Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 14

< January 13	January 15 >

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 Speedy deleted. Chris 73 | Talk 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Thomas Bishop[edit]

This article was originally added onto the top of Edward Bishop, a completely unrelated person. I split it off into its own article, but I think he is of uncertain notability. No vote from me for now. Sam Blacketer 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's since been speedily deleted - I guess this should be formally closed. Sam Blacketer 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted it while Sam was adding the AfD, overlap of edits -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as A7. --ais523 14:10, 29 January 2007 (U T C)

Jamie Drennan[edit]

I wrote about someone without their permission Erojese 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tssupport[edit]

Non-notable website/forum. Zero reliable sources. For those of you who check Google/Alexa: under 1000 g-hits, no data on Alexa. --- RockMFR 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--M8v2 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —bbatsell ¿? 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no traffic data on Alexa says it all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable web site. Daniel5127 <Talk> 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Reads as the creator wants to create a link or reference cite to their project. Non-notable at this time. Ronbo76 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:WEB. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable web site. Big top 03:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (non-notable website). —S .D. ¿п? 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:WEB. Terence Ong 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-DE SU 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like its got any relevance to Wikipedia. Tellyaddict ^Talk12:45 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources establishing notability. --Shirahadasha 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No sources, little hits, not notable.
Delete - I'm not one to check no. of web hits, but still fails WP:WEB Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threadster[edit]

Fails WP:NEO. No reliable sources. Normally I'm fairly lenient with neologisms, but this one isn't used on any major forums that I know of. --- RockMFR 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Akihabara 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May perhaps advance in the future from a non-notable neologism to a notable one. But hasn't done so yet.--Anthony.bradbury 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — - does not cite its sources; furthermore, there is no mention of a Threadster on any search engine (search example) bar the link given from UrbanDictionary.com in the article and websites named Threadster. Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not that popular of a term that I know of, most likely a non-notable neologism.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO and WP:OR. JuJube 01:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. In time, this might be the "4-1-1" needed for info on this term. But as a neolism, it just is not there yet. Ronbo76 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as neologism and original research. Big top 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, in addition to OR/lack of RS as noted by nom. Article provides no more information than a bare definition, needs to supply some background on history, use and context of term to be encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-fails guidelines, only used on some boards, and it doesn't seem like anyones ever head of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy[edit]

This article was nominated before on the basis of unsourced original research. It ended as no consensus. Seven months later, it still hasn't gained any sources to back up its claims. How do I know that the "references" are actual, intended references or editors grasping at straws? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is no more than a large number of assumed similarities between the scripts of The Grim Adventures and other unconnected film scripts. This is clearly WP:OR, and if these parallels are accurate may indicate plagiarism , possibly legally actionable, on the part of the scriptwriters of The Grim Adventurs. But it still is not encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure nonsense, clearly original research and unverifiable. Terence Ong 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep wait for sources--Juju 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I waited since June. The onus is on you find some actual sources. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, but worse, nonsense. Avalon 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as original research. Could be also nonsense. Big top 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trim unlikely. Most of these are glaringly self-evident. --tjstrf talk 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then you can find some sources to back up your self-made claims! No, you don't get off WP:V and WP:NOR by calling it "self-evident". If we're going to make exceptions to those undebatable rules, it's not going to be "Trivial crap in some cartoon". ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony.bradbury. While interesting and somewhat obvious half the time, what exactly makes this important? Even if every single one of these were to be reffed (next to impossible, I'd say), it'd still be glorified trivia. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely unsourced original research. Agent 86 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Basically an article which made entirely of unsourced fancruft trivia original research. Most current day US animation shows, sitcoms etc have multiple "cultural references" per episode . Its the nature of having to write gags for these things. So what? Bwithh 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. There's a lot of free websites out there for stuff like this, but it's not Wikipedia-worthy.--Prosfilaes 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and too trivial for an encyclopedia.-- danntm ^T _C 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree topic appears to be WP:OR, no evidence of WP:N, no WP:RS. --Shirahadasha 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable into the main article and delete this article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-list of OR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:OR, and fails WP:RS. -- Whpq 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOR Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NFT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All. Nishkid 64 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Alexander[edit]

Non notable unsourcable, cruft. Also all characters are mentioned in similar detail on the main series page so articles are redundant and unexpandable. Daniel J. Leivick 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons.

Delete per nom, quite possibly able to condense and merge into a parent article or character page. I don't see a reason to have it on wikipedia but as it goes with articles on games exceptions could be made, just so long as WP guidelines aren't completely ignored. It is often quite hard to find appropriate third party sources, in those cases one or two articles could survive if they have been well prepared. But without sources, references, formatting, templates, and links it’s just a worthless paragraph.-- wtfunkymonkey 00:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are already merged into the Hitman series page, these articles are entirely redundant. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, redundant. Terence Ong 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Terence Ong. Avalon 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allper above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Big top 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- no need for the characters of one edition of a video game to have their own articles. I would say merge, but it seems like they already are. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal Tap discography[edit]

DeleteThis article is a perfect example of WP:NOT, no reference to out of universe relevance either Daniel J. Leivick 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close & Keep - Spinal Tap is obviously notable, as is thier discography. The content of the discography should be discussed on the Talk page. Obviously there are some issues with this article, if you feel that something should be changed to only reflect thier "real" albums then by all means feel free to change the article. Deletion is NOT the correct course of action in this case. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly Weak Merge and Redirect. If the Spinal Tap article is large enough, keep it. --Dennisthe2 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say merge, but it's too long for a merge, but notable enough to be kept. --Strothra 07:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaguely WP:OR and speculation that does not seem to be based on reliable sources, other than fansites. What's on the main article is sufficient. Agent 86 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article includes records that were released in "our world". Catchpole 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy up somehow. Possibly rename to List of... ? I've seen similar information about other bands. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Clean-up; it is definitely too long to merge with the Spinal Tap article, but definitely deserves to be kept. In similar cases, it should/would need to be placed within the parent article. --Mhking 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, length merits a seperate page from the main Spinal Tap article. Actually, I wish more band pages would follow this format, rather than having seperate stub articles for each and every album. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs a good bit of work, especially in the intro (and eliminating the self reference), but ultimately this is useful and too long to merge.-- danntm ^T _C 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --Davidbober 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Sourcing, length, andclean-up difficulties can potentially be solved. Question of whether content should be merged (e.g. with Spinal Tap) can be handled in a separate RfM. --Shirahadasha 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable but could do with a clean-up tag. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-notable but needing cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs)
Clear keep - definitely notable, but as noted above, requires some cleanup. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is clear I was hasty nominating this page for deletion but I think I should make my issues with this page clear. In my mind there is a huge distinction between fictional discography and real discography. Spinal Taps real world discography has a place on Wikipedia, there fictional discography (In this level of detail) is pure cruft and does not. The problem is the article's title is not all that clear, since Tap has both fictional and real discographies it might be best to have a renamed article along the lines of "Real world Spinal Tap discography" or some such. The fist line is all that really prompted me to nominate, I read it and thought, "Wow this is really not what Wikipedia is." I apologize for not thinking it all the way through. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semen fetishism[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Unsourced, unverifiable neologism. No sources provided for anything in the article at all. Fan-1967 01:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep condense and/or rewrite article to include only verifiable referenced information. Semen Feishism exists, sources can be found. If nessacary stub the article down to barely more than a dicdef for the time being. Delete the article after it's been tagged for help, but not before. The content of a notable article should be debated on the Talk page, not on an AfD. wtfunkymonkey 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An AFD nomination is not a debate on the content. Sources have not been provided to demonstrate it's a notable topic or term, and only source author has provided (per Talk page) is the Wikipedia article Bukkake. Fan-1967 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Most of the article, in fact, seems to have been forked from Bukkake. Perhaps if this were titled "Bukkake variations" or "Styles of Bukkake" it might be more appropriate? The title is not sourced from anywhere. Fan-1967 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep moderately repusive, but nevertheless an existing practice and an existing term.--Anthony.bradbury 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are in the articles linked to from this one. Obviously they can be duplicated in this article if need be, but once that is done, there would be no argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can you please point to the sources for it? Not for the endless variations of bukkake porn. Where is the source to document a paraphilia called "semen fetishism"? Fan-1967 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a complete rewrite with sources cited. Such things exists but all we need to do is to find sources. Whatever nonsense is there in the article, do not add it into the rewritten content. An expansion of this article will make it look much, much better. Terence Ong 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... [A]ny reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". "I've spotted some trends in the pornography I watch, I think I'll give them names'" is most definitely not the basis for an article. WP:V and WP:OR both apply here and both are non-negotiable. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other articles of this fashion. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. Gazpacho 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As silly as it sounds, well you get the idea... --AAA! ^(AAAA) 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or source properly Alf photoman 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Bukkake, per the above. No evidence that this is a distinct topic. Tevildo 16:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, and not sufficiently differentiated from Bukkake. Squeezeweasel 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no unique content in this article. It is all just duplication of content from other articles. I did a Google search, and going through the first two pages of results it appears "semen fetishism" is used exclusively as a synonym for "felching", with no unique meaning. Possible redirect to felching based on those results. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this could be the basis of a viable article. However, in this form, it is pretty much beyond hope. Delete and recreate in a properly formed and sourced manner.-- danntm ^T _C 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we can't keep an article because the subject "seems to exist."--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAFT. Unreferenced, and BTW, there can't be any "semen fetish" because fetishes are technically centred on a non-sexual object. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since this seems to be created from original research rather than reference to good sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CandianCaesar. Also, the entire article except for about 5 words have main articles. (all sections have main article). --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion that semen fetishism itself is notable. Every fetish does not deserve an article. Also it adds nothing to the articles which form the backbone of its sections. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bukkake if ref sources are found, Delete as original research if not. --Eqdoktor 08:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not "unsourced" because others voting to 'delete' point out that most sections have their own article (which needs to be sourced). The article at hand is to be compared with 'List of...' and other overview articles. The separate topics are clearly related but the relationship cannot neatly be expressed in each main article (each would then require 'see also' links to all others, whereas now a single 'see also' link suffices). Neither can it be merged because none of the more specific articles has a wide enough scope for all others. Any unsourced section not referring to its main article, simply requires being tagged as such, allowing to improve it or after a while remove only that section. If as has been pointed out, the name of the article could be considered improper (technically not fetishism, or not a coined term, term as OR), the title of the article needs to be improved. Though some 'delete' voters have made ostentatively clear not to fully appreciate the topic ("Every fetish does not deserve an article", "As silly as it sounds, well you get the idea... AAA", "DAFT"), that is no excuse to apply WP standards more lightheartedly or eagerly. — SomeHuman 15 Jan 2007 10:14 (UTC)
I think you miss the issue with this article. The question is whether those articles can all be linked together by semen fetishism, which is not an editorial decision. It requires a reliable source to be found which states that there is a notable fetish called "semen fetishism" and/or that the acts described in it are forms of semen fetishism. One cannot just presume that those who engage in these acts are semen fetishists (which would be a judgment by editors), there must be a source for such a claim. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 10:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the article may need renaming if the topics can technically not be considered fetishism, but here it is incorrectly up as Afd. The second part of your own vote comment was false: every true fetishism may well have its article. — SomeHuman 15 Jan 2007 13:33 (UTC)

Comment Re: "Neither can it be merged because none of the more specific articles has a wide enough scope for all others." I'm a little confused by this one. The vast majority of this article is descriptions of variations on Bukkake and was forked from that article. Can you offer a reason why that material shouldn't be just put back where it came from? Fan-1967 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to project space. — Matt Crypto 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptography topics[edit]

There's categorys for these, we don't need manual sorting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptosuckie (talk • contribs)

Keep and re-write I think this is a good list, but could be sorted some other way. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This material is covered in Topics in cryptography. The stated purpose of this list is "to be useful to those monitoring Wikipedia's coverage of the subject". That is appropriately done via a WikiProject, not here. --Bejnar 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space Revised, per Matt Crypto below. CiaranG 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Redirect or Delete The article Topics in cryptography is what I'd expect this list to be. CiaranG 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sheesh, people. You do realise that, as stated, this is used as a public watchlist for cryptography topics, right? So perhaps "delete" isn't the best vote? Just move it to WikiProject space. — Matt Crypto 09:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space per Matt Crypto. MaxSem 09:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space Matt Crypto is right, this appears to be a special page that is useful in its own right, but just not appropriate in the main namespace. Wrs1864 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize as "cryptography topics" for any articles inside. Delete the rest per Benjar. Just H 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space. Agree with Bejnar that stated purpose is to be a project, not an article. It's in the wrong place. --Shirahadasha 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space for the project role of this, use categories for the encyclopedia space role. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space-this list can also be made by categorization. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Global Network[edit]

A group of Christian missionaries. Gets about 2 Google hits. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete random, unsourced, et cetera--Juju 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Has been tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G11. James086Talk 13:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Gold & Silver Remake[edit]

The whole page seems like speculation. There are no resources and it seems to be heavily original research. If the article doesn't get deleted, a complete rewrite is needed. Douglasr007 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete no sources whatsoever. Also the "evidence" provided is clearly OR. --70.48.175.143 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear OR. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Most items in the genre are fangames, original research no matter what, and it might NOT happen. We just don't know...yet. TRKtv t c e 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC), WP:PCP[reply]
Delete as Original Research. No such announcement has been made, and the article author tries to come up with "evidence" that there will be a remake. TJ Spyke 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aren't there 500 Pokemon articles already? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. It speculates about what may happen about this game being remade. Wikipedia is not the future. Ronbo76 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Total original research and speculation. Overall is very poorly put together. Gan fon 03:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete OR and mainly speculation.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (speculation & original research). —S .D. ¿п? 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-DE SU 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Shirahadasha 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely specualted based on the release of Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen and screenshots from the most recent games Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Externally unverifiable original research and gazing into crystal balls. Delete per nomination. -- saberwyn 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.Exarion 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it would be better to call it POKÉMONCRYSTAL. TRKtv t c e 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of computer and video games based on anime and manga. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime game[edit]

For the same reasons given at Ren'ai games AFD. The term "anime game" is a neologism not used by any reliable sources. The only definition "anime game" can consistantly apply to is "a video game based off an anime". We don't have articles for "Movie games" or "TV show games", there's really no reason we need one for "Anime games". The term is also not used in Japanese at all. There has been much debate over what is the overbranching genre for dating sims and visual novels, and due to there being no consensus, this is a move to do away with even trying to connect them. There are too many exceptions to be able to group them together. Suggest a redirect to List of computer and video games based on anime and manga. SeizureDog 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't let the size fool you; "Anime game" does not exist as a special term in general gaming circles. You'd might as well make cartoon game or book game articles in the same vein. Violates WP:V and WP:NOR. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed attempt to link together "genres that aren't popular outside of Japan," for example dating sims, raising sims, horse racing, and management games. [1] Ashibaka (tock) 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom, ', Ashibaka Redirect per nom. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom --Squilibob 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Squilibob 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and possibly merge some of this information to various related articles. --- RockMFR 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect though some of the content can be moved to the appropriate articles. I'd like to add that those "genres not popular outside Japan" are quite popular in Taiwan and Hong Kong, at least. _dk 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:OR. Terence Ong 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and merge some of the info into it. Danorux 07:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. No WP:RS, no evidence that this topic isn't simply WP:OR. No compliance with WP:NEO. --Shirahadasha 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Fails 3 guidelines: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NEO --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. -- 9muses 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personalities from Iaşi[edit]

This article is a POV duplicate for List of people from Iaşi. The user who created it has decided to fork content after he had tried to delete list entries that he considered "non-notable", although they obviously meet the criteria for inclusions (they have, or are likely to have articles written about them, and they were born in Iaşi). He has then proceeded to create a list of people whom he considers important over other for Iaşi, to whose names he has added misspelled and inaccurate summaries. Therefore, Delete. Dahn 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Terence Ong 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is different from the other one in that in must have people with major contributions. I repeat, MAJOR. I still have to see an article why Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor has any importance (bad or good, it doesn't matter).

And about the POV: who decides who is important to have an article here? You? I repeat: if I make an article about me, I am allowed to include myself in the list? If yes, I hope you understand about what my list is.

If you think someone is not notable enough to be a "Personality", it can be removed (presumbly you give some reason). If there is any list you could delete, it's your list: your list can be constructed if you only put a tag "Iasi" to the article of the person born in Iasi. Simple enough, so if you want I can do it for you.

If I misspelled any name, forgive me, I would correct the entry.

I would not discuss the other points because they are not relevant for the topic: deletion of my list.

cristi 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out what we discussed until now: User_talk:Cristi.falcas#Personalities_from_Ia.C5.9Fi, User_talk:Bogdangiusca#.22Personalities_from_Iasi.22, User_talk:Dahn#list_of_people_from_iasi.

cristi 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list around a subjective criterion is not a list. A fork created for a subjective reason is still a fork. Dahn 08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective?? I can give you examples of national or international recognition for every entry. How is this subjective? About your argument that my list is just a fork where I removed the entries I didn't liked: I specifically told that the list for personality would have people who had big contributions to Romania or Iasi. What is the contribution of Nicolae Vogoride? Just because he was a Moldavian governor he deserves to be in the list with personalities? For that matter who is Samuel Leibowitz? Hes entry is 3 lines and he was an attorney in USA. I am very sure that it is not subjective for me to not consider him a personality. I stand by my argument that you have a list with people that are born in Iasi, mine is with people who contributed to the advancement of Romania. For me this is complettely different from what you want. I told you, your list could be generated if you put a tag born-in-Iasi to the articles. cristi 09:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association fallacy. Moreover, you make no note of the fact that there is no objective difference between people and "personalities", which is what the issue actually is. I also note from you repetitive "tags" comment that you have little to no understanding of how wikipedia works. I also challenge you to come up with an example where such content forking has been allowed on wikipedia. (I can come up with about 1,000 where it has not.) These points are painfully obvious, so I'm done debating your appeal to probability. Dahn 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bogdan 10:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what is the problem. You don't know what subjective is.Let me help you with this one: modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background (from Merriam-Webster). Let me point to you an other word: Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. If I say some one is not important doesn't mean that I am subjective. In fact the fallacy applies to your argument: there is no objective difference between people and "personalities". Maybe you should check the link yourself.

So, I don't see where I'm subjective if I only state what the majority of people are saying (I feel I must explain to you that "majority of people" means, in my context, what is considered to be intelligent people. Not you or me, but people who managed to demonstrate that they are capable to judge a person *objectively*. Again, check the definitions.).

One more thing, because I feel you need it: personality - distinction or excellence of personal and social traits; also : a person having such quality b : a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety. Hope it helps you understand what the words you use mean.

Delete. Not only is the article poorly written but it's difficult for me to believe that all (or any) of the red-linked individuals are notable pursuant to WP:NOTE. If this article is not deleted, it should be merged to List of people from Iasi and all that birthdate and death date stuff should be removed. If the person has an article, his or her birth and death dates will be in the article. If the person doesn't have an article, he or she shouldn't be on the list. --Charlene 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, in English calling someone a "personality" carries the connotation that they are a little peculiar, strange, not quite normal. It's often used as a euphemism for "really weird person". Which may be one of the reasons why Wikipedia uses the wording "People from Iasi", not "Personalities from Iasi". --Charlene 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Romanian, the word "personalitate" means "personality", but also "remarkable person, celebrity". :-) bogdan 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's poorly written, but it's a copy of the other list with the persons that are not notable removed. The reason for deletion was POV. About the birthdates, they can be removed easily if it's a problem. The other points apply to the other list as well (the red links). I did this list because I didn't wanted to be polluted by small time, insignificant people. A list where only the persons with great value for the city will be inserted. What is so hard to understand? I want to know if the reason for deletion has changed or it's still because of my POV, like in the first line on this page. It seems Charlene didn't even read the first line of the discussion, but she still want's the page deleted. If "personality" is such a bad word (but from the english definition it has the same meaning as in romanian), it can be changed with something else. I want to know the reason why it has to be deleted: it is still POV, or the quality (I can work on that), or both. I have some definition for the words used in this discussion in my other post, so maybe you should read those before posting (this is for Charlene). For the last time: my list is supposed to have great minds and people with a great impact on the lifes of the citizens. Dhan, maybe you should respond to Charlene also, because we had some discussion about some of the red links I removed. cristi 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, because I don't know where to ask. I think it will be better if we had a standard for the cities, like there is one for the countries. Just an ideea. cristi 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this link: Cimitirul_Bellu. Don't tell me on that link they should insert all the people buried there? cristi 13:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and this is the last time I'm replying on this topic (given that the issue is as clear-cut to me as clear-cut gets): the red links that you see there are to future articles (part of which I'm planning to create in the future). Since I do not particularly enjoy creating illegible and ridiculous stubs such as the ones you created for various people (such as Gheorghe Brăescu), I take my time in creating actual articles (Bujor is on my list, and I have already mentioned him in three articles or so). Also, since I do not want to go and do the same research over and over again (or reverting once I do create those articles) I would appreciate it if the list is not purged due to who some guy has hard about and who he has not.

A while back, I bumped into a question about Bujor and any details of his life, as posed to Wiki reference desk. It had been answered by an editor, who indicated that Bujor was [at the time] only mentioned as red link in the PSDR article (which I had created). See Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 18#Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor. Following the same theory as Croisti Falcas, one would remove red links willy-nilly in that article as well, leaving us with no context or data on a relevant person.

As it is, I am one of two or three persons contributing information on the entire interwar period in Romania, as well as on related subjects. At a quick glance, Bujor is mentioned, with details, in 4 major sources I have tapped into. I cannot be expected to continuously furnish information on topics, and I certainly will not do it because some user, who is not even polite to me, and who has contributed nothing of any value to the project, is pretending I cannot prove they are relevant. I also cannot help but point out that the said user has no idea of how wikipedia works, and, for some reason, imagines that collecting particular data on particular persons is an easy job.

As I have mentioned already, virtually all those people are on the list are mentioned in the standard issue (and not at all exhaustive) Romanian Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1978. It is utter bullshit to claim that there is some other, hidden, criterion of notability that has somehow elluded me, and that it is "objective" just because Cristi Falcas can type certain words in ALL CAPITALS.

You, Cristi Falcas, on the other hand, have no access to sources, and little knowledge of your own country's history (it is frankly embarrassing that a residence of Iaşi found out who Nicolae Vogoride was yesterday, and that this Iaşi resident has produced theories about the depth of my culture).

Bottom line: deleting those entries is hurting the informative value of the project, and only answers to the whim of a person who has not even understood what this project is about. Dahn 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I just responded to Charlene about the removal of red links, no reason the call me names for this one. I have removed the link to people from Iasi because I started to see what you want. I still have other points unsolved, but I will take them on the List of people from Iaşi discussion page. Have a good day. cristi 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tubezone 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar_Bianchi[edit]

I saw the photo at the top and I knew this page was total garbage. Sure enough, it was deleted in a previous AfD, and the writer put it back up. I strongly recommend a speedy delete and salt. YechielMan 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4. So tagged. For what it's worth, YechielMan, you can do that yourself if you see it in the future - the proper tag is {{db-repost}}. --Dennisthe2 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and clean it up its sourced, i might not care about this guy and the article is unorganized, but he is notable because he won a prestigious award that is already listed here, and he has an article in a national online article--Juju 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete pure vanity, (unless written by another and then the picture suggests its pure cruelty). Avalon 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and delete. BorgQueen 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen sacrifice example[edit]

I don't think we need an entire article just to illustrate one example of a queen sacrifice in chess. About a year ago it was started as a sub-article for Queen sacrifice but since then it hasn't gained any content other than the images. Crystallina 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything that is on there could easily be placed on Queen sacrifice. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete pretty clear; not worthy of own article. Akihabara 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete per nom. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. James086Talk 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete This article proveides no context, but the images could be added in the main article. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article should be merged and then deleted as it's not really got enough important info on it to have its own article. Should be deleted soon. Tellyaddict 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The images can be useful. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. The example is pretty poor - I don't think a two-move combination counts as a Queen sac at all. It shouldn't be too hard to find a famous sacrifice to illustrate the idea. A better player than I would have to do it, though... -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per above. Stand-alone example provides no context and is largely uninterpreable without the Queen Sacrifice article to support it. Also, it would be nice to have a notable example. --Shirahadasha 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. The main article queen sacrifice speaks for itself. The additional diagrams are not particularly useful, and are not conventional to use in most other Wikipedia chess articles. YechielMan 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single example does not normally deserve an article, and this example is stunningly uninteresting. An article devoted to a tactical theme, I could see, or something particularly notable like Philidor's legacy or the Saavedra study. But this, no. --OinkOink 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Missile[edit]

Big fan of the games, but ultimately a very minor weapon that's completely non-notable. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be covered, if at all, in the various Metal Gear (series) articles. There does not appear to be notability even within the game. --Bejnar 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --D-Boy 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Static Universe 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brains:_Philosophy_of_Mind[edit]

This is an article about a blog. WP:BLOG is only a proposal in the preliminary stages at this point in time. Kenosis 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about blogs, is that reason for deletion? --Kenneth M Burke 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had reason to believe that unless a blog is sufficiently notable, WP is not the place to introduce them. But I'm willing to stand corrected if wrong about this. ... Kenosis 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to concede your reason for deletion if you find policy for such reasoning (or care to develop one through democratic process,) but believe I can find a wholesome list of pages for blogs like it on wikipedia. --Kenneth M Burke 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading of the policy, I do not find that it is need of being deleted. --Kenneth M Burke 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The statement by the article's creator and sole author (just above, which said: "After reading of the policy, I do not find that it is need of being deleted") is a conclusory statement without any evidence in support. I do not see a reason to withdraw the nomination or change my opinion on this issue at present. I do recognize that it can be an ever-bending issue in a forum such as Wikipedia. For instance, not long ago the accepted position was that only colleges should merit inclusion as articles in WP, and fairly quickly many more of the AfD debates have moved to high schools, and even to elementary schools. Similarly with blogs maybe; but I've been under the impression that WP:notability, WP:Reliable sources and other relevant guidelines have still been intended to mean we shouldn't use WP to introduce and attempt to disseminate a blog, but should instead constrain ourselves to describing such an endeavor only after it achieves widespread attention of its own accord. ... Kenosis 03:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are blogs notable and reliable enough to be on Wikipedia? I believe they are fine, but if you want it deleted . . . perhaps we should have them all deleted, make a project of the ordeal? --Kenneth M Burke 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, depends if they meet WP:WEB. Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable blog. Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Are blogs notable and reliable enough to be on Wikipedia? I believe they are fine, but if you want it deleted . . . perhaps we should have them all deleted, make a project of the ordeal?" That logic does not follow, especially in light of the fact that some blogs receive much more notable, reliable 3rd party attention which does not appear to be true in this case. Axem Titanium 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the letter of the law. I'll look into WP:BLOG and explore the possibilities (that will be a project).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs)

Delete, Do I have to say that for its finality? I didn't mean to cross the line . . . no offense intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs).
Delete, I failed to find any non-trivial mentions in independent non-blog sources (links ghits1), and so it seems to fail WP:WEB. Whois indicates the domain was created on 14-Jul-06. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources for an article yet. Groklaw is an example of a blog meeting WP:WEB. skip (t / c) 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to be of the category of candidates for speedy deletion Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - don't you wish I didn't was your time?--Kenneth M Burke 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This blog doesn't have enough notability to be in an encyclopedia. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per all of the above, and WP:NOTE. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. In addition, I'd say it's a strawman to say all blogs should be deleted. Many are covered in independent 3rd party sources and meet our requirements. --Larry laptop 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because this is an academic blog of professors, it could potentially be notable. But no evidence has been provided that it is now. What distinguishes this blog from academic blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy is that those other blogs have been regularly cited and quoted in other publications (like the New York Times in a way that clearly establishes notability. Not true of this one. Until the academic culture develops a way for academic blogs to get more notice in other academic publications, it may be, perhaps unfortunately, the popular press that distinguishes between a notable and a non-notable academic blog. --Shirahadasha 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end, delete it --Kenneth M Burke 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis sent me an email of apology (which was not entirley necessary), to which I responded:

Hey, No problem at all, I certainly understand and agree by Wikipedia policy that it really did not belong. Here in the Missouri, U.S. it was late, I just hope that my tone did not come off as too cranky. It was just not a priority for me at the moment to really try to defend the page being on Wiki. Perhaps in the future as I gain experience with the encyclopedia, a policy and project could be designed for academic oriented sites (if not through the encyclopedia, through another site). You arguments were well defined, certainly no need for apology. Do take care, Kenneth.

