidelines, but an essay written by you some days ago. Sandstein 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted elsewhere, that's my reasoning. ;-) JackSparrow Ninja 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JackSparrow Ninja doesn't seem to be trying to pass his essay off as policy, but simply linking to his detailed reasoning. With that said, the link should be less ambiguous. --Kizor 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Kizor, JackSparrow repeatedly refers to his essay as if it were a guideline. It is not -- and should not use the word guidelines, to be perfectly clear. At the most generous, one may say that he is being disingenuous, but if he were to start calling it his own essay or including his username in the link [[User:JackSparrow Ninja/Webcomic notability guidelines]] (thus) then at least we could rule out being deliberately misleading. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - though it's not like anyone would fall for it. He has to say it unambiguously. --Kizor

Keep -- I don't have time to write a long paragraph justifying my vote, but this is my vote, and I insist you count it. That should be good enough. -- Ravenswood 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AfD is a debate, not a vote; so no, that's not good enough. —Dgies^t c 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ohhhh boy I like (read: hate) that any and all proof that Ugly Hill does meet notability requirements is then put up for deletion or just ignored. Hey Sandstein, if you have such a strong case then why not present it? Show us some non-subjective proof that Ugly Hill deserves to be deleted. As for the "meatpuppet" crap, how else would we know that the page is in trouble? Believe it or not not everyone feels the need to keep tabs on Wikipedia 24/7. Of course most of us got here from Ugly Hill's website. We read the COMIC for UH news, not it's wiki page. Lessthankate

Keep -- Why should it be deleted? I thought the idea of an encyclopedia was to contain MORE knowledge, not to censor it based on the odd opinions of a few people with nothing more constructive to do with their time than quibble over the internet. I could point you to several articles about insignificant little towns with no information which is not available from the 2000 census-- a mere demographic sketch of a few score people, with no mention of any history, not local traditions, nor attractions, nor any other colorful information. So I must ask, why is something like that more notable than a comic read by thousands of people every day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.194.74.227 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Although it may have a fan base, it really isn't notable. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory of web media which the author thinks of as "cool" or "entertaining". Every webcomic can be spun to notability, but only very few have an influence on culture as a whole. The amount of pro-keep puppetry here needs to be looked at. NetOracle 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: You've provided zero evidence to support your view. Why is Editor and Publisher, the bible of newspaper industry insiders talking about non-notable webcomics in your opinion? If you look for a few minutes through the 80k+ list of google hits, you'll find other 3rd party mentions like this Game Invasion News. Why does your comment rise above the quality of the pro-keep fanboys? Having an influence on the culture as a whole isn't part of WP:WEB and would eviscerate Wikipedia in general. Can we *not* move the goalposts for webcomics? All this double standards is making me feel dizzy. TMLutas 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to meet all the needed requirements of notability so it's a bit confusing to even see the article noted for deletion. Swizec 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as others have noted, Ugly Hill has been nominated for the Webcartoonists Choice Award twice, and has a book published by Lulu (a self-publishing company). [9] This (and many other webcomics) is no less notable than the many indie rock musicians listed on Wikipedia. To be consistent, if we're to scour Wikipedia of webcomics, we should also remove the indie bands that self-produce CDs. --zandperl 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being published by a self-publishing company is not exactly impressive. I have had my master's thesis published by a bona fide scientific publisher, and I am still not notable for it. Yes, of course, we should get rid of no-name band articles, per WP:BAND. That we have other articles on nonnotable subjects is not a reason to keep this one. Sandstein 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should probably nominate yourself for deletion. Though I assume you'll turn around and nominate the articles about myself, my characters and the universe created for them instead, based on your earlier comments. Very few artists in any medium are "notable" by your criteria.Mzmadmike 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Being mentioned in Editor and Publisher is impressive. Being invited into the creation of Blank Label Comics as a flagship strip is impressive. Being a WCCA winner (2006) and finalist (2007) is impressive. More importantly, these are notable accomplishments and justify the article. TMLutas 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominations and references above are sufficient notability, and even though I don't read the comic, nor most webcomics in general, I'm familiar with the name and artist (Yes, OR, I know). His presence and notability is obvious from a quick google.Mzmadmike 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Restating the reasons for this keep is pointless. There have been many reasons given in this article by both WP users and first-timers who still make valid points. All of these are ignored, and most likely will be ignored, by those who VfD. This is clearly starting to take the form of a vendetta of some sort. Dynamic1 03:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query Was the Ugly Hill Wikientry first given an opportunity to verify itself by placing the appropriate tags in the article itself? By this I mean, were the less drastic options of first demanding sourcing for the article, which by reference would then help prove if the comic constitutes Wikipedia's requirements for notability? I am not an established Wikieditor, and so am only posting this as an anonymous query out of curiosity. It seems to me that if there is this much backlash over webcomics, as has been the case for both Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill, then a more appropriate course of action would be to first allow editors an opportunity to prove notability by requesting additional verification for sources of the article. 72.178.166.5 Anonymous Me

Well, the editors are aware of the sourcing problem now for sure, and they have the 5 days that this AfD will run to provide sources. Ample time. Sandstein 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Actually, some of us are aware of the problems on the page due to the note on Ugly Hill and the other rapidly gaining protest pages as webcomics get pushed out more and more from Wikipedia. What was supposed to be a two-stage process has been compressed down to one stage and that is marred with ugly accusations. Wikipedia should be able to do better. TMLutas 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. I have yet to see any convincing argument for why notable online phenomena like webcomics should not be included, and this is no exception. Skybright Daye 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the grounds of its publications, nominations, and as a primary member of one of the most notable web comic collectives. I also agree that accusations (and even potential realities) of meat-puppetry should not be enough to automatically sway anyone to a "delete" vote. The members of this particular web comic community have had some justification in being slightly incensed, and while they might be emotional over the subject, that isn't a reason to condemn their cause. Icelight 05:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just semi-protected this afd until closing as this is becoming disruption from new users and IPs, also most of the keep votes above will likely be discounted by the closing as almost all of them doesn't have valid reasons of keeping, as for me No Vote Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we've given reason plenty. It's the "editors" who continue to spin and talk of non-notability without ever giving a reason why UH is non-notable or without anything to back their claims up now that it has been nominated. We're passionate, not disruptive. And this isn't a vote, it says so at the top of the page. Lessthankate
  - Notability is something that must be proven, not disproven because you cannot disprove a negative. See also WP:NOTE. —Dgies^t c 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The more often these so-called "notability" guidelines are abused and shown for what they are, the sooner they will be rescinded. I the meantime, no permanent damage will be done by deleting this excellent article on a popular and well-known webcomic. --Turbothy 07:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No permanent damage except to Wikipedia's credibility. -- Jay Maynard 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What credibility? --Turbothy 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete self-publication is not a criterion of notability, anyone can pay their 500 bucks and get published via self-publishing, if I had the money I could publish 10 volumes consisting of nothing but the letter 'a', that doesn't make me a notable author. Nomination for awards is something, but if they didn't WIN any then that's not much to go on. I would also like to register a strong complaint against massive meatpuppetry here. In addition 90% of the 'keep' votes (yes, they're votes, they don't argue from Wiki policy for most of them) are along the lines of either "what harm does it do" (see WP:ILIKEIT) or "Wikipedia should have ALL human knowledge! All of it!" which blatently ignores the fact that WP:V WP:N and WP:NOT exist for very good reasons, to keep us from becoming innundated with the unsourced, unverifiable and non-notable. I'm not sure about this comic, it seems to be just shy of notability, but the arguments for 'keep' just aren't convincing me Wintermut3 08:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legitimate webcomic - Skysmith 10:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Apart from the fact that the comic did indeed win an independent award of notice, it is definitely not a random, short-lived project. So on top of fulfilling at least one criteria for notability, there is also a strong interest in the user base. While I agree that sending hordes of people to mindlessly vote and create SPAs for it on top would not be acceptable, I can not see an interested party informing others about the AfD to be bad in any way. As Shuttleworth is pointing out, people do not check the Wikipedia article every day so how else should they know about the AfD in the first place? -- RichiH 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep I am insulted on some of the comments about meatpuppetry - if you need to inform people about impending deletions - it is a valid to put the word out. I have been an wikipedia editor for quite a while, and were it not for the notice on the comic's home page I would have missed this discussion. Ugly hill is notable for a) longevity, b) publication by a serious label, c) nomination for awards. What is this pogrom that some wikipedia editors have against webcomics? This is a legitimate, notable, webcomic. Timmccloud 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ugly Hill isn't my favorite, but I nonetheless must concede that it meets the notability standards. DS 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No "here" here, just character descriptions/plot summary without critical commentary, which is the sort of thing that Wikipedia is not for. The reason for WP:N's requirement for non-trivial third-party sources is that those are a necessary precondition to writing an encyclopedic article (see WP:FORGET). This one doesn't have those sources, and sure enough, the result is non-encyclopedic. Entirely fails to meet the basic requirement for inclusion: verifiability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT an internet guide. No sign of impact or historical significance, or Wikipedia:Notability's "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." -- Dragonfiend 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had three things to contribute to the discussion on why this article should be kept, all under notability. First has to do with two guest apperances. Paul Southworth has been a speaker at two conventions. One this year at Vericon http://www.vericon.org/speakers.html and last year at the New York Comic Con. The 2006 information for New York has been taken down, though if you search google new york comic con paul southworth, the result will come back, but the page is empty. The reason that Paul Southworth was asked to be on a panel at NY and at Vericon is his webcomic work, which includes Ugly Hill. To me, that argues that both con organizations thought the work Paul Southworth was doing is notable. To me that means Ugly Hill is notable. The third piece of information is from a press release from Keenspot, the former web publisher of Ugly Hill. Keenspot had it's comics, including Ugly Hill, published in newspapers. Here is the press release http://www.keenspot.com/comicspage/. This was considered of significant note that newsarama, a well know comic site, did note this press release as well. JediAutobot 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome! I've integrated this information into the article since it reflects DIRECTLY on the notablity of the comic. Thanks for the info! Timmccloud 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won the WCCA in 2006, was nominated again in 2007. WCCA in turn was featured in print, on TV and apparently on the radio (...even though I doubt that I can find an official link for a show that aired in 2005. But I assume that the post is true, and nobody seemed to argue against it). Additionally, this year's ceremony may very well receive some media attention since it will be held at Megacon. As such, the award is quite notable in my eyes. Thus: Web Notability rule is fulfilled. --Sid 3050 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't ever read the comic, but winning a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award makes it clearly notable. Some seem to think the problem with the article is a lack of critical commentary in the article; this seems to be a reason to improve the article, not delete it. DanteComedy 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would suggest losing the lengthy character discriptions, thus leaving a smaller more concise entry, but this is notable enough to keep -- and on a personal note, I think WP:N is a little more anal retentive than it needs to be ;) Bob the Hamster 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No surprise for those who read my comments in this discussion that I think this page should be kept. It has been railroaded by going straight to deletion instead of asking for verifiability and notability nicely (why are those tags there if they're not to be used?) and the page is a headline entry in Blank Label Comics a well known syndicate (or is their page going to be next?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this webcomic deletion thing is getting ridiculous. This is a popular, long-running, award-winning web comic. Yes, there are fly-by-night webcomics whose authors write articles about them after the third posting. This is not one of them. If it fails "notability" guidelines (since when is non-notable a valid reason for deletion?), then the guidelines are wrong and need to be corrected. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should never have been listed for deletion. It's about a notable Web comic, in the usual sense of the word here.--AlainV 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I don't understand the animus against webcomics anyway, and Ugly Hill appears to meet the criteria for notability.--Dakiwiboid

Keep- I'm not a huge fan of this webcomic, but as per the argument of the author being invited by major comic conventions to discuss webcomics, plus the WCCA award, plus the length of time that this comic has been around and PLUS the vast support from the webcomic community, I think this article should be kept. There is an obvious animosity and bias with some of the Wikipedia editors against webcomics. This concerns me. And as I read through the deletion article discussions, I find that it's the almost exact same few people vouching for these deletions. I won't name any names, but I feel that this wave of new deletions is the result of a small group of people with strong-headed views to a subjective guideline. There needs to be more serious discussion regarding the inclusion of webcomics into Wikipedia. Something has to change, I think. Having this bias toward webcomics isn't going to make Wikipedia more legitimate and it's only going to make people angrier. SS Slacker 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Note: This comment is the user's first edit. —Dgies^t c 07:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) - This is my first edit, but I've been registered for a while, so this is not a single purpose account. I just didn't have much to say/edit. SS Slacker 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Very clearly meets the standards for notability on account of publications, awards, and third party recognition. I will also second the above "SS Slacker"'s concern that there appear to be a small number of editors engaged in a personal vendetta against webcomics, e.g., NetOracle. In accordance with NetOracle's arguments for the deletion of various smaller webcomics, I will also point out that UglyHill's Alexa rank indicates a reasonable amount of traffic. I am particularly concerned in seeing that NetOracle has been invoking argument by Alexa only in such cases as it would seem to aid the cause of deleting webcomic articles, as this is one of several indications that leave me unable to credibly assume that NetOracle is acting in good faith. This is far from my first edit, and my contributions to Wikipedia have not included anything related to webcomics before this week. Balancer 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Easily meets notability standards. If anyone doubted the notability of this article, they should have checked before putting it on AfD. Putting an article up for AfD is no replacement for a source tag, especially with a subject that meets notability standards as easily as this one. Zaron 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exceeds notability standards. I also think this debate should probably be closed. The evidence presented for notability is overwhelming. Holding this debate open seems to serve no purpose. --Steven Fisher 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:WEB and is printed. —xyzzy_n 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent literature, from the blog interview to the award recognition, which is well-cited throughout the article. I don't see how this could fail WP:WEB. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. End the vendetta against webcomics before it permanently damages Wikipedia's perception and credibility in the community. -- Jay Maynard 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes and yes! I see too much of this outlash against what some people see as "cruftness" or whatever it is they wish to accuse the article of. In the end I can only see bad things coming from this line of thinking, and very little potential for good. I'm sure the drive against "funcruft" started with good intentions. But it is spinning out of control now. Mathmo ^Talk 10:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create Paul Southworth and merge there, because I would rather focus on the man rather than merely his work. Nifboy 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Observation This AFD is getting a lot of attention. Any webcomic news site worth its salt is reporting this. Of course, that doesn't give much argument against the whole "meat-puppetry" chants, but it's not like they're saying "cast your vote!" because everybody knows it's not a democracy. At least it's not a democracy when there are more keep votes than delete votes. When there ARE more delete votes, it seems to be totally super democratic. The delete-prone editors need to be at least consistent with their arguments because the general outside observation is that those who have this vendetta against webcomics flip-flop their methods of determination.

This debate is such a big deal and this comic is so freaking notable that I think anybody notable in webcomics is watching this. This is not "fancruft", another term I see thrown around. I don't think even half the people here are real "fans". I mean, I like this comic, as probably a lot of people here do. But I think this AFD debate represents the last chance Wikipedia has for good faith regarding Webcomics, not just to save this article.

There are sources, editors. They're there. And they're reliable. It's all a matter of subjectivity at this point. Please don't be jerks about this. SS Slacker 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, based on awards, IGN article, and everything else mentioned here etc... Mathmo ^Talk 10:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and nominate Wikipedia's FUBARed definition of "notability" for deletion. It's textbook non-notable! It's not verifiable, nobody's heard of it outside the small community of diehard Wiki-editors who invoke it at every opportunity to the consternation and mystification of everybody else. It's like jargon had sex with fancruft, and this is their baby: wikipedia "notability."

This sick, sad cycle of things being nominated for deletion based on lack of notability... and somebody sees it and then attempts to establish notability (which, in the real world, "having been noted by a large number of people" does establish), and then the mere fact that the rest of the world has a different (and more relevant) definition of notability than etymological abortion that wikipedia has adopted is used as an excuse to ignore actual attempts to provide verifiable "notability." The sickest part is, in the above debate, it looks (at a glance, anyway), as if the passage which mentions that "meatpuppetry" can't help but negate neutrality is being cited to excuse the fact that people are reacting vindictively to the "meatpuppetry". For the record: "meatpuppetry" is also mystifying jargon to people who aren't part of the die-hard wiki community, and it only makes the cycle worse when people who attempt to establish ACTUAL notability (not wikipedia's non-notable definition of notability), they're greeted with a word that can really only be taken as some sort of vague insult and words to the effect that their opinions don't matter.

What PURPOSE does it serve to say, about any topic, that "This doesn't look notable. Please show us that it is, or it'll be deleted."... and then acting surprised when you get flooded by people saying, "Uh, this is notable. I and many other people have noted it."... and then saying in response, "Sorry, you're just a meatpuppet. Doesn't count."? It's like this process is DESIGNED to create this kind of situation in order to create endorphins in the brains of the elitists who get off on the fact that they've spent so much time learning the jargon and policies and procedures of Wikipedia while the crude unwashed masses of "meatpuppets" haven't.

Jesus Dead Jew on a Stick Christ... Wikipedia at large should either come up with a word besides "notable" that means what is actually being asked for (or just drop the "notability" requirement and focus on verifiability, as after all, the requirement that things be "notable" just leads into the fact that such "notability" results in verifiable sources), or stop acting surprised when the public replies to questions of notability by showing that the subject actually is notable.

Wikipedia's quickly turning into every hilariously bad satire of an impenetrible bureaucracy whose rules have evolved completely out of touch with the public interest they're supposed to serve... Alexandra Erin 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Alexandria, thank you for being eloquent and on the point. Timmccloud 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alexandria, for saying what most of us are thinking. Dynamic1 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the E+P link is enough to establish notability, and as I've said on other occasions, I think the WCCAs qualify as a major award. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to say that the external people who are coming here with little polemics about the nature of the deletion process are out of line. If you don't like the way things are here, well, there was nothing stopping you from taking an interest in the relevant policies and procedures months (or even years) ago. Hell, there's nothing stopping you now, if you're able to muster sufficient consensus in favor of your views. But to come here and act like you're Moses returned from the mountaintop, and we should just turn the entire project on a dime because you're personally displeased by the idea of your particular ox being gored... it's a non-starter. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for illustrating my point, Hbws. Neither Ugly Hill nor webcomics are my particular ax to grind... not even that familiar with Ugly Hill (but then, anecdotal evidence about popularity's got nothing to do with notability, right?)... it's just an illustrative example of something I find to be badly wrong. I'm assuming I'm one of the "external people" you're referring to. Hey, you disagree with any one thing I said, feel free to speak up and dispute it... the rumor is, this is a place for discussion. :P I've read Wikipedia's policies. I've followed numerous AfD's. The problems I see aren't the procedures so much as how they are carried out, and how the use of jargon (or non-standard definitions of non-jargo words) by wikipedia at large guarantees the creation of situations like this. There's a school of thought which says the working definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The more "notability" wikipedia achieves in and of itself, the more often its peculiar jargon is going to create conflicts with "external people" (though the very idea that somebody can be "external" to public discourse on a resource that anybody can edit is strange to me.) Is it sensible to expect the entire world to bend to Wikipedia's linguistic quirks? Maybe this isn't the best ground on which to raise this particular issue, in your mind, but I find the deeper one gets into the policy discussion pages, the more one runs into the impenetrible bureaucratic entrenchment of "This is the way things are done, so this is the way things are done." and the "what Wikipedia is/is not" listings being invoked to shut down or shoot down any new ideas on handling these things regardless of their actual merit. Alexandra Erin 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As repeatedly stated, this article meets WP:N. In addition I believe this AfD should be rescinded as Wikipedia is not a place to run a personal vendetta against webcomics, which appears to be the case. --Volkai 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add wild accusations about some kind of a "conspiracy against webcomics" to the pile of things that aren't really helpful here. Articles get deleted from Wikipedia for not meeting policies/guidelines on notability/verifiability every day. Today, one guy decided to go through the category for webcomics, and tag the stuff that stuck out. Tomorrow, it'll be the category on egyptologists, or voice regognition software, or cross-bred dogs. You just don't know that because a) you aren't interested in egyptologists/voice recognition programs/dog breeding, and thus won't notice when someone decides to take a look at that category and b) you haven't done much of anything on the site before, and thus don't have enough experience with the deletion process as a whole to recognize the difference between the usual order of business and an honest-to-God conspiracy. This is one of the reasons why !votes from anonymous users and single-purpose accounts aren't usually given much weight in deletion debates: You aren't an impartial participant, and you don't understand the rules of the game. If you want to have the article kept, the best thing you can do is improve it. Are the sources good? Great. Make them EVEN BETTER. Make it so good that the mere suggestion that it should be deleted will produce gales of laughter from here to Timbuktu, and that Pete Abrams cries himself to sleep at night because Sluggy's page can't hold a candle to this one. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes the duck test for a conspiracy. (Oops. Guess that means Sheldon (comic) will be next.) The problem is that, by the time people come to Wikipedia, discover just what the notability test means in reality, dig up reliable sources that aren't then immediately attacked as non-notable (the WCCA, anyone?), and then improve the article, it's too late: the AfD has un and the article's gone, gone, gone, and any attempt to recreate it with bettter sources is speedily deleted. There are too many folks around here too quick to say "I've never heard of it, therefore it must not be notable! Off with its head!" -- Jay Maynard 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Nifboy 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the most structured bureaucracy will give rise to narrow-mindedness and slant as long as there is a strict division in power which is insurmountable. On Wikipedia, the cabal is a group of administrators who share a set of traits: Failure to assume good faith, emphasis on power, belief in irredeemable vandals, overly broad categorization of non-vandal edits into the umbrella of vandalism, overwhelmingly deletionist feelings, and failure to recognize bad faith in other administrators. These administrators, although they do not always act in concert, compose the cabal. Denial of this cabal does not negate its existence. MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 06:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been noticing and been hearing of various webcomic's entries in Wikipedia being deleted over the past several weeks, not simply on one day. In addition, believe it or not but this is NOT the only wiki website with a deletion process. I may not have contributed much on Wikipedia but that is because my primary focus concerning the internet is the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI, and there is a separate wiki (FFXIclopedia) created explicitly for it. Thus I do not generally have anything of worthy input to contribute to Wikipedia, unless for some reason Wikipedia feels a need to request the level of detail and thoroughness concerning Final Fantasy XI as is provided by FFXIclopedia. In addition I am not adding to the page because I do not read the webomic in question, nor do I have any meaningful input on the article itself. As I have stated I DO belive that it meets criterion for notability, as has been stated by others on this AfD page. Finally, I have made no claims or accusations -or wild accusations for that matter- about conspiracy. There does seem to be something of a vendetta, though. And as a personal note, this is not a single-purpose account and I feel a bit put off by insinuations that it is. They seem rather like active editors saying to occaisional editors "go away, this is our club." I make no claim of knowing your mind, Hit bull, but that is how it comes across. --Volkai 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't believe this is even an issue. - QuestionMark 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a relative newcomer to editing WP but have been using it as a source for a couple of years. This is the first place I look for information about any subject. As a user, I expect to be able to find information about the things that interest me as well as a wonderful springboard for discovering things I didn't realise would interest me (the front page article on a professional wrestler last week introduced me to a whole world I knew nothing about). Web comics are a remarkable "new" (say, 10 years old or so) cultural phenomenon and it seems from the discussion above that the definition of Notability needs to be reviewed as regards online phenomena. I understand the comic has many thousands of readers and a quick Google search shows tens of thousands of references to Ugly Hill. Many of these are obviously incidental but there are numerous reviews by people who are part of the webcomics community and the comic received an award from that community (and has been nominated again). I think there needs to be some serious re-thinking of the notability criteria if Ugly Hill does not fit. From a user's point of view, I want the encyclopedia to help me explore this emerging cultural phenomenon in the same way that it helps me discover information about other things I know nothing about. Fergusmaximus 07:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the main reasons I've seen mentioned not to keep the article is because it lacks "notability." Notability can be roughly defined as significant. So, a quality production with thousands of fans of devoted fans is insignificant? That assertion is laughable at best, and libelous at worst. Shivore 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, E&P doesn't seem to say much about the comic itself and none of the other sources are independent. WP:N requires reliable independent sources, and this just doesn't have it. If the creator had told his readers "go out and find sources!" I'd welcome that, but piling on keep votes that show a gross misunderstanding of how wikipedia decides what to include is not helpful. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the ongoing vendetta against webcomics. -- Jay Maynard 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no vendetta about it; most webcomics are just self-published operations that don't meet our basic standards but have had lax rules in the past. It's the same thing that would happen if we finally got around to deleting local garage bands after letting them make articles for a while. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with this explanation is that the vendetta is sweeping up major webcomics with huge followings. Those here should not be surprised at all there's a revolt brewing. -- Jay Maynard 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The internet tends to amplify and distort things, since all the regular readers can be sent here with a click, but they lose sight of the fact that we simply need sources, and as much as they like the comic, that's not enough for an article. Yielding to this kind of revolt would just set a bad precendent that wikipedia's for what's popular, not what's sourceable.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The comic has been picked up by a publisher. I don't see what the problem is. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I really don't know what's is going on on Wikipedia, but when 75% of articles I like to keep up with get deleted because is "not up our standards," calling it the "Free" encyclopedia is now a bad misnomer and a untruthful statement Xp Spirou 12:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the reasons repeatedly stated above. Note that this is not a comic that I read or am a fan of. Also note that the reason for the concern in the Webcomics community is not that Webcomic entries are being deleted. It is that entries for comics that are relitively well respected, well established and/or influential are being deleted, often in circumstabces where other articles would get tagged as lacking sources instead.--BoatThing 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read this and know itSlideAndSlip 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. IronGargoyle 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Wimberly[edit]

POW. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, so the discussion now moves here. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a local celebrity who has achieved nothign more than local notability. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has local notability. Isn't that what is required to establish notability? He is listed as "notable" in his city's website. He has a POW story PLUS he was president of a POW organization as well as a veteran educator. Billy Hathorn 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the notability guideline. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable here means "worthy of being noted"; therefore Mr. Wimberly is notable.

Billy Hathorn 17:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Here (Wikipedia), notable is defined as follows : "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." (WP:N). See my recommendation below for further discussion on how WP:BIO defines notability for people. Roadmr (t|c) 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy - Out of the four references listed in the article, two are links to obituaries (with the same text, as that), and the other two don't even mention the subject in the referenced pages. Doesn't make it through WP:BIO criteria as he wasn't the "primary subject of multiple published works" and seems unnotable otherwise as being a WWII veteran and former POW is not a unique condition. Roadmr (t|c) 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He was the past president of a national organization of former POWs, whose members include John McCain. That makes him notable IMHO. There may be a little too much detail, but that's a content decision rather than a "keep or delete" decision. This man is far more notable than some hip-hop performer who plays in bars and has self-published his first CD, or an obscure cartoon character, or any one of a series of Walled Garden video game articles, but somehow we find space for all of those. Dino 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCain's article has almost 100 references; Mr. Wimberly has four, two of which don't even mention him. It might be that the other two mentioned him at some point but the content was updated or replaced; that he didn't merit keeping an archived copy of that material is further evidence of his non-notability for wikipedia purposes. As for the biographical detail, most of that content is anecdotal, unsourced and unverifiable, save for what's taken from the obituary; it could be argued that given enough familiarity with any subject, you could produce a biography as detailed as this one, or even more so. Roadmr (t|c) 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I don't think you are correct. This website http://www.springhillla.com/ links directly to Mr. Wimberly. He is not mentioned in the website American Ex-Prisoners of War, but he was president of the group in 1974 and held other offices for the organization. Did you check other POWs to see if there is consistency in your decision? I did not realize that I had used obits from two sources. One can be struck.

Billy Hathorn 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm also trying to verify those sources and I promise you I can't find any mention of Mr. Wimberly whatsoever on that website; not even a Google search turns anything up. Maybe I have the wrong site? could you help me find the information you're referring to? thanks! Roadmr (t|c) 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who has achieved nothign more than local notability

The above quotation should not be used in reference to any POW.

Billy Hathorn 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep president of a major pow organization is inherantly notable ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems sufficiently notable per SWAT. Cleanup of obituary trivia (e.g. pastor at service, surviving sister-in-law) helped. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, go to this website. then to community and then to hometown celebrities.

http://www.springhillla.com/

Billy Hathorn 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE:Rowan Tink From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Rowan Tink is a former Australian Special Air Service officer whose identity was widely publicised after he was awarded the United States Bronze Star Medal for his role commanding 150 SAS troopers in Afghanistan, notably during Operation Anaconda. The medal was presented to Lieutenant-Colonel Tink by Major General Frank Hagenbeck at a farewell ceremony at Bagram on 24 July 2002.

According to the above article on Mr. Tink, having a Bronze Star is sufficient to qualify for Wikipedia.org. Therefore, Mr. Wimberly more than qualifies, right?

Billy Hathorn 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Billy as I said in my tag; "Mr. Wimberly" sounds like a very nice man. However, I know several individuals who were POW's. Some in WWII and a few in 'Nam. A few have the same creditanls, some even better, as Mr. Wimberly. Praise worthy a big YES Encylopedia note worthy sorry to say no. Good Luck either way. Shoessss 15:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, what about the Bronze Star? Look over the Bronze Star lists on Wikipedia, such as that of Rowan Tink. See if Mr. Wimberly is not in the same category. Most of these war heroes are unknown to the general public outside their hometowns. If you have other POWs who should be written up, then write them up. Don't go after a WWII POW because he lacks "notability."

Also, consider some of the "popular culture" people on Wikipedia. If there is room for some of those, there is room for Mr. Wimberly.

Billy Hathorn 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a prisoner of war does not instantly make a person notable, but being a past national commander of American Ex-Prisoners of War is definitely enough to make this person fit our guidelines. Cheers, Yuser31415 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten Natividad[edit]

If there's a cliam to notabiliy in ere I can't see it. WP:BIGTITS does not look like an inclusion guideline, and no non-trivial reliable secondary sources are quoted. Oh, plus it reads like a press release. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - notable for partnership with Russ MeyerSfacets 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
keep - Appeared in quite a few films, apparently... Sfacets 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, you obviously grew up in the wrong era, grasshopper. Arguably the first soft-core porn "starlet". [10][11][12] (latter two Meyer is the primary topic fyi). --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well quite. Russ Meyer is notable. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Kitten Natividad worked (and played) with Russ Meyer, appearing in several of his films. Meyer is a major cult filmmaker, so starring in his (bigger) films, like Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens, gives notability. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Famous actress. 69.181.181.156 09:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable beyond the pon arena. 23skidoo 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable cult film figure. -- Infrogmation 13:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appeared in two films by a major independent director. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be rewritten though, it's highly POV. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a bit of a re-write, but clearly a notable film figure. SkierRMH 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definetly notable with numerous accomplishments --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:57, 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 Speedy delete. Utcursch (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary "content was: '#REDIRECT User:Pabloreyes' (and the only contributor was 'Utcursch')". Presumably G7. James086 ^Talk 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo reyes[edit]

Non Noteable OverlordQ 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, tagging it as such. -- TexMurphy 08:03, 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. nn, cannot find any RS to establish any notabilty. Aksi_great (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XPeRT[edit]

Keep as long as it is rewritten better. 64.251.182.80 02:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the XPeRT Keyboard inventor: The XPeRT Keyboard layout was invented as one option to free us from Qwerty. The Dvorak keyboard is another good option, but it is harder to learn, while maintaining Qwerty speeds too. Yes, not all frequent letters are on the home row on XPeRT, but that is not the dominant typing speed factor, proven to be key striking by alternate hands (opposing digraphs), as also incorporated by Dvorak. A study of keyboard patents and design confirms all of this. Note that the XPeRT Keyboard definition at the Wikipedia site is technical material - it includes no product claims or marketing data. (Just as an aside, the reviews and awards are not false. Go ahead & try it.) Inventor - M.E.- E.E., Commonwealth Scholar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.0.147 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-26 16:48:12
Keep. The material is of encyclopaedia worth, despite it's origins.the1physicist 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting entry, glad I found it. May need to be spiffed up, but I wouldn't delete it. --128.206.99.171 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Hogne 16:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article certainly deserves a place in Wikipedia. A cleanup would be nice though! --Mb1000 02:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though a cleanup is definitely needed. JYOuyang 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007 discussion[edit]

Metacomment: This AFD was created in September 2005 but not properly listed and languished; meanwhile in November 2006 the article had been deleted as an uncontested prod. On 2007-02-08, I speedy-undeleted the article due to someone (presumably the inventor of XPeRT) contesting the prod and me noticing this orphan AFD with all "Keep" votes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 08:13Z

Delete. Seems neat, but fails WP:SOFTWARE, not to mention the website is out of order. As the server is up, I'm assuming it's a lapsed hosting contract, and may be abandonware. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - interesting AfD history, though. Arguably more interesting than the article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources = fails WP:N. Maybe there are sources out there, but I can't see them. --N Shar 16:50, 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.##

Addition to Feb 2007 discussion

The XPeRT Keyboard website has now been repaired, all images are now public ones and a single private image was removed on amicable terms with the owner. It was always present in reduced format. Never abandoned. See www.xpertkeyboard.com.

The main independent source of data for the XPeRT Keyboard is the Dvorak keyboard patent of 1936, at the USPTO database. The Dvorak patent contains all of the digraph (key sequence) data referenced by the XPeRT website, and the XPeRT US Patent #7,137,749 of Nov 2006, title: "A Faster Practical Keyboard".

One of the dependent sources of data flagged in the article was a list of frequency of use of letters in English writing. There are dozens of those out there, ... and a few digraph statistics other than Dvorak too. I haven't had time to find the links yet (swamped in paid work) and WOULD LIKE UNTIL MID-MARCH 2007 to locate and include those independent References.

As before, I did not start this web-page and there were several KEEP votes, no DELETE votes, before this "restart" page, which cites need for references, which can be provided, given a little breathing room (And what is an AfD anyway?)

THANKS, inventor of XPeRT keyboard, M.E.-E.E., [email protected].

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-14 02:48Z

Sordid[edit]

Contested PROD. Band fails the notability critera for bands and musicians as far as I can tell. They have released one album on Disconcert Music, which itself does not seem notable, although I don't know enough about death metal to judge the label. Only claim to notability in the article appears to be that the band has played with notable artists, which in itself is insufficient. GassyGuy 08:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the page for the band's only album:

Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the band is currently planning a cross canadian tour and has sold over 300 albums in canada within two months of the release of their first album distributed by established distributor Fusion3 http://www.fusion3.com/works/DM0986-2/

they have been given good reviews in the following webzines: http://www.metallian.com/sordid.htm http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=11420 http://www.thedarkesthours.com/reviews/testreview.php?id=1796

and have played in many metal broadcast across the nation

the label itself as only been active for a few months, but it is run in part by singer of the established band Quo Vadis www.quovadis.qc.ca

I believe that this fills the minimal criteria needed

Thank you

Richter69 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate guidelines have been outlined, and this is falling afoul of them. As far as I know, we don't use webzines as sources (I could be wrong), and selling "over 300 albums" is really not at all notable, as most notable releases sell far more than that. I would also recommend reading this guideline, which recommends against creating articles about subjects with which you are closely affiliated. GassyGuy 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not fulfilling any criteria listed in WP:MUS, and article whose text is unquestioningly borrowed from another site. Ohconfucius 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:47Z

Chlorophilia[edit]

del original research around a nonnotable neologism `'mikka 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A similar article was deleted a while back: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dendrofilia (sexology). Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything, neither clinically, nor otherwise notable, apart from wikimirrors. If plants (and not just "green") are to be the object, a better word would be phytophilia anyway - which exists, ~~but has nothing to do with sexual attraction~~. Dendrophilia is still listed in the article on paraphilia, by the way, and appears as a blue link to a dab page. Of course I'll change my opinion, as soon as notable sources are presented. I couldn't find any.---Sluzzelin 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention sexual attraction. I was distracted by the paraphilia article. But my vote doesn't change. Maybe phytophila does have more potential - I found academic references for phytophilia, still using a different meaning then the article's though. As a quality reflected in the positive influence of green environments on human behaviour. Here's one academic mentioning (though it's just an abstract of a paper): [13] ---Sluzzelin 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even here it is an occasional neologism without real content. `'mikka 17:37, 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. notability not established. . Aksi_great (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Reilly[edit]

Individual not-notable enough for their own article, and a potential vanity page. 51,800 Google hits, but most of which appear to be unrelated to the subject. Eric (EWS23) 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio personality. Soltak | Talk 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote although I do think referring to him as a "local" personality is a bit much, since "local" in this case apparently means New York City. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a vanity article.

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article. Crs175 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reilly is a well-known radio personality in New York on two major radio stations.
Delete Most of the ip addresses that have removed the deletion template are registered to WNYC and CBS as well as the article being started by user CReilly. I believe that this strongly endorses it being a vanity article. Mikearmyhockey 02:59, 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) 2007-02-14 02:46Z

Antonio Cruz Teixeira[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:NOTE Daniel J. Leivick 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, poor sources, also conflict of interest (note creator's username)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:45, 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. --Core desat 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nia love[edit]

Non notable, choreographer of a non notable dance company, fails WP:NOTE. Daniel J. Leivick 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; only external link is to her dance company's site; no evidence of coverage by external sources. Walton monarchist89 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly as it is currently more or less a CV.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by ends of this AfD Alf photoman 15:55, 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. --Core desat 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America (band)[edit]

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. A single top ten hit in a very small market is not, however, much of a claim, and the band does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I can find about them on Google is their myspace page (which is hardly verification). Verification has not been assessed, and their notability claim of having a top 10 hit is not verified (I can't find it either). Perhaps this could even be a WP:HOAX because of that? --Адам12901 ^Talk 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Ireland is an english speaking country and this is English Wikipedia. If the 10 ten hit can be verified it should be kept. Otherwise, delete. TonyTheTiger 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be verified. However, it hasn't been verified, and when looking for it, I couldn't find anything. Even the blog (dated 30 January, 2007) on their myspace account says: We have not rehersed or gigged yet. We practically don't exist at the moment, but we've booked our first rehersal for 2 weeks time. It also says that they have only been a member since 1 November, 2006, and that they are not signed to a label. You can't have a top 10 hit after only being a band for 3 and a half months, and not being on a label (it's possible but highly unlikely. I'm fairly certain that their claim to having a top hit is a WP:HOAX. --Адам12901 ^Talk 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart position appears to be a hoax, and the MySpace isn't exactly helping the case for notability. ShadowHalo 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a policy banning any mention of myspace from articles, unless it's the article about myspace. --Адам12901 ^Talk 04:53, 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) 2007-02-14 02:38Z

Joe Bravo (2nd nomination)[edit]

Previous AfD was speedy kept procedurally as a nomination by a banned user, however, several "delete" arguments had already been presented. No indication that this person passes WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puerto Rico is one of the four major wrestling markets in the world. The promotion Joe Bravo works for is one of two major promotions in PR and on national TV there, so he competes at the highest level. One Night In Hackney 06:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep The WWC tag team championship sugests marginal notability. If we go by analogy with WP:BIO's sportpeople guidelines (though I know they don't apply by their terms), he would easily make it as a competitor and champion in the top wrestling promotions in Puerto Rico. Notability as an actor is less clear since there are no sources for a fan-base. Or indeed for any of this. I'll tag for sourcing but I think that at this point it should be kept. Eluchil404 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Eluchil404. Mathmo ^Talk 06:21, 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 delete. --Core desat 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neff[edit]

Largely autobiographical article. I started on this by cleaning up puff/CV type stuff, multiple links to subject's website, and the like. While the number of "sources" may appear impressive, they are either primary or mention the subject's name (that at best, I removed several sources which did not mention the subject whatsoever). Also nominating Michael B. Neff, a redirect to this page. Seraphimblade 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF any one of you had a notion of the value and prestige of Poets and Writers in the literary world, you would understand. As it stands, pearls before swine. Delete and have done with this self-serving hen fest ... Oh, and btw, your illogic that argues WebdelSol.Com is worthy of comment but I'm not is like saying (hyperbole to make a point) J.C. Penny isn't worthy of comment but the chain stores are. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter. Fire away!

A cursory examination of the comments left by "Seraphimblade" in the article history will demonstrate the extent of bias the reviewer brings to the process. He makes outright false statements, e.g., pretends not to see that an article about the subject in question even mentions his name (Poets and Writers article or New York Times) then fails to admit what the subject is known best for, WebdelSol.Com, is even relevant. Links to other sources would show the subject as editor (on masthead, e.g.) but reviewer fails to see this. Solneffmike 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual reliable sources (from independent third parties) attesting to actual accomplishments. And playing the paranoia card never works, Michael. --Calton | Talk 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No paranoia, Mr. Copy Editor, just facts. You're intentionally failing to recognize the New York Times and Poets and Writers," etc. as "actual reliable sources", therefore, playing the ignorance card works for you. But in fact, you are not ignorant, you know better. What we have here, ostensibly, is an act of hostility. You and yours have been insulting and unprofessional right from the beginning. Like good cops, you'll never admit you are wrong, only dig in and continue to accuse regardless of contrary evidence. Just take the page off and be done with these immature mocking games. Solneffmike 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - No paranoia...just facts. You're intentionally failing...But in fact, you are not ignorant, you know better... Boy, assertion and contradiction: t'ain't often you see them occurring that close together. Those mindreading courses working out for you?
- Again, the name-dropping and logrolling doesn't help: "multiple non-trivial coverage of the subject" counts: that subject should be you, not any of your enterprises or the category you're working in.
- Like good cops, you'll never admit you are wrong, only dig in and continue to accuse regardless of contrary evidence. That doesn't sound like the act of "good cops", but never mind, Mr. Kettle, I have a call for you on line 4 from Mr Pot: he says you're black. --Calton | Talk 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand how the author of this article about himself, who is arguing about the deletion of this article he wrote himself about himself, can reasonably talk about anyone else being biased. If you look at User talk:Solneffmike as well as User talk:Calton, you'll see that despite multiple clearly understandable attempts to explain basic wikipedia concepts like WP:COI and WP:VANITY, the author seems unable or unwilling to learn about editing. Instead, he defends himself with bizarre and unfounded mentions of other people he knows who advertise here, but whom he refuses to name in some attempt at attaining moral high ground (despite the fact that he is the only one who keeps bringing it up). More seriously, he asked Calton what his name is in real life ([14]) in what I interpret to be a potentially threatening tone, which, while possibly harmless, I don't feel is ever acceptable. He also blanked the page in an attempt to "delete" it, which he has no power to do. All of this indicates a trend toward behavior that is disruptive and an unwillingness to just sit back and listen to people who have thousands more edits than him. I like to assume good faith and not be mean to newcomers, but you can't walk into a new situation and start telling everybody right and wrong. So, delete as vanity. --Tractor kings fan 07:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep despite obvious conflict of interest in creation. It needs better independant sources (the only real one is the NY Times thing which is clearly not about the subject of the article) but there is a clear and convincing assertion of notability and sources could probably be found. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For an article about Michael Neff, it has too little about him and too much about his website, which raises concerns of attempts at self-promotion (WP:NOT). Most of the references talk about the website and not the person so what are they doing here?. What's the article about? if the website itself is notable, the article should focus on that, and be moved/renamed. If enough sourceable information can be found about Michael and the article is significantly revamped and refocused, it might make the cut. Right now it doesn't. Also, Solneffmike certainly sounds like Michael Neff himself; his history indicates he has contributed mostly (all but 2 of his contribs) to Michael Neff and stuff re: edits to the article and this AfD. This should be taken into account as, if the user in question is indeed Michael Neff, it would be a case of conflict of interest.Roadmr (t|c) 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You need an assertion of notability to not be speedy deleted, but actual notability to survive AfD. As Neff hasn't been the subject of multiple, reliable independent sources, the article should be deleted. JChap2007 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to me that we are mixing two subject matters here with this article. Mike Neff himself does not appear to pass WP:BIO as there are no reliable independent articles about him as primary subject. More numerous and more prominent hits are about Mike Neff, the hockey player or motor-racing crew chief, or Darts player. There are a number which point to his own website(s), the main one of which which appear to be linked to other authors' websites in a quid pro quo. However, we are not here to determine the notability of his website. Therefore, references thereto do not count. In any event, for Mr Neff and webdelsol.com, total independence renders it but a self-reference. Among the relevant Ghits, there one from this site, where the zine he publishes interviews him! From an early version of the article by the creator, there appears to be some criticism about the two (refer to the original version.... However, the source may not qualify as reliable. Ohconfucius 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete NX Files so default to keep; merge the individual character articles into either NX Files or a new article Characters of NX Files. Please coordinate the merger at Talk:NX Files. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:32Z

NX Files[edit]

Non notable, unsourced web broadcast 'TV' show. Also including the following characters from the show -

Nuttah68 14:03, 2 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 as non-notable Lars T. 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not just Stargate that deserves our support. These start-ups also deserve a wikipedia entry. --Clausewitz01 10:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Edited to add from the Wikipedia policy on this subject: Before nominating an article for AFD, please:

first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable! Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Deletion_process The nominator did not take this step. --Clausewitz01 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper Article "Une Serie de Combat Extreme produite a Ottawa connait du success sur Internet" Also described on: Internet Video Magazine --Clausewitz01 03:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NX Files is an independently produced show out of Orleans, ON Canada. Since the release of it's first episode in November of 2005, it has been viewed in over 54 countries AND has released a Season 1 DVD which has been distributed in many countries including Canada, USA, Norway and Denmark. That being said, this show definitely deserves a wikipedia entry. --Sensei Krush 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep I saw a legit article in the Ottawa citizen and a short on CTV News, how is this a non-notable?? some people have nothing better to do but to try and stomp out the start-ups.--User:Chikote 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
- — Chikote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The article for NX Files is based on its official website, which should certainly be considered a reliable source. It was largely written by one of the four creaters of NX Files itself, who can obviously be considered an expert on the subject in question, so it is again safe to assert that the content is reliable. The show itself has received attention from the media as well as many different nationalities and the creators' attitude is always very professionnal. NX Files certainly deserves its own Wikipedia article. --User:sun_03 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
- — sun_03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I have worked on the project myself and know a great amount of people who watch it religiously. --User:Samuel Tetreault 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
- — Samuel Tetreault (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep The NxFiles are internationally viewed in over 50 countries, has it's own websitewww.nxfiles.com and more importantly is an interactive/participatory medium related to martial arts that kids and adults in Ottawa/Orleans, Ontario can be part of. NX Martial Arts is a jiu-jitsu and kick boxing dojo where most the actors from the community train on a weekly basis. They actually released a DVD of their entire first season this past December 2006. I think this kind of project popularizes martial arts as a whole and a web-based show like this one demonstrates an alternative to martial art training when comparing to Ultimate Fighting Championship /UFC. I believe this is beneficial from a parents’ perspective to promote martial arts and the positive influence of the discipline on children. Taking this entry away would only impinge on the greater good of not only the martial art sub-culture, but the community as a whole. Feb 4th, 2007 6:03pm
- — Chipmonkey83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete I see 272 hits on Google ([15]), and two sources that aren't to the subject's web site. The fact that one of the sources is a photograph taken of a French newspaper article lowers the notability somewhat; has anyone read WP:RS? Shadow1 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Shadow, I have read WP:RS and edited the linking inside the original page so that the link is to the real newspaper website. --Clausewitz01 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from a comparison of the usernames of those discussing this AFD and the cast of the show, I would say that virtually all of the above users are members of the show. Any members of the show that wish to discuss this AFD should read Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy. Shadow1 (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What?? I'm sorry, anyone who reads a french newspaper lowers notability?? Well aren't we a little prejudice. I think that comment completely shatters your credibility Shadow1. — 74.101.11.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Prejudiced? I think it's an unreliable source because it's not in English, not because it's a French newspaper. Let's stop the name-calling here and stay on topic. More importantly, read my warning to sock puppets above. Shadow1 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why does it make it unreliable? Language has nothing to do with this debate. A very respectable French Canadian newspaper interviewed the creators of the show and wrote a very nice article about them. If this is not notable, then what is? Furthermore, the posts here are not sockpupetting, they are fans and students of the show and the dojo who are showing their support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.104 (talk • contribs)
    - My local newspaper wrote an article about a benefit concert in my area, that doesn't make it worthy of USA Today. As for the fans of the show, that's exactly it. AFD is supposed to be a balanced, unbiased discussion of the deletion of articles, introducing a group that is unquestionably biased towards Keep breaks that balance. Shadow1 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that fans of the show coming on here and showing their support proves it is notable. I have been working on the page and adding sources from other sites besides the creators site. Again, the normal proceedure for this kind of thing is to add a reference asking for more sources before nominating for deleation. And for the record, I am not a character on this show, just a fan. I also speak french and added the scan of the LeDroit article - for those that dont know LeDroit has national distribution to french speakers, so it is not a local paper. We are discussing a first of its kind here, a Martial Arts Web Series, that also adds to the 'notability' of the article. --Clausewitz01 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to demonstrate any sort of notability. We are not a endless collection of information. Also I think an AFD is quite appropriate for this situation :P. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Eagle 101, as per our discussion on your 'discussion' page I have made the changes as you suggested. --Clausewitz01 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If wikipedia holds articles for specific genres of entertainment shows such as 'sitcom comedy' and 'reality television' as well as articles on specific shows such as 'Gilmore girls' with articles for each individual characters of the show, I really dont see why NX files can't have it's own space on Wikipedia when it is, as previously mentionned, a Martial Arts Web Series. This is a specific genre that should have its own article and the subsequent articles of the characters should be treated like the characters of any other show like those from the example listed above. User Sun_03 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) .
Here is the article on the LeDroit Webpage (no more scan) and I have changed the sourcing link inside the article. Though I guess you can still go to the scan for the pic. This is the first ever full Martial Arts Webisode series on the net. Others have tried singular episodes, but I have yet to find anyone doing multiple seasons. This is a new genre that will grow with the obvious success of the NX Files. LeDroit is distributed nationally: LeDroit Article Une série de combat extrême connaît du succès sur Internet And if you are unable to read French, use BabelFish, Canada is a Bilingual country, so everything up here is in both languages. --Clausewitz01 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple more 'Notable' links for NX Files.
- CTV, a Canadian National news network interviewed the creators for their Tech Now feature, I invite you to watch: ([16]).
- Cast members of the show taught martial arts to nearly 100 kids at the CHEO Train-a-thon in June of 2006. They helped raise a lot of money for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. I invite you to watch: ([17]). --User:Sensei Krush 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, to sumarize, there are now linked examples to national print and telivison media as well as web-pages that rate internet media, links from other martial arts sites, commenting on the uniqueness and popularity of this online Show. The show has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works, in print, on Telivision and online, whose source is independent of the creators of the show. I will edit the main page to reflect that this is the first of its kind, and 'notable' because of that, an entire Martial Arts series that is webbased. --Clausewitz01 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Text of the CTV telivised information can be found on the CTV webpage: Linked to CTV article about NX Files --Clausewitz01 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You can't really use the argument that other pages on similar subjects exist as a reason for keeping; if I started a garage band, made an article, and claimed 'But you have one on Metallica!', would that be valid? Of course not. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Veinor, this is not a garage band, I'd suggest that if you watch the show and you wouldnt make that comparison. There is nothing else like this that is free on the web. Here are the external references that do not originate with the creators of this show that I have just added to the page for notability purposes. --Clausewitz01 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Déziel-Hupé, Mercedes (2006-12-14). "Une Serie de Combat Extreme produite a Ottawa connait du success sur Internet". LeDroit. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
  - Eggens, Kate (2006-11-19). "INTERNET MOVIES". CTV News. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
  - Text of the CTV telivised cast can be found on the CTV website: CTV Article about NX Files "Internet Movies"
  - "The Best Video and Movie Sites on the Net" (htm). Internet Video Magazine. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
  - "WAKO World Championships 2003" (PDF). Jean Francois Lachapelle, Forms World Champion. World Association of Kickboxing Organizations. 2003. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
  - "Instructor - Alain Moussi" (htm). Seminar on Dynamic fight scene choreography (notes Moussi as Co-Founder of NX Files). Martial Arts Expo. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
  - "NX KAMPSPORT" (htm). Stephan Roy as Co-Founder of NX Files (WebSite is in Norwegian). Team Spirit Kampsort. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
KEEP -keep it simple I have looked through the List of Internet television series and read the news clips,The NX files is to me as notable,or more so than the majority of shows listed--Widge.1 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link Widge.1 I have added that as a category to the main page of NX Files. --Clausewitz01 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Legitimate? Viewed in 54 countries - listed on a wide variety of media references; CTV, Le Droit, independent Internet Video website, sponsored and assisted by local and national businesses, now in its second season, 15 shows produced, a professional web presence for over a year and a half, produced by a core group of four people with the involvement of many more for every episode? How much more legitimate can it get? It is obvious that whomever is for deletion has not bothered to spend 3 minutes on the NX Files website. If this is fact, please do so. http://www.nxfiles.com You will see that it is more legitimate than your subjective arguments!
The fact that the NX Files show is an example of a NEW and FIRST application of serial martial-arts action-adventure video entertainment using the Internet has apparently threatened those who are for deletion.
This also brings the entire concept of Wikipedia as a valid and useful phenomena into question. You have a wonderful new idea, cutting edge entertainment, a fact and reality for the producers and their viewers and fans, but you think it's not legitimate? Laughable! This is a good example of a control over the media by people who are bent on controlling content for emotional reasons rather than opening themselves to factual information. :-(
NX Files exists. There are 15 episodes. There is a Season 1 DVD. It cost me $22.50. NX Files has been in existance for over a year. It is a legitmate form of entertainment in 54 countries. It has been seen by thousands of viewers. It is what they believe to be the first and only martial-arts serial on the Internet.
e;Delete it and you delete any relevance of Wikipedia as anything but a storage place for generally accepted historical and geographical information that can easily be obtained in many other places. KEEP --Ottawaj 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quarl, I would like to see those that originally voted to delete take a look at the changes that have been made to the NX Files page. I think they would see that their concerns have been significantly addressed. --Clausewitz01 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep series article. The references alone are enough to satisfy the "non trivial third party references" rule everyone cites here. Merge character articles into one "Characters of NX Files" article. 23skidoo 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the series per 23skidoo but not the individual articles. Although I am generally really reluctant to support such articles, which are generally just attempts to give the appearance of greater notability to something that has very little.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it's unfortunate to see editors so aggressively refusing to comply with or even to understand wikipedia's mission - i.e. that it's not a grass-roots campaign to bring every non-notable slice of pop culture to the attention of the world.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dmz -- although I was sorely tempted to vote delete because of all the SPAs. --N Shar 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dmz and 23skidoo (and I agree with Dmz's comment above re: grass-rooting/astroturfing). I'm glad to see the deletion request fostered improvement of the article; as it stands now it gives a good idea of the mainstream coverage the series has generated and is well-reference. However I'd like to see the individual character pages merged into the main article. Roadmr (t|c) 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - This did motivate me to work hard on this article - and has taught me reference methods for other articles on Wikipedia. I would agree with a consensus that merged in the character pages into a single characters page. --Clausewitz01 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough --89.51.145.80