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Core beliefs of the Conservative Party (UK) of 2004[edit]

This article covers a single advertisement placed by the UK Conservative Party in 2004. There is no real assertion of that add campaign's notability. Every ad campaign by a political party cannot be notable and Wikipedia is not a list of irrelevant information. The article has not been edited for 6 months and is unlikely to grow beyond its present coverage. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement, nothing notable about such a campaign. Terence Ong 05:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at this, it seems the first version of the page was simply a copy of the advert. It was then pared down to just tell the story of the advert (under the "Wikipedia does not contain copies of primary sources" rule, presumably). But in hindsight, it is clearly not worthy of a separate article; the advert may be worthy of a mention in Conservative Party (UK). Sam Blacketer 11:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a record of an ad campaign, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. James086Talk 13:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by James086 and by WP:V, if there must be an article at least it should be sourced. Alf photoman 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Davidbober 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Blender. Cbrown1023 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne (Blender primitive)[edit]

Not particularly notable, since it's a primitive unique to the Blender platform. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into Blender. It's not individually notable, but the article is an interesting bit of Blender lore. (It desperately needs better sourcing.) Suggest a similar fate for Suzanne Awards also. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable independent of Blender, doesn't have sufficient length to justify a fork. Also is an unlikely search term, and the Suzanne diambiguation page already has a link to the Blender article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS for notability independent of Blender (software). Merge any usable content with Blender (software). --Shirahadasha 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an invalid vote. We cannot merge and delete per the GFDL as it removes attributions. It has to be one or the other. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. The above comment by Shirahadasha does seem self-contradictory & may be best regarded as a merge opinion. Of course, only Shirahadasha knows for sure. --Ssbohio 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there might be some useful opinions expressed here: Talk:Blender (software)#Merge the two articles?, in which I participated (though I did not tag the articles originally). In regards to Shirahadasha's vote, it's a convention I've seen in other AfDs, typically used to mean "delete, but move any applicable information first." Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this article by doing a search with Google, and found it to be valuable. Since this is Blender's version of the Utah Teapot, I see no reason that it shouldn't have its own page. Omeomi 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - refer to other WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 2007-01-21T16:00:53 (UTC)

Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 15:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Pardon my boldness, but this article just needed some cleanup. I've turned it into a disambiguation page- the rest of the relevant information is covered at Midnight Sun. --Wafulz 07:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Midnight Sun[edit]

Poorly developed, covered better in other articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DurinsBane87 (talk • contribs).

speedy keep. "Poorly developed" is not a valid reason for deletion. `'mikka 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article title is very commonly used, and the nomination is actually not an argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Didn't know it was beyond just Alaska... that's kinda cool. Or cold, pick one. =^_^= Clean it up. --Dennisthe2 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It does need a bit of work, burtetttttttttttt no reason for deletion. SkierRMH,05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, article should be cleanup, not sent for AFD. A poor article does not mean it should be deleted. Terence Ong 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryad Vox[edit]

del vanity or hoax. No reliable traces in the internet. For a person from a "New York Hall of Fame" it is a red flag . `'mikka 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —S .D. ¿п? 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Terence Ong 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:BIO or WP:MUS whichever you care to apply. James086Talk 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo bandits[edit]

Clear violation of WP:NOT - "Things made up in school one day". Contested prod from April 2006. I would have speedied this under CSD G1 if it wasn't for that technicality Caknuck 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Speedy Delete under CSD:A7 could be applicable here too -- wtfunkymonkey 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons brought up by Caknuck. —S .D. ¿п? 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & not funny Avalon 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --Kukini 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and above. Tagged. Big top 07:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable whatsoever. James086Talk 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Administrator Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs) removed the speedy A7 tag. James086Talk 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Davidbober 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Wii[edit]

Article provides no source of the game's existence. Jonny2x4 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are there, and three of the four are reliable gaming sites. However, nobody seems to have too many details on the game yet. But searches on different search-engines found some results. The article does need work and if there are more details out there they need to be found, but for now I think it's alright. Gan fon 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Recreation of content deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong (Wii). Nothing has changed since then. --- RockMFR 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can't examine the previous, deleted version to be sure, but from the previous nomination it would seem to indicate that the Donkey Kong (Wii) article was only sourced to the related Gamespot page. This has four sources, not one. While notability might not have been proveable back in November, it is now. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All four sources are still trivial and speculative. There is nothing substantial at any of them. --- RockMFR 04:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, the IGN/GameStats links don't even refer to this game. They are pages for DK Bongo Blast, a completely different game. --- RockMFR 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial and speculative outside sources are still outside sources so long as they are reliable. The fact that two of them aren't even about the right game is a good point though. Article doesn't establish notability so well anymore. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Indifferent and Speedy Keep - I have no idea what the nominator was thinking, but the article provides not one but four sources which confirm to a relative degree of certainty that the game (or a plan to develop it) does exist. Meets WP:V, WP:RS, and (barely) WP:N. It may be stubby in nature, but most articles about upcoming games stay in stub form for a while. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Delete or Retarget to DK Bongo Blast per my above comments to RockMFR. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm calling crystalballery just based on some of the arguments in this very AfD. --Dennisthe2 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not ready for this. Delete per nom and Dennisthe2. Big top 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 12:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; violates WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not WP:CRYSTAL because it's sourced. Sure, it's a stub and will stay a stub until more information is available, but the game still exists (or will exist, barring cancellation,) so what's the problem? -Ryanbomber 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Oops. Didn't notice that the sources were for a different game. -Ryanbomber 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We got articles like W.I.T.C.H. (game)--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Hix[edit]

NN-DJ. prod removed by page creator delete Cornell Rockey 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. -- Mikeblas 04:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-bio, nothing in the article to state notability. JuJube 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, speedy may not apply since he has a radio show which claims notability though doesn't prove it. James086Talk 13:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High profile club DJ and event organiser who promoted major club nights in Belfast, bringing many acts who had never before appeared in Northern Ireland. Currently writing for longest running black music magazine in the world, and broadcasting on major UK black music station, which certainly proves notability. -- Omq101 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for additional sources, for example this one. A quick search suggests this may be a notable individual and the sources may be there. --Shirahadasha 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Wait and See I have several problems, the biggest perhaps being that the page author is an account that was created the same day as this page, and it is the only page he has ever edited. It makes me suspect self-promotion. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 21:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Up and coming, quite possibly. Notable now, doesn't seem so. The BBC satellite radio gig, for example, is a one-month stint as part of a listener promotion. Robertissimo 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a googlesearch of bluesandsoul.com (the website of the magazine he's a columnist for) gives zero hits for "dj hix". He's not listed as a presenter at the WP BBC 1Xtra page. The top five hits for Google searching anywhere include (1 & 2) some kind of DJ self promo site, (3) his myspace page, (4) his own site, (5) a BBC page written by him and (6) this WP article. Nobody but DJ Hix himself seems to be writing about him, which I'd say is a testament to his lack of notability. --DeLarge 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid 64 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Perrin[edit]

Non-notable participant on a reality television show. Mikeblas 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - probably one of the more well known contestants on American Reality Television. I come up with nearly a million ghits and a handful of news ghits. The article could, and should, probably stay - though relistically it could be trimmed back a bit. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she got widespread attention from shows beyond her original appearance. Nontrivial coverage in secondary sources = notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of outside sources to confirm her notability. JuJube 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established, reliable independent sources to assert her notability. Terence Ong 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sadly she meets the notability criteria --Kevin Murray 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep she certainly is on TV enough, and even though she is a little out there, she is notable since there are sources on her. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial coverage.--Jersey Devil 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As much as I hate that this person could possibly be notable, she is notable. Letoofdune 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Reality TV is a huge part of today's entertainment landscape and Marguerite Perrin is at the forefront of those who are most widely (no pun intended) recognized in this category. SpearsLover 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Her meltdown was notable enough, and the number of views and parodies (via YouTube and such) she has circulating ought to indicate just how much. And as for her so-called "fame" as a reality TV star, I don't recall any Real World alumni or even a Survivor winner getting this much publicity over a five-minute scream-fest...at least not enough to warrant an appearance on Leno and dolls and t-shirts made in their honor. Tipsy Firecracker 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recognizable cultural phenomenon people talk about. It's more than notable.
Strong Keep - Certainly notable inasmuch as people are looking her up. I don't see any reason for deletion. Dkorn 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She'll be back in the spotlight soon enough. Longshot1980 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the fat cow have her infamy posted on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had widespread public interest, and will soon be making another appearance. -128.208.47.97 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What do you mean she is no-notable, she is the most well known character from Trading Spouses. This article is an article of interest, although as it stands now it could use some expanding. She will be appearing on that show again, no one else has done that. If Star wars kid warrents a Wikipedia page than she does also. —The preceding User:BenW comment was added by 204.62.200.20 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge target. Eluchil404 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch with Kevin McDonald[edit]

No notability, no context. Don't merge with Kevin McDonald, because I already took care of that myself. Just delete. YechielMan 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - If the article content is already merged, the appropriate course of action is to redirect the page to the other article, especially when the page title is a likely searched term. I'm trying to assume good faith here but this AfD nomination seems like a pre-emptive salting the earth attempt. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your assumption of good faith is correct. I take things to AfD when I'm not sure what to do with them because I know that somebody will look and see what needs to be done, if deletion isn't it. I figured this was an obvious case of merge and delete, but I wasn't recommending a salt. It didn't occur to me to redirect because I didn't think anyone would search for or link to the "Sketch" page, but it doesn't harm to redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Well alllllllllllrighty then. No harm, no foul. Hopefully this AfD will be speedy closed now that it appears to be unnecessary. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bayliss[edit]

I'm going to invent a "three-template rule": if an article has three or more templates at the top, saying that it's POV, non-notable, etc., then it's probably a good candidate for deletion. YechielMan 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Why is an editor with a one-month history at WP already proposing articles for deletion and trying to create policy? --Kevin Murray 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Eastmain 09:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN John Vandenberg 14:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability claims are all to red links...! The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The red links simply indicate that the films don't have articles yet. (They may or may not merit articles.) It's not relevant to this discussion though - notability is specifically about what's outside of Wikipedia. CiaranG 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks fixed expanded to blue or removed as non-notables subjects unlikely to merit articles at WP. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep YechielMan is way off base. The number of tags is irrelevant to the AfD. These are put in the article as a means to suggest improvement. The AfD discussion should be related to the notability of the subject and the adequacy of the sources. The quality of the writing is relevant to a rewrite. I see multiple non-trivial sources, with an award, and a need for editing. --Kevin Murray 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see one non-trivial source, the Australian Film Commission. What's another? CiaranG 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I consider the http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1344512/ to be independent at least~~. ~~It discusses~~ Several more sources were found as of --[[21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)--; his work which in my mind meets the BIO standard of "attracting notice." Whether the work was important seems specifically irrelevant to the WP standards. --Kevin Murray 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to remove weaselly-fluff and removed NPOV tag. Remains unlinked from other articles, but I don't see that as a fatal flaw. --Kevin Murray 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the poor reason given for nomination the article fails WP:N, so he worked in the art department, doesn't mean he deserves an article. Making his own short films doesn't show notability either. Firelement85 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following quote is from the WP Guidelines: "Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness"."
He has attracted notice and won an award. The references meets the criteria for multiple independent sources. Firelement85's opinion of whether he "deserves" an article is his/her "own subjective judgements" specifically prohibited by the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being included in meaningfull film festivals is the equivilent of independent reviews of his work --Kevin Murray 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is still not worth noting, more than some people true but not enough to be included in Wikipedia. He worked in art departments of some notable Australian shows. Doesn't mean he's notable. He has worked with Latent Image Productions and Rebelstudio on WillFull which isn't notable, Latent Image Productions could be considered notable by the fact that the CEO was the Executive Producer of The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert but that was before Adam joined. That he was given finance to create a short film is great but if the film then doesn't do much it's not of any importance, yes it showed in a couple of film festivals where hundreds of other films may have been shown, unless the film is nominated for an award or receives acclaim then it isn't worth being noted. (Kevin you should rework the article you created Raw Nerve Short Film Initiative as the text is cut and pasted from other websites and likely in violation of copyright.) Firelement85 07:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, information from other websites, but not cut & paste. The text was rewritten, but there are only so many ways to say the same thing. --Kevin Murray 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no news articles to be found in with google news or the EBSCOHost system which shows he has not even attracted local news interest. Looks like a good film producer but has not made enough of an impact in the world to have verifyability from reliable sources - Peripitus

I've looked through this after Kevin's expansion and, although the article is not too bad, he still misses the notability required to meet biographical requirements. The 7 news link does not mention him, his IMDb bio paints him as just another crew member. All of the links I've followed show the short films he's produced as being shown but there are no reviews of their importance, no online bio information on him outside the Australian film corporation and the only news article (the Age from melbourne) mearly notes the plot elements from Luna and the Moon. What we're still lacking is commentary on his importance from reliable sources. Even a news article about Adam Bayliss would help but I can't find that anywhere. There are mentions in the press that his films are showing at the festivals listed but no mention of Adam himself. Based on the username of the creator the article also is an autobiography at least in it's original form... - Peripitus (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems well cited now and reasonably notable. --Kukini 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kevin, I didn't explain myself well enough. I was looking through the list of pages tagged as problematic for notability and found this guy, and there were two other tags also, and I figured it was a lost cause, so I sent it here. I could have written in my nomination "nonnotable, fails WP:BIO but I got bored. Anyway, I acknowledge that the article has been improved significantly. (By the way, I have been making sporadic contributions to Wikipedia, sometimes as an IP address, for more than a year.) YechielMan 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to rain on you unduly, but when editors spend time writing an article the AfD to remove their hard work should be serious business. But on the other hand we are all volunteers and it should be fun as well. Welcome! --Kevin Murray 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration - clearly a lot of work is on the line here. Unfortunately adam is not in the class of John Safran but more like Olivia Rousset, the winner from from Race Around the World but still without an article- Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced marginally well but he still fails WP:BIO. GassyGuy 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any references for him under a search for "Adam Bayliss" film in Google News Archive [2] or Google News [3]. A similar search of Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand Reference centre also failed to find sources. I would reconsider if reliable sources were found. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has improved a lot recently, but I'm persuaded by User:Peripitus that we should be holding out for some outside press comment on the significance of his work. Adding references that only prove the films are being shown does not seem sufficient. EdJohnston 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Well, it looks like were going down in flames here. I don't think that losing this artile will shake the pillars of WP, but neither would keeping it. I think that Adam is in the grey area of notability. Oh well; oh hell! However I think there are some confusing precedents being asserted here:

(1) Capitalistroadster says that we don't have relaible sources. But we have many citations in the bibliography. Is that because our sources are online?

(2) EdJohnston says "we should be holding out for some outside press comment", what is the outside press? Is that referring to printed material?

(3) People keep saying he lacks "importance", while WP Bio specifically says that "notable" is not as high of a standard as "important" or "famous".

(4) I think that people are equating the short length of the movies with a lack of impact. Because the genre is less noticed, doesn't mean it isn't noticed.

(5) People have said that the references are about his work rather than him. I think this is fallacy; when the body of work is notable so is the creator. Inherently the producers are in the background compared to the directors and actors, but their contributions are none the less notable.

(6) The author has provided some background information about Adam's TV work, but some critics above have focused on the non-notable contribution to the more famous genre, rather than look to the notable contribution to the less famous genre. It's a lack of being able to see the trees in the forrest through the clutter of underbrush -- a writting style of building to the climax, rather than putting the NOTABILITY in bold in the first paragraph.

--Kevin Murray 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Paragraphs reordered to emphasize notablility --Kevin Murray 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The guy seems notable enough to me. You know, if Wikipedia had been around when Vincent Van Gogh was alive there wouldn't have been an entry on him either. Of course, he's no Van Gogh but come on, the fact that his short films have received worldwide distribution is enough to consider him notable, even if not world famous, which are not synonmous.A mcmurray 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought he was notable even before I found some more references. -- Jeff G. 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I don't know that he strictly meets the WP:BIO guideline as the primary subject of multiple articles, but this is now a well written and well sourced article. There are enough verified minor claims to notability to jointly justify the article.--Kubigula (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well constructed article about someone who has notability, albeit modest, but he's not just making films in his backyard with college chums. The latter is not notable. Tyrenius 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Bio. I don't even see this as a borderline case. Most of the cited links seem to be there to pad it out because they aren't even about Adam but rather TV shows he worked as an assistant dresser on. Please. Sarah 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, please see my note above about not seeing the forrest through the trees. There are 2 references (now none 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) out of 18 which relate to his minor TV experience; you need to look a little deeper at the references before accusing people of "padding". --Kevin Murray 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I opened and viewed every single link listed under "Bibliography" and "Notes". Most of those links only cite his name, some don't even mention that and then you've got a couple that list his very, very minor professional TV credits. As I said, the links pad out the reference list and give the appearance of notability when in reality this guy simply isn't a notable Australian and he isn't a notable film maker. He's making not-notable shorts, some as part of courses, to send in as entries into film festivals and to community TV. He's just not notable and his films are just not notable. Sarah 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I didn't write this article. I found it at AfD in pretty poor shape and have worked to remove a lot of "puff" and focus on the only notable aspect, which is as a film producer. However, other editors have felt that citing information about his TV work was important; I moved it to the bottoom of the article to deemphasize it. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are links to sites which mention him as included in the festivals etc.; it's not how he is mentioned that is important, but where he is mentioned that supports the verifiability of the text. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have different opinions on what is notable, but don't read in that I'm trying to subvert the process. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's an absolute stretch to call him an "award-winning Australian Film Producer" on the basis of the Raw Nerve Initiative. The Raw Nerve Initative is a partly government backed minor funding program, not an awards program. It gives a very small amount cash and very limited services to make a short film. That's it. Sarah 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline satisfaction of notability requirements, in my opinion, so erring on the side of keep. CiaranG 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that Australian International Film Festival is by no means "recognized"; it a new festival that has assumed the old name of a notable film festival, Canberra International Film Festival. So much so that I feel a bit dirty having created the article on Wikipedia, but I had already done the research and felt it was important to point out how non-notable it was (maybe a dab page is in order). John Vandenberg 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had not included the Canberra International Film Festival in the text but added it now, as his film is listed at that site --Kevin Murray 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cut the article to reduce puff per Sarah's comments. Tyrenius 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*I agree with removing the citations to the "puff". I've done that in the past though and gotten into edit wars with editors who think that every piece of trivia deserves a footnote (I didn't put in those links). --Kevin Murray 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above... Addhoc 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villains from comics and graphic novels[edit]

Indiscriminate list, there are way too many comics with villains for this page to be manageable (also, neglecting to point out that the article is a list in the article's title is not a "keep" reason). A similar category surely exists and other indiscriminate lists are being deleted as we speak. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes. Axem Titanium 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nomination. Indiscriminate, massive, near useless list that will grow wildly out of control, is not cited and likely never will be. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waaaaay too broad a topic for a list. 23skidoo 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note this list was broken out from the article List of villains which is also up for deletion and that the article's creator is OK with the notion that this article could be deleted. Otto4711 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and no I'm not OK with the notion of this article being deleted: merely OK with the matter being brought here for discussion. Anyway my vote is strong keep: this is a useful navigational tool, falling squarely within what lists are intended for (see WP:LIST). It is neither indescriminate nor too broad to be useful. Categories and lists are never redundant with one another (see WP:CLS). I'm mystified by comments like "useless" above: surely useful to someone looking into, oh I don't know, maybe villains in comics. Obviously, if kept I agree with a move to List of villains from comics and graphic novels. AndyJones 13:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to misrepresent your thoughts about deletion. Otto4711 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The article is a mish-mash across dozens of genres of comics and graphic novels. The concept of "villain" is poorly defined (a cursory glance shows Catwoman is villainous enough for inclusion, as well as Elektra (comics), Emma Frost and others). For example, List of Batman villains is a more manageable list of decent scope and actually provides basic info about each entry, which is the defining characteristic of a good list. Axem Titanium 17:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete totally uncontrolable listcruft. --Larry laptop 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per AndyJones Jcuk 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Jones. Might work better if there were separate lists by publisher, but that's not an issue for AfD. --JJay 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of lists-related deletions. -- Axem Titanium 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All the villains & heroes categories are getting deleted at WP:CFD so lists are preferred over categories. (That doesn't speak to this particular list, however, which may indeed be too broad.) --lquilter 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Browsing the categories today, I didn't see any CfD nominations for the comics-related villain and hero categories, or even for Category:Fictional villains for that matter. --GentlemanGhost 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of this list is better served by existing categories, such as Category:DC Comics supervillains, Category:Marvel Comics villains, and Category:Supervillains by publisher. --GentlemanGhost 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShivaDaDestroyer 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No rationale? I guess your vote doesn't count. Axem Titanium 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted in the link cited above, these decisions aren't made by a direct vote anyway. Rather than saying that his opinion doesn't count, perhaps we be more encouraging to Shiva to elaborate. --GentlemanGhost 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly better than a category. Even so, "villain" is a tricky word. "Supervillain" is fairly objective because it has specific criteria, generally the characters are specifically labeled as such, but "villain" in general involves a lot of opinion and interpretation. I question the need for this list, though. Most villains in comics and graphic novels are supervillains. As for the minority who aren't, how have they been defined? Does the list cite outside sources that identify the characters as villains like the strict criteria we follow at the anti-hero list? For now, I'll say delete (and a pretty strong delete at that) for the use of a vague term that invokes POV. Should the list gain more objective criteria with external references like the anti-hero list and define itself in a way that reduces redundancy to the supervillain lists, I could easily change my "vote." Doczilla 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's too much worry about what is subjective in these debates. (You just mentioned opinion and interpretation, someone in a related AfD voted "delete all subjective lists".) If it were genuinely the case that subjective or normative things are inherently POV and shouldn't be on wikipedia, we would have to delete pretty-much everything on the humanities, leaving just an encyclopedia that covered math and science. But that would be to ask the wrong question. The real question is about verifiability. Someone is a "villain" (or whatever other subjective term you're worried about) if reliable sources say that he is. AndyJones 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, classifying someone as an anti-hero is also subjective, but that list survived an AfD because it is carefully sourced and policed by a number of editors to reject any additions that don't have external sources labeling the characters as anti-heroes. This villains list, however, does nothing of the sort. Doczilla 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, although WP:V issues are matters for cleanup, not AfD. AndyJones 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEGO[edit]

Disputed prod; my prod reason was "notability not asserted". Appears to be a minor community radio station. DGG removed the prod with "may be just as notable than the others on this list--just needs some editing". There have been an enormous number of radio station stubs added over the last two months; are these stations notable merely by their existence? I doubt it; hence this AfD.

Let me add WEAF (AM) to this AfD; simply because I prodded both at once. After prodding these two I noticed how many had been added, so I stopped at that point. It'd be great to get some consensus here. I'll stay neutral for this. Akihabara 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There ought to be a policy which says "all radio stations are notable". The only relevant policy-like document that I could find is Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) which is labelled as inactive. I would argue that most radio stations which have ever existed are notable in the context of the culture, news and politics of the cities and countries in which they operate or operated, and that establishing notability in individual cases is difficult without detailed knowledge of the station's operations. A band or musician may have gotten its first big break by getting airplay on a particular radio station (which would help establish notability for that station), but how easy is it to verify this 25 years later? This is another example of the gap between notability and demonstrable notability. I would prefer to keep these articles, even if they are just stubs, and avoid deletion votes for radio stations which will be a lot like the deletion votes for high school articles, which satisfy noone and exhaust everyone. That way, when a radio station becomes famous for breaking a news story or being the first to broadcast a particular song, Wikipedia will have a good stub on which to build. --Eastmain 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every one is notable? Even campus radio stations, for example? Akihabara 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Eastmain) I don't think notability should be either speculative or inherent. Even if it turns out that, say, some band really did get its first play at WEGO, that would not automatically imply that WEGO is notable. Notability on Wikipedia is a totally practical concept: are there enough external sources that we can use to write a verifiable article? In this case the answer seems to be no for both WEGO and WEAF (which is no surprise -- most small radio stations wouldn't pass WP:N). Of course, if the articles are deleted now and appropriate sources surface later as you suggest might happen, nothing prevents anyone from recreating the articles. Pan Dan 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete, there absolutely ought not to be a policy which says all radio stations are notable. Nothing, IMO, could be farther from the truth. Many are barely notable within their community (see WP:LOCAL), let alone outside. In any case, however, in the absence of tspecific policies and guidelines, more general ones must apply, This does not assert any notability nor does it provide independent reliable sources, so it must go! Change to keep if independent reliable sources are provided before AfD ends. Xtifr _tälk 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Federal Communications Commission's page listed at External links "Query the FCC's AM station database for WEGO" is an independent reliable souurce. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?call=WEGO --Eastmain 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists that include all (stations ) or anything else are trivial sources for the purposes of notability --See WP:N ( "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.) DGG 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I asked for the AfD to get just this sort of discussion. We judge the subject as being notable, not the article, and I can tell what stations suit my interests, but not whether or not they are notable, so I was hoping for some guidelines. If there aren't any they all must stay is at least as stubs. A poorly written article which for some reason doesnt have the detail of the 100s of parallel articles needs the detail in, not the article out, and just needs to be marked for expansion.

On the other hand, looking at a number of radio station articles, most of them don't have much to say. They all have the same sources, which are reliable if not very informative. Some belonging to major chains have more (they CBS ones, for example, have the CBS box at the bottom.) The only one in this geographic area with real content has been protected over a debate on the reliability of a web site. In almost all cases the sources are 1/ the website 2/lists that include all radio stations. Neither of them counts. I don't want to do it myself as a project like the removal of transmission towers, but any argument for removing these 2 applies to 95% of them.

As I said, I'm neutral. In or out. I dont think it is essential content, since the outside lists are available & they all have websites. Someone thought them worth the boxes and the categories. Take a look at a few others before you vote. DGG 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:N or WP:CORP, take your pick. The references in the articles, and the passing mentions I find in local papers in Lexis-Nexis, are trivial as they are nothing to build a Wikipedia article on. Pan Dan 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AFDP: Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Ergo, keep, and end debate — because until a new policy discussion takes place on the matter and decides on something different, established precedent is the final and non-negotiable word. Bearcat 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the subsequent text Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable. It is not clear to me if this applies in these cases. Akihabara 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part 15 stations are not listed in the FCC database, because they're not licensed operations. Since WEGO does have a page in that database, by definition, it has to be a licensed station. A Part 15 station wouldn't have a four-letter call sign beginning with W, either.Bearcat 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misread it. Are these lower power stations? Some I saw seemed to be. The rest of the text is an example, not an exhaustive list. Akihabara

I haven't misread anything. I was personally involved in the process of determining how best to write that particular precedent statement, so I know exactly what it means. What it means is that if a station operates under a legally-issued FCC license, then it gets an article. The exclusion applies to unlicensed operations. It does not permit any kind of cutoff that splits FCC-licensed stations into licensed-and-notable vs. licensed-and-not-notable piles on the basis of some arbitrary minimum transmitter power. If it's FCC-licensed, then it's in, period. That is the established AFD precedent, and that is what the precedent statement expresses. Bearcat 07:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be taking this the wrong way; perhaps I could have worded better. My apologies. It doesn't say what you claim though; if it did it would read "As an exception, Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable."

Regardless, prior consensus is not set in stone and can change; this has happened several times already. What little consensus exists in this discussion does not match what it apparently was before. As another example, today you de-prodded the campus station WPPJ; however I really fail to see how that station has any genuine claim to notability. In other words, I think the precedent as you see it is too broad. Akihabara 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a radio station is duly licensed by the appropriate media regulation authority, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. I'd really love to know how else you propose to distinguish notable radio stations from non-notable ones beyond that. Bearcat 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Established precedent is neither final nor non-negotiable! It does (generally) reflect a growing concensus, but concensus can change! Precedent ranks lower than guidelines which rank lower than policy. And only policy will absolutely trump AfD debate, since new issues may raised in any given AfD which may lead to a new precedent or even new guideline. (Of course, they'd better be very good issues to survive deletion review.) In this case, I stand by WP:LOCAL, WP:RS, and even, as raised by Pan Dan, WP:CORP. Address any of those, and I'll reconsider my position. Xtifr _tälk 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting me. Allow me to rephrase myself: until such time as somebody articulates a new policy specifically about radio stations, the precedent on radio stations is the final word on the matter of a radio station. It's not sufficient to cite general policies about which people can and do genuinely disagree on whether radio stations meet them or not — the precedent as it stands reflects a lot of debates in which those policies were already taken into account, and the determination was that radio stations do meet them if they're duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority and originate at least a part of their own programming schedule. It's not as though you're introducing some radical new litmus test that nobody ever thought of before; in fact, you're citing the exact same policies that were brought to bear in setting the precedent in the first place. So if you don't like the precedent as it stands, then try to build consensus around a new policy statement that specifically addresses radio stations in particular, because as things stand right now, it's not as though you're citing anything that hasn't already been taken into account. Bearcat 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Bearcat) The debate between you and Akihabara about what WP:AFDP actually means in regard to radio stations is fascinating but irrelevant. It's irrelevant because WP:AFDP is a description of what has happened in past AFD's, not a prescription for what should happen in future AFD's. Outcomes of prior AFD's have nothing to do with whether these 2 articles should be kept. In fact it says in bold at the very top of WP:AFDP that "This page is not policy." By contrast, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:CORP are derived from WP:V and WP:NOT, core policies. I would say those trump WP:AFDP. Pan Dan 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply to Xtifr above. Bearcat 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The precedent on radio stations is the final word on the matter of a radio station." -- I beg to differ, it's not even the final word on the specific radio stations that were nominated -- they can be AFD'd again -- and it's certainly not the final word on all radio stations ("This page is not policy").

"The determination [at prior AFD's] was that radio stations do meet [the general policies] if they're duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority and originate at least a part of their own programming schedule" -- You are citing AFD outcomes as if they can determine general policy. They cannot. Please, if you are convinced by the actual arguments that were made at prior AFD's that all such radio stations are notable, then cite those arguments. Those arguments may or may not convince others in this AFD. But outcomes of prior AFD's are neither binding nor convincing. Pan Dan 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentIf N and V are properly applied, they will give consistent decisions. If similar cases coming up now are being decided differently, then the standards are not being properly applied. The AFDD page states what is intended as an honest summary of past consistent decisions. As WP evolves, it may be desirable to change some of these. Some matters, like the wording of the N standard itself, are changed in a legislative sort of way by amending the standard; if thought desirable, a standard or guideline on radio stations could be developed. At present, it's essentially a judge-made standard, made by continuing AfD discussions such as this one here. I understand the meaning of precedent in WP to mean that we should continue prior practice in individual cases, until we intend to change it. As in the RW, one of the factors to consider is how such change will affect the cases treated in the previous decisions. Since WP has the peculiar rule that articles kept may be brought up repeatedly, those interested in consistence may want to re-discuss early articles.