As the consensus seems towards a merger of the character page into one "NX Files: Characters" I would like to do the editing to merge the character pages, but I have read and re-read the AfD guidelines and it really looks like I need to wait until this discussion is closed. I am not sure when the discussion closes or if I can just go ahead with the merge, any guidance is appreciated. --Clausewitz01 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Article has shown improvement since it was tagged for AfD, no delete vote Pea ceNT 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor X[edit]

disputed PROD for NN-artist. delete Cornell Rockey 13:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i created the article. the touring information i listed and referenced satisfies wikipedia's music notability guidelines. also, i know personally that he's played frequently on college radio (the best reference i can come up with for this are all of the playlists that come up from a google search i just did for "'emperor x' +'college radio'"). also, he's received a great amount of press (in magazines and on notable music websites such as pitchfork media and tiny mix tapes) and has a comparably fantastic number of listeners on last.fm (he's my number eight most-listened-to artist, i'm going through all of this just to justify starting a wiki entry for the guy, and i don't even rank on his top listeners!). keep Elephantcards 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Went on a national tour, passes WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 01:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable number of external links, demonstrating widespread coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nomination now that this article has been fleshed out, referenced and improved since I happened upon it. Cornell Rockey 05:04, 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. --Core desat 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz Oye[edit]

Unsourced autobiography. I'd say the big long word that starts with V, but the author/subject has made an effort to improve the article. Contested prod. MER-C 08:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious autobiography, fails WP:BIO, WP:NN big time. Realkyhick 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and above. --Tractorkingsfan 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC; apart from her own website and the magazine award (which isn't verified), there's no evidence of sourcing or external coverage. However, not a case for speedy deletion as it does assert notability (by mentioning the awards) so doesn't come under CSD A7. Walton monarchist89 11:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the problem is with WP:MUSIC but with WP:V Alf photoman 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I suspect that the main reason people believe this to be self-publicity is because the article sounds self-promotional and uses weasel words to a certain degree by their subjectivity, and the highly positive quotes aren't cited properly. I went ahead and cleaned up the article to remove subjective descriptions, but the quotes still need citations. I suggest Shazoye, if you have the original publications with those quotes to cite them by the Wiki guidelines at WP:CITE, but otherwise delete them and allow this to exist as a music stub for now. --SquatGoblin 16:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any indication that the notability assertions are fact, we need to delete the article. Vegaswikian 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Nikola Tesla in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:39Z

Đuka Mandić[edit]

Very succintly: why does the sole fact that someone is a mother of a famous person, make her notable enough to have an article? Duja► 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see Ekaterina Geladze; Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova; Flora Sheldon; Alfred Roberts. All included solely because they were parents of notable people. This may seem like a classic case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but unless you want to AfD all the above articles (plus hundreds more that I can't be bothered to look up) then I suggest you don't delete this one. Walton monarchist89 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research. Actually, I'm not particularly keen to get this deleted; I'm more interested what the community thinks about it and similar precedents (I didn't know there were ones). Ekaterina Geladze at least, seem to have survived an ancient, but not particularly articulate, VfD. Duja► 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not transferred through generations. There's an awful lot of precedent for this, most recently this gentleman. The other parents of notable figures mentioned should by rights be AfDd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence of large number of other articles with low or no encyclopedic value is not a valid reason to keep this one. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:27Z

Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007[edit]

Tagged for speedy but fits no criterion. Wikinews is over there --->, I don't think we need an article on the mayoral race of an individual town. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup. Some NPOV problems as the article stands now. As for notability, many municipal articles in Category:2006 elections and subcats; so it seems to be an accepted niche for articles. Neier 11:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to me :-) Wikinews is surely the place to cover elections, especially minor ones. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep an article, WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work to get rid of one either. All but the smallest elections will trivially meet WP:N with multiple coverage in independent sources. For a city of several million, the mayoral race will not be ignored by mainstream press. Neier 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with you, Neier, that this election probably will (future tense) receive notable published coverage from independent sources. However, this article fails to provide any of those sources, and in fact looks to be mainly speculation as to the possible future results of the race. My suggestion is delete unless seriously cleaned up, and then if and when better information is actually available consider recreating it down the line with proper sourcing. Dugwiki 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, that's where we disagree. A bad article should not be deleted. A bad article should be improved, per WP:DEL. It seems to me lately, that AFD is being misused for many articles of this type. We aren't here to find articles in need of cleanup; but, to find articles which don't meet the WP:N requirements of Wikipedia. Even if the article is reduced to "The city of Philadelphia will hold mayoral elections on 2007-11-06." with a reference link to the Philadelphia Daily News page, it would pass WP:N. Neier 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(And, a second link, for "multiple" references: http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/01/23/cq_2168.html ) Neier 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the article was reduced to "The city of Philadelphia will hold mayoral elections on 2007-11-06", that would not meet WP:N, because the information being relayed through the article is quite trivial in nature. To count as a source for WP:N, it must be a non-trivial treatment of the subject. So just listing the date of the election would not count.

As far as AFD only being allowed to delete articles that aren't "notable", that is likewise incorrect. Articles that fail to meet policies such as verifiability and original research can certainly be deleted as well. As a courtesy, we normally give articles with insufficient references a chance to improve before deleting them. But articles with no references at all and which aren't likely to receive proper referencing can definitely be deleted. Dugwiki 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup per Neier; Philadelphia is a sufficiently important city that its mayoral race is notable. However, the current article is fairly poor. Walton monarchist89 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - keep the basics in the article, feel free to move the rest of the nitty gritty details to Campaigns Wikia — MrDolomite | Talk 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Philly is the 5th largest city by pop in US, and 2nd on East coast. Definitely meets notability and verifiability requirements. Joshdboz 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on meeting verifiability requirements as there is virtually no verification provided in the article. In fact, the article attempts to analyze an election that won't occur for a number of months using information of questionable value and sourcing. "Definitely" doesn't meet WP:V criteria as currently written. Dugwiki 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was "Tomah Mayoral Election, 2007" I'd agree with the nom, but as the US's 5th largest city Philadelphia's race is notable enough. Could use some cleanup, though. BryanG^(talk) 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs sources, but notable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete unless references provided for verification and to remove bias/OR~~ This article has a couple of serious problems. First, it has almost no references within the article aside from "www.thenextmayor.com". The article must provide independent, reliable published sources. Secondly, the article appears to be partly Original Research and possibly slightly biased. For example, the very first sentence says that "the real race (and the next mayor of Philly) will be with the Democratic Party primary which will be held on 2007-05-15," which sounds very suspiciously like a biased political analysis of an election that is still many months away. Finally, it talks about "polls" of questionable value that attempt to predict the result of a future event with no attempt at verification, which breaks WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. So while I agree in principle that in general articles about mayoral elections might be ok if properly done, this article isn't even close to being properly done and should be deleted unless these issues are addressed. Dugwiki 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I want to make clear one detail most of the keep comments seem to be overlooking. Even if you assume the election will probably eventually be notable and receive good independent news coverage, those facts must be demonstrated within the article. It is ultimately up to the authors of the article to provide verification of information, demonstrate lack of bias and verification of notability. The article as currently written fails quite badly on all three items, and should therefore be deleted unless seriously improved. Then, if a better article can be written in a couple of months around primary time, when newspapers are dealing with it on a more detailed basis, recreate the article using correcting referencing, etc. Dugwiki 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this belongs on Wikinews. We should wait to write articles about elections until after the election is over. Just as we transwiki dicdefs, we should transwiki stories about elections that have yet to happen. Also, these stories are about the ongoing campaigns, not the elections. JChap2007 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "We should wait to write articles about elections until after the election is over." So do you think we should delete United States presidential election, 2008 and French presidential election, 2007 despite their having already attracted massive media coverage and obvious political importance? Andrew Levine 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the people that say delete, I tihnk if they have a problem with the article, they are free to make changes in order to make it better and besdies, hundreds of other ongoing and recent elections have their own pages on Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.125.60.133 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Except that it isn't the responsibility of the critics to correct the mistake. It's the responsibilty of the author of the information to ensure the article meets with policies and guidelines. And if the article's problems are serious enough in nature, it can lead to the article's deletion if not corrected. Lack of correction of an article is solely the fault of the author, not the messenger of bad news. Dugwiki 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Every city in the US has mayoral elections every four years or so. To include them all on wikipedia strikes me as extraordinarily silly unless the race has some sort of unique feature or reason for having great encyclopedic merit. Yes Philidelphia is a big city, but there are also lots of big cities in the US, and to include minor political races (face it mayors are the LOWEST elected executive position in the US) If we include this, we also set the precident for including every single congress race (state and federal), county executive, and state offical in the US, a few thousand articles a year for articles of limited merit about which reletively little beyond the obvious can be said without resorting to OR. 129.89.68.218 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, which part of WP:N has not been met by this article? Neier 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part that requires that the article itself must assert notability by providing non-trivial references for the subject. Note that the article also has problems beyond simple notability, including bias and unverifiable predicition of future events. Dugwiki 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been provided to show that the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer both are providing extensive campaign coverage, as in dozens of articles each about the race. The unverifiable predictions are now gone. Andrew Levine 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrew, that's definitely a step in the right direction. Based on the cleanup and the fact that the article is starting to include some good references about the upcoming election, I struck out my previous recommendation and am willing to change it to Keep but requires more clean up. Specific things that ought to be cleaned up are linking actual remaining facts in the article to specific references using ref tags (ie footnotes) and the article could probably stand to incorporate some of the published analysis of what are expected to be key political factors in the election. However, those are stylistic concerns, not afd ones, so that sort of thing would be better handled in the article itself and its talk page, not this afd thread. Dugwiki 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I posted some suggestions for further article cleanup on its talk page.

minor political races? It is mistaken to equate the mayor of a metropolis with the mayor of a village. Big city mayors have long been recognized as prominent powerful political players. Is the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for President a Senator or Governor? Nope, it's former New York mayor Giulini.Aardhart 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dugwiki 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Keep. And this seems like a bad-faith nomination to me. This obviously isn't a town! It's one of the largest cities in the U.S. Considering that the Philadelphia metropolitan area is larger than Ireland I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could sincerely nominate its mayoral election for deletion. Maybe I don't get wikipedia, but why would this not be tagged for clean-up or NPOV first?--JayHenry 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very interesting race. Philadelphia has a larger population than several states. I see no problem with pages for mayor races of the 25 largest US cities. Aardhart 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --evrik ^(talk) 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comedy240 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC
Keep and clean-up: precedent of notability has been established for very large cities. See New York City mayoral election, 2005, for example. Lincolnite 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up Complete - I cleaned up the article, you are welcome. - Comedy240 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Comedy. I have to say, this article has changed a great deal since the original afd nomination. I think it's looking much better. :) Dugwiki 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as spam and copyright violation of [18]. Kimchi.sg 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tooltoy[edit]

Tagged for deletion as lacking context. This article is terrible, but the subject may be salvageable. Or it may not. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 - blatant advertising. Also lacks context. Walton monarchist89 13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio from [19]. So tagged. Hut 8.5 16:15, 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. Reliable, independent sources are now cited, which back up claims of half a million albums sold. No remaining support for deletion, and it's obvious the outcome, so closing per WP:SNOW. Picaroon 05:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tech N9ne[edit]

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. Claims half a million albums sold, but the reference does not say that. In fact, there are no references outside of the subject's own websites and MySpace. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - selling half a million albums would make him notable, but more sources are needed to establish extensive independent coverage per WP:MUSIC. Walton monarchist89 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Done. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I don't know about the half a million albums thing, but he's charted at #2 on the top independent albums and #50 in the top 200. I added a few links to articles on him. Easily notable. Recury 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ Whose charts? No refs. --Walter Görlitz 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These charts, and yes there are refs. Recury 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there are no refs. Compare to other artists where they indicate where the album placed and on which charts (Billboard, RIAA, etc.). Now that I have been told that it's SoundScan and I Googled for it, I revoke my suggestion that it should be deleted, however the article should indicate where the albums charted and the article should be expanded. Keep. --Walter Görlitz 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Here you are. Reliable enough. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/columnists/timothy_finn/15944012.htm http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/news/celebrity/mmx-0701240437jan25,0,5986599.story?coll=mmx-celebrity_heds

Keep - I'm totally surprised that the idea of deletion even came up. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I blame systemic bias. Wikipedia isn't very hip-hop friendly compared to say, video games. Recury 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the system, it's poor writing. We can only comment on how the article is written. --Walter Görlitz 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, you all don't know how much of an impact Tech has made around Kansas City. He's huge in the midwest and if you're gonna delete this, then you're a bunch of idiots. He's very famous in the underground and you need to keep this on Wikipedia. It's a shame if you don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conman33 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep - I astonishes me that the entry for Tech N9ne is being considered for deletion. He is the most influential underground rapper since when Tupac was underground. He is respected throughout mainstream artists, and he is on his way to becoming a big time artist. He was recently on MTV promoting himself and his music. He also owns his own music label called Strange Music which has several artists signed to it who have or are going to be releasing an album. He has released 8 albums. Just because he isn't popular doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve an entry in Wikipedia, because he does deserve it. Keeping his entry will allow people who do not know about him to get comprehensive information on who he is. kevin82485 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. "Two years ago, Tech N9ne was just another underground rapper from the Midwest -- Kansas City, to be specific. In 2001, he got a major label to release 'Anghellic.' It didn't take off and his label dropped him. Strange Music picked him up, released a new recording ('Absolute Power') last year and re-released 'Anghellic,' and where he'll go from here is anyone's guess. DS 00:19, 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 Russell Poole in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:27Z

Kevin Gaines (police)[edit]

Contested A7 speedy candidate with assertions to notability present. Procedural nomination. No opinion, yet. Kchase T 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the subject's claim to notability is that he was shot by another police officer, but the references (one rather POV news report) aren't sufficient to demonstrate that this was a high-profile killing. Delete unless more sources can be found about this murder. Walton monarchist89 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all necessary info is in Russell Poole. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, in 1991 a USMC colonel was murdered for threatening to publicize that the US Gov't was shipping cocaine into Orange County, CA. This is a step toward documenting the retail-level distribution, instead of the shipments (by Southern Air Transport, etc.) that Colonel Sabow was murdered to conceal. JPatrickBedell 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming any of that is true, how does it show that Kevin Gaines is notable under WP:BIO?--Kchase T 13:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Gaines has multiple published sources addressing his life and death. The inclusion of the reference to Col. Sabow was to place the alleged criminal associations of Kevin Gaines in context, particularly as they related to cocaine smuggling and distribution. JPatrickBedell 13:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be reminded that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton ↔NMajdan•talk 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Natalie 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Dhartung says, this is redundant information. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:25Z

MicroImages[edit]

Deleted at least once as spam, this version is not spam but does not establish any claim to notability. Rather than playing deletion tag, I thought a wider debate was worth having. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not spam, but no evidence of notability. No evidence of coverage by independent third-party sources. 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this interested me, but try as I might, I can't find anything to satisfy WP:CORP. If someone can make me change my !vote I'll be pleasantly surprised. CiaranG 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deleted twice under WP:CSD#G11 previously and no evidence of notability--Hu12 07:34, 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) 2007-02-13 08:24Z

Clark Kennington[edit]

Apparently, Texas high school football is notable, therefore the Highland Park Scots are notable, therefore Clark Kennington is notable. I don't accept that, but repeatedly speedying this is going to be an exercise in frustration for all, so you decide. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unreferenced, and high-school football isn't inherently notable. Delete, unless evidence of extensive coverage in independent sources can be found (e.g. newspaper reports) to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 12:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete high school football is not notable and neither are the players unless they are clearly on their way to an imminent draft.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when a football player makes it to the big league, then c'mon back now, ya hear. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't DeleteTexas High School Football and the individual players who help make the mythos ARE notable, whether or not they make it to the big leagues. Again, in addition to the book "1984 Scots: Team with a Heart: Highland Park Football" I, direct you to look at the book/movie "Friday Night Lights", which is an iconic book/movie about Texas High School Football. None of its individual players made it to the big leagues. in fact, the notabilty comes precisely from the fact that these individual players DON'T make it to the big leagues! This is their and their communities' time to shine. Their significance and notability lies in the stories they provide the small communities, the clutch plays, and the clutch players. At least look at the books/movie before weighing in on the lack of notability of Texas High School Football and the players such as Clark Kennington who helped create the mythos. Incidentally, this person was mentioned in feature articles in both the Dallas Morning News and Dallas Times Herald, the two major daily papers for Dallas, Texas.User:Clarkenn 10:40 8 February 2007 (CST)
— Clarkenn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - User:Clarkenn is the author of this article. SkierRMH 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the subject, if I'm not much mistaken. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but somebody has to advocate the point. I direct you to carefully read the Wikipedia entry "Friday Night Lights", before rushing to judgment. The point I'm making is the notability comes in the obscurity associated with the mythos. No-names rise above themselves and provide moments of meaning for their communities through remarkable plays in important games. Finally, as an aside the person did receive numerous accolades in high school, was heavily recruited by major colleges, and did receive a college football scholarship to play at Duke University, playing one season before quiting, but this is not the point of the notability.([User:Clarkenn]) 9:21, 9 February 2007 (CST)
- Clark is right that there is a lot of mythos surrounding high school football in Texas. Unfortunately, he is not allowed to place himself in the Pantheon without third party sources.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the book "1984 Scots: Team with a Heart: Highland Park Football" IS a third party source. ([User: Clarkenn]) 10:59, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Delete, high school football player who did not go on to play in college or the pros (at least as far as this article tells us). NawlinWiki 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't DeleteTexas football obviously is notable as there has been a book, movie and a TV show called "Friday Night Lights" written about. Plus there's been a book written about Clark Kennington's specific team. User:BCampbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.15.26.194 (talk • contribs)

— 161.15.26.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per Dmz5. There's also obvious COI (author is User:Clarkenn). JuJube 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Texas high school football has been covered daily by the Dallas Morning News since 1981 and they dedicated two pages of the Sports section to it during the season. Websites like Rivals.com and Scout.com are dedicated to following high school football recruits. For those not in Texas, Florida or California, you might not recognize the signifigance. Clark in particular epitomized the high school football star as a definitive playmaker for the 1984 Scots. He is noted signifigantly in the book and is a certainly a local legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.246.130 (talk • contribs)

— 66.226.246.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy Delete high school football is not a reason for notability Alex Bakharev 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, Clark, but you don't have any references/sources to support your claim to notability. Oh, and the article is "conflict of interest", which is disparaged. And, finally, anyone who repeatedly abuses the word "mythos" ( the word is correctly used only when one wishes to imply a "scholarly" view of the subject, which is self-evidently not the case here ) should be encouraged to take language lessons from Prof. Cthulhu. WMMartin 21:13, 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) 2007-02-13 08:20Z

Nazuraiun[edit]

The creator of this article User:Nazuraiun has written only this article by the same name [20]. A Google search of Nazuraiun reveals that everyone out there in cyberspace is relying on mirroring this article from Wikipedia. I have asked a few very knowledgeable editors (TShilo12; Briangotts; Dbratton; Jfdwolff; SlimVirgin) if they have heard of "Nazuraiun" and none have had anything to say. User:Dfass responded to me at User talk:IZAK#Nazuraiun that "I never heard of it, and it sounds pretty weird, but that doesn't prove anything. I will ask a couple people... —Dfass 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)" and "I asked my brother, who said he had never heard of this either. He also said there is no mention in either Encyclopedia Judaica or the Merriam Websters Encyclopedia of World Religions. —Dfass 06:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)." Thus one is forced to conclude that this article is almost certainly a neologism that violates WP:NEO and WP:OR as well as WP:NOT and probably even WP:HOAX. Thank you. IZAK 12:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- IZAK 12:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 12:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article makes far too many unreferenced and bizarre claims. It seems likely that this "religion" exists only in the author's imagination, and he should not be using Wikipedia to promote his fabrications. —Dfass 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Beit Or 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there were any references by now thy would be included. Without references I can only assert hoax Alf photoman 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced material --Tom 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As one of the people the nominator asked for input from re: this article, I did some research yesterday on the subject (sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, IZAK) and came up with a goodly amount of marginally interesting information, none of which supports the claims of the article in question. Like others, I had never heard of the group covered in this article. I have notified the originator of the article here. Tom e r ^talk 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BTW, to clarify, it's incredibly difficult to connect any of what I've read about groups referred to as "Nazuraiun" or "Nazareun" or "Nazaraioun" with the subject matter of this article precisely because, without wanting to do too much to denigrate the writing style of the author, the article reads like a laughable drunken (?) joke. To those unfamiliar with Jewish Christians, or Christian Judaizers, or even [to be polite] "deranged" Christians who lay bizarre claim to "connections" with the Davidic dynasty, this article might seem to hold the possibility of authenticity. Trust me...it's pure unmitigated fantasy. Myst is reality long before this stuff is... OK, I'm biting my tongue now, before I say anything incivil on the topic... Tom e r ^talk 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unreferenced, un-cited, bizarre, ergo hoaxaliscious. SkierRMH 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable at best. Daniel^C/_T+ 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or notability--Sefringle 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable; likely hoax. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, I guess, per WP:PORNBIO 7. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:26Z

Sara Jay[edit]

Subject's notability is dubious; fails to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Previously prodded and deleted, recreated some days afterwards. riana_dzasta 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability; not enough references. Only external link is to subject's own website. Walton monarchist89 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. There's also the link to IMDB. Is a lack of references a reason to delet an article? If so, I'd better get busy! -- Mikeblas 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Lack of references isn't a great reason to delete an article, but it certainly doesn't help us to verify notability. If you have references, that's great news. riana_dzasta 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Actually, I think lack of references isn't a valid reason at all -- not even a poor one. If it turns out that I'm wrong and it is a good reason for deletion, then we have lots of other articles to delete. Most of the PokeCruft and SimpsonsCruft here is well-referenced, but lots of other articles are poorly researched and would also have to be deleted. -- Mikeblas 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tabercil 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should possibly protect the page to prevent future recreation. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Agree with Joe, it should be salted. James086 ^Talk 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP She got an award for her ass as it says on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseacharms (talk • contribs)
- No, it doesn't say that anywhere. riana_dzasta 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it did, it was edited
- Yes, it said that in the article before it was prodded. Is there a way to recover the history of the prodded article? -- Mikeblas 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can ask an admin to undelete check the deleted revisions for you. riana_dzasta 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "dubious notability" is putting it mildly, fails PORNBIO ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a movie named after her,[21] so she meets WP:PORNBIO #7. -- Mikeblas 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, these aren't in the article. If you wish to edit the article to include this new information, do so by all means. An AfD doesn't mean you can't edit, it only means that somebody thinks that the article, as it currently stands, doesn't satisfy certain criteria. Please feel free to edit the article! :) Cheers, riana_dzasta 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added. -- Mikeblas 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:20Z

Helder Fráguas[edit]

Recreation or duplicate by User:Hjfraguas of article Helder da Silva Fráguas deleted by prod in Jan 2007. See user's talk page. Conflict of interest, and fails WP:BIO. Mereda 12:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Roadmr (t|c) 19:14, 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) 2007-02-13 08:19Z

Hybrid Elemental[edit]

nn band Google only 334hits LongHong 12:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 00:52, 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) 2007-02-13 08:17Z

Herman Hill riot[edit]

I couldn't find any source on the Internet dealing with this event. There is a book source though, but I tend to believe this is a non notable subject. This article is orphaned and tagged of being of unclear importance since last June -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - book source is unverified; no evidence of notability outside the Wichita area. Walton monarchist89 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you clarify what you mean by "book source is unverified"? The book itself is verification, so I'm not sure what you meant. Thanks, Black Falcon 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:Notability, especially given that the title of book, Wichita Police Department History, and it sourcing (p. 186-187) implies that the riot was only briefly mentioned in the book. Black Falcon 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm changing my vote to a weak keep based on the facts that:

The incident was the basis for a song by a notable band.
It is mentioned in a number of Wichita and Sedgwick County documents, so there may be additional print information on the subject to establish notability. Perhaps we could notify members of WikiProject Kansas or WikiProject U.S. History (if such projects exists) as they might have more information. Black Falcon 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Here's an Internet source that indicates that the band Manilla Road recorded a song titled "Herman Hill" based on the riot described in this article. --Richard 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additional sources include [22] (skip to page 94 of 127) and [23] (skip to page 38 of 50). Black Falcon 02:43, 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.