So, do we intend to change it and make some radio stations NN? We can adopt whatever rule we like--there are adequate reasons for either policy. Or do we prefer a hit-and-miss approach? DGG 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support and take part in creating a brief guideline for radio stations; no need to make it too long or wordy IMO. As a starting point I'd suggest notability is given by broadcasting to a sufficiently large area (certainly all large cities would qualify) or having a DJ or presenter that is notable. However I don't think mere existence should be one of the criteria. Akihabara 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Bearcat. Vegaswikian 08:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. NTXweather 03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Lengthy keep arguments are meaningless. If you want to keep the article add some reliable sources. Addhoc 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market America[edit]

This article concerns an apparently non-notable company, and cites no reliable sources. John254 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn company, per nomination. --Kukini 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}) Wrs1864 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. advert--Hu12 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Gringo1965 has repeatedly resubmitted copyvio text fro the company's website. This is all spam and should be speedily wiped out, and is so tagged. Ohconfucius 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IS group[edit]

The article is original research and according to the article's creator, a member of the group, (see article's talk page) there are no verifiable sources independent of the group to indicate notability. ragesoss 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, no WP:RS by author's admission; violates WP:COI. Akihabara 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs RS. delldot | talk 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background. As the original author of the IS group entry, I would like to provide some background information on how and why this entry was made. I am new to Wikipedia editing, and the IS group entry was my first contribution. I was inspired to add this entry by The Reality Club entry and modeled my entry after that one. At that point in time, I was blissfully unaware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since that time, I have learned a lot, but still have much to learn. Seeing the short Reality Club entry inspired me because, as a scientist, and scientific administrator, I am very interested in the history of science, particularly the informal aspects of science (such as what happens behind the scenes -- see, for example, the excellent book Tuxedo Park). As an administrator (former Division Director at NSF and former chair of OSTP committees and present chair of an NAS board) who has done federal service, I have grown much more aware of how science policy can be shaped in ways that are not always apparent and not always reported in standard venues. I am also aware of the importance of ethnography, ethnomethodology, and oral history in documenting events, including events related to the history of science. Because of The Reality Club entry, I had thought at the time that Wikipedia was interested in such articles, as long as they were notable and verifiable in some way. Thus, the IS group entry was started on Nov. 22, 2006. On Nov. 23, 2006, a Wikipedia editor named weregerbil raised concerns about notability and verifiability. I took these concerns very seriously and did what I thought was appropriate at the time to establish both the notability and verifiability of the entry, spending a lot of time and adding what I thought was appropriate information. I indicated that I was both the author of the entry and a co-founder of the group, but I do not recall at the time weregerbil raising any COI concerns. Please also note that, contrary to what some have said above, as author of the article I have NOT admitted that there are no reliable or verifiable sources, I have only stated that "...I am unaware of any verifiable PUBLISHED sources ..." Instead, I based both the notability and the verifiability on the reputation of the members of the group and on the notability (and verifiability) of the research that has been influenced by this group. The reliability and verifiability and notability of these individuals is easy for any independent individual to establish if they know how to do a literature search or use a library. I certainly think that I have gone to considerably greater lengths than what has been done for entries such as The Reality Club (by the way, I commend having "The Reality Club" entry on Wikipedia, and feel that it should remain). More recently, on Jan. 11, 2007, the Wikipedia COI policy was been pointed out to me by ragesoss. I wish someone had done so earlier and apologize for not familiarizing myself with it on my own. However, I still think that the IS group entry has value, is notable, can be verified (though perhaps not in printed sources), is not original research, and should remain on Wikipedia. I strongly feel that it makes a valuable (though very small) contribution to the history of informal science. Progress in science is not always made only by publication, but often by the social links that foster collaboration and influence theoretical directions. In addition, often the best way to hear about an event is through oral history, as long as this oral history can be verified in some way (which is often by corroboration of known individuals). A more nuanced approach to verifiability is needed than apparently presently exists in Wikipedia. To not ponder this issue and, hopefully, improve policy related to it means that Wikipedia may become overly reliant on certain kinds of publication and runs the risk of being driven by the desires of the dominant media which increasingly are being controlled by fewer interests. Because of the COI policy, I will refrain from editing the IS group entry in the future. However, I am hoping that those who really care about informal aspects of the history of science, oral history, and ethnography will make a better case than I can for why hearing from the horse's mouth of those who have participated in events can sometimes constitute a valid form of verifiability and can both help Wikipedia become a stronger, and more accurate, encyclopedia and can also make for a richer and more exciting history of science. Thanks for bearing with this flame and thanks to the Wikipedia editors, weregerbil and ragesoss, who have urged me to consider these matters more carefully. Ddp224 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, I used the term "verifiable" here in the Wikipedia sense (per Wikipedia:Verifiability), which is by definition a published source. Wikipedia is not the place for unpublished work (which is by Wikipedia's definition, as opposed to common usage, original research). But there are other possible venues. If seeking out a more formal publication venue, like a journal in your field(s), would be too onerous, try wikinfo, a wiki encyclopedia with different editorial policies.--ragesoss 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ragesoss -- Thanks for the clarification. I am just trying to explore and understand better some of the Wikipedia concepts and guidelines. As should be crystal clear at this point, this particular entry is not critical to either Wikipedia, the history of science, or the survival of the larger world. However, there are larger principles here that are, at least to me, fascinating, and potentially of some importance, including how they relate to how behind-the-scenes information can be gotten into the public record in some "reliable" (not, apparently, in the Wikipedia sense) way, and the possibilities they raise for nurturing innovative approaches for documenting the informal history of science. Your mention, above, of "verifiable sources" led me to WP:V and WP:RS, and resulted in my being even more unclear about a few things. Is official information, such as press releases, news, information, etc., published on academic and commercial websites, such as Yale and Microsoft, considered to meet the test in certain circumstances for what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources? Is such website information considered to have appeared in what Wikipedia would view as an appropriate "published source"? One reason that I ask is that there has been, for some time, an IS group description on the Haskins site (http://www.haskins.yale.edu/ISgroup.html). This is a corporate, not personal, website that has a full-time, paid website manager, and that also requires that material that appears on the site have editorial oversight and be vetted and approved by a website editorial committee, and finally approved by the President of our Laboratories and, thus, gets multiple views and scrutiny before it appears. Of course, there still may be COI issues with such a source. (Please also note that Haskins is not formally affiliated with the IS group (listing it as an informal affiliation) and takes no responsibility for its actions or the actions of its members.) On WP:RS a number of issues seem related to sourcing and verifiability on this type of informal article. Putting verifiability aside for the moment, the material in this entry seems to be non-controversial and is more just a historical listing of when certain things took place, why they happened, their possible importance, and who was involved. Controversial conclusions are not being reached and, if they are, should be removed if they cannot be verified. Finally, the issue of "Self-published sources" did seem relevant. In WK:RS it says, in that section, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-know professional journalist, has produced self-published material, they may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Again, I don't want to push this too far, but many of the IS participants (it is not a formal group, and does not have membership), including me, meet these tests and have numerous publications in respected, credible, third-party publications, including professional journals, books, etc., to establish their credibility and reputation. Should such factors be taken into account when establishing verifiability and reliability? Apparently, Wikipedia thinks that they should, at least to a certain extent or in certain situations. Clearly, such approaches for establishing verifiability and reliability are not the preferred approach, but often this may be all that is possible. This situation does not seem to be the same kind case as an earlier example that you mentioned to me, in which a bunch of high-school kids create a fake entry as a lark. Most of those involved with IS are credible, known researchers, academics, physicians, etc., and their credibility can be verified. By the way, your comments are worth a lot to me. I am learning a great deal from this process and appreciate the time that you are willing to spend on this. Ddp224 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS. However, I believe the section on self-published work by professionals is intended to only apply in limited circumstance; in this case, I think the intended interpretation would be that, because you and/or the author of the website are not experts on informal science, it would not apply here. The bigger underlying issue is Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia's notability requirements are, in my view, flawed in some ways (and rather byzantine). But the self-publishing exception to WP:RS would absolutely not apply when the self-published source would be necessary just to establish the notability of the IS group. If there was an independent source establishing the notability of the IS group, then the group's website would probably be accepted as a valid source for filling out the article. --ragesoss 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I am not entirely clear which websites are being referred to in your most recent message, above. There are 2 websites in question. The Haskins site is a professional, corporate website, that gets its content from academics of known reputation and from paid science writers, who are familiar with both formal and informal science. The IS group website (http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/is/), which is not affiliated with Haskins, is a self-published site, maintained by Simon Levy. The responsibility for this site is his. Simon is an academic of established reputation (http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/) who also has experience in formal and informal science. Starting in 1992, Simon was the editor of Exponent (http://www.extropy.org/history.htm) and other Extropy Institute newsletters, which published material related to formal and informal science. Simon has also been a presenter at meetings that include both the formal and less formal aspects of science (e.g. http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/presenters.shtml). Regarding your comment, above that " ... you and/or the author of the website are not experts on informal science," I, reluctantly, would point out the following about myself. As noted above (and as can be found by all on my website and on other websites), I was formerly the Division Director for Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences at the National Science Foundation. In that role, I had responsibility for 10 fields: Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology, Physical Anthropology, Geography and Regional Science, Environmental Social and Behavioral Sciences, Child Development, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental Psychology, Social Psychology, and Linguistics. Part of my responsibilities included reading, reviewing, and signing off on each and every award or decline made on each grant proposal from all academic universities in the US in each of those areas (this, by the way, was a lot of work, which is why I no longer am doing it). I was also the first chair of the most recent NSF priority area, Human and Social Dynamics, and served on the Science and Technology Centers operating committee, responsible for giving out among the largest of awards at the NSF. In these areas, I would often deal with issues related to informal science, and with issues related to informal science education. I would also work with those in the NSF Informal Science Education programs. I deal with such matters on the National Academies Board that I chair, and have dealt with such issues on the OSTP Committees that I have chaired or worked on in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Finally, I have also lectured in this area. One example is a recent presentation at Dartmouth College ("Turning Fears into Public Policy: Grey Goo and Government." Invited talk, SEAC (Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum) 8th Annual International Conference, 2006, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, Nov. 16-18, 2006.). Other examples can be found on my CV on the Haskins website and would, I assume, be considered to be both verifiable and reliable. Much of my recent career has been related to the intersection between science and public policy and falls clearly in the domain of what is considered to be expertise in informal science. Others who have been affiliated with the IS group have expertise in informal science. For example, one of the participants, a physician, academic, and scientist, is currently a Slate columnist and NPR pundit, where he writes about speaks about health, medicine, and the informal aspects of science related to these matters. But, enough on this. I would like to close this overly long missive by raising my concern that there seems to be a small degree of "bait and switch" (or perhaps just dealing with a moving target) in the criticism of this particular Wikipedia entry. I start by apologizing again for the COI matters, which were not clear to me until recently. In Nov. 2006, the main concerns of weregerbil were with notability -- thus, considerable time was spent attempting to establish this notability. More recently, the concerns moved over mostly to reliable sources and verifiability, which have been discussed at length, above. In your most recent comment, you seem to indicate, again, that the crucial underlying issue is notability. As noted in previous discussions, and assuming for sake of argument that reliability and verifiability and COI are not the major problems, one aspect of my viewpoint on this is that notability, in this case, relates to the fact that this informal group has brought leading (at least in their fields) scientists (and other individuals) together and, to at least a small degree, helped to shape their research and scientific efforts in important ways, both by exposing them to the materials being read and discussed and often by no more than the simple act of intellectual interchange cemented by social contact, a little good beer, some crap to eat, and a fun movie to watch. If that ain't informal science, I don't know what is. In addition reliable information appears on at least 2 websites (one commercial, the other self-published, but by a known, verifiable, reliable source) to establish the existence of this group and provide a short description of its activities. Sorry, as usual, for going on so long and hoping that this has been of some interest and use to you. Ddp224 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my explanation seemed like a bait and switch. The issues of verifiability, reliable sources, and notability are closely intertwined. In a nutshell, the issue is that there are no sources about the IS group independent of the group; the Haskins website in nominally independent, but obviously the informal connection is significant. The convention on Wikipedia is to exclude such material based on the Notability guideline, at least until an independent published source exists. The establishment of notability is dependent on verifiability through reliable sources, but establishing notability has the additional burden that the sources must be independent. COI is (or at least supposed to be) treated more as a user behavior issue than a content issue; the decision of whether to keep or delete content is, in theory, independent of COI issues regarding who created the article.--ragesoss 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that your particular response was a bait and switch. Rather, I was attempting to express my frustration with the overall process, which continues to seem like a moving target to me. I have asked specific questions when interacting with Wikipedia editors (such as my attempt to find out whether or not information on websites can be considered, in certain cases, to be "published sources" and, if so, what those cases would be), but have not always received specific answers (or, perhaps, I have not understood the answers). For example, I am still confused about your answer to one of my earlier questions about one of your statements (The statement of yours that I was inquiring about was: "If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS".). In this statement, are you referring to (a) the Haskins website, or (b) the IS group webpage? Since the IS group entry was made in Nov. 2006, I have been trying to deal honestly and carefully with criticisms and/or concerns when they have been raised. I am aware the many of the issues are intertwined. I am also aware that newcomers such as myself can find these complexities to be inhibiting. However, I have tried to persist and attempt to untwine some of the intertwined strands. I have tried to carefully deal with each issue as it has been raised, by either providing sourced information in the entry (and other entries I have worked on in the past), or by providing detailed background on discussion pages, or by requesting clarification from Wikipedia editors. However, in the responses that I have received, a slightly different concern seems always to be raised by Wikipedia editors. These have seemed not to be always because topics are intertwined, but sometimes because the editors are looking for other reasons to dismiss the entry. On another matter, Haskins Laboratories is absolutely independent of the IS group. Although there is a historical connection, Haskins has NO connection with the IS group, not even an informal one. The Haskins website is a source independent of the IS group (certainly more independent than The Reality Club entry, which inspired the IS group entry, is of the Edge.org sourcing). Reference to the IS group on the Haskins website is treated as we would treat professional organizations or other entities that are of interest to our employees or website visitors, or whose activities seem relevant. For example, consider some of the professional societies that I belong to or other Haskins people belong to, such as AAAS, IEEE, the American Psychological Association, AVISA (Audiovisual Speech Association), the Linguistic Society of America, ISEP (the International Society of Ecological Psychology), etc. I assume that many Haskins people are members of these societies, are possibly officers of some of these, or other, societies, may have played a role in founding some of these societies, etc. The same would be true throughout academia. The Haskins site may link to such entities, and Haskins may even be supportive, in a general way, of their activities. However, organizations such as Haskins (and other such academic organizations, such as colleges, universities, etc.), are usually considered to be independent of these professional organizations, even if faculty members are members (or even officers) of the professional organizations. The individual faculty member, of course, would not be considered to be independent of the organization. Referencing and/or discussing such organizations on a website does not violate the independence of these organizations. These kinds of connections are standard and do not seem to be significant. The Haskins connection to the IS group is, in some ways, significantly weaker than some of these connections. There are no membership connections, no financial connections, and there is even a disclaimer on the Haskins website ("The IS group is not formally affiliated with Haskins Laboratories. Haskins Laboratories takes no responsibility or credit for the activities of the IS group, but encourages activities that foster multidisciplinarity and rigorous exploration of the frontiers science, particularly when done with a spirit of fun and enjoyment.") Information about the IS group appears on the Haskins website because Haskins is supportive of multidisciplinarity and because the early history of the IS group involved Haskins connections and, finally, because when people inquire about the IS group because of individual employee connections to the group, past or present, it was felt that it was important to point people elsewhere because the IS group is not formally affiliated with Haskins and so that people interested in the IS group would not bug people at Haskins, because Haskins IS INDEPENDENT OF THE IS GROUP. In a similar way, we refer to Haskins Laboratories at Pace University. Many years ago there used to be a connection between the two organizations and even though they have similar names, there is no longer a connection between these two organizations -- they are completely independent, both formally and informally, even though there once was a strong connection between the two. I have continued to persist with the discussion of the IS group Wikipedia entry because I feel that the information provided in the entry is valuable, providing a small, but significant, contribution to the history of informal science. Although aspects of the entry are not ideal as they interact with important Wikipedia policies, such as COI, notability, verifiability, etc., I feel that these concerns are outweighed by the fact that the sources that back up the verification of this entry, coupled with the notability of these sources and the entry, the independent published source, and the significance of such difficult to find information, would encourage retaining this entry. I have looked at the entry again and found it to be non-controversial, fairly benign, but potentially useful to those interested in exploring connections between scientists and the evolution of scientific ideas. However, I would appreciate hearing back from anyone who has read the entry to find out if they feel that there is any particular information that they think should be removed (aside from removing the whole thing). I would also like to hear from a Wikipedia editor about how this entry differs from The Reality Club entry, which I also feel should be retained. Hearing about the differences between these two entries might help me to better understand the subtleties of Wikipedia policy that I appear to continue to be missing. I certainly understand the importance of having information in Wikipedia this is verifiable. Although not ideal, I continue to feel that this entry is verifiable and that its notability has been established. Ddp224 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite probably The Reality Club should be deleted too. We have lots of articles at any given time which really should go, but which no-one has gotten around to deleting yet; therefore the existence of one article is no defense for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My intent was not to use the existence of one article to defend another, but instead to beg and plead that a Wikipedia editor (or someone else) help me understand the differences between the two entries, if any, by using them as a basis of comparison. If there are differences, that is okay, it would just help me understand Wikipedia policy if these differences were explained. If there are no differences, that is also okay. I personally do not feel that The Reality Club entry should be removed. To me it is verifiable, notable, and adds important information to Wikipedia that is useful for understanding the history of informal science. The entry seems to be non-controversial and reasons for removing it seem to be technical quibbling and an over-attention to formality that, in this case, does not seem to be beneficial to the quality of Wikipedia or anything else. Ddp224 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Club is a sub-par entry right now, but there seem to be many independent references to it; Google Scholar turns up several in journal articles not by members of the club. It would probably survive a deletion nomination. I'm surprised to hear that you were inspired by that entry, though. It contains almost no information.--ragesoss 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired not by the quality of the entry, which is poor, but by the fact that the entry was there at all. Again, influenced by things like reading the book Tuxedo Park, I have come, over time, and after government and federal service, to realize that much goes on behind the scenes and in informal groups. Science policy, including at hidden levels, can often have strong influences on what becomes the science enterprise. Much of this is hidden from the public and hidden from the history of science. I believe that it is time for this to end. It is particularly difficult to get at this information without hearing directly from the participants. Waiting for books or magazine articles to be written can often result in critical information being lost. Often, the best thing to do is find the critical players and see how you can get the information out of them. Thus, I was pleased to see this tiny entry because I am delighted to begin to hear about things that I would not normally hear about. Having started several groups, I am particularly interested in informal groups, particularly when they go on to have some influence. I was particularly pleased that Wikipedia provided a vehicle for publishing such information. Of course, this was before I started to find out about the rules and restrictions of Wikipedia. It is true, of course, that the particular entry is fairly weak. Hopefully, someone who knows about the topic and the history of the club will strengthen the entry, but, unfortunately, from Wikipedia perspective this will probably be a conflict of interest. Common sense would seem to dictate that there has to be a better way to provide options for allowing such information to get in, as long as some sort of verifiability path can be established, but, of course, we have been through all of this before. Thanks again. Ddp224 06:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the article is interesting, by the letter of the rules I don't see how it can be kept without reliable sources (WP:RS). Since Wikipedia tries to echo whatever reliable information is generally documented out in the world, when a topic comes to us that is not generally documented, our normal instinct is to keep it out. It may well be that this topic deserves more coverage than it has received, but it's not up to us to be the first vehicle for such coverage. EdJohnston 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

break point[edit]

Ok, you bring up a lot; I'll do the best I can, and try to get a few other editors to weigh in.

On moving targets: You've experienced something that is, to some extent, endemic in the lived experience of Wikipedia. Wikipedians generally learn the system more by participation than by following the codified rules, and in a lot of ways deletion is a stochastic process. There are philosophical disagreements (see m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies) about what is and is not acceptable content, and different editors develop different ideas about what it is important to keep out or allow in. Sometimes motivations for trying to get something deleted are orthogonal to reasons stated and policies invoked.
On my statement ("If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS"): Some of the information in IS group (e.g., about half of the "Activities" section) is found on neither website; to the extent that you (in your capacity as as an editor) are the source for the information rather than the websites, it violates No Original Research because editors cannot be reliable sources. I used the singular "website" because the IS group website itself has no relevant information. If the article was limited to material published on the websites, then it might pass WP:RS. However, the notability problem remains since demonstration of notability has to invoke "multiple, non-trivial published works" independent of the article's subject. (As an aside, I think the "multiple" aspect is excessive, but that's the way things currently work.)
- Not to be too much of a pain on this point, but the above illustrates what I mean by moving target. After several months of working on Wikipedia, this is the first time that "multiple" or "non-trivial" has been brought up. I am, of course, familiar with these criteria and I don't deny either their existence of importance, but just wish to express my extreme frustration that there always appears to be something new that is used by editors to make their case. If these concepts were so important (and they are), I would have hoped that they would have been mentioned earlier. This would be of great help to newcomers like myself. Please note that even after all of this time, I am still not clear on what is allowable, as opposed to preferred, and how much flexibility there is related to verifiability, notability, autobiography, COI, multiple sources, etc., particularly as it related to the non-controversial nature of entries and their ability to be corroborated in other ways. I remain unsure if Wikipedia editors are being overly formal in their interpretations in this case, and if there isn't more for flexibility with entries of this sort. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for only a brief time, but have been a reader/user of Wikipedia for much longer. My sense, on entries that I have some expertise with, is that the reality is less formal than this instance, without the quality being reduced. Of course, there is variability in entries and the rules help to ensure quality. Hopefully these rules will not have the unintended consequence of reducing quality. I think that there are other checks and balances, such as common sense and expertise, that might profitably enter into the equation. These appear to be taken into account by Wikipedia, in certain instances, but it is not clear how far they extend. Ddp224 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the independence of the IS group and Haskins Laboratories: Given that the IS group was founded by members of Haskins Laboratories, and you (one of the founders) are the primary contributor to both articles, it seems obvious that while formally independent (after all, the IS group isn't even formally connected to its participants), they are not independent enough to avoid the appearance of a close connection. The Haskins page about the IS group is unsigned, but I assumed (perhaps rashly) that it was written by a participant in the group. (While COI with respect to editing activity is not relevant to content decisions, COI or the appearance of it regarding an article's sources is relevant.) In a nutshell, it looks like no one not associated with the IS group has published anything about it even on the internet. Maybe my impression was wrong; if the Haskins info is truly independent of the IS group, then the article would probably not be something I would spontaneously choose to delete. (However, lacking multiple independent sources, it would still failed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.)

--ragesoss 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree that there is a close connection between the IS group and its founders, including me. Haskins Laboratories does not have "members" nor does it have any kind of connection to the IS group. It is a world-renowned research laboratory that has been around since 1935 and has helped to shape the history of science in various fields and continues to make discoveries at the cutting edge. It has employees, volunteers, and friends and is, in general, a pretty informal place. The original founders of the IS group have had affiliations with Haskins in the past and some continue to have such affiliations, but some of the individuals have also had affiliations with Yale and the University of Connecticut and, again, I contend that there is no close connection between Yale University or the University of Connecticut and the IS group. The process of adding content to the Haskins website varies. Source material is usually provided to professional science writers (contractors independent of Haskins), who then synthesize this material into a final product. This material is then subject to review by a website editorial committee, further edited by a webmanager (who is not me or anyone associated with IS), and approved by an administrator (who is not me or anyone else associated with IS). Websource content would, of course, usually be dependent on interviews and/or conversations with primary sources. Much material is from oral histories obtained before participants either left or died. Other material is from interviews with professional journalists. Other material is from newspaper articles and press releases. Haskins is not associated with the IS group and has published minimal information about it, but it has acknowledged on its website the historical connection to the IS group formation and has also published a strong disclaimer about any existing connections between the two entities. Conflicts of interest, which I am very familiar with from federal policy and regulation, and also from a corporate standpoint, etc., is usually mitigated by a number of events, including the passage of time. Thus, judges who have a COI with former colleagues from, let's say, their former law firm, usually recuse themselves for a period of about 2 years, depending upon the nature of the relationship. After this, the COI usually no longer exists. There is, of course, variability in this, depending upon the circumstances. Thanks again for your input on these matters. Ddp224 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Our requirements here are not formal, but substantive. We require three things, which overlap: verifiability, neutrality, and non-originality; we have, as a consensus-based organization, developed many ways to say these same things. In principle, any article must consist of sourced statements, phrased in a neutral manner, derived from sources which any reader can confirm, independent of the author's personal knowledge. (Do we fully meet these standards everywhere? most places? No, of course not.)
      - (a) I would consider a requirement such as multiple-sources to be both substantive and formal, if there are no exceptions (or clearly defined limited exceptions) to the requirement. Requirements imply, to me at least, formalities. If possible, please define "formal" and "substantive" and clarify the differences for me. (b) Part of what I am trying to understand relates to your last point ("Do we fully meet these standards ..."). I, of course, would also haved liked to have met the standards, but have also been trying to understand the degree of flexibility that is allowed (in principle or practice) and how it rates to the mundaneness of the entry. I am not interested in this out of desire to exploit the system in any way, but because of what I see as a potential benefit for getting more informal than usual information into Wikipedia, as long as it can be verified in some sensible way. Thanks! Ddp224 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For these reasons and others, we strongly recommend that editors, like yourself, eschew autobiography. (I know one editor who has an article about himself, which unquestionably meets our requirements. His only edit to it added his birthday.) This article is a larger autobiography, and has the same problems. I hope you will come back, and make contributions about things less important to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated. Putting autobiography aside for just a moment, I continue to believe that portions of the IS group entry consist of appropriately sourced statements, are phrased in a neutral manner, and are derived from sources which any reader can confirm. Some of the information that appears in this entry was added not because I originally thought that it should be there, but because after starting the entry and hearing from a Wikipedia editor (weregerbil) about notability, I attempted to provide what I thought (at that time) was appropriate information to establish both notability and sourcing. Since being informed of COI and autobiographical concerns (that I was previously unaware of), I have refrained from modifying the entry in any way, because it would appear to me to be inappropriate to do so. Thus, material in the entry that does not meet these tests has not been removed. Other material seems to meet some of the Wikipedia criteria to varying degrees. But, as has been noted, there are issues of multiple sourcing, etc., that weaken this entry. As a newcomer, I have been very intentionally trying to learn about the rules and flexibility of Wikipedia, not to push the limits, but to explore how informal material is handled. This article was not intended as autobiography, but a simple attempt to report verifiable, historical events that I thought were of some interest and importance to those who use Wikipedia as an importance refrence. Perhaps I misled myself by starting the IS group entry after looking at The Reality Club entry and believing that the latter was a standard, appropriate Wikipedia entry, but that I could do a better job than was done in that case. My experience with Wikipedia has not been bitter, but it has sometimes been very frustrating and time consuming. At times I found the editors insulting (see interactions with weregerbil), inappropriately inaccurate (such as ragesoss comment about the lack of expertise on my part and the part of others with informal science), off the point, and, to my mind, not very competent regarding clearly and simply explaining the Wikipedia policies to newcomers. I realize that this is a volunteer effort on the part of the editors, and appreciate their effort. Nevertheless, I don't feel that direct questions that I asked were answered clearly, nor were Wikipedia policies explained in a timely fashion. For those reasons, coupled with my density on some of these issues and my desire to more fully understand Wikipedia's flexibility on informal issues, this process has stretched out. I certainly would consider adding appropriate information to Wikipedia, but doubt that I would bother spending times on things that aren't important to me. Thanks again. Ddp224 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brevity is the soul of something or other... Robertissimo 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Discussion becomes the basis for the recommendation of deletion. Apparently, I continue to misunderstand both the practices of Wikipedia and the soul of its community. I had thought that this section was for conversation and debate regarding proposed delection of an article, and perhaps also for providing assistance and guidance for newcomers like me regarding appropriate Wikipedia practices, and did not realize that brevity, which is clearly not my strong suit, was desired. Sorry. By the way, the full quote is: "Brevity is the soul of wit," from Hamlet. In addition to brevity, a little more wit would be nice. Ddp224 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid 64 22:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florentin Smarandache[edit]

This article exists solely to promote Florentin Smarandache, who has promoted himself via extensive sockpuppetry in various & sundry places on the Internet. Here's an excerpt from one of my personal favorite sockpuppet episodes (there are many more): Hello from India! [4] posted from an ip address belonging to UNM-Gallup, the employer of Smarandache. Now that this bio is up for deletion, we can expect a flurry of sockpuppets coming forth to cheer for Smarandache & question the motives of everyone in sight. Please in the name of all that is good let's not reward sockpuppetry and self-promotion with a Wikipedia article. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Smarandache may be a wacky self-promoter and much of the sort of math he does may be the kind of unmotivated axiomatics and base-specific number theory that more serious mathematicians find trivial, but he's well known for it and therefore notable. —David Eppstein 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added later: "reward"? Since when is being in Wikipedia a reward to be handed out only to the virtuous? Notability is not the same as quality. —David Eppstein 08:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as quality. Yes. So what? Relentless self-promotion doesn't make him notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails the WP:PROF test and other tests on WP:BIO. I don't know that he is well-known for "unmotivated axiomatics and base-specific number theory". That seems like quite the stretch. --ScienceApologist 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable doofus. -- Dominus 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the information about Smarandache outside of Wikipedia seems to be written by Smarandache himself. If material written by Smarandache is excluded, it is unclear that much of anything is left. Hence, this person is non-notable outside of what he has written on himself. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search of Amazon.com for Smarandache comes up with 182 books, many of them not written by him. When you can get a dozen authors--W. B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Linfan Mao, Mladen Vassilev-Missana; Krassimir Atanassov, Amarnath Murthy and Charles Ashbacher, Yi Yuan and Kang Xiaouyu, Howard Iseri, Sebastián Martín Ruiz, Ion Soare, and Wenpeng Zhang--to write books with your name in the title, you're notable. As for verifiability, Thompson Gale's Contemporary Authors series--which should be neutral, and available in most major academic libraries--has an article on him, which is available standalone from Amazon for six bucks. I'm getting a strong feeling that people are confusing dislike of the person with notability. I don't know much about the guy, but even if his works were insipid cultic trash, getting this many people from around the world to write about his work, plus the biography in Contemporary Authors, makes him notable. P.S. Can we avoid the preemptive attack on all who would vote to keep this article? It runs into WP:AGF area.--Prosfilaes 09:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to look up these books. Most are self-published books, some of them filled with mathematical garbage, next to some meaningful but entirely unexceptional stuff like you'd expect any associate professor to be able to produce. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dominus nailed it. DavidCBryant 10:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge. The point is not whether he is notable, but that the article violates Wikipedia rules for a bio. Exclude material only written by Smarandache himself. pom 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which Wikipedia rules? It doesn't impress me as a featured article, but there's no glaring NPOV problems, and WP:AUTO doesn't demand that self-written articles be deleted, nor that information from the subject be excluded (WP:AUTO--"One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information."). Also, generally "merge", "delete", and "keep" are acceptable responses to an AfD. If you request is that the article be edited in some way, "keep" it and make the changes or bring it up on the talk page.--Prosfilaes 11:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so Delete. pom 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Submillimeter. Akihabara 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence this person is notable. Did I miss something, like that he is mentioned in The Guinness Book of Records as the worlds' top self-promotor? Even if the person was notable, if you remove everything from the article that is completely uninteresting or unverifiable, nothing of encyclopedic value is left. --Lambiam^Talk 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I get a feeling that people are a bit biased against this guy? His theories that a dozen people have written books on isn't a bit notable? A hypothesis listed on Eric Weisstein's World of Physics isn't a bit notable?--Prosfilaes 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The way this hypothesis is presented on Eric Weisstein's World of Physics is as follows:
  Several authors have published theories claiming that the speed-of-light barrier imposed by relativity is illusionary. While these "theories" continue to be rejected by the physics community as ill-informed speculation, their proponents continue to promulgate them in rather obscure journals. An example of this kind is the Smarandache hypothesis, which states that there is no such thing as a speed limit in the universe (Smarandache 1998).[5]
  