Keep. BTW is there a category for sports/entertainment riots? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:17Z

List of Armenians[edit]

This list has become a huge, useless, unverified, and unmaintainable list, and no one has shown any interest in properly maintaining it. As it has no useful purpose in its current form, delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off into separate articles - List of Armenian actors, List of Armenian artists etc. This would be easier to maintain, verify and use. Walton monarchist89 13:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't this just better off as Category:Armenians? Shrumster 13:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, [[Category:Armenian people]] already exists. Perhaps the two can somehow be merged (if not already all people in the list are in the category) and (soft)redirected? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use the Category:Armenian people instead. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with category. Hut 8.5 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I admit this list has gotten out of hand, I think we should keep it. I eliminated all latest additions that were red links. I find this list useful, just as useful as any other "List of x nationality". I am willing to pay more attention to the article so that no more damaging additions may be done. - Fedayee 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - significantly improved and cut down by Fedayee since nominated for deletion. The list is maintainable, it just seems to have suffered from a lack of maintenance-directed attention for some time. In addition, the subcategories of Category:Armenian people are rather underpopulated. Splitting off into separate articles, per Walton monarchist89, sounds like a good idea once the list is cleaned up. Black Falcon 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept because it is very usefule article. The only problem is that it should be cleaned a little, so it would not get out of control with unverified informations added. ROOB323 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks fine now. Hakob 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hakob. -- Davo88 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nareklm 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and sort out and for what its worth delete category armenian people for being redundent to the list! per Walton Monarchist Jcuk 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can hardly see why THIS of all lists is an unmaintainable, unverified, huge list. Has anyone even seen lists like List of Jewish American musicians? If those can stay, there's no reason this one can't. Usedup 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consitering we have plenty of other people by origin of birth.--Sefringle 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a worthy and quite accurate article. The only development I'd consider is spinning off into separate articles, as it was suggested by Walton monarchist89. --Armatura 12:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:15Z

T-MODE[edit]

Original research created by Tmode (talk · contribs). Strong WP:COI violation. Google search of the news archives turns up nothing relevant except two press releases. No third-party reliable sources can be found to establish notability or to verify the contents of the article. --Farix (Talk) 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article gives me no indication of this event being notable in any way. Large parts of it seem to read like an advertisement too. --PatrickD 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It also looks like it's encouraging you to go to this event... — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable convention. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:16Z

Declan Arthurs[edit]

Delete: Non-notable; boilerplate background as with six of the eight men killed at Loughgall, except Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh; the other six should be consolidated on one page.El chulito 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets several criteria from WP:BIO.GiollaUidir 11:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with other five IRA men with "boilerplate" (as it was put by another editor) histories. There is nothing notable about this individual.Inthegloaming 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect with other men in main article about the Loughall ambush/skirmish.--Jackyd101 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a combined article with the rest of them. A combined Afd would have been better really. One Night In Hackney 11:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As stated above he meets several criteria from WP:BIO, also Arthurs was involved in a lot more operations than just Loughall.--Vintagekits 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable IRA terrorist- Wikipedia is not an IRA memorial site Astrotrain 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I remember this guy from my time in Ireland.SlideAndSlip 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect: non-notable.Conrad Falk 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am offended that a moronic comment like that of User:SlideAndSlip is still standing. It should have been deleted as garbage.Conrad Falk 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:15Z

Seamus Donnelly[edit]

Delete: Non-notable; boilerplate background as with six of the eight men killed at Loughgall, except Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh; the other six should be consolidated on one page, perhaps Loughgall. El chulito 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and does not deserve a seperate article. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:: - one of a the notoriuos East Tyrone unit - Loughall wasnt the only operation that Gormely was involved in - granted the article needs improving. The nomination for deletion is a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Vintagekits 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets several inclusion criteria from WP:BIO.GiollaUidir 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with other five IRA men with "boilerplate" (as it was put by another editor) histories. There is nothing notable about this individual. Again, User:Vintagekits' comments are in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.Inthegloaming 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, and falls within the spec of WPIRA. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect with other men in main article about the Loughall ambush/skirmish. --Jackyd101 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per Jackyd101. Logoistic 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade, not Loughall. One Night In Hackney 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per nom. Non notable. IRA men are not notable only because they died violently. Of the Loughall dead, only their leaders Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh really merit articles of their own. Jdorney 12:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I remember this guy from my time in Ireland.SlideAndSlip 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect: non-notable. P.S. I am offended that a moronic comment like that of User:SlideAndSlip is still standing. It should have been deleted by an admin. as garbage.Conrad Falk 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:14Z

Tony Gormley[edit]

Delete: Non-notable; boilerplate background as with six of the eight men killed at Loughgall, except Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh; the other six should be consolidated on one page - perhaps Loughgall. El chulito 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep:: - one of a the notoriuos East Tyrone unit - Loughall wasnt the only operation that Gormely was involved in - granted the article needs improving. The nomination for deletion is a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Vintagekits 10:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets several criteria from WP:BIO.GiollaUidir 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with other five IRA men with "boilerplate" (as it was put by another editor) histories. There is nothing notable about this individual. Again User:Vintagekits' comments are in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.Inthegloaming 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person and does not deserve a seperate article. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable Astrotrain 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect with other men in main article about the Loughall ambush/skirmish. --Jackyd101 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per Jackyd101. Logoistic 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per Jackyd101. Jdorney 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jackyd101, however this article should either be redirected to Antony Gormley, who is somewhat more notable than this individual, or made into a disambig page. AdorableRuffian 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable.--Major Bonkers 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. - Kittybrewster 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't do anything except join a terrorist organisation and own an engineering firm, which of itself is not notable, hardly the Hughes Tool Company. --Couter-revolutionary 19:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect: non-notable per nom.Conrad Falk 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:14Z

Eugene Kelly (Irish republican)[edit]

This has been listed on WikiProject Irish Republican Army/AfD -- Tyrenius 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable; same boilerplate background as six of the 8 men killed at Loughgall, except Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh; the six others should be consolidated on one page, perhaps Loughgall.El chulito 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:: - one of a the notoriuos East Tyrone unit - Loughall wasnt the only operation that Gormely was involved in - granted the article needs improving. The nomination for deletion is a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Vintagekits 10:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read it, you will see that the only severe case present is the proposal by the nom of "Non-notable". You have no grounds for personal accusations. See Inthegloaming's comments below. Tyrenius 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets several inclusion criteria from WP:BIO.GiollaUidir 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with other five IRA men with "boilerplate" (as it was put by another editor) histories. There is nothing notable about this individual. Again, User:Vintagekits' comments are in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.Inthegloaming 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person and does not deserve a seperate article. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect with other men in main article about the Loughall ambush/skirmish. No more notability on his own than those killed at (for example) Warrenpoint, who don't (and shouldn't) have their own articles--Jackyd101 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per Jackyd101. This would also mean cutting a lot of the information (which is not notable for someone like this), such as that he had two brothers, etc. Logoistic 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jackyd101. This keeps necessary info in more appropriate form. Tyrenius 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade, not Loughall. One Night In Hackney 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Non notable on his own. Jdorney 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect: non-notable as per nom.Conrad Falk 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:13Z

Update: I am invalidating the results of this AFD due to sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue). Since Patrick Kelly has since become a disambiguation page, the original page has been history-split to Patrick Joseph Kelly. If anybody is still in favor of deleting or merging this article, please open a new AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-04 12:21Z

Patrick Kelly[edit]

Delete: Non-notable; basically same boilerplate background as six of the eight men killed at Loughgall, except Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh. The other six should be consolidated on one page, perhaps Loughall.El chulito 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - firstly, you state delete but then recommend "merge", secondly, Kelly was the commander of this unit therefore more important than the two you have already mentioned and finally, Kelly was involved in a lot more than just the Loughall Ambush so where do you propose to hold all those details aswell?--Vintagekits 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets several inclusion criteria from WP:BIO.GiollaUidir 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with other five IRA men with "boilerplate" (as it was put by another editor) histories. There is nothing notable about this individual.Inthegloaming 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If as mentioned above, this man did more than just die at Loughall, then it needs to be properly stated in the article and backed up with reliable sources. If this can't be done then he should be merged into an overall article about the Loughall ambush/skirmish.--Jackyd101 02:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. The article can be expanded as there is a reliable source for his activity prior to his death, Big Boys' Rules by Mark Urban which is already used as a source for the East Tyrone Brigade article. Merging is probably the better option, as the book details the activities of the group far more than individual members. One Night In Hackney 10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as per other Loughall dead articles. Jdorney 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I remember this guy from my time in Ireland.SlideAndSlip 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect: non-notable. P.S. I am offended that a moronic comment like that of User:SlideAndSlip is still standing. It should have been deleted by an admin as garbage.Conrad Falk 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:13Z

Gerry O'Callaghan[edit]

Delete: non-notable; basically same boilerplate background as six of the PIRA members killed at Loughall, except Padraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh. The other six should be consolidated on one page, perhaps Loughgall. El chulito 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:: - one of a the notoriuos East Tyrone unit - Loughall wasnt the only operation that Gormely was involved in - granted the article needs improving. The nomination for deletion is a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Vintagekits 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets several inclusion criteria from WP:BIO.GiollaUidir 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with other five IRA men with "boilerplate" (as it was put by another editor) histories. There is nothing sufficiently notable about this individual to merit his own page, and the comments of User:Vintagekits are in violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.Inthegloaming 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person and does not deserve a seperate article. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade, as per other rank and file Loughall dead articles. Jdorney 12:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I remember this guy from my time in Ireland.SlideAndSlip 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect like other five and non-notable as per nom.

I am offended that a moronic comment like that of User:SlideAndSlip is still standing. It should have been deleted as garbage.Conrad Falk 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even those proposing merge didn't seem to have much enthusiasm for the option. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurama DVD commentaries[edit]

This list is non notable fancruft. I can see where some people may think it has value, but the contents are completely unencyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia.-- Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't merit its own article; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Merge any relevant information to other articles on the series. Walton monarchist89 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fair, since theres a similar page for The Simpsons. The Simpsons DVD commentaries. - Jigsy
Delete per nom. The similar page for The Simpsons should probably also be deleted. If there is really something worthwhile here then it could probably be merged into List of Futurama episodes. Stardust8212 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge of both "Futurama DVD commentaries" article and The Simpsons DVD commentaries into List of Futurama episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes (or respective seasons pages). Otherwise delete as listcruft. --Will Mak 050389 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge of the notation of this being included in each episode (i.e. XX was included in the DVD Season YY box set, where Mr. ZZ offered commentary), which at least points someone looking for the episode to the right place/format where it can be found.SkierRMH 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything actually useful or informative into each episode's article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable collection of information. DVD commentaries should, at most, be used as an occasional reference; they're really unimportant for the episodes. ShadowHalo 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with episode articles or possibly where DVD releases are listed on the main Futurama page. Otherwise Delete. Chickenmonkey 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I see POV-pushing on both sides of this discussion, but good arguments are brought up by both sides. That being said, the article has undergone substantial improvement (particularly in regards to WP:V) and the late push seems to be for keeping. IronGargoyle 17:59, 14 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}}.

Martin McCaughey[edit]

This AfD has been listed on WikiProject Irish Republican Army/AfD -- Tyrenius 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for notability concerns and a prod, which was removed without improvement to the article, so it's here for AfD. There is no indication in the article of meeting notability requirements. Not everyone who was shot in the "troubles" in Ireland will have their own biographical entry — only those who in some way have achieved wider prominence, which can be established by mainstream coverage, of which there is none cited here. It might merit inclusion in a wider article about the alleged "shoot to kill" policy or whatever, but not, from what is written, as a stand-alone article. Tyrenius 13:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator, there is nothing notable in his biography. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, as per nom--could not have said it better myself - not every PIRA member deserves his or her own page any more than every loyalist deserves his own page.El chulito 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Lets not get this out of persective, over 3,000 people died in "the Troubles", how many of them have articles? McCaughey was actually the youngest ever elected representative in All of Ireland and at the same time held membership of PIRA and held up by Unionists as the prime example of inextricable link between Sinn Fein and the PIRA. When I removed the tag I did state that I would fill in the full details tonight and would have thought that that would have been taken in good faith and given a chance to extend the article. Obviously not. I will extend it tonight so i would appriciate if you would revisit your "delete" votes after that. regards--Vintagekits 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yet another non notable IRA member- Wikipedia is not an IRA memorial site- we have articles on the notable terrorists who committed the worst attrocities, but not for every single member. Astrotrain 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff from the some editors. If he "didnt do anything" why was he shot? Should we delete articles of Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Abner Louima or Sean Bell? The only thing of note for those people is being killed by security forces. With McCaughey getting shot is not the only thing of note in his life.--Vintagekits 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly stop littering AfDs WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when the editor has clearly stated an acceptable reason: "non notable". Tyrenius 07:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. - Kittybrewster 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any reason for your asertion?--Vintagekits 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply per User:Jill Teed - Kittybrewster 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so what exactly is your reason?--Vintagekits 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More crack IRA memorialising from the IRA Wikiproject. Anyway, shouldn't 'volunteer' be with a lower case 'V'?--Major Bonkers 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project you have mentioned has only just started and is nothing to do with this article. Kindly assume good faith until proved otherwise. This isn't a soapbox for your personal prejudices. Putting forward false and irrelevant arguments only weakens the case, and may well be discounted by the closing admin. Tyrenius 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains valid that this is yet another IRA memorial page. Your imputation of prejudice is ad hominem (and pompous).--Major Bonkers 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have displayed your prejudices clearly above where you attack the whole of a Wikproject. The argument of "memorial page" is irrelevant to the debate, which is concerned with the notability of the subject. "Memorial page" relates to the style of writing, which — if your observation is true (and I don't think it is anyway) — can easily be amended. Tyrenius 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument, which you are misrepresenting, is that this article (amongst others) is one of a series on minor IRA members which individually and sequentially (1) do not satisfy the notability criteria and (2) display bias. The issue of the Wikiproject is irrelevant and has not been criticised by me per se.--Major Bonkers 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your point. I had no intention of misrepresenting you, though possibly I misunderstood you. We have to deal with this as an individual article; bias, if present, can be corrected; non-notability is the case for deletion. Tyrenius 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious response. I apologise for the slightly fraught tone, above. My original comment was rather facetiously expressed.--Major Bonkers 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning to delete.~~ The claim about being Britain's youngest "representative" (of what sort?) would make him notable, if there was any press coverage outside the council's area to that effect. But absent a reliable source for that claim, this person does not appear notable enough to keep. Argyriou (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber Strong Keep- Above votes for delete really make sense and looks like the usual anti-Republican campaigners have voted for delete like they did here and [24] and is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Talented footballer who made the County Tyrone minor GAA squad and gave that up to become a republican - mildly notable.
Friend of the "Loughall Martyrs" - mildly notable.
Elected as a Sinn Fein representative to Dungannon DC - mildly notable.
Was the youngest elected representative in all of Ireland at the time. notable
Joins the PIRA - mildly notable
Member of the IRA and an elected councillor at the same time - notable
Held up by Unionists as the epitiemy of the link between Sinn and the IRA. notable
Plotted to kill fellow members of Dungannon DC - notable
Made leave Dungannon DC due to non attendance - mildly notable
The reason for not turning up the council meeting - getting involved in a shoot out with RUC officers - notable
One of Britain’s most wanted men - notable
Killed by the British Army under disputed circumstances as part of the shoot to kill policy - notable
Ongoing court cases regarding the disclosure of the British Arm and security forces documents relating to the shooting. - notable

There are more points I could list, however, if the above does not show notability then I am not sure what does.--Vintagekits 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove sufficient coverage of 11 and 7, and if this particular incident in 12 gained attention, not merely an instant news story, but something more durable. Tyrenius 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not notable. 2. Not notable. 3. Only notable if Dungannon was a stronghold of anti-Sinn Fein votes. 4. Notable, but unsourced. 5. Not notable. 6. Maybe notable, if uncommon enough. 7. Vaguely notable (but, Tyrenius, sourced in the link to the parliamentary debate). 8. Plotted, not notable. If he'd done it, notable. 9. not notable. 10. Maybe notable, if sourced. 11. Notable, depending how often they rotate the list, but not sourced. 12. Not notable unless non-IRA sources made a big fuss about it.

So, based on Vintagekits' claims, he's notable. That's enough to prevent a Speedy Delete. If references are provided for 4 and 11, then I'll change to keep. Argyriou (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hard man to please! What about the court cases over his death also. Anyway, for 4. See the Tírghrá reference that I have added. for 11. See transcript of the BBC doc "BRITS". Also I hardly think that being the youngest elected representative in Ireland is more notable than getting shot in an SAS "shot-to-kill" mission only months after getting kicked out of a council after being in another shout out. Not sure I'd like to live in your council area if that is just normal to you. Hope the references help.--Vintagekits 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The reference for #4 does not show that there was any note taken of McCaughey's youth as a councillor at the time he was elected a councillor, therefore does not demonstrate that he was notable for that. #11 does seem to make him notable, but there's not really enough context for the claim - how big was the "Most Wanted" list in those days? How often did people come off or get put on it? But there is a reference that he was "most wanted in Britain", which does seem to make one pretty notable, unless the term was so overused as to be meaningless. Argyriou (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY Keep - this nomination is absurd. Almost any one of the "notable" examples above would be grounds for keeping this article. Together, the person is undeniably notable. An administrator should step in and veto this nomination. It smacks of partisanism. --Lee Vonce 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, if you'll look at Tyrenius's contributions, you'll see that he's vociferously defended several other IRA member articles at AfD, and that he's been coming down pretty hard on most of the people supporting this nomination. Argyriou (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps speedily - This IRA member is even less notable than some of the others which should have been deleted. What did he do, except join the IRA to make him notable. ~~I shall echo what's been said many times before, wikipedia is not a memorial to the IRA.~~ --Couter-revolutionary 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said above "memorial to the IRA" is a non-argument, emotive, rhetorical and not relating to policy. Non-notability is the consideration. Tyrenius 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, he is not notable as he didn't do anything except have membership of a banned organisation.--Couter-revolutionary 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - obviously you havent read the article then!--Vintagekits 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF or alternatively express your point non-facetiously. Tyrenius 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a speedy delete as it's contested, and speedies under CSD A7 are for "non controversial" deletions without any claim to notability. Tyrenius 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Non-notable as per nom. ~~Not every IRA terrorist is encyclopedia-worthy.~~ Allow me to expand -- I know I was a bit flippant; I apologize. I have studied the Troubles to a certain degree, and many members of the IRA/INLA have had interesting backgrounds that some may view as "notable"; however we cannot (despite the possible intentions of some) give a page to every republican paramilitary with an interesting history or background, even if he was killed on active duty. And what about the majority of paramilitaries who were not killed - will every one of them get their own page? McCaughey is still a non-notable and I stand by my vote. Jill Teed 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You still dont give a reason, its still sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Given all the detaqils in the article as now what is the exact reason for aserting for being non-notable? regards--Vintagekits 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We cannot give a page to every republican paramilitary with an interesting history or background" doesn't match any Wikipedia policy or guideline I know. Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say that you believe that we should not, but if there's a policy or guideline preventing Wikipedia from including an NPOV article on every IRA member who satisfies WP:BIO, I'm not aware of it. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly this person is notable. Vintagekits is right and so is Vonce. I don't understand why this was even nominated. There are claims to notability in the article that are being ignored. --Curtis Bledsoe 2 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First ever edit by this user name. Tyrenius 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add that the keep vote by this "Curtis Bledsoe", who has no previous history on Wikipedia is suspicious and in the event of a tie vote should be disqualified for that reason unless he can prove his bona fides.Jill Teed 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three sources in the article declare him to be one of a pair, who were Britain's most wanted men at the time of his murder. Several other things listed by Vintagekits lead me to believe he's notable enough. Give it some time. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Vintagekits' #4 and #7 above would appear to be notable. However, the article still needs work. I would have concerns about some of the current references - not all appear to actually state what they should be, or could be taken to be good sources. E.g., while it may well be true that "Republican sources claim the men were unarmed" I don't see how there's any way that claim can be verified by a reputable source. Bastun 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is made by various sources and it also the subject ofthe court cases - links to the reports from the court cases have been referenced.--Vintagekits 11:38, 9

February 2007 (UTC)

Very strong keep. As per all reasons given by Vintagekits. Article subject fulfils practically all criteria (accross several fields) for inclusion. It is becoming tiring how many clearly notable person articles are being nominated for deletion purely under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiollaUidir 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree with you and hope that some of the editors will change their vote now that the article has been improved.--Vintagekits 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another article glorifying a subversive terrorist in Britain.David Lauder 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per nom. I would also like to add that based on the most recent votes, it appears that this colloquy is degrading into a pro-IRA and anti-IRA ideological war, some of whose actors may have an agenda, and an administrator needs to step in now. While I believe User:David Lauder should have phrased his opinion differently, his view is that of almost all of the 60 million or so people living in Britain and most Americans who preferred not to involve themselves in the issue of terrorism prior to 9/11.Inthegloaming 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you but you misunderstand. Firstly these pages are supposed to be for comment as to why you feel the article should be or not be, deleted. I have given my reason. There are hundreds of thousands of ordinary terrorists world-wide who are not at all notable except that they voluntarily joined organisations dedicated to the murder for political purposes of innocent people, and may or may not have come to a sticky end themselves. I just don't think that Wikipedia should become a propaganda vehicle for terrorists. By all means have some sort of page explaining the organisation's existance but don't glorify the membership. David Lauder 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep Very notable Irishman. The reasons Vintagekits and others have mentioned make him definetly worthy of an article. Derry Boi 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to add to what the other uses have already said. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The claims about being the youngest elected representive and one of Britain's most wanted IRA members would probably warrant keeping but it needs tidying up, I've just removed some nasty, unsourced claims. DavyJonesLocker 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some IRA members are notable and some aren't. This man is one of the latter. The claims of notability above are simply not enough: being a councillor is not grounds for nobility by itself, nor is membership of the IRA, being killed during the Troubles or having a low-profile lawsuit on-going about the nature of death. Also, the assertion that he was one of Britain's wanted men appears to be based solely on the transcript of a BBC documentary and not any official government listing. As a side-note, the article itself suffers badly from POV even after recent clear up attempts. The phrase "Loughall Martyrs" particulaly stands out.--Jackyd101 01:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by the references, I think there's a good case that he meets WP:BIO. Unfortunately, it looks like the abuse of AfD to push a particular POV has resumed. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The pair were said to be Britain's two most wanted IRA men at the time" - sounds notable enough to me. Getting rid of it would remove information that you would be hard-pushed to find in a hurry anywhere on the internet. Logoistic 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logoistic - That is just not so. Just Google his name and add IRA or shot dead or something like that and a cascade of pro-IRA sites and shrines to the IRA dead will emerge. If that's the only reason for your vote; pls. reconsider. (see my vote below)Conrad Falk 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reference here. It seems to be a neutral source (I know the BBC is, but it's someone speaking within it) - from a narrator of a documentary presumably, in which case it looks good to me. Logoistic 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Is clearly notable per WP:BIO. Peter Taylor is one of the most respected journalists regarding Northern Ireland and The Troubles, attempting to discredit the transcript (hosted on the BBC site I hasten to add) of a programme he produced is inappropriate. He's won awards for his reporting on Northern Ireland, which include awards for the programme someone is attempting to discredit [25]. One Night In Hackney 09:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats quite strong language there. I wasn't attempting to "discredit" the BBC documentary, my point merely was that the claim that McCaughey was one of 'Britain's most wanted men' (and therefore is notable enough for a Wikipedia article) is based on a single line from a single documentary. This alone is not enough evidence to my mind to grant someone a page without wider corroboration or notability, which I do not feel this article as it currently stands provides. Please WP:AGF in future.--Jackyd101 10:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person --Barry talk 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- After reviewing the page I find there is nothing notable - I was impressed with User:Jill Teed's analysis and concur with it.Conrad Falk 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just noticed that Dessie Grew who was killed alongside McCaughey also has a Wikipedia page of his own which has less content and claims to notability than this one. Would it be appropriate to discuss both articles here (as they are substantially connected), or to potentially start a whole new Afd on that article when someone nominates it (as they probably will). I have no particular opinion on this, but I'm putting it out there mainly for feedback based on WP procedures.--Jackyd101 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late to add at this stage, though it could have been included at the beginning. I deliberately restricted the AfD to one article, rather than including similar ones so there could be a properly focused analysis and debate. Let's get this done, then reassess. Tyrenius 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying--Jackyd101 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep- IRA Volunteer Martin McCaughey is of course a notable figure - particularly in the area he was born and lived in. McCaughey and Grew at the time of their deaths were senior members of the Tyrone IRA and had been involved in numerous attacks on members of the British Army and RUC including one suspected attack on undercover soldiers who were apparently tailing his car (Kevin Toolis' book Rebel Hearts includes reference to this). I've yet to see a single well thought out explanation as to why this article should be deleted. Irish Republican 07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Taylor also deals with the deaths of McCaughey and Grew in his book and documentry called 'Brits'. If I recall correctly Taylor interviews a father of one of the two men (I've the book and programme somewhere in the house and will reference that when I get them).Irish Republican 07:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has changed hugely since the version that was nominated for AfD, which had no evidence of notability. It now, to my mind, validates its inclusion. However, none of the facts which now do that were present at the time of the nom. The initial responses on this page were of course made to the earlier version. As there is considerable challenge to IRA-related articles, it is highly advisable for those writing them to ensure that they are up to the present standard of this one, before posting in article space. I suggest preparation on a user sub page, or a Wikiproject IRA sub page. Tyrenius 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the cynical would expect, non-Darwin Award-winning wacky hijinks don't produce one of Wikipedia's best articles, but the subject is well-enough documented and referenced to stand alone. There are a few NPOV problems, or so it seems to me, but those will no doubt be resolved in time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is notable and the article is now in reasonable shape. John Vandenberg 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus overall, but one could argue keep straightout since the rewrite. Not that it matters, really. - Daniel.Bryant 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Douglas Genn[edit]

Please note: the article has been moved to Robert Genn. Tyrenius 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete article asserts notability - "Robert Genn is one of Canada's most popular and collected painters" - but doesn't provide evidence of external coverage by independent sources. Delete unless sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the subject may possibly be notable per WP:BIO, but the article as it stands is a mass of unverifiable and unsourced information which would need a major rewrite. Unless someone can deal with these issues before this AfD ends, it has to go. CiaranG 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with additions below. If the article is improved, I don't mind it being here, although this does bring up the problems with people writing their own articles and why conflict-of-interest concerns are important. I don't think WP:BITE is an issue: if you write your own article, you're setting yourself up to be bitten (as per WP:WWIN and WP:NPOV--wikipedia should not be self-promotional). But having said that, if all the sources check out, I believe it satisfies WP:BIO. Freshacconci 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very emphatically Keep and tag for citations, this is a well-known artist, with work in at least a dozen galleries, as well as in Western Canada's largest museum. His work has been purchased by the government of Belgium, by the Winston Churchill Foundation, the University of Alberta, Bank of Montreal and Air Canada.

He served on the board of directors of the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design.

He is known as somewhat of an expert in art history, techniques, and criticism and has written essays articles and books on those subjects... I don't know of any (readily available) sources for information about him, but I've seen his art in galleries in the L.A. area and read a book and some reprints of articles he wrote. He has several short articles at this website. I'm in favor of keeping the article and addressing the verification issues on a fact-to-fact basis. He is certainly a notable artist with a long career. He wrote 'The Dreamway'; Robert Genn, in praise of painting ISBN-10: 0920886175 and ISBN-13: 978-0920886175; and The Painter's Keys A Seminar With Robert Genn User:Pedant 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some material I found as extra references, which was easily found in a brief time... I'm sure more can be found with a little effort and perhaps the assistance of the article's author. I think that this artist's notability is well established, and that it should pose no great difficulty to verify the claims in the article. We are very fortunate that the artist himself took the "bold" step of writing his own article, and it would be worth our while to not bite him for it, and to courteously offer advice and assistance in bringing it up to wikipedian standards. User:Pedant 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: references supplied by Pedant have been moved from here to the talk page, but should be studied before finalising an assessment on this article. Tyrenius 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have now been mostly incorporated into the article.Tyrenius 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETE REWRITE: I have completely rewritten this article at this point, only relying on the original for mundane details such as birth date, education, family etc. Comments prior to this are about the original version, which had no references at all. Tyrenius 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite as above. Sufficient notability established for inclusion, particularly through work in collections, including Government of Belgium and Glenbow Museum, and amount of gallery representation and shows. I would like to say that the nom was quite correct in asking the question. Tyrenius 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO easily and the article is in good shape. John Vandenberg 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite above, with thanks to Tyrenius for his extraordinary efforts in saving the article. User:Pedant 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Calvin and Hobbes[edit]

Delete - an indiscriminate, largely unreferenced list of every time images that may or may not have been inspired by Calvin and Hobbes have appeared anywhere. Probably unverifiable, requires OR. Otto4711 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Calvin and Hobbes. Many of the entries on the list are unreferenced and therefore violate WP:NOR. Merge any useful/valid content, delete the rest. Walton monarchist89 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good example of WP:NOT a pile of lists. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all non notable, minor, references. The article should not be merged to Calvin and Hobbes (I'm quite certain it has been split off from it because the main article is already too long), but a list of major cultural works referencing C&H is a good way to show the impact and influence C&H have had (and still have). Remove the fluff that is more there to promote some non-notable work involved than anything else, and keep major things like Mad Magazine, the textbook, Far Side, or FoxTrot, if properly referenced. Fram 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think your !vote is a good illustration of what the problem is with this list and other similar lists. You want to keep the "major things" and get rid of the "fluff" but how is it determined what is "major" and what is "fluff"? Who makes that decision? Clearly everyone who entered an item on this list thinks that the item is important enough to be noted, so how can removing part of the list be justified without resorting to improper POV judgment calls? Otto4711 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That in my view is a matter for debate on the talk page of the article, not for bringing up here as a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were so, it would not address the problems of 1) the inclusion of images which may or may not be C&H-inspired, requiring original research on the part of editors absent a specific reliable source that the image in question in in fact C&H-inspired, and 2) the fundamental lack of necessity for an article that seeks to capture every possible reference to C&H in every other medium ever without the slightest context as to why such references are themselves notable. Otto4711 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly violations of WP:V and WP:NOR. For the love of God, don't merge to the main article; it's featured and doesn't need this garbage. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Fram said. Mathmo ^Talk 06:23, 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) 2007-02-13 08:13Z

Epsco[edit]

Not notable, even in Scotland I've never heard of them. Scot ^t 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless independent sources are added; currently no evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Walton monarchist89 14:29, 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) 2007-02-13 08:12Z

Cormac McGinley[edit]

Delete: Completely non-notable; took no part in finals match for which he was included in Wikipedia to begin with!! El chulito 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the all ireland winnig squad in 2003 is very notibile (Gnevin 16:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment how do you know he was included for the finals , he as inter county star in Ireland , plays one of Ireland's national sports at the highest level and has been on a team that has won and All-Ireland , very notable (Gnevin)

Keep As stated above, was is a member of the All Ireland winning panel and he also played intercounty level, which is the highest level of football that can be played in the sport.--Vintagekits 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not have sufficient contents. I suppose A1 is applicable. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub its clearly a stub so A1 doesn't seem applicable (Gnevin 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - Yes, I do agree with you, the article should be self-sufficient to qualify as a valid stub article, but I do not think that the article qualifies as a valid stub in the current format, because after reading the article, it seems to be non-notable. Either there should be contents to prove its notability or should be deleted. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He plays one of Ireland's national sports at the highest level for one of the best teams , he played in front of more people in Croke Park last Saturday than where at the super bowl . Very Notible (Gnevin 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      - Now, it is a valid stub. Keep. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Same applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Mellon(Gnevin 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Notable Irish sportsman, who won the greatest prise in Irish sport. Derry Boi 18:43, 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 but rewrite. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:12Z

Business opportunity[edit]

I can't find a version of this article that doesn't suck and doesn't include original research. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has a long list of references. However, I agree it needs massive improvement and cleanup from its present POV state. Walton monarchist89 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is referenced, but not with in-line citations. Therefore claiming this is all OR is not strong argument. Also the argument that the article "sucks" does not impress me. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Argument for deletion is fairly poor, but there are problems that warrant a rewrite. Whilding87 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the fact that the current article "sucks" is not grounds for deletion. Nor is the fact that it seems to be a spam magnet necessarily grounds for deletion, though I deleted several spammy or broken external links given as the "references". But I am also not confident that this can ever be expanded in a worthwhile and neutral way beyond a dictionary definition; or for that matter, beyond the definitions of the two words of the title. It seems incredibly vague and too open-ended to support much of an article. Trying to move beyond this, you will either get promoters of the various dubious get-rich-quick enterprises that are pitched as "business opportunities", or you will get their critics. At best, this should be a disambiguation page for such things as franchising and pyramid schemes. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has a long list of references. Mathmo ^Talk 06:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After removing spam links, dead links, and blogspot links (not reliable sources), two external links are left as "references." - Smerdis of Tlön 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be a BrE/AmE difference, but I thought that a "business opportunity", in its true sense, was just that - an opportunity to start or expand a genuine business via a "gap in the market", as described here for example. The Wikipedia article seems to be describing what I would call get-rich-quick schemes - their creators might call them "business opportunities", but they are not really. (It's a bit like calling prostitution a "romantic opportunity"...) AdorableRuffian 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is why I think that if anything at all should go here, it should be some kind of disambiguation page. There is an economic concept of "opportunity", usually discussed in the context of opportunity cost, the cost that arises out of the roads not taken, the loss of alternative uses that come from dedicating a resource to a purpose. There is also your sense, which is an aspect of marketing. Finally, "business opportunity" is used as a euphemism in the sense this article is about, for the promotion of multi-level marketing, advance fee frauds, forex scams, secret plans to make millions speculating in land or on Ebay, and similar morally and legally dubious and economically implausible schemes. The phrase is inherently vague, and in itself not really a good subject for an article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

may be the title is in correct like call it business oportunities or scams and there should be an other article describes entreprenuarship the other mining of a business oportunity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-13 08:08Z

Haelan therapy[edit]

200 Google hits, reads like advert, WP:BALLS Robin Johnson (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; no sources; "therapy" developed by one person, nothing to show that it's widely used. Walton monarchist89 14:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable therapy. NawlinWiki 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should leave information about these questionable therapies here as a public service. --Curtis Bledsoe 2 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second edit by this user name. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles about notable "questionable" therapies like acupuncture and homeopathy. The problem with this one is that it's non-notable and pluggy - no sources, no Google presence, for either the therapy itself or the therapist (PhD, of course!) who made it up. And, if you can see past the meaningless buzzwords, no "information" at all. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:30, 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) 2007-02-13 08:07Z

Ryan Mellon[edit]

Delete: Completely non-notable; entire bio consists of one line: "He is a Tyrone Gaelic footballer, who was part of the All-Ireland-winning team of 2005." Again, I'll add: Not every player on every winning team in any country is notable or worthy of a page on this encyclopaedia as evidenced by the large number of players on the Tyrone Panel who are red-linked - how important they are !!El chulito 14:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning an All Ireland is one the greatest sporting achivement in Ireland (Gnevin 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep He is a winner of the highest national sporting accodale you can get in Ireland! fair enough the article is very poor to say the least - but that is not a reason to delete.--Vintagekits 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other articles' non-presence is not a reason for deletion, and the above comments point out that the individual satisfies WP:BIO. Sourcing would be good but this is not deletable. --N Shar 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not have sufficient contents. I suppose A1 is applicable. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub its clearly a stub so A1 doesn't seem applicable (Gnevin 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - Yes, I do agree with you, the article should be self-sufficient to qualify as a valid stub article, but I do not think that the article qualifies as a valid stub in the current format, because after reading the article, it seems to be non-notable. Either there should be contents to prove its notability or should be deleted. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now, it is a valid stub. Keep. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Irish sportsman, who won the greatest prize in Irish sport. Derry Boi 18:42, 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) 2007-02-13 08:07Z

David Harte[edit]

Delete: as completely non-notable; no accomplishments of note; only importance is as relative of someone else.El chulito 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC) El chulito 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very poor nom , he has won the highest honour in gaelic football not 2 years ago (Gnevin 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep notable GAA sportsman. Catchpole 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable irish sportsman.--Vintagekits 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable as per nom.Jill Teed 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Catchpole Frelke 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as having competed @ highest national level (GAA) & Gnevin' note on Gaelic football. SkierRMH 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Irish sportsman. Derry Boi 18:40, 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 Keep. IronGargoyle 18:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Kata[edit]

Original research. No reliable sources on the topic. Recury 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs better sourcing, but a quick look at Google Books and Google News shows reliable sources mentioning Gun Kata exist. PubliusFL 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that gives more than a passing mention of it. Links? Recury 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - Article requires more sources as per Publius, but the topic itself is not original research (although many of the statements currently in the article about the topic might be). This necessitates cleanup, not deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't contend that the topic itself is original research, just that there aren't enough non-trivial, reliable sources on the subject. Recury 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. The topic should not be deleted, it should be sourced. I notice in the external links that there are entire sites dedicated to the subject, and there seem to be quotes from the director who developed it. That's hardly trivial and as reliable as can reasonably be asked. I've seen worse articles become quite decent with dedication from the right editor. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are self-published by what appear to be fans and thus would not qualify as reliable. I don't think the topic can ever be properly sourced, in which case WP:V says we have to delete. Recury 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may be published by fans, but that does not necessarily mean that they do not contain verifiable content, as per the interview I mentioned above. Since we are dealing with a fictional art, the converse of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" from WP:RS provides some leeway (i.e., you aren't going to find a scholarly paper or journal article on this topic). This does not mean the topic cannot be provided with useful and verifiable data (which I believe it has). To quote: Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically.

I would say that this context (fiction) does not require the kinds of sources you appear to be requiring. Not to belabor this too long, but I do believe that if the sources were actively referenced in the text of the article, it would resolve most objections. To clarify/ammend something I said previously with more precise terms, I think the topic is sourced properly - you can't get more accurate or valid than the individuals (director and choreographer) who developed it - but not referenced properly, which is a different matter. Let's give the other editors an opportunity to weigh in. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V makes no exceptions for fiction, and I don't know why you think it would. You don't need a journal article or anything, just something written in a movie review or an article in a magazine or something. It's not like there's a shortage of people writing about this kind of stuff. Recury 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about exceptions... a careful reading of what I said will demonstrate this. I actually quoted from RS to underscore what I both said and meant. As far as the article goes, there are sources cited, there are interviews provided. I would not be against a merge and redirect, as others have mentioned, but I don't think we should delete an article simply because someone is not satisfied with some pretty direct sourcing for the topic. I had not intended to comment on this subject again, I think one person weighing in too often is counter-productive, but I do not wish to be misquoted - I understand how WP:V works. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From RS: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." From WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are none, so it gets deleted. Recury 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about the sources provided, and it is true that they do not contain as detailed descriptions as what appears in the (apparently) primary source of the article's data. In light of this I would then support a Merge to Gun fu with such information as can be obtained from the verifiable sources provided. A redirect from Gun Kata to Gun fu would then work, since - as others have pointed out and I don't think anyone has disputed - the topic is notable, therefore likely a subject of searches. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The related term Gun fu has more history of use although that article too is in serious need of work. I am waiting for the result of an afd debate on Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles before I do a slash and hack but in reallity Gun fu and Gun Kata refer to the same thing. Not a true martial art but movie action skill.Peter Rehse 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable in the same manner as other modern cinematic techniques (e.g. bullet time); I think the tone of the article should reflect this however, rather than treating it as a martial art (albeit a fictional one). So I also support a merge with Gun fu and giving the article a broader scope - as well as a cleanup. - 85.210.185.207 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that people have actually written about bullet time and that doesn't appear to be the case here. Also notability is not what is in question, just that the topic can ever be adequately sourced. Recury 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realise this, but I don't necessarily believe it to be the case. Seeing as we can agree on its notability, the correct course of action would be to search out articles, websites, commentaries, etc. that discuss the Gun Kata technique and base the article around them, rather than editors resorting to original research (which is obviously how the current article has been constructed). If there's still issues with original research after this approach has been taken then there'd be a more substantial case for deletion of the article. - 85.210.185.207 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did look and couldn't find anything reliable, which is why I put it up for deletion. There certainly could be something out there, but the burden is on you guys to find it, not me to prove it doesn't exist. If I had found something, of course I would have tried to improve the article instead of putting it up for deletion. Recury 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "the burden is on you guys to find it, not me to prove it doesn't exist" True, but you still can't delete it unless that's the overriding consensus - currently consensus seems to dictate the opposite, and that the article should remain. I didn't write this article and have no real investment in it, so I doubt I'll be going to great lengths to search out sources myself (it's worth noting that sources aren't limited simply to the Internet). Seeing as it seems as though the article isn't going to be deleted, your best bet for improving it would be to highlight the specific issues on the talk page and add requests for citations where necessary. - 85.210.185.207 16:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it can still get deleted even without consensus. It happens pretty often actually, especially in cases like this. Here is one example. 11 keep votes and one "weak delete" but because there are no reliable sources it gets deleted. Recury 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep- This is ridiculous. Whoever 'checked and didn't find anything' didn't check the movie. As someone else pointed out from the source guidlines: "Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically." So here's some common sense. It is a logical fallacy for a 3rd party to be considered reliable on a fictional concept. Flat out impossible. They're either reiterating information gained from the author/authors, fabricating information, or they're making speculation, all of which are irrelevant. This means that only the creator/creators of the concept can be considered reliable sources, making the movies of their creation reliable sources as well. There is a quote on the Techniques page taken directly from the movie. This alone satisfies WP:V enough to keep the article up, even if it needs revision. Looking for a more reliable source on a fictional technique than a fictional master of said fictional technique is rather redundant. 90% of the Techniques section is a direct description of Gun Kata scenes in the movie. There is no reason to remove this article. --X Kolchak X 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OR. The relevant part here is: "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." This isn't "applying it robotically," whatever that means; the policy specifically forbids it. Recury 14:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:OR again, as well as WP:RS. Gun Kata is a fictional martial art from the movies Equilibrium and Ultraviolet. Under the cited policies, these movies are primary sources -- "artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" (emphasis added). Secondary sources are generally preferred, but primary sources can be used, especially if secondary sources are unavailable. You don't need to find a secondary source to say that Luke Skywalker lived on Tatooine at the beginning of Star Wars Episode IV, because it's right in the movie. The real issue here is not verifiability or original research, it's notability. At one point I was going to suggest merging the content into the article on Equilibrium, per WP:FICT, but Gun Kata spans multiple movies. Maybe the entry in List of fictional martial arts is sufficient. PubliusFL 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue as far as deletion/keeping is concerned is verifiability. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It doesn't. Merging is another issue. The article on Equilibrium already has a section on gun kata and like you say the list of fictional martial arts has an entry on it, so I don't think merging anything anywhere is really necessary. The author has alerady made sure there is as much discussion of the topic in as many different articles as he or she could. Recury 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is Wikipedia's policy on interviews, production notes & DVD commentery? Much of what is stated in the acticle does have "published" "sourced" "third party" material. There is even more out there than what I am posting below. (JenGe 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The idea behind Gun Kata [which is the style of martial arts developed for the movie] was taken from true martial art concepts in that if one could learn the Gun Kata to it's fullest potential defending yourself in any situation could and would be realised. As opposed to traditional weaponry, such as we used in the sword sequences, guns were used in a similar martial arts manner. They were used as extensions of ourselves, which is the concept within the martial arts of all weapons. When learning the use of any weapon within the martial arts, it is taught in the same manner as hand to hand fighting skills. Whether it be a sword, bo staff, escrima sticks, tonfa's or any other weapon they, or it, become extensions of your body and therefore manipulated in the same fluid natural way we would use our hands, elbows, feet, knees, etc. The choreography of all the action was based completely on true concepts of traditional martial arts. The Gun Kata and afterwards the use of that training within the film brought weapons training to a new level which has never been seen before Equilibrium. http://www.sci-fi-online.50megs.com/Interview/03-08-29_JimVickers.htm

The film also presents an entirely original fighting art: the Gun-Kata, a fast and furious combination of Western fire-power with Eastern discipline of the body. Says Wimmer: "Hong Kong action movies brought out the idea that if a man has two hands, he can shoot two guns but that's as far as they took it. I wondered: Have we really hit the envelope for gun-play or is there somewhere new it could go? To me, combining the gun with martial arts was a natural. No one has ever used a gun before in a Kata form but it becomes the perfect extension of the body and can be used in ways not usually seen. http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/535/notes.pdf

The gun kata. Ok. So, I invented the gun kata in my yard, basically. After I would make sure that my family was out of the house and my neighbors weren't looking over the fence and I would, I developed it in the grass behind my house. And I remember thinking, "Wow, y'know am I crazy?" "Do I actually have the balls to hang a movie on this concept which may not work at all? Which may fail completely and if it fails the movie itself will fail? - DVD Commentary, http://www.equilibriumfans.com/commentarya7.htm

The first link is a fansite, which isn't considered reliable. The second one (correct me if I'm wrong) looks like a press release, which isn't independent. DVD commentaries are made by the people involved in the film, so they wouldn't be independent either. (I just want to emphasize again that I think these sources are OK for sourcing info in articles. The "mutiple published, reliable, indepedent, third-party" thing only has to do with whether we should have an article on the subject or not. These sources should definitely be introduced into the Equilibrium article, IMO.) Recury 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the first one is not a "fansite". Here is another interview quote which also is not a fan page. JenGe 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - sfd: The combat sequences in Equilibrium are a distinctive form commonly referred to as "gun-kata". What's the origin of gun-kata? (And who coined that term?)

KW: I coined the term in the context of the film - DuPont [the spokesman for the elusive dictator known as "Father"] first mentions it. I just made the thing up in my yard because I didn't want to waste my time making the film if I couldn't bring something new to it and something that excited me. http://www.scifidimensions.com/May03/kurtwimmer.htm

- - It is at 50megs.com, a free hosting provider. It's no better than having an article at Geocities. Those kind of sites are self-published, not published and have no editorial oversight. I don't know about this site, but it only mentions it in passing anyways. Recury 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what's your excuse for "scifidimensions"? Here is another one for you to work on...

"Kurt envisioned gun fighting at a different level," Smith elaborates. "First you have the Wild West, then the Shaolin Monks who spent years developing their movements. So the gun kata was derived from over 200 years of watching gun fights, and the kind of evolution of anticipating a gunfighter's move and that these characters in EQUILIBRIUM were of the highest level.

So yes, we see similar gun ideas in ULTRAVIOLET. But the key was to choreograph fights for Milla's strengths and character and not what I thought would be cool http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=648

There are also published articles from Empire but I'm sure you'll discount that as well since the scan is on a "fansite." http://equilibriumfans.com/empirearticlegunkata.jpg (JenGe 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here is another "print" article scan for you to explain away... http://equilibriumfans.com/UV-CHUDArticle.jpg. (JenGe 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article from Empire Magazine would be a great source, if you can identify what issue it came from. Especially since it's a print article that focuses on the martial art. The Kung Fu Magazine article seems like a good reference, too. I didn't see more than a brief mention of gun kata in the last article, but it could still be useful. PubliusFL 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the entire Empire issue. It is April 2003, p.32. The last article mentions "gunkata" as a "gun based martial art" and then continues with that wording and "gun action" in explaining the action for both Equilibrium & UltraViolet. This really is to point out the original comment by Recury, Original research. No reliable sources on the topic, is in error. There are plenty of sources. (JenGe 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I suspected there were. Nice work backing it up. I would strongly encourage you to add these references to the article. The Movie Insider article, in particular, is a perfect reference for a paragraph that was just deleted from Gun Kata, about the difference in style between gun kata in Equilibrium (hard, karate-like) and Ultraviolet (soft, wu shu-like). PubliusFL 01:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There's nothing about WP:V that stipulates that DVD audio commentaries aren't acceptable sources. There's certain criteria that has to be met obviously (e.g. not unduly self-serving) but using them as sources is fine, and is commonplace in fact. Again, no blanket rules barring fan sites either, whether or not a particular fan site is an acceptable source is open to debate. A little common sense and less pedantic policy gaming wouldn't go amis here. - 81.179.97.57 02:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs more sourcesSlideAndSlip 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:06Z

Ethel Grandin[edit]

Delete:; non-notable in silent films or entertainment field in general El chulito 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google search indicates that the person was notable in her time. --Soman 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per nom.Jill Teed 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in a field of endeavour mostly unknown and unappreciated today. Aye-Aye 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IMDb entry suggests she would probably have an article were she a contemporary actress. Bob talk 16:34, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE LeTurggends

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

The result was No Consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terinu[edit]

Non notable webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. The first debate, over a year ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terinu, closed as no consensus. The major keep argument was that it was published offline (on paper), but these publications are by lulu, i.e. self-published. No awards, no reviews by WP:RS, no claims to importance or notability. 67 distinct Google hits[26], most from the usual suspects (lulu.com, homepage, buzzcomix.net, comixpedia, ...). Fram 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling terinu hewitt -wikipedia jolted results to 600+, but response is mostly Australian web fanhood writing, and nothing sourcable. If truly non-V then non-N and it should go. MURGH ^disc. 10:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This webcomic doesn't even fall into a grey area regarding notability. This really needs to go, as it represents a near-textbook case of cruft. NetOracle 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petition accepted no independently verifiable sources. - Francis Tyers · 11:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A print comic that's been going since 1986 and moved to the web? I still don't know enough to voice an opinion, but I think those should be taken into account. DS 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of reputable sources necessary for encyclopedia writing. -- Dragonfiend 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 20 year old published comic, judged as a webcomic. Selfpublished doesn't hold it when it makes it to (Australian) real-life stores. They don't just take anything non-notable. There is so much wrong with that I can't even start to mention. If anything, tag it for goodness sakes and get rid of these stupid AfD-before-tag's. JackSparrow Ninja 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete, because the information is unverified. Let's work on trying to verify it however, because it is correct, I'm going back to keep. JackSparrow Ninja 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:RS sources for any of this? 20 years old? Comixpedia says nothing about this[27]. I can't seem to find it on the homepage[28], which does confirm that it's self published and only available in a few specialist stores). Longevity, even if confirmed, is not a reason to keep. Notability, as verified by independent reliable sources, is all we need and want. Fram 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a verifiability note would have come in handy. There's no word on that being untrue, it's just said it's considered non-notable (with the given information). I've changed my vote (for now). JackSparrow Ninja 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, the "twenty year" claim only stems from the supposed launch date in the infobox on the right, not from the main text, and so I at first missed that: otherwise I would have commented on it in my nomination. Thanks for reconsidering for the time being. Fram 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the new sources. JackSparrow Ninja 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Terinu" is a significant, long-running Australian print comic that has been on sale regularly for many years, before it was a webcomic and before it was made available through Lulu. It was also included in the book "Operation Funnybone." Failure to win Awards in Australia should not be regarded as having any weight, as the Ledgers are fledgling (2 years so far) and controversial. It should definitely be retained in the Wikipedia! Ian T (in Australia) 12 February 2007

Keep, based on references added to article which I believe serve to satisfy the critricism that it doesn't meet WP:V. Article needs a big hit with a cleanup stick though, but afd is not clean-up. Hiding Talk 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be rather hard for this to only be published through Lulu if it's been around in print since 1986. Fram, please investigate the subject better before putting up an AFD. Ian, can you provide any links or details about this? This may meet WP:N after all, but it's hard for me to be sure. Balancer 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Keep based on the added sources now that I've re-reviewed the article. I count multiple independent and presumably reliable sources, which means that it meets WP:N. I would question classing this as a webcomic seeing as the print form seems to be much better known than the online form. Balancer 09:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pardon me, but which and where are the new sources removing all doubt? I saw the Operation Funnybone publication when I initially looked into this, but as it struck me as a bit-part inclusion in a charity publication, and I could hardly see it as one of the mulitple reliable non-trivial independent etc.. (I have certainly seen similar publications containing contributions noone would use to establish notability). The other listed paper reviews, Inkspot and OzComics are.. well, whatever they are. Good faith ought to give time for these sources to become useful to the article, and I will neutralise my consensus flag, but what has yet, strictly speaking, changed? What in this article, apart from a Funnybone participation, is and will be verifiable? —MURGH ^disc. 12:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Whatever they are" being magazines about comics. A review is a non-trivial mention for an arts topic, and the sources seem (from what little I can dig up about them) to be independent, reliable, and published, which is what WP:N requires. (Being circulated outside Australia, or available online, are not conditions applicable to WP:N.) That said, the article as written does need an awful lot of cleanup. It's an interesting contrast between this article and Greeneyes, which I've suggested does not meet WP:N in its AFD; the Greeneyes article is fairly well-written, while this one is utterly awful. Balancer 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Inkspot, as far as I can tell, is the members magazine / bulletin of the ACA, and isn't for sale. I wasn't able to check the Terinu review, since it appeared in #40 (not 41 as the article says), and only issues #41 and later are available online. It is a borderline case for a reliable source indicating notability (assuming the review is substantial, which I believe it is). The review was written by Ian Thomas, a comics creator and enthousiast, and also a contributor to Funnybone, and also a reviewer for Ozcomics, which makes me wonder if he has also written the Terinu review in that magazine (just a hunch, no way to confirm this for me). This would mean that the multiple independent reviews are not so independent after all... Can anyone shed some light on this? Fram 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I move that we extend discussion to answer Fram's question. Fram is not alone in thinking this may be critical. Balancer 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not critical for me. Verifiability, a policy, is satisfied. Notability, a guideline, may not be. On which should we place the greater emphasis? Hiding Talk 10:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:09Z

I'm Dreamin'[edit]

This is a two sentence stub about a "future song" that is "apparently going to be included" on Michael Jackson's new album. If Michael finishes this album, it will be notable under WP:MUSIC, however, I don't think that means each individual song is automatically inherently notable and deserving of an article. The only reference cited is a link to a fan forum which says the songs haven't even been finished yet. This should be deleted as unverifiable crystal-balling, per WP:V and WP:NOT until such time as the song actually exists and is verifiably notable. Sarah 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as badly referenced crystal ballism, but non-notable, if reliably verifiable. J Milburn 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Walton monarchist89 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a bad faith nom, because Sarah has had a HIStory of disliking me. It was nominated mere hours after I made the article, which basically means one thing: I have had no time to research and flesh out the article. You reckon the article looks crap? Well maybe that's cause I have had approximately ZERO HOURS to fix it. I established it and then retired to bed (yes I do sleep) and only returned from work now. It is horrible to see vendettas behind my back like this, just to make the article not have enough time to be developed by me. I find it horribly deceitful, and while I'm sure you're all jumping the gun, trigger-happy and ready to aim and shoot, why not give me a little more time to research the song? Oh I forgot, you're all probably pals of Sarah's. And I bet 10 others are gonna come on and say "Delete Delete Delete!!!!!!!!" just because sarah is the respected editor and I am nothing. Well that would just be sad because I explained why I needed a little more time, but of course the administrator has 'ways' of getting his/her ways and I'm sure that the candle of this article will be mysteriously snuffed, while simultaneously on Sarah's computer screen the button 'delete' is depressed. --Paaerduag 07:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making personal attacks and assuming bad faith of everybody. Nothing was done behind your back. In fact, I went straight to your page to tell you I had nominated the article. Please try to deal with the article and respond to policy issues. Sarah 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Paaerduag - No, I am not voting delete because I am a "pal of Sarah's"; in fact the only time I have encountered her before is when she voted oppose on my RfA. And I agree with you that admins have too much dictatorial power. The reason why I am voting delete is because the article, as it stands, does not meet WP policy. If you can provide adequate, concrete sources showing that the song in question is definitely going to be released, then I will be happy to change my vote. But as it stands, it fails WP:CRYSTAL, which is not mine or Sarah's opinion; it is an agreed WP policy. The reason we have AfD, rather than simply deleting articles, is precisely to give users the time to improve articles so that they meet policy standards - as I said, if you improve the sourcing and verifiability of the article I will be happy to change my vote. Walton monarchist89 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say the only reference is a fan forum. If you take the time to read the article that is referenced, it comes from a Rollin Stone magazine article, and I can give you a link to a scan of the article if you like. Street walker 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did take the time to read the article. The reference in the article is a fan forum. Yes, I noticed that the fan forum was in turn reporting a story from a magazine. However, it doesn't change the fact that it is still an unverified rumour. The song doesn't exist yet and the article fails the policies mentioned above. There is also the qustion of the not minor issue of notability. Sarah 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:05Z

Nexus Trafikk[edit]

nn company Zhenghong 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A municipal bus company in Norway receiving public contracts to provide bus service is likely to have been the subject of non-trivial news coverage by disinterested third parties. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - probably notable, but the article needs to be sourced, in order to demonstrate non-trivial news coverage. Walton monarchist89 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would like to see cited sources, however agree with Smerdis of Tlön, most likely notable.--Hu12 07:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable company that operates about 200 buses in Oslo with almost 500 employees. I have now sourced the article as well, to the best of my ability. Arsenikk 19:17, 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 Santa Rosa City Schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:04Z

Maria Carrillo High School[edit]

Fails WP:SCHOOL. The article does not make any mention as to any awards the school has received; all it says is that the school maintains a high level of academic standards. This is not enough to pass WP:SCHOOL. Diez2 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, not even a list of famous alumni is provided, which usually makes the cut for schools. Roadmr (t|c) 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent - high schools clear the notability bar. If this particular high school hasn't produced any notable alumni in its 11 years of operation, it inevitably will do so soon enough. --Hyperbole 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school isn't even eleven years old yet. It hasn't earned any significant awards or notable alumni yet because of this. --Nat 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No verifiable information is present in the article, other than that the school exists and is in Santa Rosa. If anyone can find reliable sources for the other random information in the article, particularly the "Maria Carrillo has a reputation for high academic standards within Sonoma county" bit, I'd say it's fine, but right now the actual verifiable content of the article amounts to basically a sentence. --Slowking Man 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Changed my mind. I'm borderline on this one due to the limited amount of substantive, verifiable information. Perhaps a summary could be merged into the town page? — RJH (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Perhaps delete the article and recreate it as a redirect to ~~Santa Rosa, California~~ Santa Rosa City Schools? --Slowking Man 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references, and notability not demonstrated. You've had since July of last year to say something interesting about this school, but it still looks just like all its peers. Sorry, but this should go. WMMartin 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of notability of this school is well demonstrated by the only two events described in the article: two trivial school pranks.DGG 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing about this school, is that all of the other schools in the district have equal or less information. Why pick on this one school? If you delete one, delete them all. Santa_Rosa_City_Schools --Nat 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and I had taken a look at the other school articles before. If this gets closed as delete/merge, as it looks like it will right now, I'll go ahead and merge the other school articles into Santa Rosa City Schools. --Slowking Man 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Pranks and clubs are not what makes a school notable. Vegaswikian 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a decent solution, in the absence of any sources with which to write an article. Shimeru 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not yet a policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least, I believe, a list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources and any additional sources that come light. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrontPage magazine.com[edit]

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}}.