  Maybe they are "a bit biased" too. If you look up the reference[6], it is really totally unscientific even in comparison with your run-off-the-mill piece of pseudo-scientific junk. It reads like the typical junk faster-than-light speculation posted by a freshman on a bulletin board. I don't know whether Smarandache was picked randomly, or as a particularly egregious example of ignorant speculation. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provided the 134 published titles factoid is true. (How many do you have?) As for the wacky self-promotion, clean it up. (Maybe it's a Romanian thing that the rest of us just can't understand.) Lou Sander 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His books are published by vanity publishers. Please reconsider. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I counted the number of pages on his website where he manages to use his own name, whether for Smarandache Social Paradox, Smarandache's Law on Sensations and Stimuli, Smarandache Notions, Quantum Smarandache Paradoxes, Smarandache Geometry, Smarandache Anti-Geometry, Smarandache Function, Smarandache Palindrome, Smarandache n-structure, Smarandacheials, Smarandache Zero Divisors, Smarandache-Rodrigues-Maiorino Theory, Smarandache Divine Paradoxes, Smarandache Semigroups, Smarandache multiplicative functions, Smarandache Complex, Smarandache Groupoids, Smarandache Number, Smarandache-Zero Divisor, Smarandache's Illusion, Smarandache's Syndrome, ..., it just goes on and on. I found 336 such pages. The guy is just incredibly prolific. Most of it (established by sampling) either makes no sense, or is completely elementary and utterly trivial. A Lambiamoid Number is a prime number plus one. Lambiam's Theorem: 3 is the only odd Lambiamoid Number. Lambiam's Hypothesis: There is an infinite source of energy. Lambiam's Paradox: 0×0 = 0, therefore 0 = 0/0 = undefined. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that several people writing articles in the walled-garden Smarandache universe are the Master himself writing under a pseudonym. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable. John Vandenberg 14:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (it should be very weak!), there is some borderline notability there but Wikipedia is to be an ancyclopedia not a collection of autobiographies, which is why we have WP:AUTO, it should be written neutrally as in WP:NPOV,it should include multiple neutral sources as in WP:BIO and should be independently verifiable as in WP:V, autobiographies are generally neither of the above and I better stop writing or I'll be swinging to delete Alf photoman 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is painful. What can we say about this guy in accordance with WP:BLP? Not much I'm afraid. We do know Smaranadache is an associate professor at a two year college in New Mexico. He got promoted recently (from assistant prof!). He writes a lot, and with a few exceptions, publishes most of it in vanity presses and most of it is trivial, wrong or a rehash of known stuff. He styles himself a painter. Is this notability in the style of Archimedes Plutonium? I don't think so.Delete.--CSTAR 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is going to be kept, then the article should include references about Smaranadache that were unambiguously not written by Smaranadache. Can anybody identify such materials? If not, then the article should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's an odd guy and lousy mathematician to be sure, but I think he is notable enough. Besides it warms my heart that he got a PhD from Moldova State University :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Oleg. BTW is that a tie or a loin cloth that he's wearing in the picture?--CSTAR 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I usually vote delete for guys who do this kind of self-promotion on the internet using aliases and other dirty tricks. But this guy can be considered a success story for a mathematician without any notable result. For example, I see that Eric W. Weisstein has some stuff on one of his theories. :-) bogdan 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least he's listed in the University of New Mexico faculty directory. (Look HERE and enter Smarandache.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep but limit to verifiable info. (I demonstrated just now by removing one unverified section) The Gales series is selective, and is the sort of objective secondary source suitable for WP purposes. I don't like him is bias, plain and simple. DGG 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Smarandache sequences and Smarandache-Wellin numbers have extensive articles in MathWorld, so maybe a kook, but still a notable one. Article could be pruned/cleaned up, but this is not sufficient reason for deletion. Gandalf61 12:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these topics are notable we should have articles on these topics. We have articles on Atkin-Lehner theory, Bradford's law, Klinefelter's syndrome, and Zappa-Szep product, to name just a few, without articles on the namegivers. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have an article on Smarandache-Wellin numbers. And I think it's slightly perverse to say a concept can be notable but the person that it's named after may not be - but I won't press the point ! Gandalf61 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much better example than the one CMummert found of a subject that should be a missing topic despite its presence on MathWorld. I've prodded for notability. —David Eppstein 18:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would actually prefer that biographies like this would not appear here on wikipedia, perhaps just some articles on some things that Smarandache has done. But currently we can read many such entries on wikipedia, so according to how the wiki rules are applied in practice, we cannot delete this article. If we delete this article then a large number of similar biographies should be deleted as well as other articles on marginally notable topics. E.g. what about The Hockaday School and St. Mark's School of Texas.? Count Iblis 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian existential humanism[edit]

The term seems to occur mainly on Wikipedia sites and its mirrors, and the creator's personal site, besides probably self-promotion on blogs etc.
Appears to be, very much like "Reconstructivism" which has been proposed on 11 Jan 2006 by someone else as Afd as well, a strictly personal opinion, which comes to the article being a hoax, and created by User:Kitoba mainly to promote his personal website "Kitopedia" by Christopher "Kitoba" Sunami. That user had in August been asked on his talk page to remove links to his personal website, apparently without result (even after my today's removal of such link from another but assumedly serious article Christian existentialism before I realized what had been going on.) The here proposed Afd links towards forementioned other Afd. See early article history and also the other article's. I repeat my suggestion as with my deletion vote there, to check out other contributions by the article's creator, look for possible sockpuppets and historically used IPs. — SomeHuman 14 Jan 2007 06:10 (UTC)

Delete neologism, promo and original research, and lack of any WP:RS. Dragomiloff 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dragomiloff. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WJBscribe. Static Universe 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kai-ki[edit]

delete Non-notable - I think this is made up - please see the articles Talk page.Peter Rehse 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability or references from WP:RS can be provided. Akihabara 12:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable references by Googling, and found one suggestion on a martial arts blog[7] that kai-ki is a synonym for Kempo - this was the closest thing I was able to find to a proper reference. What's described on this page is not, at any rate, Kempo; and while the article stays unreferenced and the content unverifiable, I'd go for deletion. Squeezeweasel 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as i have done this martial arts before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpandaxx (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid 64 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Linux[edit]

Delete This simply is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. If anything this should be an article about comparisons that other people have made with appropriate WP:RS cites. Instead we have fanboys for whichever platform coming in and "fixing" the article back and forth to fit their own POV. AlistairMcMillan 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous debate/nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux

Comment The deleting editor has tried this technique before with Windows v. MAC OS-X e.g. previous debate/nomination for similar article here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X_(second_nomination) where the article was very similar looking 30 minutes before the AfD [8] but was then rapidly gutted by many edits after the AfD failed e.g. [9] . The Windows v. MAC OS-X article now fits conveniently on a 3.5 x 2 inch business card. Ttiotsw 09:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you accusing me of making a bad faith nomination or whatever you are insinuating. However if you look at the edit history you'll see that the last time I edited the Win V Lin page was back in July 2006. You'll also please note that the Win V Mac page also now only contains cited information. AlistairMcMillan 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, welcome back, but with no edits on the page for 6 months you say hi with an AfD ? I was contrasting that method of arriving at consensus with your edits to the similar class of article at Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X. That article is now less than 100 words long: the article on belly fluff is over twice as long and 4 times as many wikilinks and yet these two OS are some of the largest software projects in the world backed by very focused and large companies. This just doesn't feel right. Ttiotsw 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being too subtle. I think "Comparison of operatingsystemX and operatingsystemY" articles are a mistake. I don't think they are encyclopedic. I think they are a magnet for POV edits from people who really don't care about our policies. Unless someone is going to make a lifetime commitment to keeping this article under control, I don't see how this article can be kept in a NPOV manner, even if it is tidied up enough to reach an NPOV state in the first place. Note that this article has been here for two and half years now, and never reached a healthy state. Two and a half years. AlistairMcMillan 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned it's been 2 weeks or so (busy too as kids back to school) since I started on this article. For others maybe 1 day or for yourself it looks like 2 or so years. Linux has new kernel releases every few months, KDE and GNOME have had many updates and even Microsoft have finally got out their latest though in the interim have issued service packs and other stuff. Microsoft, Linux and Wikipedia are all moving targets. They never will stable !. What happened last week is a distant memory and certainly what happened 2 and 1/2 years ago is completely irrelevant to today. POV edits to me are more interesting than vandalism. Look at an article like Tennis ball. I don't care less for Tennis but every few weeks I revert vandalism. So does antivandalbot and others. I have no idea why it attracts crap. Is it a reason to cull the article ? No. Has it ever been "stable" ? No if the past month is anything to go by. Your noble quest to AfD'ing articles that doesn't stabilize within some timeframe you have in mind is to me quixotic given the fluid nature of Wikipedia and that I do not see a policy that says this is what has to happen. Ttiotsw 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Most other comparison articles are straight side-by-side lists of features; this one delves heavily into original research to draw conclusions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the question here, given that we have numerous other "comparison" articles on Wikipedia, is whether or not the ultra-controversial nature of the article itself will directly prevent it from being maintained in a policy-compliant form for any length of time. If, as AlistairMcMillan suggests, the article is (and will remain) a constant source of POV-based edit wars by either "camp" then the article very well may need to be deleted. If, however, it is possible to clean up the article into a policy-compliant form and keep it that way then it should be cleaned up and remain on Wikipedia. At least, that's my interpretation of this AfD. Discuss among yourselves. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not suitable. Big top 07:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too close to WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a review or opinion piece. Agent 86 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I've only just started to look at this article in the past few weeks and I feel that there is sufficient material around to fill out the "citation needed" tags with trustworthy cites. Part of the problem is that there is quite a lot of disinformation, from both camps. Fact is that the article has 46 references and 10 citation needed tags now in an article 44 kbytes long so doesn't feel that bad from looking at other articles. The article will understandably be complex as OS's are probably some of the most complex software projects that humans have created. It does seem odd that this quite extensive (i.e. encyclopaedic) article that is slowly settling on a NPOV (remembering that Wikipedia has no version 1.0) is tagged for AfD whilst at the same time the editor requesting the delete is busy editing the very slim article on Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X e.g. [10] in a positive way. The AfD states "This simply is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia." and yet they agree with the idea of comparing any two OS's by editing another similar class of article. This indicates a bias; why not simply edit this article to fit their idea of what the article should look like ? I call this AfD nonsense on that basis in that it is a subject for an encyclopaedia as Windows and Linux is extensively compared in the tech community and the deleting editor actually edits in a positive way the same class of article and that the article has "refs" outnumbering "cites needed" by 4:1 showing a need to expand on the cites and not delete the lot. Ttiotsw 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been around since last July (2006) and a review of the long and contentious history does not indicate any tendency for the article to resolve itself "into a policy-compliant form". The article shouldn't be a comparison, it should be about the controversy and the stances of the various participants in the controversy. That can be factual and can be based on appropriate sources. If the proponents of this article want to write that one, then let us delete this one, and they can create a new "Windows vs. Linux Controversy" article from scratch. How long is it appropriate to allow them to fight before quashing it? --Bejnar 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as similar articles exist, but anything that doesn't come from a reliable source explicitly comparing corresponding aspects of the systems, is on borrowed time. Contentious articles (e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict) often end up having to accept a stricter application of verifiability. Gazpacho 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure that this article could be improved, like most thing in WikiPedia, but it is clearly a notable topic and seems well referenced. NBeale 12:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork of Comparison of operating systems --⁪froth^T 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ttiotsw. Comparisons between these two OS are a common occurrence, making this notable and verifiable. As a result, AfD isnt a good way to address POV problems. John Vandenberg 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been around since August 2004. It has always been POV. What do you suggest should be done to fix this? Should we wait another two and a half years for this page to sort itself out? AlistairMcMillan 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforce WP:V and WP:OR by requiring everything about merits of the systems in practice (security, cost, stability) to be cited to reliable sources comparing the two systems. Side-by-side comparisons of basic implementation details, like file access control, are OK, but they should be cited as well. Gazpacho 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be WP:BOLD and trim the article down to what is NPOV. If a edit war develops, follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably where this request should have been taken. John Vandenberg 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous. So we get it into an NPOV state... what happens then? Check back every other day for the rest of my natural life to revert the nonsense that WILL attach itself to the page? Are either of you volunteering? This page is a magnet for POV edits. It will not stay in an NPOV manner. Please examine the edit history, others have tried. AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on my watch list. John Vandenberg 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it's a straight list of stats, I see no chance (looking at the history) that this article will ever escape it's POV and OR roots. --Larry laptop 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if people want to present information about various operating systems, comparison of operating systems is by far the better choice. This article however, tends to create a problem in its direction. Note, however, that the information itself is certainly not completely out of place, if anywhere though, it would be best placed in the article on the given operating system. FrozenPurpleCube 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many technological differences between the systems (notably in the security model, file system and the device drivers/kernel). These differences are verifiable and encyclopedic. While individual entries may discuss these differences, an overview of these differences is needed. --h2g2bob 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, why can't this role be filled by the more generic Comparison of operating systems article? I know some people may wish to just compare Linux or Windows, but I'd rather choose that page than this one. FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Comparison article can't really go into any depth on this topic. It assumes a wide range of knowledge without explanation (which is good for a quick reference, which it is). If it needs to be merged, I think it would be better merged with Windows vs OSX, as differences can be discussed more in depth. --h2g2bob 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, why not add that desirable depth to the other article? Or to the respective operating systems, if there is some need for the information there? FrozenPurpleCube 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous sources and studies have directly compared Windows and Linux, and this provides plenty of material from which to write a well-sourced and NPOV article. An assertion that this has not yet happened is an argument for WP:SOFIXIT, WP:RFC, WP:CU, or even a complete stubbing and rewrite, depending on the depth of the problem, but not for deletion. Many comparisons are directly between Win and Linux, not between other OS's, so this article provides a place for information which is not adequately covered by Comparison of operating systems. Seraphimblade 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Seraphimblade. For complicated topics that require large articles, a comparison is useful as a summary. It can be done objectively. Even a comparison of people's opinions can be done objectively, and it is sometimes wiseto keep it off the main article.DGG 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've seen worse articles get better treatment. You're never going to get it just right, as is Wikipedia. At the very least, I would say that unless the article has the title Why Linux is better than Windows or Why Windows kicks Linux's ass, this should stay.Mitch 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting it because it atracts POV bias is like not going to the market to buy food because it rains. The point is whether you are hungry and need the food, not whether it will be confortable to buy. To me the subject deserves an encyclopaedic entry, as potentially many people can benefit from resorting to Wikipedia to find this info. — Isilanes 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, this will be a magnet for POV, but it's improvable. As regards to "not suitable for an encyclopedia", what do you say about http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Windows+Linux+comparison&btnG=Search "Results 1 - 10 of about 38,800,000 for Windows Linux comparison"? Check out Torchic: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Torchic+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000 for Torchic -wikipedia." {Slash | Talk} 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you are making? --Larry laptop 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By not suitable for an encyclopedia, I meant that we could mention that people do compare the two operating systems. What we shouldn't be doing is making the arguments in the article ourselves. Which is what is currently happening. AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the article being improvable... people said the same thing six months ago in the previous AFD. Did the article improve in those six months? Yep a few people had a go, but they all eventually lost interest. What is going to be different this time? AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frankly, I've written too much good content to stomach the deletion.

As to the argument that this piece attracts POV, there are dozens of Wikis with more inflammatory subject matter. GW Bush, for example.

This article is inherently an opinion piece. Many of you seem to feel the best route is to restrict the whole thing to 'facts'. I would counter that there are few, if any absolutes in such a comparison, and that only way ever approach NPOV is to back up everything you say with reasoning and support. The conclusion alone isn't enough; there must be context and references. In short, the 'why' must be present, and in a rote recital of 'facts', it is not. Dave Indech 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must commend you on managing to hit virtually all of the points covered in "arguments not to use at AFD" in one short paragraph - we have WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, "what about article X" and an admission that it's an op-ed piece! (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV!) Oh plus an rebuttle to those who want to keep a wikipedia article to "facts" (WP:V, WP:OR). --Larry laptop 09:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. Be civil or please don't talk.

The most important word in my first line was 'good'. The fact that I wrote the content is irrelevant. My contributions are legitimately worth keeping because they add to the encyclopedia, and that's the reason I would rather the article remain.

'Like it' was not in my post.

The comment about the George Bush article remains valid. The sole reason for a delete cannot be because an article attracts POV. A bad article with POV is better than no article. Eventually, it will improve.

Finally, NPOV is an entirely relative concept. A comparison, by nature, depends on the relative values of the person making it. It can approach neutrality, but never achieve it. Moreover, the value judgements that color NPOV add to the worth of the article.

While this comparison will never be a shining paragon of the Wiki way, I feel it should nonetheless remain.

Dave Indech 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- There seems to be a bit of an identity crisis over what Wiki is and is not. One article says, "articles must be encyclopaedic". Another says, "Wikipedia is not Britannica; we're not limited to that". I'm firmly in the latter camp. It's articles like the one we're debating that keep me coming back.

Someone needs to invent a barnstar for that. AlistairMcMillan 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and more clearly assert notability in first paragraph in NPOV phrasing. If you read a variety of major computing-related magazines, both "industry" and "consumer" types, you know that this specific comparison has been widely featured in recent years to an extent not just part of Comparison of operating systems's scope. Well-sourced, doesn't appear to need much cleanup, except trimming to better meet WP:NOT a how-to guide or tech manual. Barno 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On review, while there are a lot of online sources, this article could add citations from at least a dozen monthly print magazines that have done cover stories. Barno 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JRPG (game)[edit]

Non-notable video game that lacks reliable sources, news coverage, etc... PROD removed with the edit summary, "This game is a free tool for learning japanese, and is notable because it is the only one that is free of cost and is under a free license.". Delete as lacking any secondary sources and no real claims of notability. Wickethewok 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no signs of being anything other than something some guy made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a interesting idea, but suffers from lack of sources and WP:COI. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Software isn't notable for being free, it's notable for being popular (which could come from being free). --⁪froth^T 13:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not notable. 87.19.32.28 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen it referenced at many online japanese learning communities, and been directly told about it by many people. Google "jrpg zabor" highlights many of those references, including reviews of the tool itself made by people who, like me, are studying the language.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out somee of these "references"? I'm looking through the google results right now and don't see anything that approaches what a reliable source should be. Wickethewok 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Umm. That google search gives about 66 unique hits, 17 or so are wikipedia mirrors. The remaining are mostly forum, blog, and nonsense entries. We need reliable sources to verify notability. (Notability is something that cannot be measured by an editor's testimony that something it notable, it needs to be backed up with reliable sources.) --Kunzite 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability is presented in the article. It misses proposed software guidelines. --Kunzite 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. The only thing Google searchs come up with is this article, the game's website, and a ton of blogs and forum posts, all unreliable sources. Mitaphane _talk 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability established. Note that the JRPG disambiguation page already covers this sufficiently. --Alan Au 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usefulness does not lend it notability. Dekimasu 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Dana Surf Shop[edit]

Request deletion. This is a non-notable surf shop. The Killer Dana that takes up some of the article is notable, but it has its own article Killer Dana, that does not provide notability to the surf shop. Two editors previously noted the lack of notability when the article was first posted in September 2006. All that the proponents did was merely to assert notability without discussion or citation and to remove the questioning tags. This does not meet WP:CORP, plenty of time was provided. --Bejnar 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local surf shop with three stores. Fails WP:CORP. Dragomiloff 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Global presence- compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jon and further research WP:CORP, as it is clear that this article meets requirements and stands as an article of import, esp to clarify the article Killer Dana from the corporation Killer Dana Surf Shop Be careful to suggest delete without fully understanding justifications for articles such as this to exist, such as in the case with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jon Eng500 16:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Global presence"? Where? Because they have a web site (on which they don't even call themselves global either)?
- Ron Jon: There is no comparison. Ron Jon is a widely known tourist destination, and recognized by just about every Floridian (due to Ron Jon seemingly buying more billboard space than any other advertiser), and the billboards are about the first thing tourists see when crossing the border. Killer Dana isn't a tourist destination, it's a surf shop known mostly to surfers; it certainly doesn't have the name recognition throughout the state that Ron Jon has. I don't see this as a valid comparison.
- Furthermore, you don't need a separate article to make a distinction between a geographic location and a surf shop; that can be done in one article. =Axlq 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further clarification It doesn't work to use opnions as to which retail has a stronger presence or respect among tourists- this is not provable information and is geographically biased information. Ron Jon's isn't even well known (nor taken seriously) in Southern California- arguably the mecca of surfing in the United States. As someone educated in surfing history, I confirm that Killer Dana is a well known retailer (of over a decade) that is an intregral part of the Southern California surf industry, epecially in Dana Point. The Global referrence was merely explaining the distribution of it's product worldwide. But you are correct, it is not a "global" corp. in the sense that it has headquarters on other continents. Killer Dana is also a manufacturer of apparel, especially Boardshorts- also the largest single retailer of this same item. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eng500 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Ron Jon isn't taken seriously by surfers in Florida either, which just strengthens my point that it's invalid to compare a surf shop with a tourist destination. Again, you don't need a separate article; all the information I see so far can be made part of Boardshorts or other articles. -Axlq 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not notable, I'd recommend speedy per A7 if not for the other AFD. delldot | talk 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, preferably speedy. =Axlq 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by RadioKirk. Tevildo 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chanello's Pizza[edit]

Delete fails to meet notability standards for companies, see WP:CORP. Strothra 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertisement. --Takeel 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (failing WP:CORP). No 3rd-party sources provided. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Can't find any websites mentioning them except directory listings, MySpace pages and the company's numerous websites. Hut 8.5 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised this wasn't speedied under db-spam. Squeezeweasel 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedily deleted as nonsense from an obvious vandal sock puppet and protected as a redirect to The Simpsons Movie (as was done with The Simpsons Movie: Music From the Motion Picture). —David Levy 11:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie: Music From The Motion Picture[edit]

Speedy Delete & Protect - This page is unsourced, not verifiable, and created by a sock of the UPN vandal, a mass vandal who deliberately adds incorrect information to film-related articles. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 07:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Pirates[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. ⁪froth^T 07:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Big top 07:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect the lead section into History of Lego. The list of serial numbers is an indiscriminate collection of information. James086Talk 13:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove listcruft, then merge and redirect what remains into minifigure. -- The Anome 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into minifigure. Arnoutf 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great article, but it's a notable subset of a very notable toy. Artw 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into minifigure me hardies! SkierRMH,07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect lead section into minifigure per The Anome, get rid of list. delldot | talk 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should not be merged or redirected. It may not be a great page right now, but adding and finding information does not happen overnight. Lego Minifigure/Minifigs is a Lego element. Lego Pirates is one theme of many different Lego theme pages listed on Wikipedia. Example: Lego Train, Lego Star Wars, Lego Exo-Force, Lego Bionicle, Lego Mindstorms, Lego Space, Lego Castle and so on. The reason Lego Pirates page was created, was the same reason why the other Lego themes pages were created. There was a big debate/discussion about (should or should not) breaking up each theme. There was a agreement that each theme should have their own page. Because the set list, data, images, information of each theme was getting bigger and the page was getting to long. This applys to other companies, brands or hobbies mention and listed on Wikipedia. If this page is merge or redirect, we will have the problem over again. There are about 24 members on the WikiProject Lego or WP:LEGO. Who might be able to help. GoLTG 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Pirate LEGO" should under no circumstances be merged or redirected to "minifigure" as Pirates is an entire LEGO theme which encompasses much more than just minifigures. I think GoLTG is absolutely right, there is plenty more information to be added to this page. If anyone wants to discuss the development of this page on a dedicated to Pirate LEGO then by all means create a thread at Eurobricks Pirate LEGO Forum as there are many knowledgeable Pirate LEGO fanatics who frequent that forum on a daily basis. I have added some information regarding the Ladybird Book series and 1993 LEGO Expo "Pirates Ahoy". I have also added other titles of topics relating to Pirate LEGO which can be expanded on. At present I don't have time to do it all myself so I urge others to contribute until I find the time. Mr Phes 08:13, 16 January 2007 (AESDT)
Keep if we can have articles on each variety of pokemon, why cant we have articles on varieties of lego kits? It's at least as notable, and probably played with by more children worldwide. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by RadioKirk. Tevildo 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Humanism[edit]

Appears to be pure self-promotion or promotion by one who fell for it (see article's earliest history and its talk page). Only repeats its most dubious, promotional links. No sources acceptable to WP standards. No coined term outside its own group of adherers (unless about unrelated topics like in THE SPIRITUAL HUMANISM OF THE JESUITS itself stating "I am struck time and again at what, for lack of a better term, I can only call their spiritual humanism.") and thus not meeting WP:N. — SomeHuman 14 Jan 2007 07:30 (UTC)

Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. Fails any notability criteria. Sandstein 07:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination).

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Franklin (2nd nomination)[edit]

A prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Franklin was overturned at deletion review based on the undiscussed tidbit that the video named after her is a compilation, so not covered under WP:PORNBIO, so we're back here now for more discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion (other than the question: Does porn fall under "media and music" or "fiction and the arts"?). ~ trialsanderrors 07:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this article technically fails WP:PORNBIO, the real reason to delete it is because it is crap. Poorly written, unreferenced, uninformative, overtly perverse, irredeemable crap. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: With all due respect Anetode, none of those reasons are valid deletion reasons. Poor writing can be cleaned up, references can be added, information can be found, wikipedia is uncensored, and the article can always be fixed up. I do take issue with the overly liberal criterion in WP:PORNBIO however, it seems pornstars are subject to a much lower standard of notability than any other field of entertainer or public figure, specifically the "any video named after them" bit includes a lot of trivial artists. If she passes pornbio, we have no choice but to keep, though. Perhaps we ought to look at trying to tighten up pornbio to control some of the pornocruft. Wintermut3 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that all of these concerns can be addressed by completely rewriting the article, I've done that to several underappreciated stubs before[11]. However I do not think that it is worth it in this case. Sometimes the best action to take w/r/t a crappy article is to flush it down the toilet. Not always, and certainly not because of subject matter in general, but I think that there is nothing wrong with subjecting articles to harsh criticism if they have little, if any, redeeming qualities. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am open to being convinced otherwise, but since the issue at hand from the original nomination was her meeting the criteria set in WP:PORNBIO. After research and tedious debate, she does not. To everyone who says the standard needs to be changed if you don't like it, we have tons of discussion going on in the talk page of PORNBIO. If consensus changes such that she becomes notable under them, then I will be the first to say keep her. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete WP:PORNBIO while we're at it-porn stars should be the same as everyone else, they pass WP:BIO and they stay or they fail it and go. This particular one doesn't even pass either, however. Seraphimblade 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere in WP:PORNBIO does it say that having "any video named after them" is a criterion. The criterion is quite specific that it be an original film, not a compilation. Franklin has a compilation with her name in the title, not an original film. The article meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #7 under the Articles section in that it fails to assert the importance or significance of its subject. (The article can't be nominated for speedy deletion any longer because of the previous AfD. The only information in the article that is sourced is her year and place of birth, her height, and her half-sister's name. The only other information available at the source listed (her IMDb profile) is her videography. All of the other information in the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.—Chidom ^talk 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable, has WP:V problems per Chidom. delldot | talk 21:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to obvious target as below. — brighterorange (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64 kids[edit]

Notability is not asserted Alex Bakharev 08:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is actually quite famous and was turned into a BMW commercial. Probably not notable though --⁪froth^T 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to N64 Kid (not sure if it's a common enough search term to keep the redirect), as this seems to be covering the same topic. Another discussion for deletion of that page can be made later but if it's been parodied by BMW, I'm pretty sure it's notable enough. Axem Titanium 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be notable based on information in the N64 Kid article. Redirect to "N64 Kid". Or redirect "N64 Kid" to this page. Either way, we don't need two articles on the same topic. Lyrl ^Talk _C 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to N64 Kid per above. Several appearances on big shows passes notability, IMO. Hbdragon88 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 0ne article is enough. - Peregrine Fisher 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the N64 kid article covers this better Da Big Bozz 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Merge is not even needed. SYSS Mouse 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly D. Williams[edit]

Request deletion as not notable. Kelly D. Williams is an artist who produces skateboard related art. The only references are in External links to his own web site and a blog interview emailed from Kreativ Network [12] a non-notable association of artists. A search of the commercial EBSCO news and magazine database did not turn up any hits for Kelly D. Williams. A NEXIS search for Kelly D. Williams in art news did not turn up any articles. Nor did I find any reliable sources in a brief Google search, mostly his advertising and takes from this Wikipedia article. This article has been up since April 2006 and notability has not been provided. As the “Official website for Kelly D. Williams” is quite commercial, as well as is the Kreativ Network site, it is not entirely clear where this should be judged for notability as a business or as an artist. As a business it fails WP:CORP. As an artist: There are no book or magazine biographies or even news stories about Kelly D. Williams. Some magazines are listed in the Wikipedia article under "Exhibition & Media Summary", but, for example, Transworld Business Magazine was listed (until removed by an IP editor last week) and a search of their issues 2003 to date did not produce any articles. Similarly a search of the archives of Staf Magazine [13] (a Spanish language zine) did not reveal any interview with Kelly D. Williams, or any Williams, caveat the archive may not have contained the whole of 2006. Kelly D. Williams may have works in some galleries, but so far as I have been able to determine, he has won no awards and had had no one-man-shows. He has no works in museums. He is not notable as an artist. Maybe in twenty years he will be, but it is not there now. --Bejnar 08:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we should also delete the Kelly d williams redirect page. --Bejnar 08:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article but suggest to delete the Kelly d williams redirect page. 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I took a look at the 2006 media mentions listed in his CV. The Street Resource mention seems to be an interview published on the StreetRes blog in Dec 2005[14], republished from a Japanese zine. The interview introduces him as an "up and coming artist". Bejnar's already done most of the legwork, so I just ran the other names of media sources through Factiva - only Lemonade came with 2 very passing mention hits. Factiva search on Williams only brought up a few one line mentions in gallery schedule listings. Bwithh 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly and verifiable sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Removed irrelevant, libelous comment from Afd. Kelly D. Williams is clearly a significant artist in either the underground art world, the commercial design realm, or both. The 2K by Gingham affiliation is substantial, as well as this article I located here: http://www.gimmeshelter.co.uk/ArtistInfo.php?user_id=182 containing multiple testimonials from people who appear to be artists in street art. I will continue to do research and offer cleanups when found. Eng500 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep removed subjective phrases per AfD, found a verifiable source on this artist on the 2K By Gingham website. 2K By Gingham is a company that creates apparel featuring the work of legitimate artists. Kelly D. Williams name was found amongst the names of Barry McGee, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Yoko Ono. An article (a pdf) was also found referencing his gallery appearances. I removed the blog link to the Street interview as it seemed to not have much notability. I'm somewhat new to Wiki, but I will try to offer help to clean up this article. 11:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep – assistance with edit When this article was first created it seemed to have some improvable or at least opinionated information, so I have made few attempts to remove such content and/or add additional resources as they were found. I’ve done this because I’m aware of the credibility of Kelly D. Williams as an actual artist, both as a gallery artist as well as a commercial graphic designer (not a business). As mentioned, there is, in fact, an article/interview with the artist in Staf Magazine – I know this because I have seen the actual issue as well as seen this artist’s artwork on listings for group and solo exhibitions in various art-related periodicals. Reasons for deletion are also highly opinionated, so I propose to remove opinionated content and keep. Eng500 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you can provide verified notability with reliable sources do so. The first requirement of notability for a living person is that the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Further, the person must have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. They can't just be a credible artist. Contributing to the "enduring historical record" usually means that an artist has works in museums (more than one); however, it can also be met where an artist has started an artistic movement. These underlying facts of notability cannot be proved using the content of interviews or other self-promotional works. To show wide recognition, there must be third-party verification from non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the activity. I hope this helps you understand why the current article fails basic notability standards and what needs to be done to establish notability. --Bejnar 04:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Keep – assistance with edit Please refer to the same notability article defining requirements for credibility of a person, which reads “This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.”