Propaganvertizing, NN per WP:WEB and WP:ORG; it's basically a conservative blog, and the article is primarily an unencyclopedic list of contributors. A good alternative would be to merge with or redirect to David Horowitz. Note that the article's first AfD is here. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, delete, and then redirect to David Horowitz per NuclearZer0's points on notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous AfD seems to confirm the notability of the subject, and there is even one source provided in the article. I expect that there are many more if we only look. Wikipedia also has articles on Adolf Hitler and the KKK, which are not "propaganvertizing" -- so why is this one? --N Shar 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the David Horowitz Freedom Center or to David Horowitz himself. THere was really no need to take this to AfD; just merge and redirect. Walton monarchist89 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some points below from the past AfD:

There are over 50 discrete articles on wikipedia linking to the page in question, with further supports usefulness, if not notability per se.[29]
Over 1 million google hits [30] when excluding the domain name variations.
Mentions in other outlets as a leading source for its associated political group [31]
In fact, the bourgeois revolution has been joined by such prominent neocon institutions as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, Frontpagemag.com...[32] Lew Rockwell
Appears on GoogleNews [33]
Past AfD[34].
The list of columnists and contributors is a regular who's who, with over 15 people having their own articles on Wikipedia; including but not limited to:

David Horowitz
Ann Coulter (author and political coorespondent)
Bat Ye'or (acclaimed author)
Tammy Bruce (former president of NOW and talk show host)
Melanie Phillips (former CNN correspondent),
Dick Morris (columnist for NY Post) ran Clintons 96' campaign)
Rachel Marsden (columnist for Toronto Sun & The 'Reilly Factor)

Cited as reading material for FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project: [35]
Analysis of FrontPage Magazine by CounterPunch.Org: [36]
Critique of FrontPage by Voltairenet: [37]
Washington Post cited interviews by Frontpage: [38][39]
CNN cited interviews by Frontpage: [40]
Will see what else I can dig up. First Common Dreams AfD now this? Seems like political fighting. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even know what "Common Dreams" is. Anyway, the David Horowitz article is a better place to discuss the magazine as it is a high-quality (almost GA-class) article with several dedicated contributors. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be nice if more of what you've found was integrated into the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as NuclearZer0's points per notability are hard to disagree with, but might also sensibly be a section of David Horowitz. (On the other hand, it's clearly not only his work, nor only notable because of its association with him.) Also, if kept, I think it should be moved to FrontPageMagazine.com. — brighterorange (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the site's alexa rank is consistent with notable publications such as The New Republic and The Weekly Standard, definitely notable. I don't see "propaganvertising" - a horrible-sounding portmanteau that should be immediately abolished from wikipedia. GabrielF 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing with those two articles is akin to comparing apples and oranges; frontpagemag doesn't have a print version, so the standards for notability are higher. Also, the articles on those publications are well-developed and do a far better job of establishing notability. Finally, Alexa wasn't a measure of WP:WEB the last time I checked. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  If Frontpage gets 1.5 million readers a month, as they claim (and it doesn't seem unreasonable given the alexa rank) than they reach a larger audience than some of the most influential publication's in the US. Given their large readership and the high caliber of their contributors, I think your claim that they are not notable doesn't holds water. GabrielF 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this is a commonly read and cited site and if removed, then many others need to be as well on both sides of the politicial divide. The deletion of this seems to be a POV statement. 70.96.163.100 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 70.96.163.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- One of the 'delete' commentors User:Disavian also has been going to many pages and removing links to the page under discussion. This appears to be vandalism in anticipation of a deletion or an attempt to make it appear less cited. 70.96.163.100 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 70.96.163.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Frontpagemag fails WP:RS. I was removing the sources in good faith. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or smerge. Non notable website. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The website is so not notable that about 15 of its writers have articles on Wikipedia, its interviews are cited in Washington Post and CNN, it was railed in the Bernard Goldbergs book "Arrogance" and over 50 articles here on Wikipedia link to the Frontpage article. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, of course. The nomination is "per WP:WEB and WP:ORG", i.e. notability. So, let's go straight to [WP:N}, first sentence: "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." NuclearZer0 has shown it's notable. beyond a reasonable doubt, so the nomination is DOA. But it should be renamed FrontPage Magazine (capitalized P & M) per [41].Andyvphil 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless people can find more sourcing, it doesn't have enough. Delete. - Denny 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to the sources in the article or does your comment include the sources I provided above? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I strongly disagree with the political POV of FrontPage. However, it clearly meets the central criterion of notability by being the primary subject "of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", as noted above by Nuclear. Though IDONTLIKEIT, it is clearly notable. Vassyana 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't these in the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is a stub. Because certain editors would rather waste everyone's time trying to cleanse Wikipedia of subjects they don't like rather than improve the content. Hipocrit in particular seems to be carrying this to the point of vandalism. [42] [43][44] Andyvphil 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly is notable. It is recognized by world Press.com[45], Worldnetdaily [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52969], Asia Times [46], University of Iowa [47], FOX news [48], CNN [49] just to name a few.--Sefringle 06:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to David Horowitz. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ATTENTION!...this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors..." Please contribute to the discussion, don't just "vote". As Brighterorange noted, FPM is "clearly not only [Horowitz's] work, nor only notable because of its association with him" (Glazov has an article on Wikipedia as well, for a start). Further, content such as the list of contributors would unreasonably clutter Horowitz's page, which is already long enough despite undeveloped sections. The content of the current stub could be accommodated in the DHFC article...but Hipocrit has put that up for deletion too. What, exactly, is the encyclopedic purpose of shoehorning multiple notable subjects into a single article? Wikipedia is not a Paper Encylopedia! WP:NOT#PAPER Andyvphil 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, but not so notable that it would not be better merged into the larger article. Merging would eliminate some redundancy, and give us one better page instead of three or four mediocre pages. It is a judgement call. Reasonable men may differ, but they should not call vandalism any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and should not presume to lecture their fellows in all-caps. Overuse of capital letters, especially with exclamation marks, is one of the first signs of incipient jackassery. The next phase involves the use of italics, and then bold text. After the onset of tertiary symptoms, including the use of colored fonts and, in extreme cases, the blink tag, recovery is virtually unheard of. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be civil, he was just asking you to explain your point, your sarcasm was unneeded. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Harrison didn't notice the quote markes before the capitalized word. If he looks at the top of this page he will see that I left out the enlarged text, contrasting background, red borders, and other signs of full-out jackassery that the sysop responsible for the box is guilty of. None of which got his attention, apparently.

I apparently got his attention, but he does seem to have a problem understanding what I said. At the risk of "lecturing", let me further clarify that "discussion" is an interactive process, not just two sides spouting their views. So, first I'll respond to him: merging would indeed reduce redundancy. If the content of FPM were already in DHFC I would not argue strongly for spinning it off until it was more developed. But by "the larger article" I assume he means David Horowitz. First, see WP:SIZE. Second, please respond to the two points I made in my first response to your "vote". Then I'll respond to your response, and you can respond, and we'll eventually clarify what points we actually disagree or *GASP* maybe even come to an agreement.

BTW, I'm not calling vandalism "any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia". Disavian's proposal is wrong-headed, but he actually shows signs of being a reasonable person who can be persuaded to see the error of his ways, and I hope will prove equally persuadable should/when I fall into error. Hipocrite is a different case. I wrote that what he was doing was approaching vandalism, and I am more and more persuaded that the assumption of good faith has to at some point be recognized as either a delusion or beside the point. I'm not his psychiatrist. He may honestly think that what he is doing is reasonable. But it isn't. [50] Andyvphil 12:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my sarcasm. I guess there is really no reason to think you are more likely than anyone else to use bold text and capital letters. I continue to think we would do better with one good page than three less good. I would not like to see a clutch of David Horowitz pages like that we had a few months ago of pages about the life and works of Alex Jones (radio). Whatever advantage there may be to organization in having more pages is outweighed by not having relevent material on one page but having redundant material on others; by having fewer editors following each page; by changes getting out of sync; and by some pages developing as pov forks of others. That is what I think and why. Beyond that, I am content to leave it to the closer's judgement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, no merging or anything, obviously, per User:NuclearUmpf Amoruso 01:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per User:NuclearUmpf Travb 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb's "vote" had a timestamp, but no usertag. How'd he do that? Anyway, after referring to the edit history, I added the tag. Andyvphil 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as its notability has been established above. Merging it to any one of its authors would make very little sense when it has similar Alexa ratings to TNR etc. I do suggest that the sourcing here be more integrated into the entry though. Tewfik^Talk 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many many prominent commentators use frontpagemag and millions of people read its content. It is both notable and useful source of information, although it needs to be cleaned up and expanded. Otherwise, it is baseless to delete it. Guy Montag 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per User:Andyvphil. Meets WP:N guidelines for WP:WEB and WP:ORG. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NuclearZer0 and add sources. --tickle me 10:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NuclearUmpf and Sefringle. The notability has already been well-established in this discussion. Beit Or 11:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for all the reasons above, and shame on the users (you know who you are) who abuse the AfD process for political brinksmanship. L0b0t 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is bad faith in the extreme. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ? It's its own entity, distinct from Horowitz, unlike some of the samizdat publications that are one-person jobbies. Gzuckier 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per User:Andyvphil. Bad faith nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per User:Andyvphil. It has the same level of notability/notoriety as CounterPunch. Although I don't read either, I see them both quoted often by sources on both "sides of the aisle". I don't see merging with David Horowitz since the man and the publication aren't synonumous. Another editor recommended merging this article with David Horowitz Freedom Center, but that article has also been AfD'd ... which makes me wonder if they're both being deprecated since they don't support some editors' personal political views. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the move, since it is notable as itself.--Sefringle 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep asserts notability and is a separate entity from David Horowitz. Unbelievable that it is being nominated. Rkevins 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge. And rename per User:Andyvphil. Obviously at least as notable as CounterPunch, and not synonymous with David Horowitz. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think the title is badly namedSlideAndSlip 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:57Z

LÄRABAR[edit]

Nom - previously speedied, self-referenced, product spam article Rklawton 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert, no assertion of notability, only 829 ghits. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 no assertion of notability. Also borderline for G11 (advertising). Walton monarchist89 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for a non-notable product. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as Spam - no assertation of notability, just one line with a pic & website link = advert to me! (marked as speedy.)SkierRMH 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article as larabars are sold across the US at Whole Foods and other health food stores, and are the most well known "raw" energy bars in the US. I hoped that the encyclopedia page could cover, among other things, the controversy over whether larabars are truly "raw" (some bars contain cashews). About notability - there's a Denver Post article and a Rocky Mountain News article. I am open to deleting the page, but I hope it is deleted someone could explain to me why Clif Bar has not been deleted, despite having only two articles and almost exclusively unverifiable information. Keithkml 03:16, 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) 2007-02-14 01:52Z

List of minor Star Wars droids[edit]

Is there a reason for this list? For the vast part the entries for the droids do not even bother to assert notability within the fictional Star Wars universe - let alone provide reliable third-party sources that support notability - and there is no good reason why we should have lists of eminently non-notable droids, that are, by admission, minor. I have no doubt the information is all completely true, but that doesn't mean there should be a whopping great list of this unencyclopedic material: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are not here to collate all human knowledge, just that which is encyclopedic. Just because information is "useful" or "interesting" doesn't mean it belongs here: see WP:NOT and WP:ILIKEIT. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Ordinarily I'd say merge into an overall list of minor characters, per WP:FICT policy on non-notable characters. However, since this is Star Wars, and there's simply so much stuff about it on Wikipedia already, I think merging would lead to excessively long articles. No point in trying to transwiki anywhere either - all this stuff is already probably covered in exhaustive detail on Wookiepedia, which is the right place for this kind of material. So it looks like Delete is the only option. (Sorry about the long rambling rationale.) Walton monarchist89 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "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 nature of Star Wars and its fan base is such that even minor characters within the Star Wars universe have receieved a lot of independent, non-trivial coverage. The current sourcing is inadequate, I agree, but many sources do exist to substantiate the contents of this article and the notability of the subject as defined in Wikipedia policy above. Normally, I would say delete all stuff that isn't properly sourced, but the amount of work done on this article is so massive that I'm unwilling to flush that all away. Keep it and tag it for better sourcing. Nick Graves 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be somewhat surprised if many of these droids really have non-trivial reliable sources devoted to them: non-trivial in the sense of non-fanbase. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love it so much that this list exists. But these just don't pass the notability requirement for Wikipedia, and their proper home is on the Star Wars fan wiki, where they will be appreciated as they deserve. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and as to previous keep, note that the sources must be multiple, non-trivial, reliable, and independent-this is not a "pick any three", said sources must satisfy all four. Star Wars fandom coverage would not be reliable sourcing, and therefore fails. The two "external links" cited don't remotely begin to satisfy the reliability guidelines. However, I'm entirely willing to change my opinion if such sources can be found. Anyone !voting "keep" should be prepared to cite sources, and be prepared to show or argue why those sources are independent (not affiliated with the Star Wars franchise), non-trivial (cover the subject in a sufficient depth for an encyclopedia article), and reliable (written by a source which is subject to editorial control or academic peer review.) I love Star Wars, but this just doesn't belong here. Seraphimblade 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recommendations of WP:FICT. Some should probably be removed to keep this list from getting out of hand, but it should all be sourceable. BryanG^(talk) 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why have lists of minor anything? Jtrainor 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Collecting the minor characters of a major series into lists like this is precisely what WP:FICT calls for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But there are no sources other than two links to pics. This needs to be better sourced, or it has to go. Jtrainor 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - agreed with Jtrainor. What is more, these droids are so minor I really don't think that clause in FICT applies. It's not like the main point of and characters in Star Wars are droids. And yes, there are significant sourcing problems. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This site appears to be the official fansite for Star Wars, so I would believe that the things in their "databank" are reasonably canonical. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable, Wikipedia is not paper and per BryanG (PS: Star Wars does not exist!) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Graves. This absolutely needs many more sources, but I believe in this case the information can be sourced. There are entire books on Star Wars universe subjects like these and I think it could eventually look like a respectable article with a bit of work adding sources. VegaDark 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: this former article may now be found at User:William M. Connolley/The science is settled.

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The science is settled[edit]

This appears to be an article about a slogan that nobody has ever used, except perhaps as a strawman argument, and even in that context is not particularly common. There's probably a place on Wikipedia for well-known phrases or saying, but this one simply is so esoteric as to be pointless. Most of the article is made up of examples of people saying things similar but not quite like it. At best it should be a small section in the global warming controversy article - I'm not sure it even deserves to be that, though. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Well I'd never seen the article before, but I found it informative and well written. The fact that the slogan was only used in 'straw man' arguments, which is clearly pointed out in the article, in no way makes this article merit an afd. sbandrews 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the article, but I just don't see that it's a noteworthy phrase- the ideas that are being discussed are important, but that doesn't make this a 'slogan' that needs its own article. Some of the content can be added to the global warming controversy article if necessary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's meant to be a catch-all for every goverment official or scientist who has asserted that there are no more reasons to doubt that the science of global warming indicates a strong enough human component to justify the Kyoto Protocol. I originally worked on it because various officials would seem to say that the science was settled, but then turn around and say it's still uncertain. A page that collects all their statements would be useful. --Uncle Ed 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's intended to be a collection of quotations which include the words "the science is settled", putting forward by synthesis the argument that this is a slogan? Uncle G 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is supposed to be "a catch-all for every goverment official or scientist who has asserted that there are no more reasons to doubt that the science of global warming indicates a strong enough human component to justify the Kyoto Protocol," then it should be renamed to something such as "opinions of goverment officials and scientists who support the Kyoto Protocol." Ed seems to have forgotten both the spirit and substance of the history of this article. He originally named it, [[Slogan 'The science is settled']. Ed put both the word "slogan" and the quote marks around the phrase into the original name of the article, and to this day it remains an article about that specific phrase. It has been improved somewhat by subsequent edits making it clear that no one actually used that slogan as a slogan, but if its sole purpose is to serve as a collection-point for statements by people who think the scientific evidence warrants the Kyoto Protocol, then its current title is both too specific and also inaccurate. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to delete this article, but I'm leaning toward delete or rename. --Sheldon Rampton 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the NOM is absolutely right. It is not only obscure but factually incorrect. --Lee Vonce 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From slogan: "A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious, and other contexts as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose." This phrase isn't actually used repetitively to express an idea. In fact, a variety of phrases are used to express this idea, as evidenced by the quotes in the article. To put it under this name, or indeed any single name, would be foolish. "The science is settled" is not even a phrase used by those who believe that the science is settled -- instead, it's a common way (but by no means the only way) to set up a straw man argument. This isn't a slogan; it's a sentence, and the typical sentence doesn't deserve articles, even if it's frequently used (should we have articles titled "The climate is changing," "Average global temperatures are projected to increase over the next century," and "Emission of aerosols is estimated to contribute -0.7 Wm^-1 to radiative forcing from direct effects alone"?). The best thing to do would be to redirect to Global warming or something like that. --67.125.30.179 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - its not the worlds greatest page, but its useful. Lee Vonces vote is a good example of the reason for keeping it: the page as it stands is substantially correct, but if it wasn't there the opposite misinformation would accumulate William M. Connolley 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's composed of quotes which are "something like" the science is settled. Not even WikiQuote would take this. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 8 February 2007 (GMT) 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is factually incorrect, I suggest you re-read the article, the three instances given - and referenced - of GW opponents using the phrase all contain the exact phrase 'the science is settled', I'm not sure, but your comment could itself be a straw man, kind regards sbandrews 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or the World Will Come to a Quick End I am sick to death of the idea in some Wikipedian minds that widely used concepts that affect us all by affecting our public debates do not deserve Wikipedia articles. Gwern's idea that the words need to be exact is exactly the wrong way of looking at it: It's the concept that's obviously what the subject is. This is a salient part of the debate over global warming and serves the purpose of helping people think about that debate, and it does so with a neutral point of view. We need more articles like this. It just needs to always be backed up with citations and remain strictly fair. These articles are also a great exercise for everybody in tolerating disagreement, something we could use more of.Noroton 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely comment on other people's views in AFD, and I certainly don't expect to change your mind. But... to my mind this isn't an article about a concept, and it's simply not the case that the concept is "obviously what the subject is". When I read it, it reads as an article about a slogan, and about who has or hasn't used it (or something like it). If someone were to rename it and rewrite it to be about the concept, it would be a very different article, and I wouldn't have nominated it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that one weakness this article has is the use of the word slogan, much better to use the word phrase, as there is no evidence (that I know of) that those using the phrase on the climate skeptic side were working together. As for having a wikipedia article about a phrase, to be or not to be was the first one I thought of and that was in ( ok its by the bard, but so what). The science is settled is a phrase (or slogan) that has become symbolic of the (often heated) war of words between scientists who have come to accept global warming as an unpleasent reality we must deal with, and those who, often for reasons of political or economic gain have decided to fight against the theory, and have become known as the climate skeptics. The phrase is used by te skeptics as a (very successful) means of confusing the issue in the minds of the non-expert majority in society. By puporting that their opponents have claimed 'the science is settled' they can then attack their position by showing a single area in which the science is not settled, the classic straw man technique. This is a very common technique in the global warming debate and this is the key reason for me that this is an important article for the general wikipedia reader wanting to get closer to the truth in what is perhaps one of the most important, but also perhaps the most confusing, issues of the 21st century - kind regards sbandrews 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sbandrews, if what you say can be footnoted, I'm all for making it part of the article. OpenToppedBus, when I see an article that could be refocused and therefore salvaged, I tend to want to do that rather than delete. My mind is open, and I'll take another look.Noroton 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a phrase, or anyway it's not a phrase according to the normal or technical understanding of "phrase". It has a finite verb/auxiliary, is, and thus is a clause, or a sentence. (If it were a phrase, what kind of phrase would it be? Noun phrase, prepositional phrase...?) -- Hoary 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps some of the contents can move to the article on the global warming controversy article... Count Iblis 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, this is an esoteric slogan that does not warrant its own article. At the worst, this is the result of someone looking too hard for patterns in people's comments. Dr. Submillimeter 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Material of this type already is spread across too many articles -- we have global warming controversy, scientific opinion on climate change, global warming skeptics, list of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and possibly others that I don't even know about yet. Delete, and move anything worthwhile (doesn't seem to be much) into one of the other articles. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. ~ UBeR
Delete. No, not useless, but instead a very mildly interesting set of notes for somebody aiming to be a William Safire (in "language maven" rather than Nixonian mode, though come to think of it perhaps the latter too). If it comes to anything, the author is welcome to create an essay out of it. But they'd have to do so elsewhere: this is an encyclopedia, not an essay collection. -- Hoary 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. --Trovatore 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trovatore. Unfortunately this is OR. It is a good article but the entire observation that the term is used in general and that it is used only the global warming skeptics and not their opponents is all OR. JoshuaZ 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:51Z

Tobias gabriel[edit]

I believe this is a hoax. There is no mention of this Tobias gabriel and his film in a Google search [51]. I originally prodded the article but it was contested by an IP (also from Germany) who removed the PROD and HOAX tags and also deleted the phrase "made him a superstar in Germany and in North America." which had been quoted at the Prod reasoning. I still think it is a hoax, even without that phrase!!! Slp1 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he's a real person he is completely non-notable Jules1975 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we decide to keep it to use as a shining example of non-notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO even if real. NawlinWiki 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:51Z

Gta the world[edit]

Failure of WP:CRYSTAL; article admits that the game hasn't been formally announced yet. Purely speculative and unverified. Walton monarchist89 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and recreate the article when and if there's verifiable information available abou this game. Even if it were kept, this would be the wrong name: it should be Grand Theft Auto: The World, shouldn't it? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen. --Hyperbole 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it smells like it's made up to me, but if it isn't it's crystal balling, as Rockstar haven't announced anything about it. FredOrAlive 14:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would we keep a poorly organized article about a game without an official statement from their developers regarding the game's existance? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Sociologist (NYSSA)[edit]

Non-notable journal. Similar to its namesake The new york sociologist which is also being nominated for deletion, Google reveals a stunning lack of independent reliable sources about this journal - "New York sociologist" NYSSA gets exactly 8 hits and only the first - the journal's own website - is relevant. [52]

Note to closing admin: Delete The New York Sociologist if either this page or The new york sociologist, or both, get deleted. Kimchi.sg 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom said, very little evidence to support notability. Seems like an organization that is just starting out and may one day be notable, but I don't see any evidence of current notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The New York Sociologist is the offical journal of a respected statewide academic organization with a 53 year history of successfully running academic conferences. Their new journal builds on this history. The 2006 issue includes a lead article by a respected award winning ethnographer and journalist Michael I. Niman. The editorial board includes another well known ethnographer, Laura J. McClusky. This journal is a noteworthy new publication published by a venerable organization with a long successful track record. NBeat 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)NBeat[reply]

Delete. - As already argued on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The new york sociologist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC). Tikiwont 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my other comments per Tikiwont. Maybe the venerable organisation with the long successful track record should have its own article. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The venerable old organization now has its own article. Wikipedia should not discriminate against newbies and new blood. Many journals do not bother to write a Wikipedia entry. Why not respect those that respect the Wiki process? NBeat 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)NBeat[reply]
Merge a one-liner into New York State Sociological Association. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Harmless but non-notable. Sdedeo (tips) 06:30, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:50Z

Farkin[edit]

It is a couple of lines of text and links ElHornberg 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO unless more evidence of notability can be produced. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism. --Dweller 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this remains, it sets a precedent for "fcuk", "frak", "friggin'" and every other pseudo-curse word.. Bad idea, if you ask me. Caknuck 22:21, 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) 2007-02-13 07:49Z

Boltzmon[edit]

I nominate this article to be deleted and the previously deleted version to be undeleted. The previous article was better written and contained more information.--Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An exact copy of the previous version is at http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Boltzmon .--Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what's in the previous version, but it sounds like you don't really want it deleted, you just want the information that was in the previous article, and that can be done without deletion. This article could be merged with Black hole, but then, I don't know how much information and sourcing you were hoping to add.-FisherQueen (Talk) 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need to know why the previous version was deleted and how? Maybe there was good reasons and if that content was better than the current content, that is a good reason to delete the current article. Did it come to Afd? If so, can we have the link? Or is this just a content dispute? If so, AfD is not the answer. --Bduke 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boltzmon, where editors challenged the claim that there were any sources at all that supported such a name. Uncle G 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The old article appears to have been properly deleted. The nominator is right. It was better than this version, so this version should be deleted too. The only way to save it is to have some proper references to proper articles in peer reviewed physics journals that use the term "Boltzmom", and are talking about the same thing as this article. --Bduke 11:49, 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) 2007-02-13 07:47Z

Turgut Demirtepe[edit]

notability, self-promotional Tumbleweedtumbles 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person described in the article doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO notability standards. If he's more notable than the article makes him sound, it's hard for me to verify- I googled his name and didn't find the evidence, but since I don't read Turkish, I may have missed something. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article written by Sedat Laciner about his collegues at the minor International Strategic Research Organization. The Turgurt Demirtepe article at Turkish Wikipedia was deleted unanimously, see [53]. Bertilvidet 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why does it say 2nd nomination? This seems to be the first. Bertilvidet 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - The article is quite brief and a bit of a mess, but I found 4,960 hits on a yahoo search for "Turgut Demirtepe" and it's obvious to me that he is a notable academic in his area of studies. The article could definitely use some editing, but I don't see any reason to delete it.--David Straub 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, a Google search returns 57 hits - of which the vast majority are on Wiki, its mirror sites or sites of of the institution he works at, which is heavily boosted on Wiki. Bertilvidet 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the first 50 hits on yahoo and I caught 6 sites that were wiki or wikimirror sites. I can't read turkish either so it's difficult for me to say what exactly all the other sites were, but the search results said 4,900 hits. ––David Straub 04:53, 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 sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --- RockMFR 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of episodes of Gingerfield and Friends[edit]

This redirect was set up by User:Gingerfield rocks, but I don't see how "Garfield" has anything to do with "Gingerfield", let alone "Gingerfield and Friends". Namcorules 10:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the debate to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. AfD is intended only for articles. I hope this helps. Could an admin close this AfD (and remove the AfD notice from the redirect page)? Black Falcon 00:01, 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) 2007-02-13 07:45Z

Murrindal_Enterprises[edit]

Useless, unimportant information MarkJindrakFan 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a bit more wikipedic language; this article is generally WP:SPAM, no 3rd party references, fails both WP:CORP as a company and/or WP:MUSIC as a non-notable group of DJ's. SkierRMH 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:14, 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) 2007-02-13 07:44Z

Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada[edit]

Delete - Per reason of Otto4771 about AfD nomination of List of Philippine Presidents by parentage that just as with the List of Philippine Presidents by children heads of states' parents belong in the individual articles, not as a separate list and that the information appears to be in the various articles, so delete. Kevin Ray 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the most excellent reasoning of the nominator and the Otto fellow. Otto4711 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bertilvidet 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ensure that the information is recorded in the individual articles, then delete. -- saberwyn 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for biographical anthologies and for comparative purposes, pace such lists as List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship. Fishhead64 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason to group these mainly non-notable individuals in one list. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I support the existence of lists of wives and offspring, but parents is a bit much. Is a list of grand-parents next? 23skidoo 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No objection to articles on any parents who may be notable in their own right, but there is no reason for a list of all the parents of all the PMs. This is not a genealogical database. Agent 86 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments in other AfD. It was extremeley tedious to find the parents of each Prime Minister for this article, so I can understand what a task it might be to research this for someone else. Having a handy article would be really nice. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a handy tool to find ancestry of all the Prime Ministers, it doesn't need to be deleted. It should be expanded with more links. It helps researchers discover more about their backgrounds Jjmillerhistorian 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There will be some people who would find this information useful, and it's silly to ask them to do the tedious work of reading 22 biographies when that work has already been done. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet again, a useful index of articles- there's three linked here, and in particular Paul Martin's father is of indisputable notability. I wouldn't consider a delete of this aticle unless the other article it links to are deleted first. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article could also be merged with more geneological relationships, like above someone mentioned grandfathers of PM's. This would avoid any separate articles concerning "siblings of..." etc. Sometimes family members helped them become notable or vice versa. Jjmillerhistorian 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Siblings would be an interesting article, but not as easily researchable. I believe there is a similar US page on this. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean as a separate acticle, but information which could be added to this one. I'm not aware of an article on U.S. President's siblings, but there is one on geneological relationships which could add other notable relationships. This article seems limited. There is potential for more added to this. Jjmillerhistorian 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Arctic.gnome GreenJoe 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like the children list, this is a relatively minor but useful reference list for a topic which is of research value. Again, the presence of a list doesn't require that every parent gets their own article regardless of their own independent notability. Keep. Bearcat 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holistically, the list is certainly notable even if certain individuals are not. The family relationships of the powerful are always notable. The father of John Kennedy in the U.S. and Pierre Trudeau in Canada had much to do with the rise to power of their sons. Wassupwestcoast 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arctic gnome and further, parents of Prime Ministers are significant, a compiled list of all of them more so. KenWalker | Talk 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the other comments above. --YUL89YYZ 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important information concerning Canadian Prime Ministers. Also with all do respect, Canada is a bigger global player than Philippines. SFrank85 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat & Wassupwestcoast. And also, if we have lists of their children lets do of their parents too. Why be be baised against one generation over another? It goes both ways. Mathmo ^Talk 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and others. CJCurrie 08:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a tendency to not like a whole article that fits into a spreadsheet. I think that an encyclopedia should explain things and not just list them. While I feel that some people may find this list useful, I'm not sure if it is useful for Wikipedia. I can only imagine that anyone who needs to find a list of all the PM's parents is an elementary school student doing some busy-work and we'd just be helping them cheat. But then I suppose that these people are the grandparents of the children of the Prime Ministers of Canada as well... I think that I'd delete this article if it was my decision. But if I was an admin. counting heads, I'd call it a "weak delete"

--JGGardiner 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think your math is just a bit off ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would this even be an issue if the article were Parents of the Presidents of the United States? Sixth Estate 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per discussions at the similar AFDs for children of presidents and prime-ministers. If people don't think any lists belong in wikipedia this isn't the place to argue it and certainly not the list to start with.--JayHenry 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that I wasn’t singled out but since I’m the only one who said anything close to that, I do wonder “people” means me. =) Just to clarify, I think that lists are fine when they index encyclopedic content but that they shouldn’t masquerade as such. Having looked through all of the list guidelines to be sure that my comment was not novel, I see no references to lists which do not index articles. In fact, it seems that only index lists are even considered at all. I’m somewhat new to lists so if someone can point me to guidelines which allow or discuss this sort of thing, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 08:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per children reasons and many above Johnbod 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who comes up with these strange topics?--Sefringle 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians, I expect. - Johnbod 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a reason to delete, I think there are many, much more stange topics in Wikipedia than this. Jjmillerhistorian 12:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the above resons, if nothing else this is of interest to those who are studing the "nature or nuture" of the coridors of power. An electronic encyclopedia can use not just tolerate articles that are useful in tying content together.cmacd 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fishhead64. - Jord 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat, Fishhead64, JayHenry, et al. More historic and encyclopedic value than List of Star Trek planets, for example. Dl2000 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g12, copyright violation. NawlinWiki 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Jacobs (Legendary KHJ Program Director)[edit]

It's a copy-paste and in a totally unacceptable state.

Also, the article isn't linked to by anywhere in Wikipedia.-BiancaOfHell 09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Clearly the article is in a dreadful state right now, but Jacobs is undeniably notable. So the best thing is to fix the article rather than deleting it. --Lee Vonce 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to have (Legendary ... ) in parantheses? Let's delete it and let it be borne anew another day by someone else without copyright information, and under an article such as 'Ron Jacobs (Program Director)' or something.-BiancaOfHell 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article title in gross violation of WP:NPOV, without prejudice to re-creation. Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12 for being words unquestioningly belonging to somebody else. Ohconfucius 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:43Z

Runs Against Average[edit]

Reason Hayford Peirce 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Here are some comments I left a while ago on the Discussion page of the Sabermetrics article, where a link to the Runs Against Average has been put in several times by the same person and deleted by various others: "I'm a member of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and for the last 4 or 5 years I've been receiving a daily email message from the SABR group in which various members send comments, queries, etc., to a central List (so they call it) about research matters. Then every day the moderator posts the 10-40 messages that have come in that day in a single email to the subscribers to the service. It's sorta like a chat room or newsgroup discussion area, except it's done by email and it's exclusively about research matters, NOT general baseball discussion, such as "who's gonna win the Series". I've just checked my SABR mailbox on Eudora -- there are 3443 separate emails! That means there are probably at least 35,000 to 50,000 individual emails within that group. I've just done a Search for "runs created" -- that returned 265 entries. I Searched for "total player rating" -- that returned 45 entries. I then Searched for "runs against average" -- and got zero entries. "RAA"? -- zero entries. A Google search for "runs against average" only brings in 65 hits -- many of them on blogs. Surely an extraordinarily low total for a generally accepted research tool. So it looks to me that, whatever the merits of the method, it's almost certainly Original Research under the Wiki definition and shouldn't be here." End of my message on the Discussion page. A Google for "total player rating", on the other hand, brings in 121,000 hits! So I'm afraid that this looks like a (possibly very valuable) research tool that, at least in its Wikipedian context, is purely Original Research and should therefore be deleted. I fought the Original Research debate on the other side a couple of years ago and was defeated and now, I think, I see clearly that what I used to argue was wrong. In sum, this RAA is Original Reseach and should be deleted. Hayford Peirce 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried twice to put an "original research" tag on this article, but its creator deleted my tag. I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion and recommendation.35.9.6.175 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. If it doesn't have notability within the baseball or Sabremetrics community, as the nominator suggests, there is no way it should have an article. Scottmsg 19:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I agree with Hayford Pierce's main thrust, that it doesn't appear this methodology has been published anywhere else, and even if it has, it hasn't gained enough attention to be worthy of it's own entry. There are hundreds of new methods and formula for baseball analysis developed each year, and wikipedia should be used to document the few that gain traction, not as a launching pad for new ideas. Anson2995 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Delete as original research. The creator of RAA keeps deleting tags and ignoring suggestions. There's no question it's original research, and it's not well documented or justified research at that.--Mack2 01:08, 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 by JzG under CSD A7. BryanG^(talk) 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team (SPIRIT)[edit]

Asserts notability, but no links to sources. This seems like a nonnotable local paranormal group to me. NawlinWiki 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too much like advertising; no sources to demonstrate notability. No evidence of multiple coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G11 - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:21, 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 Merge to Yoshihiko Funazaki. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 01:50Z

Picasso-kun no tantei note[edit]

This item lacked notability; 1 hit on Google excluding Wikipedia. Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declare conflict of interest: the writer of this article, User:1523, have disputed with me with the inclusion of some of the issues in this article (namely the alleged plagiarism of Detective Conan from this novel) into Case Closed last May. I have to say that half of this article was devouted to this plagiarism claim, in which I would consider as baseless, but my AfD is not related to this. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About 110 Google matches for "ピカソ君の探偵ノート" (including the quotation marks) Fg2 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got more than twice as many hits outside of Wikipedia, and I think there are probably more out there. I have a hard time feeling that this should be deleted... it's an in-print series of comics with a real publisher. If there are issues with original research (perhaps the statements on Case Closed could be sourced, but they aren't now), that is a content dispute rather than a case for deletion. I also have a hard time believing that User:1523 (who isn't a native English speaker and wasn't informed of the deletion debate) is at any kind of fault here. This is a standalone series and to create an article for a standalone series is definitely not a content fork. Keep. (see below) Dekimasu が... 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just checked WP:N out, but I couldn't find the rule that the articles need English ghits. Well, you'll get about 280 ghits in Japanese, and this series is commercially published ([54] [55] [56]). I can give sources about plagiarism as well, but he says his AfD is not related to this, so I refrain from doing that. --1523 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please read WP:BK. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked that out too. So what is your point? You can find Picasso series on The Online Public Access Catalog of National Diet Library, Tokyo. --1523 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yoshihiko Funazaki. The existence of the series is not disputed. But the notability of the book really has not been firmly established. Combining the two would do no harm. --Kunzite 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kunzite. This would be useful information for the author's article and the debate here has failed to prove notability rather than point to it. My feeling is that the information should be retained in some form, so since there is a good target for a merge, that makes sense. Dekimasu が... 11:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:42Z

Islamic dietary laws[edit]

"What can be found in this article that can't be found in Halal or Dhabiha. The latter articles are much more complete and, well, 'better' than this one." Starwarp2k2 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Halal. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halal per Zahakiel. -- Black Falcon 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halal per Zahakiel.Starwarp2k2 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination.--Sefringle 05:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though Halal article is much more complete, this article is quite handy to focus on the biological aspect of Halal food. Tonytypoon 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this article is an umbrella article for all Islamic food related issues, as is shown by its prominent position on the template, a position that can not be replaced by either Halal, Dhabiha or any other specific article: this article needs to be a general "gateway". --Striver - talk 12:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN's Sports Heaven[edit]

Non-notable commercial for no longer existant product EnsRedShirt 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is part of ESPN lore like the Edsel. TonyTheTiger 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was one forgetable superbowl ad. It is not 1984 (television commercial) nor is it This is Sportscenter. EnsRedShirt 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me it is irrelevant that Mobile ESPN failed, and besides it does still exist as part of the Verizon program. To me, what matters is that it was one of the more dominant and interesting ads for that year, being the water-cooler-worthy ad for that Super Bowl for all its many celebrities and visual approach. It was certainly notable then. {I wrote the first draft, so that should be taken into consideration when evaluating this opinion.)--Mike Selinker 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Non-notable" and "forgettable" are a matter of opinion. We are in the category of AFD ("A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases.") The main linked article, Mobile ESPN, is not yet up for deletion. There is no discussion on the Talk:ESPN's_Sports_Heaven calling for deletion. There is nothing controversial about the article. It is pretty difficult to consider dropping an article with a large amount linked content both ways. The article is the number 4 Google link using the separate words "sports" and "heaven". I do not understand what constitutes borderline other than a personal opinion of what constitutes a Wikipedia article. As a business enterprise, Mobile ESPN was a product in search of a market that ended up a monetary flop. This puts it in the category of Commercial failures. And if you look at that particular category, Mobile ESPN rises at least to the top half of the list. Sports Heaven was the biggest expense and biggest part of the failure. Group29 15:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, I have only seen arguments that use personal opinion along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT: "It is part of ESPN lore." "...it was one of the more dominant and interesting ads that year...". The fact that Mobile ESPN is not up for deletion is neither here nor there, as an article can be subject to deletion independent of its main topic (see all the Simpsons lists that have popped up on AfD.) As to Group29's assertion that there is nothing controversial about the article, I would respond with the opinion that it is in clear violation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically in that it is solely a plot summary and description of the ad. Slic e NYC (Talk) 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason some of the article's content can't be incorporated into Mobile ESPN -- that they aired a costly ad during the Super Bowl which featured lots of sports stars in a made-up sports world. However, I don't think this means every athlete and allusion needs to be mentioned in a separate article. Slic e NYC (Talk) 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with that, if it's that important to have some of the info it should be incorporated into the Mobile ESPN article. I did not nominate that one as it is notable and was the commercial flop, not the other way around as others here seem to think, it's also why I didn't nominate This is SportsCenter as it is a notable ad series over a decade now. I hope this explains my reasoning a bit better. EnsRedShirt 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like we could all be comfortable if we go to WP:Merge as reccommended in the "Before nominating an AfD" section of WP:AFD. EnsRedShirt, I suggest that be the direction and then we will save ourselves from a gasoline vs. petrol debate over the relative merit of the content. ;-) Thanks, Group29 03:15, 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. Case for notability not convincing. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ[edit]

Blatant advertising. The website is not significant enough to warrant its own article. G.hilmarsson 08:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.hilmarsson (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 08:18:32

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gametz community is not insignificant. It has been integral in the trading community since it's inception over 10 years ago and has laid clear the groundwork for some higher profile trading community websites and community websites in general. The active user base is somewhere around 3,000 users. How is interest determined? If a website is perdominately featured in mutiple issues of a high readership magazine like gamepro, does that not illustrate a very real interest? AtaruMoroboshi 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, pretty much all of the pages in the Community Websites category should be deleted. All of these are sites of thousands of users. So, by your logic, a site with a few thousand users is advertising, but CNN and Netflix is worthy simply due to a larger user base? How are pages for those sites any less guilty of being advertising? More on point, I notice a page for Gamefly, a commercial game rental site. This page has been written to document the site's history and community, not primarily as advertising. Dstumme 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a web directory. Furthermore, there is not enough interest in this site to warrant this article. Sites such as CNN or eBay are legitimate considerations given their significance. GameTZ, on the other hand, is simply a small online trading community. For these same reasons, we have to delete articles regarding unknown actors, musicians and so forth who generally lack the sufficient interest to otherwise be relevant to an encyclopedia. Please take the time to review Wiki policy. G.hilmarsson 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(on a side note, I'm having trouble editing Wikipedia lately, so my signature often does not display. I also had difficulty completing the AfD process correctly. I need to check my browser settings to see if anything is interfering)
Keep as GameTZ has been featured in syndicated TV news spots (I think on CBS, but I could be wrong...it's been a few years since I saw the spot), has been covered in newspaper newspaper articles, and featured in magazine articles as well. It's the grand-daddy of all the various trading sites, and has outlasted almost all of them. Comparing GameTZ to Netflix, ebay, and similar sites is like comparing horses to tomatoes: they aren't even the same thing, so any comparison is invalid. When compared to other game/movie/music/book trading sites, GameTZ is one of the largest (if not the largest) out there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after 10 minutes of searching I found the USA Today article, which is only a trivial mention. Accordingly, fails WP:N for lack of multiple non-trivial third party sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - We are in the process of gathering other references. The GamePro magazine reference was recently added. I can also add a link to the video clip of the nationally syndicated news story that was done about game trading sites that heavily referenced GameTZ, but I wasn't sure how to cite that. The story ran on multiple stations across the country a couple of years back. There have been mentions in other gaming magazines occasionally over the years as well, but I'd need to do some more digging to find them. In the mean time, I'd like to see the article hang around while sources are added. Dstumme 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made all the references look pretty. If anyone can find any other references, please either post them here, on the talk page, or let me know and I'll add them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough notoriety. 72.150.232.174 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notoriety" is not a criteria for inclusion, nor is lack of it a criteria of exclusion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the various comments made above (some biased and some not) the obvious fact remains that this article is in essence an advertisement for a commercial concern, and, as such, has no place in wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are only two online written references which are not from gametz.com - Two articles which briefly mention that the site exists and one usenet posting. IMHO, this is pushing the bounds of notability beyong their limit. I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise but as it stands I'll go for delete. -- Qarnos 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The notability requirements do not require that any of the references be online references. With being mentioned twice in a popular gaming magazine, and having a TV spot (a recording of that spot is linked in the reference, BTW), the notability requirements are clearly fulfilled even without the other references you mention in your comment. Keep in mind that TV spot was aired on stations all across the United States. I actually saw it on my local news, though I didn't think to record it at the time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of the notability requirements... but limited coverage on the web is a big red flag. Also, not everything which appears on TV should have an encyclopedia article - otherwise we could have an article on every minor news story (hey, it was on TV, right?). -- Qarnos 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying that every news story on TV deserves an article. The news story being used as a reference certainly doesn't deserve an article itself. However, the news story is perfectly acceptable as a reference used to meet the notability requirements for this article. The notability requirements say nothing about references needing to be notable enough to warrant an article themselves, only that such coverage is good enough to establish notability for the subject of that coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I forgot to mention that the magazine coverage and the TV spot alone make the article meet the primary notability criterion: "...it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - non-trivial being the key word. The USA Today article gives the site one sentence. -- Qarnos 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll hasten to add that gamestz was not the subject of the USA today article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qarnos (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - I'm referring to the GamePro and TV coverage. The USA Today coverage is incidental to those. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:11, 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. Non-admin closure due to unambiguous result. Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fm1960[edit]

Uncited mess lacking context. Gilliam 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing salvageable here, but in most cases numbered roads do merit inclusion. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farm to Market Road 1960.Caknuck 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that. I invoked WP:BB and did the redirect myself. Unless anybody has any objections, I'd suggest an admin go ahead and close this AfD out. Caknuck 21:23, 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) 2007-02-13 07:35Z

PennSix (band)[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC) whose only claim to notability is having had a member who later became notable and claims that a lot of people try out for their group and that their concerts sell out, which, like the rest of the article, can only be sourced to the group's website. Savidan 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of third-party coverage, fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. And I seem to recall we've deleted a substantially identical article in the past, perhaps with a different title. Shimeru 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:15Z

Tommy_G[edit]

Created by subject of entry, non-notable radio show DUBJAY04 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the placer of the prod that Tommy G removed, I agree that this person doesn't meet WP:BIO. One source is the radio station's web page, the other mentions Tommy G only tangentially- neither contribute to multiple nontrivial sources showing notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have absolutely no idea how many radio show presenters exist. But I am quite certain that there are so many of them that merely being one cannot of itself confer notability.--Anthony.bradbury 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability outside of the station's broadcast area, seemingly a violation of WP:AUTO. Caknuck 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete graveyard shift radio host. Seems not to fulfill any requirement of WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (blanked). gren グレン 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Go[edit]

Article is unsourced, and I can't find any evidence that a person of this name with this history exists. I suspect the article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this person exists, which I am unable to verify, the article is unsourced and the subject receives no assertion of notability.--Anthony.bradbury 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find any other source stating that this person even exists. Per above, even if he does exist, there is no indication of notability. --Austinsimcox 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. Page blanked by author as withdrawn. Ohconfucius 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:12Z

Best of College A Cappella[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella compilation (WP:MUSIC). Not an award so much as a piramid scheme; i.e. you have to pre-purchase some of their CDs to get your tracks on the CD (to the tune of $250). Not a single independent source (i.e. a major national newspaper, etc.) writes about this compilation as being notable. In my due-dilligence lexis search I found two trivial mentions (one in a San Fransisco Chronicle human interest piece about Stanford music groups, and one mention in a New York Times article about music and the internet, which I believe to be a different compilation because it says it was founded by Adam Farb of Smoking Fish Records). Was kept earlier in a confused group nomination that was marred by a high influx of anons and new accounts. Savidan 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire: Seems to be a sort of vanity record label. Oh, and does it have multiple non-trivial references? I didn't think so. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 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 IronGargoyle 19:04, 14 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}}.

Viper Comics[edit]

There's no indication that this publisher is notable per WP:CORP, i.e., that they are the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, and reliable. I'm not speedy deleting this article outright per WP:CSD#A7 because, who knows, such sources may still turn up during this discussion. Sandstein 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Webcomic notability guidelines for published webcomics JackSparrow Ninja 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not guidelines. They are an essay of yours which nobody else thinks is of any relevance and are completely incompatible to WP:N. Also, Viper Comics is not about a webcomic, but a publishing company. Sandstein 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For one because they're 4 days old, and in development. Just consider that my reasoning for the strong keep ;-) Viper Comics is a company that, among other, publishes webcomics. JackSparrow Ninja 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep per below given comment on notability.
Keep. Ugly Hill is non-trivial, with a source independent of Viper Comics. --Master Forcide 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugly Hill is also up for deletion. It is also a product of Viper Comics, not a source covering Viper Comics, and thus does not by itself provide notability. Sandstein 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. Ugly Hill is itself not a product of Viper Comics; Viper only publishs it in print form, at the cartoonist's discretion. This does provide notability. Furthermore, Ugly Hill is only up for deletion because you personally nominated it; hardly unbiased on your part. --Master Forcide 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on notability: IGN considers them noteable enough for a news report. JackSparrow Ninja 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a report, but a press release by Viper Comics themselves, as it says at the top. Press releases are not independent sources under WP:N and its derivative guidelines. Sandstein 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I used to work at a Barnes and Noble and would constantly see their books on the shelves. Since their books are carried in major brick and mortar retail chains I wouldn't go around calling them some tiny, unnotable business that is run out of the owner's basement.--Stranger Dan 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your memory is not an independent reliable source as required for notability purposes. Whether or not retailers carry their books is also not relevant under WP:CORP or WP:N. Sandstein 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I certainly didn't imagine that their comics like Daisy Kutter, Emily Edison, and Oddly Normal are published and carried in major retailors. I've seen them in Waldenbooks too. So tell me what is it that makes them any less notable than a company like IDW Publishing, Top Shelf Productions, or Oni Press?--Stranger Dan 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be properly sourced to show topic's importance, meet WP:N. -- Dragonfiend 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'm still trying to feel my way through this notability thing. It's a publisher, so not something that will be reviewed. I mean, take the company Dark Horse, I've read a lot of articles about Dark Horse's comics, but not many about Dark Horse itself. Most of what I read about Dark Horse came from them. So to me, if the comics a publsiher has are getting meantioned, with the publisher's name attached, then it's notable. For example, Viper Comics is mentioned in this article from Newsaramma, a well know comic site. http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=98749 It got a mention in Best Surprise. Also, this publisher is particpating in the 2007 Free Comic Book Day http://www.freecomicbookday.com/sponsors.asp. To me that is notable. Just because it's a small independent publisher, doesn't mean it is not notable. JediAutobot 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding to above, I did find this review of the publisher from 2003 http://www.comicbookbin.com/viper01.html JediAutobot 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep The only reason anyone nominated this article for deletion is to make it easier to delete the Ugly Hill page.Lessthankate
Strong Keep This habit of deleting anything related to webcomics is getting out of hand. Come on people, Viper Comics? What next, Penny Arcade? -- Zaron 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's Viper freakin' Comics! They publish many popular books! Just because they're independant doesn't make them "not notable." -- S
Comment: it took me a while, but I was able finally to find several somewhat small coverages in one reliable source Wizard (magazine) and several more sizable coverages in more borderline-reliable sources online. On the other hand, tcj.com The Comics Journal seems to never once have mentioned Viper. The article itself contains information sourced from the vipercomics home page, rather than the sources - the sources say Viper first published in 2003, whether or not the company was "founded" in 2001. It seems to me to be teetering on the edge of notability. The article, however, makes no actual claims of notability. And I wasn't able to find enough reliable information that I felt confident in adding such myself. Felisse 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because a publishing company has decided to publish a few webcomics does not make them non-notable. It has well reviewed works, and the only way that the publisher of those works would not be notable is if none of it's works are notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Viper Comics is notable, if only due to the fact that as an "independant" publisher, they compete successfully with mainstream comic publishers. I agree with Lessthankate - by being able to delete the publisher, it makes it easier to delete Ugly Hill too. Just like the ill advised deletion of the WCCA opened the floodgates to the current webcomic purge. Timmccloud 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Deleting articles about publishers is a new low ! John Vandenberg 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:10Z

Stephen Kovalcik[edit]

This page should be deleted because this player is not notable. He is not even in Major Junior hockey nevermind professional. He is just a local player at this time. When and if he becomes notable then he can have a page. --Djsasso 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His only claim to fame is a bit part in a Disney movie. Not enough, imo. Resolute 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. DMighton 07:52, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:09Z

Abram Bowman Kolb[edit]

non-notable biography freeradster (talk | contribs) 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article looked odd. A quick look through the History, showed that notability claims had been excised when a copyvio was cleared up, leaving the article without meaning. I've rewritten a notability claim. --Dweller 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has notability per the specifications. However, I copied the complete article from gameo.org, which was a unintentional copyright vio. I reduced the text to what is common knowledge in hopes that contributions would build the rest from scratch. -- Loaves 21:48, 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 as copyvio. W.marsh 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlorde[edit]

Non-notable metal band. The article asserts notability, but nothing in the article supports it. adavidw 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of http://mywebpages.comcast.net/medwards126925/overlorde/unithist.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucasbfr (talk • contribs).
Comment Tagged as speedy delete. SkierRMH 03:48, 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) 2007-02-13 07:06Z

Decemberists Live Covers[edit]

List is original research, and is nigh on impossible to source or verify. Bands playing covers in concert is nothing unusual, and there is certainly nothing out of the ordinary in this list to redeem it. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable per WP:V. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Covers that are notable through inclusion on an album or by trustworthy review should be in the band article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 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) 2007-02-13 07:05Z

Florence Quivar[edit]

Delete Doesn't seem notable as is. Not sure if it ever could be. Just H 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:BAND; every one of her unique GHits seems to describe a different performance. I'd hope that sharing a stage with Placido Domingo would make me notable too. Flakeloaf 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Sorry, i'm not an opera fan. Just H 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and how). I have written the article's text (was a tiny stub) using reliable sources which were ridiculously easy to find given that there are numerous books providing non-trivial coverage of her, and 157 New York Times articles mentioning her. It really is a good idea to always do some basic searching for an article's subject through Google or other easily checked sources before bringing an article to AFD.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:11, 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) 2007-02-13 07:04Z

Substance x[edit]

Probable hoax. For a new hallucinogen that's "recently discovered" it sure doesn't get a lot of press. Google News shows nothing, and a search for "substance x"+indonesia brings nothing relevant. Prod tag and hoax tag removed by anon. ... discospinster _talk 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Procedural nomination for being a contested prod (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL), but the author did not specify why the prod wasn't a good idea. Flakeloaf 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources in article + search of available sources shows nothing + burden on posting author = verifiability black hole.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources that suggest this even exists. My usual unreliable source can't get me any. Unverifiable. CiaranG 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:03Z

List of heights of United States presidential candidates[edit]

Since there is a present mania for deleting cruft concerning government leaders, this seemed about the cruffiest. Not a notable topic of any but the most trivial interest, per the now-deleted List of Philippine Presidents by parentage, for example Fishhead64 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft which, if printed out, would be as long as President... um... Flakeloaf 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a referenced article on the topic of the common wisdom that the taller candidate always wins the election. Otto4711 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N seems satisfied, has two instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources cited at the end (Sommers and Day papers); WP:V clearly met with nearly 30 footnotes. cab 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue of height in presidential elections makes for a relevant and interesting discussion. In addition, the article fulfills WP:N and WP:V. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus, this is one of the finest examples of trivia that I have seen. Just because trivia might garner attention, it does not make the trivia encyclopedic. Agent 86 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope the trend to create such a lists won't expand to other body parts. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it sounds trivial, but clearly passes WP:V and WP:N. Inappropriate use of the term "cruft" - this is certainly not fancruft. --Canley 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable topic as there are multiple independent published works. --- RockMFR 04:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much debate goes on as to what impact height has on success. Mathmo ^Talk 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC
Keep As per Mathmo. Height is relevant unlike lists of presidents' middle names etc. Jules1975 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet criteria of WP:N. In fact it would seem far more notable than Presidential pets, many of whom appear to have their own page. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is the same as it was when this content was at List of United States Presidents by height order (AfD discussion). Keep. Uncle G 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be expanded or merged, the sortable table is flawed so I put the old table back in. The sortable table showed Coolidge as the shortest President at 5'11 instead of Madison at 5'4. That was the only thing I saw wrong with the article. Jjmillerhistorian 01:41, 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 Prometheus Process bound for Deletion IronGargoyle 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Process[edit]