Other tests of notability:

Multiple features in popular culture publications, A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following, Name recognition, and Commercial endorsements.

From the research that ALL people have posted on this discussion, this article (or artist as a person) has satisfied several (or ALL) of these tests.

If, after all of this, you can still prove that this article is NOT noteworthy or serves as permitted and valuable information to Wiki users, feel free to mark me down as a “delete”, but this seems like it’s taking excessive argument to justify deleting the article, while several points of valid criteria have been plainly met.

Also note the length of time that this article has existed, the diverse contributions to it, and also consider other articles on Wiki for similar artists in this similar genre of art. Many of them have not been sufficiently written according to the points discussed in this Afd, and therefore serve as referential precedence as preserved articles of significance that should not be deleted. Eng500 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the genre, it is not how long something has been up, (I believe that Wikipedia editoras should allow people time to prove up an article.) it is not the fandom, it is not what was done with other articles (the Pokemon argument), it is the standards. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is clear that if the first criteria is not met, then the others are irrelevant. --Bejnar 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Comment Thank you for once again providing the information in Wikipedia:Notability (people), which above all says this: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." I cannot think of any other argument to clarify the import of this article other than what the Wiki requirements suggest. I think it's obvious that this may be an artist or an article of significance, but i don't have the endurance to do anything other than suggest we Keep and improve this article. --Eng500 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine for dead people. You left out the caveat "Biographies of living persons are subject to additional rules and restrictions. ..." Editors have had six months to prove up Kelly D. Williams, and what did we get: magazine dead ends, which some kind soul has removed, one interview, and bios from related parties (galleries). --Bejnar 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please improve this article if possible. If confirmable text or images are found, go ahead and contribute to this article. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability requirements, but categorized as a stub. Sidenote: Is this the same Kelly D. Williams that is a endorsed snowboarder? I googled a bunch results of a pro or amateur athlete by the same name, mentioning position in arts(?)
~~Comment~~ - Keep Added references, discovered that Kelly D. Williams the artist is also a professional (or possibly amateur) snowboard athlete. Added photo & removed stub. Hope this helps!
Weak Delete None of the sources I checked (I couldn't get the last one to open) were both non-trivial and reliable (I.e. they were all either blogs or art show blurbs). If he as independent notability as a snowboarder (and [15] does say that he is one), I might be persuaded to keep, but right now there is no evidence that he has any thrid-party coverage for snowboarding. Eluchil404 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability may lie in his future, but that's crystalballing... Robertissimo 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 (Article about a website with no assertion of notability) Tonywalton | Talk 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElWiki[edit]

Does not seems to staisfy WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article about website with no asserion of notability. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Cham discography[edit]

Delete. There is no need for a Baby Cham discography, as he has only produced 2 albums, and both, along with all the relevant information, are listed in the Baby Cham article itself. A discography is simply unnecessary as it is only repeating existing content. NPswimdude500 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is a fork from the main article and not necessary. --Ouro 13:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. The existence of this article doesn't violate any policies. Whether the material is better presented here or in the main article is a topic for the Talk pages, not for AfD. Lyrl ^Talk _C 19:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can be interpreted several ways. The way I interpret it, it says that a significant artist's albums should have their own articles. Baby Cham's two albums, Wow... The Story and Ghetto Story both have their own articles. The portion you quoted as evidence says nothing about discographies.--NPswimdude500 03:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the albums have their own pages and there is a category for Baby Cham albums, this page isn't needed and is often out of date with the album information, as it is now. Duplication leads to inconsistencies. Rich257 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lyrl Jcuk 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and redirect to Baby Cham. The artist's article is incredibly short. There is zero reason for this to be a separate page rather than a section of that article. GassyGuy 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If there were a plethora of albums to get through, like The Beatles discography, I'd say keep, but this is easily handled on the artist's article with no confusion/inordinate length there. SkierRMH,05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lyrl. Before heading for AfD, learn about things like merge, redirect and article talk pages. --JJay 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a redirect or a merge is basically the same as a delete in this case since the information is already on the artist's page? You might say that the content has been merged but the source page has not been redirected. Seems reasonable to me to use AfD to discuss it, especially as it's already been prodded.Rich257 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in most cases a redirect should be performed to save the edit history. And AfD is not reasonable at all if: (i) you have not previously attempted the redirect; (ii) you have not entered into prior discussion on the article talk page. Either one of those actions could have prevented a sterile AfD discussion that wastes time and bandwidth. --JJay 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lyrl. Ok if you guys feel that way then do what you want to do ok i'm ok with what you guys are saying i don't feel that there is a disagreement here.

The Black Wall Street 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that you've done most of the work on the Baby Cham discography article (and the Baby Cham article itself). The real problem with a separate discography article in my opinion is that since Baby Cham has only produced two albums, it does not warrant a separate discography page. And seeing as the information is the same, it would be much easier to have it in one source (it would be much easier to keep it up to date. Currently, the discography in the Baby Cham article has more information than the separate article, which really makes it useless. (Excellent work by the way - chart information is quite conclusive).--NPswimdude500 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - selective quote of WP:MUSIC gives the wrong impression. Delete per WP:V and WP:N... Addhoc 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Christmas controversy. NawlinWiki 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The War Against Christmas[edit]

It is a copy of Christmas Anthony Appleyard 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christmas controversies, which is where last year's War Against Christmas article got moved. FreplySpang 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this nonsense per above. Doczilla 10:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Speedy Close, Please - I have no idea why this article was made in its current form. It is, as noted, a copy of the Christmas article, except with one or two minor revisions to imply that Christmas is only celebrated by Christians. I have no idea what Tiger5Claw5 (talk · contribs) was planning when he/she created this article, but I'm sure it could be classified under WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, or WP:STOPSMOKINGCRACK. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christmas controversies. —S .D. ¿п? 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per last year. Squeezeweasel 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Dragomiloff 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid 64 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza farm[edit]

The premise of this article is simply ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "pizza farm;" this concept has no notability. Proabivouac 09:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's ridiculous, but it's also real. The article is backed up with verifiable references. --Eastmain 09:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you allow that it's ridiculous, but still want to keep. What's AfD for if not to rid wikipedia of articles which are ridiculous? Yes, it's ridiculous, but keep is tantamount to saying, "Wikipedia should be ridiculous."

The references are pretty tenuous, actually, and don't preclude a hoax. Even if not, we are talking about how many "pizza farms" here? If only a handful, it approaches advertisement. This is simply not an agreed-upon thing which exists.

I found this alongside Persian garden, Zen garden, etc. on Garden, listed as Pizza garden, an excellent illustration of the corrosive effect this kind of material has on the encylopedia. Are we a serious encylopedia, or an adolescent joke? If the latter, I will grant you that this article has real potential. I am laughing, after all...but if this is an enyclopedia, I really shouldn't be.Proabivouac 09:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concept has been mentioned on HGTV and the presence of other sources further speak to notability, though perhaps their content can't be considered suitable for gauging it. Even if it turns out to be a hoax, it's a notable hoax. (It's no spaghetti trees, but what is?) The only thing that will change if such is the case is that the article will have a section about how a hoax was cooked up in an attempt to popularize it, rather than the existing mention of its rising popularity. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Akihabara 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh please! I will grant the fact that it is a way to organise one's garden (provided you have a round garden), but there's no need to leave this here, as one can plant their carrots and onions in wavy squirrel-shaped areas or their petunias and roses to look like Alec Baldwin, name it, wait a few years and call it a style. If this ever becomes traditional/notable/popular, then yes, but otherwise... the Persian garden, English garden or French formal garden styles are traditional and historical, this is cruft. --Ouro 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm trying to assume good faith here, but the first sentence of this appears to be an attack on... something. Whatever it is I'm being drowned in cynicism. I'm not sure the editor is evaluating this article on its merits so much as the perceived worth of the subject matter itself. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was not meant as an attack, and sorry if you felt that way, Yukichigai, I was just thinking out loud and contemplating the worth of the presence of this article. What bothers me also is the choice of external links, as they point to specific pizza farm'y places and border on advertisement. But, again, this is just how I feel about this. --Ouro 13:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As if "the perceived worth of the subject matter" were irrelevant to the mission of an encyclopedia.Proabivouac 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "The perceived worth of the subject matter" is a nice way of saying "the editor's personal opinion on subject X," i.e. what they think of the concept of a pizza farm outside of its presence on Wikipedia. In that instance no, it doesn't. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another alternative gardening style, we have plenty of unusual articles on gardening. --⁪froth^T 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:V with multiple non-trivial references. It may be silly, but the Biggest ball of twine is silly, and that's not a reason to delete either article. Tevildo 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. This is setting all kinds of cruft bells ringing in my head...but the USA Today reference is genuine and suggests that this has at least marginal notability. Squeezeweasel 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The premise of this AfD "There is no such thing as a "pizza farm;" this concept has no notability" is clearly not true - the external links show that the term pizza farm is indeed used, and that the concept is recognised. To what extent the concept is notable could be subject for debate but the fact that the article is reasonably well written, and gives references on notable websites makes me see little reason to delete. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it could use some more references but otherwise it seems to qualify for being an article. Wrs1864 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, despite the linkspam, silliness doesn't mitigate notability. Spaghetti trees are silly, but notable. This is an novel version of Agritourism that obviously is interesting enough to get some national media attention. Tubezone 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is a recognised concept: per the link additions mentioned, these prove it's indeed used, and are referenced. Notable enough for an article. --SunStar Net^talk 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. ALthough I dislike the spam links, the subject appears to have more than one reference from reliable sources, so possibly passes WP:N. If it helps to stop kids from replying "from a tin" or "the supermarket" when asked where tomatoes or eggs come from, it's probably beneficial. Ohconfucius 07:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So the fact that there are few of them and that it's "silly" (in your opinion) is cause to remove it? Balderdash and poppycock. My daughter has visited out local Pizza Farm and she quite enjoyed the educational benefits of the field trip. It's a unique way of the doing business of selling pizza and that alone should merit its inclusion in this encyclopedia.BlueJimmie 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, notability not asserted. NawlinWiki 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Image (professional wrestler)[edit]

non notable wrestler who fails WP:BIO Hacksawleejin 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Notability not asserted. Having wrestled some notable people and having a reputation in his home town is clearly insufficient. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by RadioKirk. Tevildo 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunglow Tanning Spa[edit]

The page was speedily deleted once and promptly recreated. The creator of the article has said (on the discussion page) that multiple, non-trivial references to this FL tanning salon exist, but that they are under no obligation to cite any of them to establish notability. This seems to be a pretty cut and dried case of WP:N. There is absolutely no reason to think that this tanning salon varies from any of the hundreds of tanning salons in the United States, despite the link to their myspace page. janejellyroll 10:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page. I have no influence on said company. All the information I wrote on the article were what I remembered from a newspaper article about the store from a girl I knew in high school. This page has no instances of self-promotion. There is no advertisement, price list, nor specific list of items and services sold. The reason to think that this tanning salon varies from any of the hundreds of tanning salons in the United States is that I got all the information used to write it from a published periodical, which did not publish the tanning salon article as an advertisement and was not the owners and operators of the store "tooting their own own." It was written by a staff member. This qualifies under the rules of notability. Mghabmw 10:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to be a personal attack. Just because on might not personally not care about Sunglow Tanning Spa, in this case, most people, it does not make it non-noteworthy. Apparently, a Florida periodical tended to care as do I for writing an entry on someone I met 10 years ago in NJ.Mghabmw 10:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Incredibly cut and dry, as per WP:N and WP:CORP. Unless some assertion of notability is made with citations then the page shouldn't be here. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention to cite sources. I don't have the article handy, but I believe it was the Daytona Beach News-Journal sometime in 2006. Mghabmw 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, he's not fooling anyone --⁪froth^T 16:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it as per all of the above and WP:Soapbox. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fooling anyone? I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not, I know what I read. Don't make bullshit guidelines when I'm trying to follow them and then call me a liar because you don't care for an article. 63.136.119.82 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: A newer version of this debate is present at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, at least for now. Those in favor of deletion are correct that this is in need of major cleanup, at a minimum. However, a significant number of people want to give interested editors some time to work on it, especially since at least one has articulated a tentative plan. So let's try that first. — TKD::Talk 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Xenosaga[edit]

Delete Lengthy and unsourced glossary type article on a fictional topic, but the vast amount of detail which constitutes most of this article looks like fanfic, and I cannot find any reliable sources. If verifiable, reliable sources cannot be supplied for this, it should be deleted as per WP:V. In addition, This article suffers under notability, it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective, with nothing at all in the world of out-of-universe, real-world citation. Where's the cultural relevance for a general readers encylopedia? Larry laptop 10:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let me just run down a few things. First off, the reliable sources: the game is a reliable source. More specifically, it's the primary source, and as such is perfectly suitable for matters of WP:RS and WP:V, but not WP:N. Instead, notability is in this case asserted by the "parent" article which the list was (presumably) split off from: Xenosaga. From WP:FICT: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. (emphasis mine) The rest of the nominator's objections warrant a cleanup, not a deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept some of your points but if we followed what you said to your logical conclusion "list of colour of booties that Link wore" would be fine because notability would be expressed by the parent article of "the legend of Zelda" would be there and we'd have the primary source of the game to draw upon. --Larry laptop 11:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if that information were included in the article it would be removed as "tangential" or "irrelevant" information. Notability of list information is established by its notability if it were included in the main article, irrespective of the effect it would have on article flow/size/etc. in that hypothetical. Each of the elements (as far as I can tell) in this list is about a specific plot point, character, or otherwise significant thing within the Xenosaga fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per List of coloured boots that Link wore. --tjstrf talk 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sonofa... well I guess it's not too tangential then. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone was wondering, they all happen to be brown. Except the flippers, which aren't really boots. --tjstrf talk 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my lord! :-) (is this going to be the first afd that gets increasingly good-humoured and warm as it goes on?) --Larry laptop 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't say it any better than yukichiga did. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. Gameguide/cruft. Everything is written from an in-universe perspective with no attempt at real world context or relevance (I mean the article has stuff like

"Ω ID is Ω Universitas in ID Mode. When in ID Mode the craft changes color from blue to red and projects out bright teal wings of energy similar to KOS-MOS' Third Armament. Ω ID is remarkably similar in appearance and purpose to Xenogears' Weltall -ID-, the powerful and destructive "alter-ego" of the game's central Gear, Weltall. It is accessible only near the end of the game after Citrine is defeated aboard the Durandal. She drops a key to the Weapons Development Area of the CAT Facility on Fifth Jerusalem, where the fight between KOS-MOS and Ω Res Novae was held. Revisiting the facility through the EVS, a player can enter the sealed-off section and fight both Ω Universitas and Ω ID.".

I can tell that the above section is a game guide hint, and that's about it.

Wikipedia is not a game guide site/fan site. There are plenty of other sites for that kind of thing. I'm very skeptical about the Zelda/Link items list too, though at least that has the decency not to stay in-universe and also not to allow excessive detail on each item Bwithh 13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've said it before and I'll say it again: objections concerning writing style (such as in-universe perspective) or portions of the article warrant a cleanup tag, not deletion. Basically, these are fixable problems. None of the issues you have raised are concerning the article's subject as a whole. (Except for "cruft", which isn't an argument so much as a way of saying "I don't like it.") -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The fancruft argument is not an extension of WP:ILIKEIT, its an extension of WP:NOT. Even leaving that issue aside, the entire article needs massive cleanup and proper referencing, following WP:NOR, WP:FICT and WP:WAF. The guideline in WP:FICT that minor characters should be merged into one list should not be used as a loophole excuse to allow large unwieldy articles which are amassed collections of rambling no-context plot points. If the article was completely revamped according to the guidelines and standards, it would look nothing like how it does now. If you want to go ahead and totally stubify/rework the article, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. Bwithh 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is properly referenced, or rather has a very minimal threshold for referencing with regards to verifiability, as most (if not all) of the information is implicitly (or in some cases explicity) sourced to the primary source, i.e. the game(s) each section subject appears in. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my plans to rework the Xenosaga articles in the future to decrease the amount of fan masturbation (of which I was guilty of when I first came here nearly two years ago). Let it stay until the plans are set in motion, so that we don't lose the edit history. As I point out on my userpage, don't rush to AfD articles if someone is planning on revamping the article(s) in question (as I stated on the CVG talkpage a day before the AfD was started). I'm not going to pull an all-nighter to work on these articles just because one is on AfD, either; I'll work on them, all right, but it'll have to be when I have the time to do it. If, two months from now, the articles are in the same state, I probably can't find the time to do it and therefore a deletion may be best. But let's be patient here. — Deckill e r 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dig at you - but I've lost count of the amount of times that people have said "honest guv", I'll clean it up in the future. Once the AFD is over, nothing happens. --Larry laptop 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem; AfD is being done more and more incorrectly as of late. AfD should always be a last resort, not a wakeup call; I find it best to let users know that these kinds of articles are unacceptable on an encyclopedia, and then give them ample time to consider a plan and make a major turnaround (like the Final Fantasy pages). Unfortunately, I have been unable to realize my full plans for the Xenosaga pages because of other pressing matters (finsihing what I began at the Final Fantasy wikiproject, copyediting, reviving the star wars project and continuing star wars cleanup, working on an FA, and so on). Either way, the AfD has been launched, and all that is moot because editors are now going to be forced.

Another issue I've had for a while is the use of the term "gameguide". A gameguide is a walkthrough, describing how to do things in a game. This article describes plot elements from the series' storyline, for the most part. Therefore, it's not a gameguide, it's a violation of the "plot summary" clause in WP:NOT. Sourcing is not an issue, because the game provides both plot databases and even real-life influences! The article can easily be sourced with cites from the database (the game database is actually out of universe for the most part, making it reliable), and so on....IF the article were to stay in list form, which is pathetic because we don't need an inch by inch summary of every little element of Xenosaga. So, while the article has potential to remain in its current state with some cites and rewriting, that is not the idea.

The idea is to take all these organizations, terms, and locations, and merge it into one article describing the plot, another describing the technological aspects and their influences (japanese mecha, names deriving from myth, etc), and maybe a character list. However, with Xenosaga (which features more than 30 hours of cutscenes on the whole - that's more than 12 movies right there), such a heaping amount of information requires time to sort through what is important, what's not important, influences, and what is significant enough to note; not to mention finding the correct cites to avoid original interpretation, and keeping everything contained and succinct. This takes time, which a 5-day AfD doesn't provide.

However, just deleting this article is not a wise move, because some of this information may be kept (or at least the ideas), and edit histories are very important to me. Which is why I suggested keep and add numerous cleanup tags to designate that this article needs significant overhaul, compression, and merge into a more complete out of universe page - not simply delete and scare people off. Let editors realize what they're doing is wrong, and let them help fix it so that I'm not tackling yet another project alone. — Deckill e r 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others' arguments. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Put this on a video game wiki, not here. RobJ1981 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a game guide. The information in it would be useless to beating the game, it doesn't tell me HOW to do anything. --tjstrf talk 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it isn't a game guide and it can be verified. Since the list is a solution to the fancruft it is being AfDed for, give the editors time to revamp it, and if it doesn't happen, then AfD the article again. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This definitely should stay as many times throughout this series you will be confused in terms of the story, Wikipedia may not be a game guide but does talk about the story primarily, this is very helpful in trying to understand what is going on in the story.--Jack Cox 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the guidelines at the gaming project says : A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. Isn't what you described just that? --Larry laptop 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's an explanation of the game's concepts for the non-player. Anyone who was actually in the process of playing the game would find the list of minimal benefit because they would already understand them. (Unless you have a shoddy memory or whatever, of course.) --tjstrf talk 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a non-player would be interested in It is the form of Abel's consciousness in the "Imaginary Number Domain" while manifested into the "Real Number Domain" (similar to the Testaments). The Real Number Domain and the Imaginary Number Domain are the two planes of existence interwoven with each other in the Xenosaga Universe. The Real Number Domain is the plane of existence consisting of physical being and flesh (Material realm - All that we hear, see, smell, touch and taste) while the Imaginary Number Domain consists of consciousness, (Spiritual realm - emotions and heart etc). As the Ark is from the Imaginary Domain, it does not exist physically. Abel's Ark is the form of Abel's consciousness while Abel is the form of U-Do's physical being. They are referred to as "U-Do's eyes" because U-Do exists outside of the universe (in what's referred to as the "Higher Domain"). Abel's Ark and Abel are the way those within our universe (The "Lower Domain") perceive U-DO's observation. I see.... --Larry laptop 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would it help me beat the game? It's not a game guide, it would never appear in a manual or FAQ because it has nothing to do with gameplay at all. The reason it exists is because the Xenosaga universe needs explained if you're going to be able to understand any of the other information about the game. Remember, comprehensiveness requires enough plot summary for the storyline to make sense to the reader. Complicated plots need a lot of plot summary to be comprehensible. --tjstrf talk 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I mention anything connected to "help me beat the game"? in my comment? Besiding being rude, it's dishonest to answer comments with strawmen. --Larry laptop 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide == guide to playing the game. This doesn't tell me how to play the game. There's no strawman there. Take a look at Game guide. It's a redirect to Strategy guide, which gives a list of commonly occurring contents of game guides. None of them match with this article at all. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. How is this 'list of video game terms' not a video game guide? It is completely in-(Xenosaga)universe POV (Wikipedia is supposed to have a reality POV). Willing to reconsider if a secondary source establishing notability of terms with out-of-universe writing can be presented. --maclean 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the plus side, there are no verifiability or sourcing problems, and if the text is accurate to the game it's automatically neutral because fictional universes are generally objective. --tjstrf talk 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. - ZakuSage 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: once again, AfD is not frelling cleanup! If I want to state the fact that Hamlet is a prince I don't need a third party to say so, I can just cite the original text. As for the in universe stuff, tag it as {{in-universe}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is mostly fine, but the article title is annoying/misleading and smacks of WP:NOT (a dictionary). This would be much better suited for a gaming-specific wiki, or at least a sub-page of the main Xenosaga article. I might be more willing to keep if some broader notability were established (like cultural impact). --Alan Au 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It IS a subpage of the main Xenosaga article. Mediawiki no longer supports the subpage format in namespace, and hasn't for years. So it may not be at the title Xenosaga/List of terms, but it is a subpage. --tjstrf talk 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller's offer - if the article is still in its current state in a few months then feed it to the hobbitses, precious. There's a lot of material here, perhaps some could be transwikied, some deleted, some cleaned and merged etc. etc. Chucking the lot into the abyss when an offer of clean-up has been given would hardly be for the common good. QuagmireDog 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller's offer, at a minimum. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Handschiegel[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or even WP:VERIFY Closeapple 11:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. Person doesn't exist on Google. He doesn't even exist in the Peoria phone book. Suspicious original article author. Possible WP:HOAX. If it's not a hoax, he's not anywhere close to notable anyway. --11:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some anonymous IP just posted to Talk:Joseph Handschiegel: "In response to the comment that Joseph Handschiegel doesn't exist: He lived in Peoria, Illinois at the time this article was published." The article was published on 2006-08-03 and it says he died 2006-05-25. More non-evidence general chiding follows. I'm now convinced that this is a hoax. --Closeapple 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per WP:Bio, WP:Verify, and others; the only references to them on Google are Wikipedia mirrors. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Heads (UK Band)[edit]

Contested prod. UK rock band, all releases on own or minor labels. Removing IP has indicated they have an allmusic listing and CDs are commercially available, links on article talk. Brought here for closure. Deizio talk 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where an artists releases their albums is irrelevant. While having the support of a major label with its attendant PR and distribution apparatuses may make it more likely that a band will have the articles necessary to qualify for Wikipedia notability, many bands still manage to achieve notability without this support. Such as this band, which has more than enough 3rd party press to qualify for notability. But I see that the article is lacking in references. I'll try to integrate some references when I get the time. --Jackhorkheimer 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Well, they exist. I found a couple of non-trivial mentions in independent publications and put them in the article. I don't know how great the sources are. I'll feel more strongly about keeping if more sources are found and added. delldot | talk 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Ohio Weather Events[edit]

Contested prod. A fine example of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place for minutae about the weather in any area on an almost day to day basis. Nuttah68 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you may also wish to add Ohio 2005-2006 Weather Timeline to this AfD, as it seems pretty much the same. --tgheretford (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both 2007 Ohio Weather Events and Ohio 2005-2006 Weather Timeline. The information contained in those articles is simply not notable in a worldwide encyclopedia. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, otherwise I'm going to start an article chronicling the weather in my back yard. --Davidbober 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourced information to merge into Weather in 2007... Addhoc 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph_Atwill[edit]

Non-notable, he has only one book published and the articles cited are posts onto blogs/discussion forum NBeale 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author of one book, first self-published and then published by Ulysses Press, which specialises in travel guides and "alternative health, fitness and spirituality". No evidence that the book has even received published reviews. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). EALacey 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey, fails WP:BIO. James086Talk 13:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable independent sources are included by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever you want at will. (Haha) YechielMan 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discover the Networks[edit]