Bumped from the the COI noticeboard. Non-obvious but pure corporate vanity as the author of the article, Mike Cline (talk · contribs) is actually the vice president of the company who invented this strategy. See here (the real copy of the page vanished while the article was on the noticeboard). Most of the sources are self-published, but there's a few more on the noticeboard. Notability is unclear. MER-C 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, gets over one thousand ghits. Which is a lot more than I would have expected just from reading this AfD nomination and glancing at the article. But am too tired to decide for now what I should vote, looks like it requires a bit of carefull thinking and researching to sort this one out. So for now I'll ~~Abstain~~ Weak Keep and I'll come back later tomorrow, will read what everybody else has had to say about this. Mathmo ^Talk 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 12:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "missing" news.htm page. An unfortunate circumstance that I would agree does give the wrong appearance. The website it belonged too changed completely in mid to late December and that page has not been part of the site since then--It is not missing--it has never been there stnce the change. The fact that it shows up in a cached Google search is no surprise. That said, there is nothing in the old page's content to hide either.--Mike Cline 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "Invented By The company" comment above. It bears some rebuttal. The methodology essentially started in the early 1980's at the National War College with the first published versions showing up in The Air Campaign (1986). The methodology (although not bearing it current moniker) was actually used for the planning of the first Gulf War. This is well documented and John Warden is referenced in numerous US and foreign texts related to this methodology. In the early 1990s, elements of methodology were taught and still are at the USAF Air Command and Staff College and have been taught at many of the other Military service schools and professional schools. This all occurred before I ever went to work for the company. Shortly after the first Gulf War, John Warden was working in the office of American Competitiveness in the White House under then Vice President Dan Qualye. The Methodology was evolving as John worked with businesses throughout the U.S. In the 1995, John, retired from the USAF, started his current company and began coalesing the methodology into what it is today. In that process, he collaborated with another author and management consultant, Leeland Russell to write Winning in FastTime and coin the term "Prometheus Process" to capture the essence of the strategic planning methodology. I became involved with company in 1996 as a software guy to build tools related to the evolving process. Other consultancies, some fairly major names use versions of this methodology to work with their clients. As I posted on the COI discussion, this link * [[57]] kinda of summarizes the process and gives it some sort of pedigree. However, I do think a strict adherance to the COI guidelines by me is necessary here and I will make those reverts and deletions as appropriate to clean up that angle.--Mike Cline 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep, a good portion of this article needs to be cleaned up and better sourced or removed, however the primary claim to notability seems to be established by Winning in fast time~~ —siro χ o 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winning in FastTime is published by Venturist Publishing, co-authored by John Warden who's president of Venturist, Inc, the company Mike Cline works for. --Ronz 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I change my vote, then to cleanup and Merge where appropriate, either Warden's Five Rings or a new article on either Winning in Fast Time or John A. Warden III. (see [58] and [59] for some notability.) —siro χ o 18:17, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure COI, mixed with the typical commercial spam of describing it all at excessive length. --and, what is a little odd about this article is that the author has an elaborate table of possible COI on his userpage, including the all of his hobbies, but doesn't mention this particular one vocational interest.DGG 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is, in all its egregious non-encyclopedic presumption, a specimen of what was a few months ago rightly termed corporate vanity/vandalism. — Athænara ✉ 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability is asserted, virtually all references are from material written by the people who invented the term. While COI is an issue, lack of notability is the real reason for deletion, without demonstrating notability it doesn't belong regardless of who wrote the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, perhaps would be a better idea to merge this into an article about the person instead? Mathmo ^Talk 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a weak keep now, after having seen a few independent sources such as these two: Baking Management & highbeam.com. I'll also refer to my talk page where the editor left me a comment. Mathmo ^Talk 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete yandman 08:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Strong[edit]

Non-notable magician. The article claims he was in the film version of Rent but the magician's own website and IMDB fail to back this claim up. He is a performer and while he may be good at what he does, he hasn't attained any level of notability which would deserve an encyclopedia article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to verify the claims of importance. Article mentions a story on "insidebayarea.com" but the link doesn't appear to work. (Note: I removed the CSD tag, but that was because it asserted importance and the claims needed more investigation to determine if they were true) --W.marsh 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some sources have been located, and the article re-written. I don't think it makes a really strong case of notability yet, but there's enough there for me to say keep, so that the article can continue to grow. --Elonka 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Weak delete based on lack of references. He's got a great website which implies that there are reliable sources out there, such as reviews in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, but there's not enough detail to actually verify anything. I haven't been able to locate anything solid on Google searches either -- everything I come up with is promotional in nature. If someone can find any reliable sources to verify sufficient notability though, I'd be willing to switch my opinion to keep. --El on ka 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The stuff I'm seeing in the WP at least doesn't seem to constitute non-trivial coverage. e.g. "Check out [Robert Strong]'s breathtaking act -- maybe even be part of it -- at one of nine "Hogwash" shows this month at the Smithsonian's Discovery Theater: July 23 at noon, and at 10 and 11:30 a.m. each day from July 26 through July 29" and that appears to be all. That's not really the kind of information we'd use to write an encyclopedia article. Their search doesn't actually allow you to view full articles though [60]. --W.marsh 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but it does confirm the Smithsonian performance. So in my mind, that's notability on the East Coast, combined with notability on the West Coast as well with the "Best of the Bay" award. I agree that it's not a super strong case for notability yet, but let's also keep in mind that the article was just created on February 6, and then got sent to AfD within 48 hours. I say let's keep for now, give the article some time to breathe, and then if it still looks weak after it's been given a chance to expand, we can take another look at it later. --El on ka 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete based on all the reasons listed already. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disclose that I'm a friend of Robert's, but my argument for recommending a keep is that I have read all the articles written (Washington Post, City Times, Gold River News) and seen the Inside Bay Area (both online and in print). I'm looking for the Inside Bay Area link in the Internet Archive.--Dattner 05:59, 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. Aksi_great (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlórien Co-op[edit]

Delete - this is the second AfD for this article, the first is here and was closed with a keep. Many of the voices in favor of keeping were so in favor on the basis of what the article could possibly become. However, in the intervening two months there has been no substantive effort to improve the article beyond cosmetic wikilinking. There are no reliable sources for the article to satisfy WP:V concerns. The sources consist of the co-op's own webpage along with its myspace page and assorted directory pages. The article has been tagged as reading like an advertisement for months and it still does. I also believe that one or more of the people arguing for keep the last time are heavily involved in the Madison co-op housing scene. I'm not sure how relevant that is to the discussion but since it is a potential bias I thought it reasonable to mention. Otto4711 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LOCAL says that If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. Most of the information in the article reeks of original research, especially the stuff about life inside the building. Furthermore, as the article has no sources, the article fails to satisfy verifiability requirements, which are non-negotiable. - Chardish 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I felt like the past AfD was wrongly kept and did not take into account the ~~sock/meatpuppetry~~ single purpose accounts. At best it should have garnered a no consensus. I didn't provide nearly as nice of a deletion justification last time as Otto4771 did, so kudos to him. Failing WP:RS is the major point, but it also fails WP:ORG and is very POV heavy. IronGargoyle 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out that I'm not suggesting those in favor of keeping were doing anything wrong and I make no suggestion of sock puppetry. Otto4711 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete NN--even their elaborate description how just what they mean by began is not particularly unusual.DGG 08:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Accelerando (book). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 01:48Z

Glasshouse (novel)[edit]

Non-notable book with no sources, little content, and no context. Prod contested by anonymous user without any given reason. Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Chardish 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All relevant information from this article already exists in Accelerando (book). - Chardish 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search reveals tons of references to this book being available and discussed, plus it's a followup to a book for which an article exists -- but individual novels are also notable. Needs expansion, but that's what WP:BOLD is for. I'm also adding it to the NovelsWikiProject which will result in users adding infobox, etc. in due course. (Never mind, someone already has.) 23skidoo 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Accelerando (book), it is the sequel apparently. Once more info is added, it could get its own article again. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:51, 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. Article is a major fair use violation, among other things. 1ne 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Steel[edit]

At any glance, this article is just a major fair use violation. With a partial read, it's impossible to tell if this is about a real individual and his band or a fictional individual used as part of an advertising campaign. Seeing as this does not really fall under any sort of speedy deletion, I'm listing this here as not having neutral verifiable sources as to the actual existence of this individual/band/copyright gallery. The talk page also raises some questions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Major fair use violations as well as descriptions over whether or not "Doctor Steel" or "Phineas Waldorf Steel" are real people have been settled with those who have contributed on the discussion pages as well as addressed within the articles respectively, It's another Stephen Colbert actor / real person debate, I like Colbert ;)--Fenixasin 1:20am Saturday, February 10, 2007 UTC
As far as the verifiable information Fenixasin has provided it to you. The issues of being verified has been addressed, as far as neutrality I assure you that no one is adding more than information. Third party individuals will also make their editing and corrections on the page. Wikipedia after is built on that very idea, the users will keep it neutral.- FleshMask 10:04 Friday, February 09, 2007 EST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.60.244 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep. I see no reason not to keep this article. It is part of a pop culture phenomenon, the character/persona is verifyable and there is considerable interest in the character. Additionally, there is a real person attached to the persona and that is also interesting in the same way as the Stephen Colbert persona is attached to the person Stephen Colbert. I don't disagree, however, that there is currently a commercial appearance to the article. The need to clean up the article has been identified and there are certainly editors available that appear to be willing to work on this requirement. Plus, Dr. Steel apparently has recruited an army of people who are likely to continue to resurrect it anyway. It makes sense to leave it and clean it up. Pete K 03:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I want this article to not be deleted, it is in compliance with all wikipedia standards, as well as a very interesting on the basis of lyrical music and modern underground trends in music. -Fleshmask 10:54pm, 10 February 2007 EST — FleshMask (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I don't see why this article should be deleted. I think that it follows all the guidelines and in all honesty there is a real call from the fans to have something up on him. I see a problem with keeing this up at all. -Juju21

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.60.244 (talk • contribs).— Juju21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete no reliable neutral sources, unverified.--Dakota 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject matter is definitely valid, the article itself just needs some work. As far as the blurring of lines between person and persona, the situation is similar to that of MC Frontalot, Dr. Steel just takes the character aspect to further extremes. - Ugliness Man 08:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no plausible reason to delete this article,the information provided is verifiable.And also I have been able to find the url of the interview suicidegirls.com did with Dr.Steel.The Url should you choose to read is "http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Dr.+Steel/".Resources would be better spent with positive and helpful comments to provide growth for this article instead of negative feedback concerning wether or not this entertainer is fictious.Again Phineas Waldolf Steel is a character created and adopted by Dr.Steel and should indeed be treated with dignity instead of nonchalance - Mentalatrophy— Mentalatrophy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I understand your concern over the fair use issues here, but I don't think that's grounds to delete the whole article. Doctor Steel seems to have enough third-party coverage to warrant an article. As for the fair use, especially the gallery of fair use images, they seem to be used with permission, so I would recommend putting the article up at Wikipedia:Fair use review. ShadowHalo 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete this article. The facts are verifiable and the information is up to date and correct. - Starkaven Madd 16:50, 10 February 2007 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starkavenmadd (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC).— Starkavenmadd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I want this article to NOT be deleted, please, as it's in full compliance with all Wikipedia standards, The phenomenon of Dr.Steel is surely to grow and so it would be great if Wikipedia already had such reference to this amazing performer! Information regarding the actual man behind the character is private of course as a celebrity performer - but he is real non-the-less. Thank you! ~BratPrince_Lestat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BratPrince Lestat (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC).— BratPrince Lestat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is about a real individual with a fictional persona and a real band. All information is verifiable and up to date. Besides, anyone who can spawn a bi-coastal convention without a record contract should probably be included in the internet's equivalent of the sum of all knowledge, no?Cheshiresgrin 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Cheshiregrin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into Phineas Waldolf Steel from what I've gathered, if this article followed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), then it would not be notable under WP:FICT. So merge. Gracenotes ^T § 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge and Redirect with extreme prejudice. - Francis Tyers · 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is honestly nothing wrong with the artist's page. There's a page of a couple Professional wrestlers on here I've seen, and no one's ever heard of them before, but have used wikipedia to get known. for example, the human tornado. nobody in the midwest knew who this guy was, and yes, the page that was made for him helped out his career a little. But this artist is know throughout the world by many people without this page. With all honesty, This guy doesn't even need this page, cause he's gonna get a bigger fan base without it or not. But he has been in several shows, and magazines, and is a popular artist with no mainstream radio play. to make this kind of a name for himself with out that help is a rare thing, and that's deserving to be a part of wikipedia.— Yellowjacketrattlocke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge into Phineas Waldolf Steel - or merge PWS into this one. Either way, the article(s) need(s) to be heavily edited to separate reality from promotion. For instance, Steel did get a brief appearance on Leno, but I'm not sure about Letterman (the pic might be photoshopped) and I think the Muppets thing is a pure bit of promotional fantasy. (Shame, cuz I think they'd be smashing together!) Anyway, I do think there should be an article about this guy, but we need more real info about the performer, which seems to be hard to get. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:01Z

Ska for Christ[edit]

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but contested. I can't see what's notable, mind, and there are no sources. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page is important as it gives information on the only known organization of its kind. Ska for Christ site members and visitors come from all around the world. The organization has sold merchandise to help promote up and coming bands from Brazil to Germany, from Croatia to Columbia. Many up and coming bands have been able to find eachother, locals, and other support through the organization. Members of the organization's online community have found comfort and counsel in the staff as well as eachother. The site staff have conducted interviews with members of popular bands in the genre who, themselves, have Wikipedia pages, Five Iron Frenzy and The Insyderz. (This is, and has been for quite some time, referenced, in the external links of the The Insyderz Wikipedia entry)

Again, it is the only known organization for this genre of music, and it has a very dedicated following, especially in the US, Brazil, Columbia, Germany, Croatia, as well as other countries.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ska_for_Christ"

If the genre of music of which this organization is the only known organized supporter, and bands that this organization have interviewed, are significant, then how is the organization not significant?

Delete Non-Notable. there simply isn't enough content, nor has more been added since it's nomination, hardly a full article.- Talk 2:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Microsoft Update. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:59Z

WindizUpdate[edit]

I previously speedily deleted this article because it was about web material without an assertion of notability. However, the article creator restored it, so I'm bringing it here. Procedural nomination - no opinion as of yet. Core desat 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or merge with Windows update. Afaik this site is unique in that it lets you update Windows through the browser, without the WGA business. I think the only other alternative is something you have to download. Trampled - ^talk 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with windows update. I find it quite notable because it seems to be the first to provide an alternative web service - and it works. (nova) 01:54, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:57Z

South Korea-Russia relations[edit]

Ridiculously specific. Tagged as WP:CSD for lack of context, but I could not in good conscience nuke it for that. But honestly. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral for now~~ Keep - I'm not sure why this article is any more "ridiculously specific" than the similar articles in the series detailing relations with China, India, Japan, Poland and the United States. While the existence of the series is not in and of itself justification for this article, I need to see a more compelling argument for deletion than "but honestly." Otto4711 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to keep based on improvements to article since nomination and no stated reason for deletin. Urge nominator to withdraw the nom. Otto4711 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Proposed for deletion less than four hours after it was created. I'm a deletionist, and even I think this is a bit harsh. Assume good faith and give the creator a few days to expand it, why don't we? - Chardish 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Chardish. I do not see what is so "ridiculously" specific (the fact that it's SK and Russia or the content of the article). The article has, moreover, been expanded with sourced content since AfD nomination. Maybe tag the article with {{underconstruction}}... Black Falcon 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. LordAmeth 09:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biophys 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs a lot of sourcing, but it certainly has encyclopedic merits and is actually a very good start. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is both notable and interesting, and I really can't see why it should be deleted. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, especially as there are exactly parallel articles on other pairs of countries. The article is notable and contentful, and merging it with something else as a last resort is impossible due to volume considerations. So keep. But it has to be categorized extensively. Colchicum 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. Very Very interesting, excellent information. Fenixasin 2:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:56Z

High Stakes Database[edit]

Blatant advertising, trivial article about vanity site not remotely meeting WP:WEB or anything else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom NetOracle 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 23:09, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:52Z

Evanescence - Wake Me Up Inside[edit]

Song already has a page under Bring Me to Life, the article for deletion adds nothing to it Jameboy 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also the article makes a pretty bold claim without substantiating references. Roadmr (t|c) 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it were sourced, there's no reason this needs a separate page from Bring Me to Life. ShadowHalo 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two entries, one song. Useless. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently false on two fronts, 1. the song's still called Bring Me to Life, and 2. those words are indeed sung in the song. I like the concept of songs being changed for that reason, though; now, let's have an article on "Hope You Guessed My Name". ^_^ JuJube 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. If "Wake Me Up Inside" (without the band name and the dash) isn't already a redirect to the song, it might be worthwhile to make it one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, is a substub a good reason for deletion in this case? I doubt so. Mathmo ^Talk 06:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a substub is hardly a crime, no. However that's not really the reason for deletion. The nominator has argued that, at best, this information should be part of another existing article (since it's an addition to what we already know about the song, that sounds fair enough, since we don't need two entries for one song). Additionally, other contributors have pointed out that the facts presented in this article are unsourced and (where the lyrics are concerned) inaccurate. Those are three good reasons for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 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. W.marsh 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duoying Li[edit]

A one-liner vanity for a non-notable 14-year-old kid. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7. hateless 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no reference to notability in the article, marked as Speedy. SkierRMH 01:31, 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) 2007-02-13 06:48Z

Blade IV[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No actual production news has even been announced. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the article, a borderline hoax, has absolutely nothing backing up any of its statements, and even IMDB, the golden standard when it comes to movie information, has nothing on this movie. Roadmr (t|c) 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources make this crystalballery regardless of its veracity. JuJube 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search revealed no info on "upcoming movie." MetsFan76 02:09, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:47Z

Amy Zidian[edit]

Previously deleted here and recently speedied by me as a repost, but apparently this version is about her in a different career, or something, so per G4 it's being brought to AfD again. Comments from the user requesting the article be reconsidered are below. -- Steel 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete was based on previous AfD from July 2006 (as Hawiian Tropic model??) but article was about her subsequent career as a WWE Diva - from NPOV it should have gone to a new AfD rather than Speedy & protected Invisifan 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. -- Steel 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fancruft. She was on WWE TV for 3 weeks. She barely had a "wrestling career" and I doubt we'll ever see her near WWE again, let alone the wrestling business. Bmg916 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on screen career lasted 2 weeks before she was fired. Non-notable person. -- The Hyb rid 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are Basrball players from the 1920s who played 1 professional game & the notability guidelines say keep them -- she's more notable than that (though personally I'd rather see the nonnotable "notable" sports people removed instead)--Invisifan 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Personally I find WWE completely pointless but regardless, the current article has to do with her career as a WWE diva which is more recent than the previous article (no material from her previous (deleted) article was even included), so this needs the kept/deleted on it's own merits--Invisifan 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of notability. Otto4711 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone who's ever been on-camera for WWE deserves an article. She was on for a few weeks and did nothing. And I also agree that baseball players who play a handful of games should not get their own articles. Booshakla 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did nothing worthy of notability. That goes for the baseball players as well. Normy132 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable person.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless she gets more major career moves, it's delete for now. Govvy 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty non-notable, I might have voted keep if she at least appeared at Armageddon (she was supposed to be on it, but was fired the week before). TJ Spyke 08:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People hardly knew her name when she was on, blink and you missed her, not noteable at all MPJ-DK 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Although most editors proposed a delete, I am going to change it to a re-direct to Big Brother (UK series 7), per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Precedents. TigerShark 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Adams-Short[edit]

Non notable Big Brother housemate, fancruft. I'd speedy it but I thought it would be better to bring it here just in case. — Fire Fox 18:02, 15 June '06

Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up the article tremendously and she meets WP:BIO, with this[61] and this[62]. From WP:BIO, "Name recognition," and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Yanksox ^(talk) 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yanksox ^(talk) 11:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is in Big Brother, so of course she is going to be in the news and all over the internet (on mostly Big Brother fan sites). This doesn't make her notable. — Fire Fox 18:13, 15 June '06

The news sources are not obliged to print a story about someone, they do so with their own free will. Yanksox ^(talk) 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not make the article meet WP:BIO. Even after your cleanup, the only notability the article claims is being a 20-year old dance teacher that's been on TV – not notable. — Fire Fox 18:24, 15 June '06

And she is not the primary subject of many of these external articles - Big Brother is. PJM 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother. -- 9 cds^(talk) 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikiproject Big Brother she is notable, read this. Yanksox ^(talk) 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." – how is this applicable to Grace? — Fire Fox 18:24, 15 June '06

Did you click any one of the links that I supplied? Yanksox ^(talk) 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I am saying just because someone is in the news it doesn't make them notable. Big Brother is highly promoted on news sites and other fan sites, so her name is going to crop up here and there, but by no means does this mean she is notable. — Fire Fox 18:26, 15 June '06

We've been through this quite a few times. Grace is most definitely not notable enough for her own page, she's a gameshow contestant! Budgiekiller 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is really an iffy thing. I am supplying the sources and supplying my rationale for why it should be kept. To be honest, I don't watch TV or really care about celebrity status (except for me :P). I have looked over the policy and in my mind it appears that she fits the profile. You can call this and I'll understand. Yanksox ^(talk) 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict x2. Gah.) Well of course your opinion is all yours, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything. We'll see what everyone else has to say about it anyway :) — Fire Fox 18:32, 15 June '06

Delete - I was under the impression that there was agreement that BB contenstants only became noteable if they achieved something outside of the show. As she's still in there, this cannot apply. Ac@osr 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, try this... Budgiekiller 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe wikipedia allows Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers, does it not? Cheekyweemunky 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No evidence of sufficient notability. Regarding the news articles and fan/gossip websites offered above as supporting evidence for keeping the article, I would emphasize that "non-trivial" is a key word of the criteria. National newspapers typically carry much trivial content. Bwithh 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since she hasn't done anything outside of the show, she's not notable. RedRollerskate 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible merge per RedRollerskate. - Kookykman|(t)e
Delete. As RedRollerskate said, she's not notable outside of the show. Extraordinary Machine 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly doesn't need her own article. -- Necrothesp 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evict from wikipedia. AfD:Who goes? You decide. -- GWO

Well done. ;) PJM 12:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premium rate AfD phone numbers, anyone? -- 9 cds^(talk) 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing encyclopedic left in article. del per nom. --Strothra 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the appearance on Big Brother, she is not notable at all. Perhaps a merge, but even that doesn't seem to be required.--Auger Martel 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't like her. And, the article looks about as useful as this comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.74.134 (talk • contribs)
Delete current content (initial unsourced version, and now substub) for failing WP:AFD, but keep if fixed by the end of AFD (or admin is asked to relist). I think its probably possible to write a new article to satisify WP:BIO, but nothing here (or the equally troubled gossipy/attackish content here) would help with that. Unfortunately, most BB bios created while the season is on-air, aren't worth keeping, because they are not encyclopedic (amounting to a personal recap, not an article based on sources). But most have potential for a valid encyclopedic articles. --Rob 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her 15 minutes of fame will soon be over and she will be forgotten.Stephenjh 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 welcome a new article on the topic) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:45Z

Religious identity[edit]

This article consists entirely of original research by a single writer. I'm not interested in seeing "keep" votes on account of "topic is notable." I agree with that. But if the article can't be cleaned up somewhat and organized into a credible presentation of the subject, it should be deleted instead. YechielMan 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed --⁪froth^T 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Carson S 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:V and WP:OR. The topic does seem notable, however, the current article isn't worth preserving. Soltak | Talk 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely original research. Not a single sentence is anything that we can use to build an article. JChap2007 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:OVERCOMPLICATED. The topic is notable, but even if anyone wants to start an article on it, they could/should not use the text that is there now. And yes, one of the WP policies I've cited is fictional. Black Falcon 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of course the topic is notable, and I would enjoy reading an article on that topic. This is not that article, this reads as something made up in school one day. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. -Markeer 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I agree, sometimes it is better to delete and start from scratch. GabrielF 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does read funny; plus, it was created as the sole edit by the user two months ago. - grubber 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This page would need a complete rewrite from scratch - at the moment, it's simply OR. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too bad since a legit article would make for quite an interesting read. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:03, 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) 2007-02-13 06:44Z

HEC (html)[edit]

This "project" is not notable, and should be no more than a list item in the CAPTCHA entry. This technique is no more than a basic puzzle, and is not revolutionary in any way. If any of you have questions on the technical differences, please ask and I will address them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetOracle (talk • contribs) 2007-02-08 23:32:40

Agree it's basically just a nonnotable variation of a Captcha. --Puellanivis 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to CAPTCHA per nom. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just copied the useful info that wasn't already in the CAPTCHA article. It ended up compressing to two sentences. The (html) means that this page is probably linked from a disambiguation page (namely HEC), and the link on that disambiguation page should be pointed to CAPTCHA. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sans merge. Not deployed anywhere and not written up for publication. Gazpacho 10:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a completely pointless article. --Nathan (Talk) 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus on any. I have carefully reviewed the page history and determined that votes were removed in the course of whatever the hell happened here (I'm still trying to puzzle it out). That being said, although the consensus was still leaning towards deletion, I think it is grey enough of an area where we should start again if someone feels the need. IronGargoyle 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Branaman[edit]

Four Amazing Race winners who are not notable for anything other than winning the race. Am testing the water here as I can't find other examples of Amazing Race deletions but I note that the majority of race winners (apart from those notable for other things) do not have articles.

COMMENT: I WISH TO REGISTER MY EXTREME ANGER AT EVRIK MESSING UP MY NOMINATION. I have just discovered that Evrik has created individual nominations for each of the three others I included in this single nomination and had also messed up the Articles for Deletion page by creating a subheading for "Amazing Race contestants". Let it be known that I am reverting all these edits and putting things back to their original state, as I feel that I, as nom, have a right to do. If other editors disagree with this decision of mine they are welcome to take it up with me on my talk page and I will be more than willing to discuss it. I believe this is part of a pattern of harassment of me by Evrik which is detailed here. Please also note that I will soon be creating a Request for Comment page in regards to Evrik’s actions in the past few days. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom (weakish delete) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep is notable. This may be part of PageantUpdater WikiStalking campaign against me.

--evrik ^(talk) 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Alterate proposal After sleeping on it, I think that creating Amazing Race 10 contestants and Merging is appropriate. --evrik ^(talk) 14:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're simply not notable, even with their TAR wins. Simply appearing on a TV program does not ensure notability. Someone like Reichen Lehmkuhl was known outside of his Race win for his role in the gay community as well as his relationship with Lance Bass. --Madchester 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repeat or merge if any appropriate target exists, no reason to believe subjects are notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable and no sourcesSlideAndSlip 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close - the editing of this nomination by Evrik and PageantUpdater, resulting in the inappropriate removal of a great deal of the discussion, have in my view subverted this process past the point where this nomination should be allowed to continue. Shut this down and let PageantUpdater re-nominate the articles, preferably without the drama. Otto4711 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it wasn't me who messed with the nom in the first place, it was Evrik. It was also Evrik who brought in the drama in the first place, forcing me to get defensive. Blame him but lets just get this over and done with once and for all. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really care whose "fault" it was. His splitting up your nomination may not have been appropriate but your removing comments by a number of editors by reverting it definitely was. If you're so confident that this nomination will pass, then withdraw it and re-nominate to remove any question of impropriety on anyone's part in the nomination. Otto4711 22:55, 13

- I hadn't noticed that anything had been removed. If that is indeed the case I would support removing these and starting again. I am not confident that the nom will pass... even I am only weakly supporting deletion. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were all listed under the Branaman and Conley entries. I thought this was confusing or misleading - I also thought they had been listed incorrectly and was trying to add clarity. No ill intent or maliciousness was involved. If I violated policy - I am sorry. I never edited your comments. I was under the impression that each article nominated for deletion deserevd its own entry and not be grouped. --evrik ^(talk) 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]