A right-wing website which exists, apparently, to expose the "vast left-wing conspiracy". No significant independent sources cited, only one hit on Google News (a blog), two hits on Factiva, both unrelated. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N in oh so many ways. As a bonus it skirts dangerously close to WP:FRINGE. On a related note, participants in this AfD will receive a free tin-foil hat. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it is supported by an organization so notable that it is red-linked there can't be much. Problems with WP:N and WP:V and so on does not make it likely that I could change my mind. And please keep the tin-hat, I prefer mine made from a National Enquirer page Alf photoman 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. The article on the creator, David Horowitz, already mentions the website, and that's about all we need on it. Hut 8.5 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep founder of site is notable (David Horowitz), site has an alexa ranking of 306K [16] which while not spectacular I believe is good enough for mention on this encyclopedia. Non-trivial coverage of website at Salon.com [17]. Article should be renamed "Discover the Network" however to reflect the correct name of the site.--Jersey Devil 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the founder is notable means we can have an article on him. Which we do. You could even justify a redirect from this title to that article. What about this group, though? Guy (Help!) 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Justified for Wikipedia NPOV in any case. Following Jersey Devil's link I see the Alexa of SourceWatch is 42k and MediaMatters only 12k. And, Alf photoman, David Horowitz Freedom Center was redlinked because it was misspelled, not because it was not notable. This article is a stub and has an anti-Horowitz POV currently, but keep it for others to work on. Incidentally, it doesn't need renaming, since Horowitz renamed it from Network to Networks some time back (it seems both names work as urls). And I notice that adds ANOTHER 1,563k to the Alexa. And here's another left near counterpart with a Wiki entry, MediaTransparency, more used than the other two, but still with only about a quarter of DTN's combined Alexa. By the way, the non-trivial coverage of DTN required by WP:N doesn't have to be favorable. All the accusations of guilt-by-association count. ("Web-specific content is notable if...The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.") And, no it's not all FrontPageMag reprints. Looking at Google and backing out a reference I found, e.g., [18]. I dunno what proportion came from Horowitz's other enterprises -- do you?^{[citation needed]} If you claim WP:V, give an example. If WP:FRINGE, be more specific. Sounds to me like "Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated". Andyvphil 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I hate to be a pain, but you do realize that low Alexa ranks mean more visited, right? As in, a rank of 1 should mean the website is the #1 most visited site on the Internet? That Wikipedia's is generally around 10 at the moment? That there are about 306,000 websites more commonly visited than the subject of this article? And that rankings are not additive? -- Jonel | Speak 14:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Not a pain, at all. I followed Jersey Devil's link and didn't read closely enough. I stand corrected, and am happy to have my misunderstanding corrected. Nonetheless, if JD is right that DTN's traffic is sufficient, adding DTNs' has to make the case stronger.
  - I actually don't have a VERY strong feeling that DTN needs to be a separate article. Probably it does. Only Will Bebeck seems to realize that deleting the article just means folding the material into the Horowitz article, which is long enough already. What I do have a strong feeling about is this poll, which seems animated by an animus against the content of the site rather than it's notability. I don't know exactly how much WP:N is required to justify an article on Wikipedia but it's obvious that there are a LOT of articles on Wikipedia on subjects with a lot less WP:N. WP:V has mostly to do with how you cite the site, right? And accusing it of WP:FRINGE says more about where you are than Horowitz. So WHY are we discussing deleting this article? If someone searches for info on DTN do we really want them to wade through the Horowitz article? Andyvphil 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't suggest merging the material to the Horowitz article. I do suggest merging it with FrontPageMag.com. I'm sorry I wasn't clear before. I'll annotate my comment. -Will Beback · † · 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the clarification. Both Photoman and Guy had mentioned the Horowitz article, so I assumed you were on the same page. Actually, if you were going to merge it anywhere, I would think the root article is David Horowitz Freedom Center, which could use the material. Organizationally FrontPageMag and DTN are on the same level - see the "Ongoing Programs" list at [[19]]. It might be justified to reconsider the decision not to delete FrontPageMag.com, and fold it too into David Horowitz Freedom Center. And Students for Academic Freedom too, while you're at it. With redirects, of course. But this is because of the paucity of material in Wikipedia, not because of WP:N. If someone were to write up a description of that java ap on DTN (it would be really cool to have something like that as a view of the links between Wikipedia articles!) or otherwise describe DTN at length it would unbalance the DHFC article and should be spun off. But I, e.g., am not yet enough of a Wikipedian to know how to do that step, so that I am not convinced it isn't better to leave the framework of nodes, WP:N but stubs, in place.... But that's not the discussion that started here. The proposal to delete and initial comments were couched in terms dismissive of the CONTENT of the site ("vast left-wing conspiracy", "fringe", "tin-foil hats", etc.) that invited the conclusion that the proposal was partisan. I know, WP:AGF... but it's not non-rebuttable. Andyvphil 15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think the afd or some of the votes were made in bad faith, however it does appear that some are allowing their bias to cloud their judgement somewhat. DTN is the exact ideological opposite of SourceWatch MediaMatters, MediaTransparency and NameBase -all sites which operate on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy thesis. It also doesn't appear that they're supported by any better cites than this article is. So it looks like there are plenty of tin foil hats to go around. However, I think all of these articles are useful. In fact, I think they should be kept so that when they're used as sources for articles, (which is a far bigger problem IMHO due to their advocacy POVs) we at least have the ability to wikilink them for full disclosure. One other thing, regarding Will's observation that it's an archive of FP articles. I don't think that's entirely correct. DTN is a distinct project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and appears to have a lot of additional content, however it isn't mentioned in that article at the moment and it should be. <<-armon->> 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hmm... didn't you just "wikilink" to NameBase even though it doesn't have its own article? Anyway... Horowitz claims about DTN that "[t]he sources for the facts entered and the interpretations based on them have been made as transparent as possible" [20]-- I'm not clear if he's referring to more than just the hyperlinks embedded in the text -- and if true one mostly shouldn't use DTN as a source. I've done a little work on sections of the Horowitz article written by individuals with an anti-H POV and one of the things I found most obnoxious was contributors who cited MediaMatters or somesuch for what Horowitz said when the original text is readily available. Andyvphil 14:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (Yeah Brant is a whole other issue) Just to clarify, I don't think any of them are good sources, but in real-world WP you will find editors who insist -more of pragmatic argument than an idealistic one. In any case, I think they should all be kept according the the philosophy behind WP:TIGERS. <<-armon->> 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Who Brant?... My own view is that even non-reliable sources can be useful as long as they don't agree. They do a lot of the spadework and the disagreements are instructive. But that's beside the point, here. The AfD poll shouldn't be about whether DTN is reliable, but about whether DTN is so un-notable that merging it away and possibly splitting it off later is worth the investment in time. It's not as if there's a shortage of Wikipedia articles that could be worked on instead. Guy, at least, offered a metric for his claim of non-notability, though I can't decode it, but Yukichigai picked up on his animus against the site's content instead. Alf photoman gave a reason for considering the subject non-notable (that I debunked),Hut 8.5 offered his opinion that the content should be buried in the Horowitz aricle (already pushing 30k)...and we end up with 70.51.231.96's "not influential or that notable" opinion. My understanding is that this is a debate, not a vote. If there's opposition you need to come armed with more than unsupported opinion. Andyvphil 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.(merge to FrontPageMag.com) It appears mostly to be an archive of Front Page articles. It does not appear to be notable in its own right. -Will Beback · † · 04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. One of several David Horowitz web projects, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB in its own right, and anything worth covering can be done in the David Horowitz article. Dragomiloff 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andyvphil -he makes a very good case. <<-armon->> 12:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Horowitz or his foundation or FrontPageMag.com or one of the many already existing articles on him and his projects. This project is not influential or that notable, thus it is hard to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article. --70.51.231.96 18:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge into a section on the Frontpagemag article. This should be removed due to lack of notability. A Google search for ("Discover the Networks" "David Horowitz") returned 700 hits, which is close to zero in the Google universe. MaxPont 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change it to "Discover the Network" and you get another 27,800. Dropping "David" adds another 1,000. Drop "Horowitz" and you get 73,000 for "Discover the Networks" and another 124,000 for "Discover the Network". Is this still zero? Andyvphil 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Discover the Network" is a generic phrase (without the -s) so is "David" and "Horowitz" if they stand by themselves MaxPont 11:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Discover the Network" was the initial name of DTN, before Horowitz renamed it. To repeat, "Discover the Network"AND"David Horowitz" returns 27,800, not 700. Most "discover the network"(only) hits do not refer ro DTN, but Google apparently rates it the most notable meaning of the phrase because 9 of the first ten links are to references to DTN. Thanks for at least attempting a metric, tho. I don't think DTN is all that notable, but I don't think it's all that non-notable either, and it satisfies the technical definition of notable ("subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"). So why delete it? Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia.WP:NOT#PAPER Andyvphil 13:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... Addhoc 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the project is dead, it is no longer notable (by no sources, we cannot determine if it ever was notable). Cbrown1023 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Desktop Search Environment[edit]

This project has been dead for over a year and the project home page has been shut down. Notability was somewhat arguable before, but at this point it appears that Kat will likely be a historical footnote in the development of Strigi. Additionally the article was written by the author of the software, which is a no-no in the first place. Scott.wheeler 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the project is dead, say the project is dead. If the project has turned into strigi, merge with strigi. — Omegatron 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'd argue that it's border-line on notability and I'd say the same with Strigi. i.e. the nomination wasn't because it's dead, but because I think it's below the threshold for notability and being dead isn't going to become more notable. Strigi will likely at some point be notable, but it would be a bit odd for me to suggest the creation of another article that also wouldn't meet the notability requirements to merge Kat into. ;-) Scott.wheeler 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep as historical information; may be in the future it will be useful. Is there another more suitable project to store it?. 87.217.176.154 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Argo[edit]

Non-notable performer. Previously speedied at least once. Also nominating Thug Invasion, putative unreleased recording. Ghits on name + "rapper", aside from WP and mirrors = 0. Ghits on subject name + recording title = 0. If a real person, died, according to the article, on January 8 of this year. Highly questionable notability; no reliable sources; thus fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Robertissimo 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As the nominator, I've moved this AfD nomination from January 13 to 14, after the article originator blanked the AfD and the notice was removed from both nominated articles. Robertissimo 13:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the album without prejudice against future recreation, as if 50 Cent does record it that might establish notability.Delete the rapper article, notability not sufficiently asserted, problems with WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the ghits (or lack thereof, actually) these are most probably a hoax. Even the most local, unheard of rapper would have some information on the internet, especially if that individual had been shot to death. Natalie 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This article has reliable sources i.e digg news but I have found more sources Ballerstatus, 411 Hype, JT Hip Hop productions, I need help though I don't know how to add sources, thank you Moreschi and Robertissimo for your co-operation.Jeezy123 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: above editor is the article's originator, an apparent single purpose account who previously purposely reverted the above opinions to delete. Robertissimo 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: very sorry for that but it was my little brother, who kept on deleting it, I will take more care in the future, I am very sorry . Jeezy123 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if I assume everything in the article is true, he fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and, most importantly, he also fails WP:V. GassyGuy 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Someone please show some respect the guy's just died and he was only 15 stop picking on him to delete it just because he was a rapperLloydbanks24 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added related article Naseem Postiga to this AfD; this article, using the supposed birthname of the subject, was created by Lloydbanks24 on January 18, I believe as an attempt to to pre-empt the upcoming end of this AfD. Robertissimo 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry V. King[edit]

This officer heads a police force with only 63 officers. If he is entitled to have his own article, then inspectors/lieutenants in larger forces or army lieutenants should logically also be entitled to have one, since they can easily command the same number of people. The article is written like a eulogy and appears to have been written by the subject, who actually created three identical articles to cover all permutations of his name. All in all, this appears to be a CV for a probably worthy but not very notable small town police chief, of whom there are thousands in the United States and Canada. I would expect a department to have to have several hundred officers before the chief is even considered for an article. Necrothesp 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's his CV, and goes into anal depth. Although obviously very notable for the community he has served, he is not for Wikipedia. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE FROM Barry King (I hope I am following the appropriate protocol here) NECROTHESP: You articulate a rationale for consideration in that there are only 63 officers reporting to Barry King. However a career of 46 years, and through that career there was a unique variety of service on Federal, Provincial, Regional, Medium city and Small City police services, including very senior positions (and responsibility for planning and implementing Peel Regional Police),Canada's 6th largest police service, with over 2,500 as a Superintendent (3rd highest rank at that time). Subsequent was Chief of a mid sized city police service of 165 (Sault Ste Marie) until retirement, then to Brockville on contract due to a shortage of candidates in the mid 1990"s for Chiefs in Ontario due to staffing retirement cycles. This was not intended as a CV or eulogy, nor an anal depth recital, rather a chronological history in what was believed to be in conformance with the intent of postings on Wikipedia. If there is a legitimate reason that something should be revised or deleted please advise but I don't belive that warrants deletion of the entire posting.Barry KingBarry king 15:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Autobiography for the reasons why you should not write articles about yourself. As an example of eulogising from the article: "Chief Barry V. King, O.O.M. has had a distinguished career with an extraordinary legacy. In recognition of outstanding service to the various communities he has served, he has received the following medals and honours" and "A Family that Serves & Protects". These are not really neutral. Please also note that while Sault Ste Marie may have 165 officers, it is a small police service in comparison to many others (e.g. only one territorial police force in England has fewer than 1,000 officers). Do you really think it's feasible or desirable to write articles on every senior police officer in the world? Bearing in mind that most of them will have similar CVs. For chiefs of forces with several hundred officers and deputy/assistant chiefs of forces with several thousand, I would say fair enough, but I'm afraid that neither Sault Ste Marie nor Brockville qualifies as such. As for more junior officers, they are not really notable unless they have done something particularly notable (not just their jobs). For example, I have written a series of articles about the senior officers of the London Metropolitan Police, one of the biggest and most influential urban police forces in the world, with over 30,000 officers. However, I would only consider the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners to be automatically notable. More junior officers (many of whom head units considerably larger than the entire Sault Ste Marie and Brockville services put together) would have had to have done something fairly important to qualify for notability. This is my personal opinion of course, which is why I have listed it here for discussion. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the general guidelines. -- Necrothesp 16:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Barry King: I should clarify that I did not write the page, it was written by a third party as a compilation of a chronology of my career for a citizen of the year nomination and later for the OOM medal submission. It was suggested that as I was retiring, it should be posted, not because of my being Chief of Brockville, but for achieving 46 years policing career, 20 years as a Chief of Police, the leadership involvements I have participated in, which are all documentsd and verifiable, such as achieving the first WHO (World Health Organization) Collaborating Centre on Community Safety, Designation of Brockville as a Safe Community, which I have Co-Chaired for 10 years, 14 years Leadership as Chair of the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association Drug Abuse Committee where I led presentations to parliamentary committees on legislative changes towards decriminalization of cannabis and use of marihuana for medical purposes, legitimacy of needle exchange programs, my GiC appointment by the Government of Canada, Prime Minister's Federal Cabinet to three, 3year terms as Chair of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (Canada's National Addictions Agency), much of which was extraneous to my job and consumed a great deal of personal time and travel away from work and home. Also speaking nationally and internationally on Drug Policy, atending as part of the Canadian Delegation to the UN on Drug Control Policy in Vienna,conferences in Perth Australia, Venice, Italy and others. Also international Emergency Management and Integrated Incident Command presentations, subsequent to the 1979 Mississauga Train derailment and my role as command post coordinator for the (at that time, prior to New Orleans evacuation) the largest peacetime evacuation in North America of 225,000 citizens and three hospitals for one week due to explosions, fire and chlorine contamination of the souther half of the city. I personally, do not desire nor need to be eulogized and welcome comments if this violates any rules, Your comment on UK policing, however, whereas Chiefs/Commissioners of most police services have 1,000 or more with some as high as 30,000 doesn't apply to the same degree in Canada as I am certain you are aware we have not completed the amalgamation process you have in Europe. We are now in the process, and in Ontario we have reduced from 238 police services to 60 and Quebec is doing the same. We do not suscribe in Canada as a Chiefs Association, that only the few Chiefs of the 15-20 or so major (large sized) Police services can make contributions or are noteworthy. We have 383 Canadian Police Services at this point in time and our Past president of the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association heads a Police Service of 225. I have been on the Chief's Association Executive for 6 years. What may fit in older, larger countries with sizeable, amalgamated police services and where the Commissioners are sometimes Knighted by the Queen, does not necessarialy fit with Canada. I can now better appreciate the criteria you have identified and your concern about adjectives that appear self serving. I will have these areas revised where they appear to do that. The remaining chronological statements are fact based and verifiable. Thank You.Barry KingBarry king 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Canadian police forces are smaller is not relevant. Wikipedia covers the whole world and Canada is not a special case. The fact remains that by definition the chief of a larger force is usually more notable than the chief of a smaller force, just as an army general is usually more notable than a colonel. If there are 383 police services in Canada, then it would be ridiculous to have an article for every police chief or former police chief, just as every mayor or fire chief is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Before the second half of the 20th century Britain had many borough police forces, but I would not expect to have an article for each chief constable, only for those of the major cities with police strengths in the hundreds or thousands, who had national influence and prominence. This is also the case in Canada and the United States, where town police forces still exist. -- Necrothesp 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article and NN in wikipedia terms (no slur intended on honourable public service as displayed by the individual in question). --Larry laptop 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the excellent reasons given by the nominator. Massive conflict of interest. - IceCreamAntisocial 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO guideline for notability. Kudos to the policing career, but notability is not a measure of value. If there were any doubt, the WP:COI would tip it. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a vanity article and the subject doesn't appear to have any notability cliams. There may be a conflict of interest issue here, and it looks like an online CV as well. Therefore, it should be deleted. --SunStar Net^talk 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all the above, as well as per unconvincing arguments of Mr. King.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No further debate is required. Please delete page a.s.a.p.. Consultant for Barry V. King Anonymous 74.113.164.159 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonotech[edit]

A joint debate on two supposed companies which are part of a series of hoaxes concerning the Dukes family of Lincolnshire. Nonotech, a high-tech company supposedly making a £7 million annual profit, does not have a website. A google search for 'nonotech gainsborough' produces only Wikipedia. There is no such company on record.

Salsim is supposedly a £5 million profit-making fashion company with 270 employees, and yet google searching for 'salsim fashion' produce nothing linked to this company apart from the Wikipedia page. Likewise there is no such company on record. (Companies House allows free checks during working hours [21]).

Previous relevant deletion debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Dukes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Dukes. Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Anderson[edit]

Appears to be a completely non-notable person. Google only finds sources from Wikipedia or mirrors, and judging from the information on the article, it's unlikely there will be any (living next to Dudley Moore as a child is a fairly tenuous link at best). I'm also nominating his daughter and grandson. Trebor 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unreferenced. Adjectives such as "important" always give it away. Sullivan's article doesn't even state which books she has written. I've deleted Cornelius under CSD A7, because that was just silly. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frederick Anderson, non-notable. I'm leaning towards weak keep for Jennifer Sullivan. According to this she won the Tir na n-Og Award in 2006 for one of her books, which is awarded by the Welsh Books Council who confirm she won. One Night In Hackney 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO seems to suggest multiple independent awards are required for inclusion; I'm not sure one alone qualifies. It's the most borderline of the three, but I'd still be inclined to argue for deletion. Trebor 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's multiple awards or reviews, I'm searching for some reviews as well and will add them as and when. She seems quite prolific, she's got plenty of releases on Amazon. One Night In Hackney 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found some reviews, after much searching. There are two different sets of reviews [22] [23] of her books on the Welsh Book Council site, they are generally quite short and written by children, but she is a children's author. Her books are also reviewed by the GWales site [24], which is a review written by the site itself. Other books by her on the same site also have similar reviews as well [25]. Also found a review by the daily newspaper the Western Mail [26]. It's likely there may be reviews of her books in Welsh language sites as well, so the assistance of any Welsh speakers could be helpful on this. One Night In Hackney 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but perhaps you'd like to update the article to include these sources? They'd be a much greater chance of it being kept. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a wikignome than a wikifairy, but I'll see what I can do later unless someone else steps in before then. One Night In Hackney 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding the sources, I'm withdrawing the nomination for Sullivan. Trebor 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jennifer Sullivan per comments from One Night In Hackney. Delete Frederick Anderson. --Eastmain 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online Football Manager[edit]

Nominate Resembles a guide for the game, also does not take a neutral point of view Ozoo 14:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Article quality, however poor, is no reason to delete. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have written and edited quite a lot of this entry. I have not had time to clean it up. I am encouraging others to edit the entry to give it a neutral point of view. Obviously any entry on a game would seem like a guide. You could make the same argument about an entry on [[football]user:blueslipper[. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueslipper ([[User talk:BlueslipperBlueslipper 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)|talk]] • contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, regardless of the quality of the prose (which reads like an advertisement), it appears non-notable. Specifically, there is no evidence that it satisfies the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" rule. Qwghlm 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It helps people that want to know stuff about OFM

Rewrite м info 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwghlm... Addhoc 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Required sources were provided. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Hossain[edit]

This article does not meet the minimum threshold of notability, rather it is more of a fan page for an individual with some fame. Hence should be deleted, or placed within the main ITN/ITV News article.

Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newsreader on national news of a major channel. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp 17:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Necrothesp. We have biographies on plenty of less well-known newsreaders - Nina works for the popular & national ITV. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She was the head anchor of the BBC national evening news for a while and is now an anchor with ITV. Roughly as notable in the UK as Roger Mudd in the US. --Charlene 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO, notable as the presenter (anchor) on a key BBC newscast. Agent 86 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86. --Davidbober 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it's not as important as a list of what bottles a character in a video game likes to collect, but hey, a real person who has been a regular newsreader on both of the main UK news channels would seem to meet notability requirements. --Larry laptop 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete. There are thousands of articles like this one on Wikipedia which are clearly meant to be deleted. Even if there are articles of less well known newsreaders it doesn't justify keeping this article. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what should be included, and this article should be judged according to that, not how it compares to articles of other newsreaders.

Keep Subject enjoys name recognition in the UK; while such fluff as this from The Sun and this from the Daily Mirror have no place in the article, they demonstrate notability per WP:BIO Eludium-q36 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article pretty much finishes off the question of notability. She's been the subject of articles in various notable publication (the mirror, the sun and the telegraph). What more needs to be said. In March, when Emily Maitlis went off to have a baby, she was given the highly noticeable London regional news slot after the BBC's 6.30 bulletin. Next week, she takes over from heavily pregnant Mary Nightingale presenting ITV's early evening news with Mark Austin. The two prime-time slots in the UK. --Larry laptop 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally I feel neither name recognition nor fame are enough to justify the existence of the article. Neither is comparing it to other, less important articles, if they don't stand up to wikipedia's standards they should be deleted too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigredmonster (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC). _{first edit - from the timing and history of this afd - I would suggest that it's likely this is 87.125.38 but it's not worth a checkuser to confirm. --Larry laptop 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)} _{Sorry about that, yes that was me. Just to add to my original point, this article caught my attention because I tried creating one just like this about a journalist, and citied all my sources and followed all the rules. It got deleted, twice, and the justification was pretty much the same as this. It's just I feel wikipedia needs to be consistent when applying such rules to these articles, else it's a clear case of double standards.Bigredmonster 20:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment I would agree with you - articles should be deleted in accordance with our policies. If other biographies exist which should not, they should be deleted in accordance with our policies, rather than used as justification for keeping equally non-notable other articles. However, you've failed to point out how Nina Hossain is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here. As you suggest, we do have a consistent set of rules to apply to such articles: it's WP:BIO and I see no reason why Nina Hossain is not sufficiently notable per these guidelines. How can "fame" never be "enough to justify the existence" of an article? Isn't that, in essence, what notability is? It sounds to me that you want this article deleted out of jealousy for the deletion of an article you authored. I'd suggest you could use your time more profitably discussing the reasons behind it's deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad you asked. The Central Criterion of WP:BIO includes the following:

- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.¹ - Whilst the Telegraph article comes under this, it is practically the only one out there. Those of The Sun nor The Mirror, as mentioned previously by one poster, aren't credible enough (i.e. don't contain enough info) to back up the Telegraph. In short, only one published works of her exists (to the best of my knowledge)

- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries² except for the following:
  - Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.³
  - Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.⁴See above, both The Sun and Mirror artciles fall partically under this

"in passing" - how is an article that is about a named person (where the name of the individual forms part of the article title) "in passing". So neither fn2, fn3, or fn4 apply unless you can explicitly tell me how they "fall partically under this" ? It's not a media reprint, it's not a trival mention in passing. please explain further your reasoning. --Larry laptop 14:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for "only one", Guardian Story about her, another guardian story about a prime-time show she hosted that got 4 million viewers. So that's stories in the Guardian, others from the guardian here. That's before we even bother searching the notable specialist media publications. I'm sorry your article got deleted but WP:POINT is a waste of everyone's time. --Larry laptop 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Larry: I never said it was to do with "in passing". this has no more then a few lines on the subject hence my reason to cite it as trivial coverage. However having seen you're newly posted links, I concede. For future reference however, would an independant article be enough to justify a new article/prevent deletion? Bigredmonster 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the point you raised about 'fame' equating notability, I don't think fame alone results in notability (at least not in the domain of wikipedia), and it's also highly questionable just how much fame can be attributed to Hossain. In fact, some would argue that whatever fame the subject has is down to sex appeal, and I would be inclined to agree with that. As a journalist if she achieved something significant in her field then fair enough, she deserves to be included. Sir David Frost is a journalist worthy of notability because he has achieved much in his field and is highly recognisable both in the United Kingdom and outside it. And not only that, but if Hossain did something outside of newsreading that increases her fame, then that too might merit her an article. Natasha Kaplinsky, for example, is notable not only as a newsreader but also as a popular celebrity thanks to her appearance on prime time television programs in the UK. But as it stands, being an ITV newsreader alone is not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I don't see how knowing about her snowboarding and iPod passions are relevant for inclusion either.

However, please feel free to raise any other points from what I have said. Bigredmonster 13:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, as somebody who regularly features on a mainstream television channel she is notable. You seem to be a little confused about the function of AfD. It is not to judge whether what has been written is notable, but whether the subject written about is notable. Nina Hossain is certainly notable enough to have an article written about her, although all that is currently in the article may not be encyclopaedic. Note that WP:BIO states that one of the criteria for inclusion is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: (e.g.) Name recognition". Since she appears regularly on national news on a major TV channel in a populous country she blatantly meets this criterion. -- Necrothesp 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I take this opportunity to remind contributors of the notability rules, in particular

"Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.

As a rule of thumb, triviality is a measure of relevance, not length. Eludium-q36 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just as notable as comparable US-based news reporters. --lquilter 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anchor and reporter on major national television networks. --Oakshade 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian Genocides[edit]

Article unsourced, highly inflammatory POV, statements possibly untrue at all. Content forking of List of Albania Genocides --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was nominated for deletion yesterday, the debate is still open. The Rambling Man 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it now. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per other article without the n's. POV and dangerous. The Rambling Man 15:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up according to WP:NPOV, but then there won't be much left Alf photoman 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users' comments.--Hadžija 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That article is totally wrong. I found more than half data wrong 5 to 100 times. --Medule 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users' comments. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others, POV pushing. --JustUser 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A7. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Star Liner (band)[edit]

No ascertainment of notability, and WP:V failure, too. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seemingly fails WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 15:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Also fails WP:MUSIC if speedy is declined. Incidentally, I remember seeing a band of this name in a pub in Oxford back in '86 or '87, but presumably it's not the same people and was equally non-notable. Tevildo 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Bucketsofg 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Kennedy[edit]

This biographical article is about and written by John Joseph Kennedy, who has no relation to the famous political Kennedys. He's just a guy who creates write-in campaigns for himself and is not considered a serious contender by anyone. He's non-notable; if you search for him out there, all of the articles are either 1) written by him, 2) press releases by him, or 3) clones of this Wikipedia article. This is simply a vanity article. —Cleared as filed. 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not an expert in US politics so I am wondering: if the guy is not notable why would anybody bother to print his press release? I think there are big issues with WP:NPOV though and once re-written accordingly there would not be much of an article left. Alf photoman 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because some newspapers will print almost any press release they receive in order to fill up white space. Those who do not perform research and who assume that a John Kennedy running for office must be one of *those* Kennedys would be more prone in this case. --Charlene 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't find a newspaper that reprinted them, just wire services like PRWeb, Eworldwire, Emediawire, and so forth that are explicitly publicity-distribution services.--Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through the article and all the self promotion in the world cant hide the fact that there nothing notable in there. --RaiderAspect 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is no more than an election manifesto and biography of a minor politician who has no claim to notability.--Anthony.bradbury 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable failed politician whose article does not assert sufficient notability. No reliable secondary sources. --Charlene 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references to media coverage in this article are incomplete and thus impossible to use to confirm whether he meets WP:BIO. Looking at the edit history, it appears that many of the edits this article has received came from the subject himself. His 2004 vice-presidential running mate as a write-in also had an article deleted a while back; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Robert Rezac. --Metropolitan90 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found a couple of articles behind paywalls, but he's just one of oodles of fringe candidates. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from John Joseph Kennedy. It was brought to my attention today that my biography and history that were recently expanded by me and my campaign on Wikipedia is in question and subject to speculation, authenticity and ridicule by some of the individuals below. First and foremost, it is my copyrighted property, and approved fully by me. Wikipedia posted my name and brief bio in 2004 after the election - without my knowledge - however, I was pleased to have this recognition for standing up for America as a voice of Truth and Hope. I am again officially running for President in 2008, not as a write-in, but on the Democratic ticket, and have every right to have my biography and family biography posted and stated accurately. I stand behind every word that is written. I may be a "fringe" candidate as some have suggested because I am not well-known yet, however, I am a candidate none the less. My bio on Wikipedia clearly states that I am not associated with President John F. Kennedy's branch of the family, nor do I care to be. If you read my biography in it's entirety, it clearly states that I am from the Kennedy's of Charleston, South Carolina family, and we have a history far beyond the Boston Kennedy's, here in America, and in other parts of the world. So I ask each of you these questions: What are YOU notable for? What are YOU doing for America? What are YOU doing to make the world a better place? I ask these questions not with malice, but with sincerity. Although I fully support free speech, I do not condone, nor will I tolerate, slanderous or libelous remarks made about me or my family, and have passed this review page on to my legal advisors. Sincerely, John J. Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk2007 (talk • contribs)

delete, salt and indef. ban Jjk2007 for legal threats: Strong conflict of interest, no indication of passing notability requirements, apparently it may be some sort of copyvio (and thus speediable) as well, not to mention a boarderline issue with a mistaken beleif of article 'ownership'. Wintermut3 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. Note: I normally don't do this, but I took out the bold in Mr. Kennedy's comments because it's an eyesore — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:COI and for legal threats. The Rambling Man 07:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Mr. Kennedy's own assertions that he is "not well-known yet" and that he posted "copyrighted" material here without releasing it pursuant to the GFDL. --Russ (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80’s Movie and Music Fest Café[edit]

No ascertainment of notability. Fine example of WP:NOT an indiscriminate repository of information. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems unremarkable podcast and the article lacks WP:RS. The Rambling Man 15:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are over 70,000 podcasts currently available. This one is not especially notable, as it is not being discussed by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. --Charlene 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a couple of semi-notable guest stars on this podcast, among them Erika Eleniak and Brother Love. If the article were brought up to standard, I would see no problem with it. As it stands, however, it's nothing more than (poor) advertisement. --Dairhenien 22:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per socks and other below. Cbrown1023 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eye of Dawn[edit]

Two unreferenced pages about artifacts in books. They do not appear to be notable, and one of the pages appears to be unfinished. I think it is a delete from me, but not worthy of a speedy delete. I may be wrong, either way.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete x2. These artefacts may be important in-universe but to the rest of us they are utterly non-notable. The Rambling Man 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepPlease don't delete them! I am certain there is more to come to them, and if there is not, I shall personally make sure that they are detailed and descriptive!!! I shall try my utmost best to improve them all I can, even if its creator does not! I BEG of you, just give me one chance, and I promise they shall look splendid in no time! Please! Uioh 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a week later and still no sources... Addhoc 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepPlease do not delete the article. While it does not look too great now, I'm sure the creator has had little opportunity to work on them much, so please, like said above, give him a chance to improve them. 69.122.3.19 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that the closing admin look at the contributions on this IP and Uioh; their editing patterns are similar and Uioh references a post made by this IP on another discussion. Ral315 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both with The Secrets of Droon, which could use expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hit bull, win steak (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment:Uioh and 69.122.3.19 share editing trends, typing styles and use similar language. It could be possible that they are the same person. Also, whether or not there is potentially a lot more information to come, if it is more information about the roles of the items in the story, then that will not improve the articles. I can still see no reason as to why these are notable, and niether will any administrator closing this debate, I would imagine. J Milburn 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd also like to register delete votes for my IP address, my parents, my siblings, and my cat. Chovain^(t|c) 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). 'Merge' would not be consistent with WP:NOT#IINFO a plot summary. --maclean 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepPlease reconsider the idea to delete this article. I've always loved these Droon books, and I dunno why anyone wants to delete these articles. So there are sock puppets, WHO CARES? Why isn't Shen Gong Wu deleted then? Moon Medallion looks great, and the Red Eye not as good, but not bad at all. 63.117.244.94 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:We care that there are sock puppets, because it gives the illusion that there are many more supporters of the idea that the user with the sock puppets is proposing. Despite the fact that this is not a vote, the idea that there are numerous supporters of an idea can often sway peoples opinions on the matter, which is not what we are trying to do. Please see Wikipedia:Pokémon test in response to your point about another article getting a page, this on the same subject and, perhaps most relevently, this. Please note that I have not nominated these pages because they are badly written, but because they are about non-notable subjects. J Milburn 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. Keep arguments invalid. Addhoc 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12)[edit]

Non-notable album Mhking 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they, too, are not notable and fail WP:MUSIC:

Added to AfD 03:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment you think that's bad, there are a few more linked to from G-Unit Radio.

Delete no assertion of notability, insufficient info for verifiability of anything concrete. The Rambling Man 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could these be merged/redirected into G-Unit Radio discography or something? It seems there is precedent for album articles to have seperate articles from the band (or radio show, in this case). But having so many stubby non-notable articles does seem to be going a bit overboard. Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted, and that would be because there isn't any. GassyGuy 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, there's no notability to any of these articles at all. You could merge them all into one article, but you would be better off deleting them. Dazednconfused693 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Yuser31415 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of e-mail spammers[edit]

I'm afraid that this list violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. Actually, I think this list, and many of the linked articles, qualify for WP:Speedy under Wikipedia:Attack page (G7), but since this page has been around since 2004, I suspect having it for a few more days to fully discuss the situation is not a problem. Wrs1864 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. In particular get rid of some of the charged wording (I've already removed "notorious") and tag each entry with a WP:RS such as a ROKSO listing or a wire service story. A list of "known or alleged" spammers -- properly documented as to the facts or allegations -- doesn't violate WP:LIBEL. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment considering that Spamhaus is currently being sued in part for mentioning someone on their ROKSO list, I'm not sure that they alone qualify as a reliable source. In particular, the parts of WP:RS that mention "bias", "confidentiality" (SpamHaus doesn't release all evidence to the public that the collect to protect themselves in a court case), and "Recognition by other reliable sources" (in particular, courts have not recognized them). To be clear, I *personally* feel that Spamhaus is a highly reliable source, but for purposes of Wikipedia defending itself in a legal sense, we need to be very conservative here. Wrs1864 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel don't suggest that the page should be deleted - just watched and referenced very carefully. This being the case, it'll be on my watchlist if it makes it through the AfD process. Squeezeweasel 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although - of course - we need to ensure that information included is adequately sourced & referenced. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I urge people to look through the list and note the number of times that being sued has been mentioned. I can think of a couple of other cases where people have sued because they were accused of being spammers that aren't mentioned in this article. Spammers, in general, do not think as much about the costs they place on others as they do the profits that they can make and simply looking at the top of the page shows that they could make millions if they successfully sue wikipedia. People who don't think of themselves as spammers often are deeply offended by such accusations. IANAL, let alone wikipedia's laywer, but I suspect that council would urge the speedy deletion of these claims until they are well documented, rather than keeping with the hope that someone will do something now that hasn't happened in the last 3 years. Wrs1864 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "List of alleged e-mail spammers." Much of the sting of possible libel is removed if we refer to these people as alleged spammers, rather than spammers. I would rename the article myself and create a redirect from the current name, but I don't know how - maybe it's an administrative privilege. Anyone who can do that should please also rename ESKAR to "Eskar." Given the number of blue-linked people in the list, deletion seems like a mistake. YechielMan 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Moving the page appears to be a straightforward procedure. Instead of being bold I think it's best to wait out the AfD process. Raymond Arritt 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Cleanup. Cbrown1023 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed buildings in Liverpool[edit]

This article could qualify as listcruft. There are over 2,500 listed buildings in Liverpool, and the same list exists here. This article lacks severely lacks organization, listed in alphabetical order only. Similar articles should not be mere lists which have duplicates, but only include certain more notable buildings. A good example of this is Listed buildings in Birmingham. While WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information either. A relevant discussion is this AfD debate. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but only with a rewrite. If we already accept Listed buildings in Birmingham as a guide, then the same could be done to the Liverpool article. The Rambling Man 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup. It isn't indiscriminate, it is a list of buildings (check) that are listed (check) in a specific location (check). It could be replaced by a category, but lists are recognized as being useful in conjunction with or in replacement of categories because they can include annotations and redlinks. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. --Davidbober 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a database dump site. Not every building that is listed deserves an article. There are 500,000 listed buildings in England (just one part of the UK) alone[27]. My family home in London is a Grade II (the lowest grade) listed building. There is nothing special about our (extensively modernized/remodelled) home (my father went and researched this in order to value the property, which dates from the 18th century) except some "period" architectural features on the house's front and top (the house is not recognizable as a "old" house and there is no special history attached). ~94% of England's listed buildings are Grade II. The higher grades - Grade II* (4% of buildings) and Grade I (2% of buildings) - are conferred on buildings with some kind of enhanced or exceptional interest and are eligible for grants towards preservation (Grade II are not eligible). Grade I buildings are likely to be worthy of articles. Grade II* buildings - maybe. Anyway, applying these average England percentages, 94% of the buildings on the Liverpool list - which has just been dumped from a database - will be quite unremarkable in encyclopedic terms. I have nothing against a recreation of the article along the more sensible lines of the Birmingham version, but the current content is not viable Bwithh 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Rambling Man. Needs to be cleaned-up into a table to make reading easier. Keith D 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above Jcuk 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh, can anyone address his points? There are hundreds of thousands of such buildings throughout the UK, and this precedent would open the gates for lists of similar buildings in every city of every country in the world which would literally translate into millions of buildings. This is unnecessary minutiae which amounts to a directory which violates WP:NOT. --The Way 08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup. Bwithh is correct, the current list is too much information, but this is an argument to cleanup, not delete. I would suggest restricting the list to Grades I and II*, plus those Grade II buildings that are notable for other reasons. Eludium-q36 18:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an argument for deletion; the criteria for inclusion on the list is simply too wide, it is unmaintainable. At the very least, if we restricted the list to the first two grades we would need to rename the article as the contents would then disagree with the title. I still believe that even that would violate WP:NOT a directory. Can someone elaborate as to how this does not violate this policy? --The Way 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am currently neutral in this debate, I am having trouble understanding how this list meets the definition of a directory, which, according to the OED, is a list of people and businesses in a certain area with their addresses or a list of people in a particular trade, profession or occupation. This is a list of places of interest, which is a list, not a directory. And lists are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not list the owner's of each building, but if you look at the article you'll see it lists the addresses of all of them. Virtually none of the thousands of addresses listed are linked to articles and never will be as they appear to be addresses of houses and other small buildings. They are accompanied, apparently, by the date of their creation. There entire list consists solely of addresses and the date they were built; no context is provided, not notability is established. There probably is copywrite issues because someone most likely ripped this list wholesale from somewhere else. Sure, lists can be fine on Wikipedia but they should provide context, notability and should be easily maintainable; lists that have well over two thousand entries consisting primarily of items that will never have their own articles are almost, if ever, acceptable. --The Way 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not a directory, and therefore does not meet the criteria on W:NOT! Of course it lists their addresses, since buildings tend to be known by their addresses! That doesn't make it a directory. Since I'm not for or against this article, my only concern is that policies and guidelines are not incorrectly cited. -- Necrothesp 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a directory, at least as far as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is concerned. A list of addresses or names or a combination thereof constitutes a directory. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the fact that 99% of these buildings are non-notable and will never have articles, that the article itself provides no context, that the information is unencyclopedic and can be found elsewhere more appropriately and that it likely is a copyright violation. --The Way 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where in WP:NOT#DIRECTORY does it say that this is a directory? It doesn't appear to meet the criteria for any of the three categories listed there. It is not a list of "loosely associated topics" since it focuses on a single narrowly defined topic. It is not a genealogical entry or a phonebook entry. It is not a directory (as already established according to the pre-eminent dictionary of the English language), TV/radio guide or resource for conducting business. Unless there is a hidden category which I am unable to see, it is not therefore a directory in Wikipedia terms. Furthermore, maybe you should read both my previous posts where I said I was not trying to address anything other than your incorrect citing of a policy and note that I have not said "keep" anywhere. My concern is simply that people are getting rather too fond of citing policies and guidelines which they claim back up their arguments but which in fact do not. -- Necrothesp 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Necrothesp that this article cannot quite fall under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. However, it also does not fulfill WP:LIST, which is only a guideline, but states the purposes of lists. The first is information, which is not relevant, as the information in the article can be found in external links. The second is navigation, for which this article can be replaced by a category. The third is development, and since a vast majority of the locations listed on the article do not yet fulfill WP:N, a category can do the same job. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 09:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the example quoted of Listed buildings in Birmingham then there is information given such as date and architect that are not readily available in external links. If this list is converted to something like that one then it would provide information.

Replacing by categories is not very good as only those entries with an article would appear in the category list.

Keith D 10:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a need for every listed building to be listed down in this manner on Wikipedia, when alternatives exist? Unfortunately, this article is in a far worse state than Listed buildings in Birmingham, and in its present state, is unsuitable for Wikipedia. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per The Rambling Man and Necrothesp. I'd suggest listing just the Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings, as well as the most notable ones in Grade II. The Birmingham article would also be a more effective template than the Liverpool list, which is rather difficult to read or use. I don't have any objection to having lists of Listed Buildings (in the same way we have lists of buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in the United States), but a common format would be easier to use. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I checked a little more closely, Listed buildings in Merseyside already contains a section for Liverpool, but in a more concise format. And, apparently, every building within a particular district is listed separately, as in Port Sunlight which has 900 listed buildings. In contrast, United States NRHP properties often group buildings together if they're in a single district or if they're submitted as part of a historic district. Often, they're part of a Multiple Property Submission. With that in mind, I'm thinking more that any relevant information should be merged to Listed buildings in Merseyside, and the rest of the article should be deleted. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Rambling Man, Dhartung (and indeed the delete arguments by the nom and Bwithh can be resolved by cleanup). Clearly an enyclopedia topic, readily verifiable, and we all agree on the cleanup needed. I'd prefer to see Liverpool kept separate from Merseyside, but Elkman's merge argument is worth considering, after cleanup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per bwithh. Most of the plain old Grade II buildings are completely non-notable, and a great big list of non-notable things is worthless. Leave it as a redirect to Listed buildings in Merseyside, which is a good article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinto's law[edit]

Seems like another non-notable vanity law. Google search for "Pinto's law" only turns up 92 hits, most of which are either Wikipedia mirrors or articles by Jim Pinto quoting his own law. I prodded this, but an anon removed the prod, claiming 52,000 Google hits; you get 52,000 if you search for the words "Pinto's" and "law" separately, but only 92 hits for the phrase. TomTheHand 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never replaced PageName --⁪froth^T 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this malformed AFD is a discussion about Pinto's law. The Rambling Man 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, guys :-/ TomTheHand 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. TRKtv t c e 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a non-notable vanity page, with essentially no Google hits except mirrors and articles by the author. Is the text blatantly obvious or total nonsense? I couldn't quite decide.--Anthony.bradbury 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ThuranX 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TRKtv t c e 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently verified.-- danntm ^T _C 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detete Pinto's Law of Self Promotion is not notable. CiaranG 12:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dulbecco's law[edit]

Unsourced and seems non-notable to me; only 34 Google hits. TomTheHand 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability and no verifiable sources. Also, no mention of this "law" on Dulbecco's page so presumably not that important to him. The Rambling Man 16:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, even by Dulbecco.--Anthony.bradbury 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ThuranX 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only 34 ghits does not indicate substantial enough notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QISDL[edit]

QISDL stands for "Quality Independent Self Directed Learner". This refers to part of a program that's specific to Allan A. Martin Senior Public School in Ontario. The google search for this term returns 3 hits: the wikipedia article, a personnal home page of a former student of the program and the page of the school. Hence, there does not appear to be any third-party coverage whatsoever and the page is just internal lingo and of no encyclopedic interest. Pascal.Tesson 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In no way verifiable within the article, Google reveals as nom, nothing staggering, article has no sources and makes no real claim of notability. The Rambling Man 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Allan A. Martin Senior Public School. Likewise for the article about International Business and Technology Program of which QISDL is apparently a part. Gimboid13 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... Addhoc 14:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable photography[edit]

Article does give reader any reason to believe that "Disposable photography" is anything more than a phrase/concept invented by a relatively unknown photographer. There is nothing to indicate that the phrase is commonly used in the manner described. Fourohfour 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Google search on "Laura LeSire" and "Disposable photography" turns up *nothing* except copies/derivatives of the Wikipedia article itself. Fourohfour 17:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism describing non-notable technique. If the article had been titled "using a disposable camera", which has the same meaning, it would not have got even this far.--Anthony.bradbury 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable --Bill.matthews 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were a real movement with this name it might be interesting. Google suggests there is no such movement, and Wikipedia should not be spearheading either a movement or a neologism. EdJohnston 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above... Addhoc 13:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Schefft[edit]

Non-notable reality television show contestant. Mikeblas 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable. Incidentally, I don't know the show. By wanting only to be friends, did she blow the whole series?--Anthony.bradbury 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - surely a case of {{nn-bio}} _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. The Rambling Man 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She gets an occasional note in the local gossip columns here in Chicago (she was linked with one of the Trump Apprentice winners for a while) but I certainly wouldn't consider her notable. Fan-1967 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Bachelorette, since the only info in this article governs her appearance on that show, and it's a logical destination. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has just published a book, Better Single than Sorry. There may be many more to come depending on the popularity. Kind of a new version of Sex and the City. Swilliams 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Scaia[edit]

This was nominated by a sock of User:JB196, which qualifies for a speedy close. However, I am goign to nominate the article myself since the guy's main claim to fame is participation on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, whihc is a Usenet newsgroup and thus has absolutely no bar to participation. If venturing opinions on Usenet makes you notable then even I would get an article. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (again); he has, in fact, been involved with other commercial sites, including a stint on a CBS-owned website, and isn't specifically a Usenet phenomenon. I think most Internet wrestling fans will know who he is. BUT... I tagged this thing forever ago, and nobody has come up with much in the way of reliable sources indicating his notability. Thus, I'm for a weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, feature writer for a WP:WEB-failing website is not notability (leaving aside Usenet, which I don't think is actually presented as his claim to fame, just his, er, staircase to it). --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

Reluctant Delete, Actually his claim to fame would be wrestline and apparently gettin paid for it. He is notable among internet wrestling fans but do not know if he reaches the threshold of notability since he has not had any book published. I know Scott Keith has like mentioned in the first go-round of this afd. I would say he should be included once he has something published, if he ever does. MrMurph101 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human cheese[edit]

I have researched this subject myself, some, and never found a reliable source discussing the existence ~~(or even hypothetical existence)~~ of cheese made from human breast milk. The article itself cites three sources, only one of which is about cheese (the others are about milk), and that one source (http://oxhouse.org/~brent/writing/human-cheese.txt) is far from being a reliable source. In external links, there is a blog post on the topic as well: again, very much not a reliable source. Also, much of this article as it now stands is original research, extrapolating what the nutritional value of human cheese would be, based on the nutritional value of human milk. Delete —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I forgot myself; I did find this Savage Love column discussing the possibility, which I guess is arguable an RS. The columnist makes a few calls, including one to a cheesemaker who says "The department of health might have something to say about that." But is it possible? "You could probably do it, I don't see why not--provided you could get your hands on the milk." See Talk:Cheese#Human Cheese for a little more. I don't think it's nearly enough for an article here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real sources on this. Friday (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Friday _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced, fails WP:V. And, incidentally, what do we do with the unwanted babies that would be a by-product of human dairy production on a commercial scale? ;) Tevildo 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Siegel has a suggestion, and its even more horrifying[28] (a passing mention as a horrific idea in a book - no, this is not a substantive source) Bwithh 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newspaper column is, I think, a fairly famous one which gets reprinted from time to time and has appeared in newspapers across Canada and the United States, since Dan Savage's column is syndicated to several other alternative newspapers. In the same way that Wikipedia has articles debunking urban legends, here we have an article which says "it's possible but probably wouldn't be a very good idea". The points in the article seem adequately referenced (and the fact that some don't mention cheese is fine - the references are illustrating points about human milk), except for the suggestion about it being appropriate for vegan diets. However, I think the article has adequate sources. --Eastmain 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage is a notable columnist. However, a bit of speculation in his advice column, does not make an encyclopedia article. There are all kinds of things people can speculate about (why not human bacon, too?) but until it's more real, I don't see how there's enough information on this topic for it to have a proper article. Friday (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No substantial reliable sources or evidence of widespread use of the concept on this. Breast milk references are not germane to specific topic at hand Bwithh 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"Widespread use" is not a sine qua non for inclusion. -THB 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable substantive sourcing is a requirement, and evidence of widespread use is part of the rationale behind WP:NEO and WP:NFT Bwithh 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in category:Fictional foods. I don't see why this article is any less worthy than ones on fictional schools in anime. -THB 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending articles on fictional schools in anime Bwithh 20:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not clear on what basis this deletion is to occur. It is a sourced article. -THB 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inadequately sourced article. We're supposed to care about the character and quality of sources Bwithh 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, so delete all inadequately sourced articles. Then Wikipedia will have about 3,000 articles. -THB 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This really shouldn't be about whether the article is adequately sourced. Rather, ask yourself if it is possible for this article to be adequately sourced. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, aggressive deletion of inadequately sourced content is something User:Jimbo is quite keen on. Bwithh 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequately sourced, unsourceable, unverifiable. Wikipedia is not for things Dan Savage thinks might be interesting theoretically. --Charlene 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sourcing has improved since AfD was nominated. Still not 100% convinced that it's worth an article, but I now see no active reasons to delete it. Tevildo 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that has been added has been the Dan Savage column. Bwithh 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just basically dressed-up WP:NFT without notable usage or even interest. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real content here, and I can't see how any can be added. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when I found this article I really thought this was a joke. Why isn't it being CSD'ed? I honestly believe there's no such thing as "human milk" and I espescially liked the part about "the taste depends on what you feed your human". SMC 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Human milk is the breast milk that mothers feed to their babies. --Eastmain 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me correct that. "Human cheese". SMC 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not got any reliable sources and never will have. Does anyone actually think human cheese would pass FDA regulations.--Solentways 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The 16,200 google hits for "human cheese" suggest that people are interested in the concept. Even the nominating editor admits to having done research on this. People are interested! (So, human cheese is notable.) The article is sourced; the Savage Love article (and I can't find the older version on The Stranger website, but I think I remember Dan Savage getting lots of responses to that column) and the external link blog (with pictures!) are a very good start. The milk content sources are useful, relevant, helpful sources that make the case for you-can't-make-human-milk in this article very well. The sources have bit and pieces that, when put together as they are in the article right now, make that case better than any of the sources taken alone. This is a characteristic of a good article, not a characteristic of original research! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-manual, so the fact that you probably CAN'T make human cheese is not a problem! It is also not a problem that the FDA would not approve of human cheese; wikipedia isn't a list of food approved by the FDA. If people are interested in the concept of "human cheese," having a wikipedia article that tells them that they can't buy it, and probably can't make it, either, is actually really useful. Enuja 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not meeting "original research" and "verifiablity" are two different reasons to delete an article. It's not "original research" because of the Dan Savage article and the blog. Neither of these are particularly "good," reputable sources, but they do strongly show that this concept is extant. However, there are "good" reputable sources for what's in human milk, which makes this article verifiable. As I said above, it's noteable for the sheer number of goole hits (although some of them must be about the sex thing, I don't think most of them are).Enuja 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no decent sources on human cheese (as opposed to human milk) Pseudomonas 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what I see here is decent sourcing for a speculative topic. You don't have to require that the thing exists (otherwise there would be no Bigfoot article), you only have to show that WP:V is met as far as the speculations and WP:N is met as far as the level of interest in said speculations. From what I've seen, I believe this article has met both. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw - crz crztalk 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levy Restaurants[edit]

WP:CORP, probably some kind of WP:COI, see the deleted WOCAAT. - crz crztalk 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references that I was able to find mean that the current version article should pass WP:CORP. I edited out the NPOV stuff. I think the article is acceptable now. In general, I think it's best to avoid deleting problem articles about big companies that have significant reference value, and with sales of $610 million or so, this is a big company. --Eastmain 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major national restaurant operator. Eastmain's edits establish WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-Named Carnival Ship[edit]

I had {{prod}}ed this article some time ago, and another user has just done so (both {{prod}}s were removed). Whilst I appreciate this is not really a case of WP:NOT a crystal ball (Carnival have, after all, ordered this ship) I really do not think that an "as yet unnamed" cruise ship, on which very little information has been released, merits an article on Wikipedia at this time. Until more information is released by Carnival, it would seem sensible to move the pertinent three lines of information to Carnival Cruise Lines (in place of the "Un-Named Class" section) and delete Un-Named Carnival Ship (and it's associated - laughable - redirect Un-Named Carnival Ship (ship)). _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Carnival Cruise Lines per nomination. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge It's crystalballing in my view, to have an article on a ship which may never be launched Bwithh 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article until such time as more information becomes available. All info is externally verifiable, either through the Carnival press release, or through Fincantieri's list of ships built/building. Send the redirect to hell. -- saberwyn 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not crystal ball in any shape to have an article on a ship on order, any more so for a building under construction (two of them, actually, Carnival confirms they've got two of the same size and plans building for 2009 and 2010 service dates respectively). Money has been paid, contracts are signed, there are plans - it's real. If it were never going to get more detail, then merging it in to the parent article would make sense, but we know that more info will be released on the ship as it moves through the construction process and towards service. Any article on a confirmably real notable item, and two ships among the world's 10 largest cruise ships are notable, is worth having. The article will grow over time to have good content (as much as the other cruise ship articles), and should be kept for now. Deleting it now, just to recreate it as the ship nears its launch date, is silly and a waste of time. Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't doubt the notability of the ship(s) even whilst under construction - I just don't see the sense in a separate article with minimal information, and which people are unlikely to specifically search for. A few sentences in the Carnival article would seem much more useful to the public reading that article. The process of merging the article now, only to merge it back out again in a years time is hardly a lengthy process - and certainly not a "silly waste of time" if it improves the quality and usefulness of our content in the meantime. I do fully agree with Capitalistroadster below that the ship(s) will merit their own article once named and launched. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ship is set to debut on September 2009, it's what, only January 2006? And if deleting articles that are not up to WP's standards, then being silly and wasting time is worth the effort. Berserkerz Crit 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this stage it is worth noting that Carnival is building the ships in their article. However, it would be preferable that we have an article once the ships are named as people looking for the information at this stage would be more likely to look at the Carnival article that enter the term Un-named Carnival Ship expecting an article. The redirect is probably not going to be searched for.Capitalistroadster 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Carnival Cruise Lines. Pretty much crystal balling (yes, its sourced but the only ref links so far seems to be the owner and ship builder). How notable these ships would be given that they will be #11 down the line (in tonnage) compared to RMS Queen Mary 2 and MS Freedom of the Seas? --Eqdoktor 09:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no Redirect. May not be crystal balling as much as other articles but it violates WP:NOTE. A press release does not notability make. Who would look Wikipedia up for a unnamed ship of Carnival Cruise Lines?? The news of the press release is better suited to the main Carnival Cruise Lines article. I prodded it because I am new to deletion processes and wanted an admin or somebody more experienced to look it up and judge it for themselves, but after finding out my prod was removed, I'm glad somebody Afd'd it. And be glad I didn't prod the other ships, they look like blatant advertisements. Only those ships involved in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort are suited for Wikipedia. Even the main Carnival Cruise Lines article doesn't have third-party references making it look like an advertisement as well, except for the Hurricane Katrina section. Berserkerz Crit 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should be glad you didn't prod the other ships?! I find it hard to think that all those prods would have come to anything if you had of done - some of the largest cruise ships in the world are most definitely notable as is Carnival Cruise Lines. The fact that many of the articles may be short and lacking adequate references is a reason to improve them, not delete them. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to Carnival Cruise Lines. People will be looking for information on them there, not at the present title. Choess 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. After deletion, no objection to redirect... Addhoc 15:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was semi-speedy delete. Major contributor requested deletion [29], and nobody other than a brand new user wanted to keep it. -- Steel 11:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons World Online[edit]

Site less than three months old, most of the history is has its first ad, adds a chat box, etc. Related pages have been deleted before. Seems to be an advert for a Nickelodeon spin-off. Delete, maybe even speedy for advert and lack of notability. Chris 73 | Talk 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For now As of now, not that notable...however I can see the article being relevant when the site gets a little older and more prominant. Gan fon 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be the article creator speaking, but I really enjoy this site. It is not a spin-off, but I personally know the site owner/creator. They have big plans and a great amount of members. I know it is going to be huge, while not much now, it will grow to a great yet kid-safe community! Please reconsider keeping my article, GGX (creator of site) would be greatly dissapointed. Thank you. Dphantom15 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal connections with this site as your reasoning to 'keep' this article blatantly says there is no reason this article should be in an encyclopedia. -- Wikipedical 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet a notable site. If it becomes one in the future, article may be recreated at that time. Fan-1967 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This place is still growing in member size and plans for the future. What is a notable site, anyway? A site that's extremely popular amongst the internet surfers? In my opinion, no site can get popular without the help of other sources. ShadowColtz
- — ShadowColtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:WEB. Those suggesting to keep are asked to cite policies and guidelines in support of their recommendation... really enjoying the site and having big plans are not criteria for inclusion, and furthermore Wikipedia is not a medium for boosting the popularity of this or any other site. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete per nom, per WP:WEB. More like advertising to me. -- Wikipedical 21:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mecu (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatarian[edit]

WP:NEO Neologism - appears in a few blogs, not in Urban Dictionary. Too new for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagle (talk • contribs)

Delete. Neologism, unverified, no reliable, independent sources cited. Note also that writing in the first person is just not a good thing. In addition to all this, it sounds like the creator of the word (who may well be the creator of the article) has never heard of "pesco/pollo vegetarianism." Picaroon 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Picaroon. Static Universe

Do not Delete Article has been updated. Pesco/pollo do not offer a current and immediate description of an Aquatarian. Article has been updated with references as well as first person revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasncab (talk • contribs)

Save Definition is included in the Urban Dictionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasncab (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 January 2007.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Static Universe 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Urban Dictionary "by jasncab Phoenix Jan 14, 2007".

One vote per editor, please. --John Nagle 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and NEO.--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have Pescetarianism... Addhoc 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. The article has been re-directed to Baked beans, and a brief mention of "Cup of beans" made in that article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of beans[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. Tagged as patent nonsense, which it isn't, but it appears to be a recipe. No vote. Chick Bowen 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this page for speedy deletion - apologies if I nominated it under the wrong head. The page author is User:CupOBeans - the page's content doesn't serve to do anything other than reflect the user's name. Please see my post on the article's talk page; the article's assertion that it's a wide-spread British term is not backed up by a Google UK search (nor by personal experience, but I know that doesn't count!) and the only reference to it I could find online is from an Alan Partridge episode (which the author also cites). It's a vanity page, it's non-encyclopaedic, and it's not accurate or backed up by references. Squeezeweasel 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it cannot be referenced it certainly should be deleted, yes. Chick Bowen 18:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see further comment on article's talk page and this Google search for reference [30] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CupOBeans (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Surely WP:NFT?! The Rambling Man 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man - if you would care to check the above link to references online: I can assure you that I did not go to school with every single author of the 372 web pages listed as results in the Google search. Your use of WP:NFT as a reason for deletion is invalid. CupOBeans 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no doubt. However, you must ascertain the notability of this phrase for it to remain with the Wikipedia. You should seek out a number of verifiable reliable sources which give credence to its inclusion. By all means modify the article to meet these requirements and I will be more than happy to re-appraise my opinion. The Rambling Man 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited this article as requested documenting the known history of the phrase. The source I originally cited was a BBC website, and I have now added a link to a popular television program whose script incorporates the phrase. CupOBeans 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A gag from a British comedy show - too trivial in itself for its own article. Unverifiable as a real, significant practice. I've usually eaten my baked beans from a bowl. Should we have "Bowl of beans"? Bwithh 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed the phrase was used on a popular TV show in the UK. You are free to create Bowl of beans if this is your personal preferred method of serving the food. Cup of beans, however, documents a distinct method of food preparation. Your feeling that this is not a 'significant practice' because a small statistical proportion of the population utilises this method of serving beans, is not a valid argument for deletion.CupOBeans 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to create Bowl of beans because I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not "my feeling" that is in question here, its your responsibility to produce substantial, reliable, non-trivial sources Bwithh 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your view on what is trivial is not relevant. If you can show with irrevocable logic that the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy demands the removal of this article I will not contest it any further.CupOBeans 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policies and guidelines that are relevant to this deletion discussion are: WP:NOT#IINFO (Wikipedia is not a recipe book), WP:RS (you haven't provided any good references for this article) and WP:NOTE (this hasn't received non-trivial mentions in published works). The subject of this article is thus not worthy of an encyclopedia entry per these policies and guidelines (as Bowl of beans would be, if it was created). Hut 8.5 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTYou cannot use this as an argument for the deletion of this article as doing so would mean you would also need to recommend every other article on food preparation for deletion. This would be an immense task and greatly detract from the completeness of content on Wikipedia.

WP:RS I have provided two references of the use of the phrase cup of beans, one from a BBC website (which anyone would consider a reliable source) and the other shown in a video clip from a very popular television program. This is more than many other articles which cite only a single reference or none at all. I have also provided a link, in this discussion, to a Google search showing 300+ websites where various people have used the phrase to describe the dish detailed in Cup of beans.

WP:NOTE The second reference is a published work viewed by many thousands of individuals and the clip deals almost in entirety with the preparation and consumption of the dish.CupOBeans 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC reference is a trivial reference, and doesn't count. I don't consider that every phrase used in a TV programme should be given its own article, unless the gag itself is notable. We don't need articles covering every last line in every comedy show.

As for the recipe argument, articles such as Fish and chips do give examples of ways in which a dish can be served, but this article consists of very little else, and can therefore be considered a recipe. (Besides, Fish and chips is obviously well-known, whereas Cup of beans isn't.)

The fact that lots of people on the web use this isn't a good argument - they are using it to describe a cup filled with beans. If all the article said was "Cup of beans is used to describe a cup filled with beans", then the article meets the speedy deletion criteria. Hut 8.5 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither recipes nor gags make good encyclopedia articles. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By your logic, Squiddy, we must also therefore delete the following articles and countless more: Toad in the hole, Cauliflower cheese, Bangers and mash, Fish and chips, Sushi, Hamburger. CupOBeans 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment. Patently false - the Toad in the Hole article describes it as a traditional British dish, which it is and yours isn't, and doesn't give a recipe. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Toad in the Hole: "consists of sausages in Yorkshire pudding batter, usually served with vegetables and gravy." This is as much of a recipe as that described in Cup of beans. Furthermore, you did not argue that Cup of beans should be deleted because it is a 'traditional' dish. Nowhere in the article is this stated and the status of any dish as being traditional or not would not be a criterion for deletion from Wikipedia anyway. Your remark that I had falsely made any claim is therefore completely unfounded and you have yet to support your original argument for the deletion of this article with any kind of logic. CupOBeans 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subject doesn't need its own article. A trivial mention in a comedy programme hardly confers notability, and Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Hut 8.5 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to your opinion on whether or not any subject needs an article, but that is not an argument supporting the deletion of this article. If you refer to the search link given above, you will find numerous websites where a multitude of people have used the phrase cup of beans to describe this dish. Agreed that Wikipedia is not a recipe book, it is an encyclopaedia that already contains a vast number of articles describing the methods of serving and preparation of various dishes. In order to avoid hypocrisy you will need to recommend all of these for deletion if you argue for the deletion of Cup of beans along these lines. You will need to use the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy to prove this article requires removal from Wikipedia.CupOBeans 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't sound so patronising. Yes, Wikipedia articles do contains recipes outlining the preparation of food, but this article doesn't contain much else, except a trivial mention in a comedy show which obviously isn't notable. Hut 8.5 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and User:CupOBeans is not really helping his cause.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:CupOBeans is trying to prevent the unwarranted deletion of an article from the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy and there is therefore no consensus by vote in these discussions; Dmz5 - you have not presented any kind of argument as to why you think this article should be removed - you have added nothing to this discussion by simply editing in the word 'delete'.CupOBeans 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon me, I left out the phrase "per nom", which sums up my feelings.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erase the bad original research (a one-pound can of beans does not fit in an 8 ounce coffee cup) merge what's left to Baked beans and I'm Alan Partridge, by itself the phrase is not notable enough for its own article. BTW, the burden of proof is on the author to show why this should be included, not up to the other editors to prove why it shouldn't. Tubezone 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baked beans' by the articles own submission, the recipe is only baked beans RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May not be an american concept. Sounds similar to an article on Mashed potato, or some other food item that is served in a restaurant. Does not appear to be an advert and has a reference to a pop culture reference in a television show. I do not think this article is hurting wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar style article is the article on Fish and chips. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fish and chips article is properly sourced. It's a documented traditional dish with documented regional variations, and a documented history. While its style could do with a cleanup (I'm on it), Fish and chips passes WP:NOTE with flying colours. The article we're discussing here does not. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has been disputed that inclusion in the british television show satifies wikipedias notability guidelines, but I think that it does. It may not be a concept familiar but does not mean it is valid. Perhaps a cleanup or some other tag may have been appropriate. The articles current writing does not read like a recipie to me. If i wanted to have a "cup of beans" for dinner, if there are any specifics to it this articles does not provide them. It explains where it is used in television hence it asserts notability. And, i feel it may be on the line of notability, and in the case i would rather err on the side of caution and let this article be here. In the future, when somebody watching that television show wonders what a cup of beans might be, this article could provide a little more insight into it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait. The usage on the television show hardly confers notability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't a catchphrase was it? Did someone order and eat a cup o' beans every episode? If that's the case, then I am open to keeping this. But if you are watching a rerun of The King of Queens and somebody orders "a plate of spaghetti", you can't then go on wikipedia, create an article called A Plate of Spaghetti, explain how to "make" it, and cite the TV reference as a source. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says this phrase only turned up once, in one episode of I'm Alan Partridge, it doesn't even turn up in synopsises on the episode that I can find. It's not repeated into a popular catchphrase (like Yada Yada or Soup Nazi), nor has the sketch or episode become famous on its own (like the Dead Parrot Sketch, which this AfD is increasingly beginning to resemble). At best, due to whatever little notability the association with Alan Partridge bestows on it, this should be a redirect, like Bender's catchphrase Bite my shiny metal ass. Tubezone 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A sympathy vote!!! --Boris Johnson VC 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baked Beans Considering the entire recipe is baked beans, maybe add a section to the baked beans article mentioning it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwym (talk • contribs)

A redirect was exactly what I was going to suggest. I second that notion, and am about to boldly go and do it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane Addiction[edit]

Band has never released an album, works mainly out of myspace Chris 73 | Talk 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:MUSIC, not asserting notability and besides quoting their own MySpace, anyone for WP:RS? The Rambling Man 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band with no released albums and no evidence of third-party press coverage. --Delirium 06:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence of notability presented. --A. B. ^(talk) 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 17:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Worthington-Kirsch[edit]

Does not meet notability guideline for Wiki Biography WP:BIO. Also, single contributor, possibly, WP:VAIN --Hollerbackgril 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google search reveals 560 hits including:

Feature news story on NBC-10 Philadelphia

invited speaker at British Society of Interventional Radiology

Quoted in Springfield MO News Leader aticle on UAE 9/12/04

Quoted in article in HealthMeasures.com 9/8/03

Quoted in article in Diagnoastic Imaging 8/1/06

Speaker at National Conference on New Advances in Women's Health, McLean VA 10/1999

Published article in Endovascular Today 1/06

Noted as prominent provider of the procedure in interview with Dr Scott Goodwin, one of the originators of the producedure in esi-topics.com

referenced in 4 books on Amazon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplemouse (talk • contribs)

delete Only three of the article the page lists were peer-reviewed. This is below the average, so he does not qualify as a scientist. As a clinician, giving intrviews and speaking at meetings does not make him notable, All medical specialists do that, as a form of advertising. If a medical proceedure is only mentioed in a couple of local sources, then it isnt notable as a clinical advance.

The first paragraph of the article is self-advertising puffery. The second is a list of his education. He says he is an Assistant prof. at a Phila med School. Oddly, he does not list their web site as a source--but checking their catalog I find him listed as a Clinical Assistant Professor, which is not the same and probably not just carelessness.

We need a special N standard for clinicians, because he isnt the first to try to get listed in WP. When they actually have done significant research, or won academic awards, then they deserve to get in as academics. He hasn't and doesn't. And as a clinician, an notable clinician would have quite a lot more to show. DGG 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, his most prominent publications in refereed journals have been co-authored by many many other people. Several things strange about this: 1) Why not list the co-authors and give them credit? 2) None of his co-authors have wikpedia pages. I can't see why he should have one, while the others do not. E.G.: Francis Hutchins, R Berkowitz, George Popky, James B Spies, Jay M Cooper John C Lipman, Benjie B Mills, James F Benenati, and the list goes on and on. I wish he would put up the co-authors names and properly credit them for the articles he lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollerbackgril (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep - very marginal. A google news archive search is only just good enough to get past WP:N... Addhoc 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neutral I don't know enough about WP's criteria for notability of clinicians. However, when I go to www.pubmed.org and search for "robert worthington-kirsch" I see a list of 20 search results that look quite legit. I could be persuaded to give a definite vote for or against deletion if someone can look at these 20 results and tell me what their quality reveals. For a start, if this article is to be kept, I would expect to see all the cited references in the article to be properly spelled out, with all their authors, and with their PMIDs supplied, because that allows access to their abstracts. Currently the article doesn't have that. EdJohnston 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Extreme Championship Wrestling[edit]

The history of Extreme Championship Wrestling should be covered in a short paragraph in Extreme Championship Wrestling, not in a separate article which is not far short of the word count in History of television. Wrestlecruft, of no relevance outside the dedicated fanbase and documented solely by and for them. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, this takes Wrestlecruft to the next level. The Rambling Man 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Content already well summarized at Extreme Championship Wrestling. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes admittedly, the article is a mess now of WP:OR and does not cite sources for much that is written, BUT lots of good articles start out that way. ECW is a major and notable wrestling brand that a lot of famous pro-wrestling stars started from (hence the notability/importance of its history). To label it as "wrestlecruft" and mark it for deletion is a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Putting cleanup or other relevant tags on the article, or raising questions in the talk page, or even being bold and attempting to directly solve the article's alleged faults, is the way to solve content problems. The AfD process should be reserved for cases where the existence of the article itself is questionable under Wikipedia policy (I took that comment from here). --Eqdoktor 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, doesn't cite any sources, but if sourced and free of OR, there would be nothing wrong with keeping it. Guy, I find these interesting and I don't consider myself a wrestling fan. Narrow interest is not a reason to delete; we're not paper and we don't have to limit ourselves to popular things. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and move to Newbank, Glasgow, leaving redirect or DAB as needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious meanings have already been dealt with in the article; all that remains is the Glasgow meaning, which was consensus Keep.

Newbank[edit]

Seems to be non notable, external refs are the banks website and a press release. Chris 73 | Talk 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep post rewrite - but only for the area in Glasgow as referenced in the template. The non-notable banks can go. The Rambling Man 19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D/K/K. The first Newbank is a wiki in the UK which offers course help for secondary school students. I can't find external references to it, so I suppose it will have to be deleted. The second Newbank is not a regular commercial bank but an emergency-only organization that will be activated if another very large bank (one which clears US government securities) fails. The press release is from a U.S. government agency rather than from Newbank itself. I would keep this article as a stub. The third Newbank should become a separate article, probably renamed Newbank, Glasgow. --Eastmain 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really should be three separate articles. The first (schoolwork wiki) is manifestly not notable. The second (dormant bank) would seem appropriate for a merge and disambiguation redirect to Federal Reserve Bank. The third looks like the original subject of the article and should be kept with the other bits stripped off. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig: #1 being non-sourced probably needs to go. #2 & #3 should have their own articles. Given that there are c. 20,000 ghits for 'newbank', it's probable that there will be more entries for a disambig page. SkierRMH,07:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Because the Federal Reserve System article is so large and since Newbank can't really be mentioned within the first two paragraphs of Federal Reserve System, I don't think a merger-redirect is the best solution. Rather, I would keep the Newbank (bank) article as a stub, until the bank is actually activated, in which case the article could be expanded. --Eastmain 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only for area in Glasgow. Addhoc 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11/G12 by RadioKirk. Tevildo 22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Indian Family[edit]

cut n pasted from the website, entire page is promotional. The foundation may be good, but the article is clearly not. ThuranX 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be copyvio. Tagged as such. Navou ^banter 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Save Indian Family, a much better article about its parent organization. Tevildo 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mgcini Mkwananzi[edit]

Non-notable, unencyclopedic tone which strongly suggests a conflict of interest. —EdGl 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious claims to notability are unsourced and seem unverifiable. Search finds primarily Wikipedia and mirrors. Fan-1967 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Songs of Praise is a TV show that each week turns up at a church and films the congregation or choir singing. Being in the choir or congragation doesn't constitute notability. Addhoc 13:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Shah[edit]

appears to be an autobiography, does not appear to be notable Julesd 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I expanded the article and think that he now passes WP:BIO. The article in the Jewish Journal that was (partly) about him was particularly interesting. -- Eastmain 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a junior journalist, even on a respected newspaper, is not notable. -- Lincolnite 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the updated article. The interview was interesting. Notability has not been established. One scholarship and one interview don't create notability for a journalist. --Bejnar 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--D-Boy 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I applaud Eastmain's effort, but I still don't think the references are enough to meet BIO. The guy's only real claim to notability is winning the Daniel Pearl fellowship. I don't think that's enough, given that there's no indication the fellowship is notable.--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Santoro[edit]

Vanity page written almost entirely by the subject. Marginal notability; Google hits go to his personal site and his profile page on various web forums, blogs, etc. Dppowell 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some coverage is found. Being nominated for awards isn't enough for WP:BIO adn there don't appear to be any independent sources to verify information from. Trebor 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO standards for author notability. "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Appears to be a work of self-promotion. Alphageekpa 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Do Not Delete"" While the information on the entry is self-provided, I am the author of many short stories, a novel and several novellas. I am establishing a presence within the field of fantasy and science fiction literature. Many Google hit go to sites other than my own: HWA, ANNIHILATION PRESS, Twilight Tales, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.135.142.149 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can you provide links to independent sources on your work? Or point to where you pass the notability requirements for people. You may also want to read our guideline on autobiographical articles. Trebor 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xasthur[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [31] [32] [33] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 5+ albums on 3 different labels, meets WP:MUSIC SkierRMH,05:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above; albums released through Hydra Head Records, Displeased Records and Southern Lord Records. The article is now referenced too. Prolog 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - references aren't very good, however probably salvageable. Addhoc 15:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthride[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [34] [35] [36] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to just squeak by WP:MUSIC/Band with 3 albums, 'tis a stub, but not deletable. SkierRMH,05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of this band have previously been in other notable bands. Olliegrind 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I may not have much experience trying to use the criteria in WP:MUSIC but I did see this phrase:
The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist.
I don't see anything in the references about anyone else writing about this band. EdJohnston 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is one now. The article was just unverified, not unverifiable. Prolog 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC #4 and #5. Prolog 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google news archive gives several results... Addhoc 13:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Misery[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [37] [38] [39] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page for WikiProject Metal, and noted the criteria for notability on the article's talk page. --Eastlaw 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This one also squeaks by with 2 albums on 2 different labels. It would be nice to see other inclusion criteria (such as tours, etc.) mentioned in the article. SkierRMH,06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like SkierRMH says; the band just passes WP:MUSIC although it's borderline. Jayden54 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - signed to notable label, international touring act (I actually saw them on their last European tour, which they headlined (I'll see if I can find a report on a decent site but it was certainly covered in several UK magazines). Ac@osr 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added their full discography and a little more to the bio. They have 2 full length albums and a number of split albums and EPs as well as a full length (2xCD) compilation of early works. Some tour info is still needed. Olliegrind 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added their 2 live DVDs to the discography, one of which is a live footage from the European tour in 2005. I have added a note in the bio as well. Olliegrind 15:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 22:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grief (band)[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [40] [41] [42] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC by discography. --Eastlaw 08:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass WP:MUSIC for having more than two albums. Jayden54 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per nom, the issue is of notability. Two independent views state a firm delete on the basis of non-notability, and two propose a (weak?) keep on the basis of some degree of notability (the fifth view is from the article creator, whose sole contribution judging by contribution log has solely been to write articles on QuoteWerks and its company Aspire, in the two months of editing history to date. This tends to uphold the suggestions of promotion and COI per nom.) The question then is, whether any contributor to the AFD has provided reasonable evidence of notability. A couple of awards from a trade group [43] are not likely to be notable as the sole basis for this criteria, nor is being a Microsoft partner, having a wide sales net, or being congratulated for being a good integration to some other package especially notable. If there is (as Dogbert01 states) truly a significant size userbase or it truly is notable in any significant way, there would have been serious independent and credible sources able to be cited to support this, and upon citing, others would have accepted them. But none (beyond google which is often as much about marketing as actual importance) were presented to support this view in the AFD by any contributors. Although the 'vote' on the surface was fairly equal, AFD is not a vote, but a process to solicit policy-related points. Looking at the policy-related points related to promotional articles and notability, and the evidence for these put forward in the discussion, the nom seems to be well founded; no significant evidence suggesting otherwise was put forward. If the software in future becomes notable outside its own small circle and its mutually-supporting trade affiliates and relationships, then that would be different. But if that happens there will need to be clear evidence that others can see and agree, to support it.

QuoteWerks[edit]

A thinly-disguised advert, created by user whose only substantial contributions are to this article and the article of the company that wrote it; violates WP:COI. Claims "lots of requests for article" and an IP-address thanks for its creation. Claims awards, but links given are press releases or trade magazines; none appear notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional device. Akihabara 08:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. You may also want to zap the company. MER-C 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I am only contributing to subject areas that I have experience with and feel competent in writing. I work in the SFA and CRM industries, thus I will contribute in these areas. I do not see how the QuoteWerks listing is much different than say the GoldMine article (in fact it has more relevant information). The Microsoft Dynamics CRM article has even less information. TeleMagic is an antiquated CRM application that is no longer being developed. As far as the IPs, there are a number on other pages that have also requested the article. There a lot of anonymous contributions on Wikipedia. Are you going to delete all pages that fit that criteria? Would adding competion help in keeping the article? Dogbert01 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not compare with other articles; perhaps they should be gone too. What evidence from reliable sources is there of notability? Akihabara 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perform a search for QuoteWerks in Google [44]. You will find that over 41,000 results. Their website lists Hundreds of resellers worldwide [45]. A userbase of over 40,000 is rather substantial for a business software package [46]. The product can be found on all of the partner websites that were listed in the article. Dogbert01 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It seems to be a significant enough piece of software, but I would recommend that the article is rewritten to look less like company promotional material, extolling its features. GB 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep because the awards show notability and verifiability. Dogbert1 should examie some good articles about software companies and learn to write in the appropriate WP manner.DGG 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any suggestions of good software articles, please let me know. I am open to any suggestions to improve my skills. Please feel free to modify this article as well as an eaxample. Dogbert01 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - crz crztalk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) - crz crztalk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Void[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [47] [48] [49] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - stub, but no clear reason to delete. SkierRMH,05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as noted above. --Eastlaw 08:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all reasons noted above. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of many doom metal bands from Maryland during the 90s that was involved in a scene that became very influential for doom bands of today. Olliegrind 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:MUSIC with both touring and albums. Eluchil404 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lair of the Minotaur[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [50] [51] [52] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with these nominations does not mean there is bad faith involved.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned above, "possible". The speedy tags suggested systematic tagging of this record label's bands' articles without even reading them, and then these Afd nominations came equally as fast and as direct copy-paste work: Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected. Even a person was nominated for deletion as "Non-notable band". Prolog 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic without reading? Most of these don't have much TO read! This is the second time today I've been accused of being a bot. I normally don't take offense to things, but this "possible bad faith nom" is not appropriate, especially given the prior discussion that I've had with the user. --MECU≈talk 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that this deletion-tagging for articles related to this record label originated from an IRC conversation. You did not mention why this record label, which administrator proposed such a move and why, et cetera. Tagging any of these band articles for speedy deletion is not appropriate, because releasing albums on that label is already an assertion of notability. I assume good faith on your part, but there are no diffs to IRC queries and I'm not willing to assume blind faith. Considering these circumstances, adding a note about possible bad faith involved was a proper action. Prolog 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the proper action for nominating a article for CSD and having it removed? Either prod or AFD right? The IRC isn't relevant to why I'm here (other than a basic starting motivation). I'm here because I choose to CSD these articles and then AFD them after the CSD was rejected. I take full actions for my choices and as such, the IRC is now a moot point. --MECU≈talk 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, speedy keep is not appropriate since it does not meet the speedy keep guideline for the following reasons: 1) I want the pages deleted, I have not withdrawn my nomination, 2) This is not vandalism or disruption. 3) I am not banned. 4) The article it not currently linked from the main page. Any votes as such are not appropriate. --MECU≈talk 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Afd is appropriate, but "Non notable band" does not say much, especially if it is copy-pasted to over dozen nominations by a script. For example, this band meets #4 of WP:MUSIC, so why is it "non notable"? [53] It does not matter whether you take the responsibility for your tagging/nominating, the fact is someone asked you to target this record label and did so outside Wikipedia. Prolog 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment stands. Bringing up bad faith is still not so great, even if you preface it with the word "possible." AfDs are FULL of editors accusing one another of bad faith - let's not add to the fray!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator asks a user on IRC to go through a notable record label's bands and tag some of them for speedy deletion, I can see only two reasons for that; the admin does not understand CSD, which is unlikely, or he is not acting in good faith. The circumstances are dubious. 18/29 of Southern Lord Records' bands were tagged, including this and this. I'm not a fan of bad faith either, but this is enough to justify suspicions. Prolog 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Not having enough infomation is not a reason to delete an article. It's only a reason to expand and enhance it. dposse 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Appears to meet WP:MUSIC by having 3 albums released; however, it would be helpful to have some of the other notability criteria (such as tours) listed in the article. SkierRMH,07:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - clearly notable, with non-trivial references (e.g., [54]). Patstuart^talk|edits 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Ambarchi[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears on notable labels, with notable collaborators and guests with notable bands, all of which is in the (admittedly stubby) article. These are the GHits for those who attach importance to such things [55]. Ac@osr 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Ac@osr. — Crenner 13:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Skulls[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [56] [57] [58] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This band features Victor Griffin (primary guitarist on 1st 3 Pentagram albums) and Scott Weinrich (The Obsessed, Spirit Caravan, The Hidden Hand and Saint Vitus). These are 2 doom metal pioneers. Olliegrind 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 3 albums on various labels would pass WP:MUSIC; with the same note as others recently nominated, it would be nice to see some other inclusion criteria (such as tours) mentioned in the article. SkierRMH,07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC as noted above. --Eastlaw 08:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorr's Hammer[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See previous nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorr's Hammer. --MECU≈talk 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [59] [60] [61] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't fit the pattern; this band was together for only 6 weeks, produced only 1 album (although discography says 2 = internal contradiction) and there is no indication that it really does meet WP:MUSIC.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per previous discussion. Meets WP:MUSIC #5 with Stephen O'Malley and Greg Anderson, but the content could probably serve better merged somewhere, but I don't know to which article. Prolog 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth of Lions Rule the Divine[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [62] [63] [64] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Only one album, however there is a crossover with the musicians. Like others, would like to see other inclusion criteria added to the article. SkierRMH,07:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a "supergroup" of doom metal. With only notable members, such as Stephen O'Malley, Lee Dorrian and Greg Anderson, from very notable bands such as Napalm Death, Cathedral, Sunn O))) etc, meets WP:MUSIC #5. [65] Prolog 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above plus google news archive search... Addhoc 15:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden Hand (band)[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [66] [67] [68] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep dposse 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band has toured US/Europe and features Scott Weinrich who was in many highly influential doom metal bands (Saint Vitus, The Obsessed and Spirit Caravan). Olliegrind 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:MUSIC with 5+ albums, and again, the tours mentioned by Olliegrind would be a welcome inclusion in the article. SkierRMH,07:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC as noted above. --Eastlaw 08:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrones (band)[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [69] [70] [71] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band seems to satisfy criteria 4 and 5 of the music notability guidelines (I'm the one who removed the speedy tag). P4k 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has many releases on 2 major indie labels (Southern Lord Records and Kill Rock Stars). If not keep than should at least be merged in with the Joe Preston article. Olliegrind 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craft (band)[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [72] [73] [74] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. According to WP:V all articles must have a reliable secondary source and this currently fails. Not really a speedy delete candidate, though... Addhoc 22:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is actually not the Craft that is signed to Southern Lord Records, but just a band with the same name, which makes sense since this is prog rock. All Music Guide verifies this, but I don't know if it meets WP:MUSIC. Could meet criterion #5, since The Enid seems notable. Prolog 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarHill Gallery[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable shopping gallery. I couldn't find any sites on Google offering independent coverage of this - just location guides, press releases and mirrors of Wikipedia - and given what it is, seems unlikely any will be found (of course, I'm willing to reconsider if they are). Trebor 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites no sources, no third party coverage. Even if verifiable, fails WP:N based on what's before us. Sandstein 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... Addhoc 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Patstuart^talk|edits 10:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nortt[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [75] [76] [77] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good refs. User isn't a good judge of what bands to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Obsessed[edit]

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [78] [79] [80] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - dposse 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band is extremely important in the doom metal genre. It features Scott Weinrich who was in Saint Vitus, another doom metal pioneer. It also features members of Goatsnake, Kyuss and The Melvins, the latter two being extremely influential bands as well.Olliegrind 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:MUSIC solely by discography. SkierRMH,07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important due to membership and discography, meets WP:MUSIC. --Eastlaw 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:MUSIC. - Peregrine Fisher 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has mirror pages on both the Italian and Portugese Wikipedias.Olliegrind 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Caligiuri[edit]

Comment: At present Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies to the question of future grounds of notability which may or may not arise. A 'guarantee' that in future there will be notability does not therefore make him notable now. There is only one substansive argument for keep advanced by contributors to the debate, namely that he won a national championship (Canada) in one martial art, twice, then moved to a new martial art. No further grounds are suggested in the article. The consensus,although weak, seems to consider this inadequate grounds for notability, and that seems a reasonable and policy-respectful view.

This article is about a fellow of unclear notability. ^{[Check Google hits]} Googling the name results in 51 hits, not all of them relating to this particular person. The only one that could be considered a reliable source is this, an article in a university newspaper. I just don't think he's well-known enough yet for an article in Wikipedia. (Contested prod.) ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't know a lot about martial arts competitions, but from the article it doesn't sound like he's competing "at the highest level" in his sport. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Zetawoof, from the standpoint of someone outside of martial arts competitions it would be difficult to know who Ryan Caligiuri is; however, in the Canadian Shotokan/Kyokushin scene he is a very prominent figure. He was ranked the number kumite practioner at the age of 17 in the City and Province 3 times and was the number 1 ranked kumite practioner in Canada 2 years in a row, in Shotokan. He just recently retired from shotokan to begin Kyokushin, he has told me that he is gearing up for tournaments very soon within the next few months and I guarantee you will find more google resources for him.

I have to say though, that while you google him, I did the same thing. Googling him doesn't do justice, which is why I request that this page stand and I work on it to support Ryan in his endeavours in the world of Kyokushin, kickboxing and martial arts in general.

Please get back to me as I will further defend the initial stages of this article to proceed on to a more in depth piece...Thanks Zetawoof.

-KQ

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie bone (character)[edit]

Delete.A complete mess about an irrevelant character. CyberGhostface 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Children of the Red King article is sufficient enough until there's some actual paragraphs about the character. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename to fix capitalisation). I think it's now been expanded sufficiently to warrant keeping around, and there's still plenty more that can be added over time. He's the main character of a popular series that continues to grow. General Wesc 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article only offers a story summary. Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), an article on a major character should only be created if proper encyclopedic treatment can be offered. Otherwise it should stay within the main article on the work of fiction. Willing to reconsider if a secondary source establishing notability and out-of-universe analysis can be provided. --maclean 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure per WP:CSK and WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle Fédération-Board[edit]

This is an organisation that supposedly conducts football matches between the "national" teams of fictional or non-sovereign countries. They claim to have held one "tournament" so far, the VIVA World Cup, in which four teams supposedly managed to participate. I'm qualifying all of this because there appear to be few, if any, independent reliable sources covering this organisation or its teams (some of which are also up for AfD). This means that even if verifiable, it looks rather non-notable to me. Sandstein 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Based on the sources provided by Rheinländer and Elisson below, this organisation appears to be notable enough. Sandstein 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or possibly merge with VIVA World Cup as it is the main reason for notability. Examples of press coverage include [81] and [82], which I will incorporate into the article shortly. Oldelpaso 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, VIVA World Cup has coverage (because it's funny, I guess). But the organisation has no coverage independent from the cup, and is mentioned only in passing in the sources you provide. A merge may be a good idea if it's not deleted. Sandstein 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable board that has organized with many smaller nations to classify their football teams. --Czj 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ILIKEIT - how do you think it meets WP:N's requirement of multiple substantial coverage by reliable sources? Sandstein 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the "national team" articles for most of the member entitites. Only marginally more notable than the average bunch of guys playing amateur football in a park. If it does become a respected federation, with links to FIFA etc, then recreate at a later date. - fchd 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, the whole point of the board is to organise teams not connected to FIFA. Your last comment thus makes no sense at all. – Elisson • T • C • 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article states : "The NF-Board seeks to work with FIFA to be a temporary organisation for football teams before they acquire membership in FIFA." Until such links are made, I am assuming these games are not sanctioned by any officially organising body. I also note that only one of the member federations (N Cyprus) appears to have a Wikipedia article, and that most of the "National Team" articles have also been under AfD. Still a very clear delete in my eyes. - fchd 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, I misunderstood "with links to FIFA" as being a member confederation of FIFA in some kind of way. Still, I don't see the point. Why is it necessary for a governing body to be associated with FIFA to be notable in your eyes? What is an "officially organising body"? The NF-board is an official organising body for teams not affiliated with FIFA. And I am not sure how it is relevant that only one of the member federations has an article either. Not one of the regional governing bodies of the Swedish Football Association has an article, but that does not tell us anything whatsoever about the notability of that association. – Elisson • T • C • 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Part of a grassroots movement to help unregocnised nations gain that recognition through the sporting arena. The Sapmi and Northern Cypriot teams contain professional players, and many of the other nations have organised federations and national leagues. Superlinus 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikipedia's mission to "help unrecognised nations gain recognition", sorry. This is also not about the notability of some of the teams or of the national football cultures, but about the notability of the organisation. Sandstein 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only an important vehicle for smaller and unrecognised nations, but as for verifiable sources there has been a good deal of coverage of NF-B and other non-FIFA events in respected football publications such as World Soccer magazine. - grimdon01, 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But coverage of this organisation? References, please. Sandstein 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources exist, the BBC link gives quite a lot information about the board and its goals even though the article is short. UNPO and the NF-board made this declaration which also should be considered a reliable source (and not a self-published one, as it is another organisation that publishes it), and here's a report by the Organization for the European Minorities. The board and the cup has also had slightly more trivial coverage, but still coverage, by larger papers and media in Sweden and Norway. Minor governing bodies are usually not covered very much by media, but should, IMHO, be considered notable enough to have their own article partially based on the coverage given to arranged events and associated teams. I mean, how much info can be found on the Fédération de Foot-Ball de la Républic Islamique de Mauritanie, the governing body of football in Mauritania? Still, that federation should be considered notable on the grounds that they field a national team and that they arrange a national premier league which are better covered by media. The same goes for the NF-board. – Elisson • T • C • 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A league of unrecognized nations, not 'fictional' nations. --Joffeloff 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For the jurist: you should probably know the Bosman ruling: Bosmans lawyer was Luc Misson and exactly this Luc Misson was the initiator of NF-Board! Reliable Sources: Large German daily newspaper called Die Welt and Another German daily newspaper called Berliner Zeitung. Please, User:Sandstein, write a wikipedia:good article about Luc Misson instead of nominating Football (soccer)-articles for deletion.--Rheinländer 21:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elisson. Patken4 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mainland of China was not recognized by the United States for decades, which proves that VERY NOTABLE nations are often denied recognition by those with the power to do so. But Wikipedia shouldn't play that kind of politics. Today's unrecognized nation may be tomorrow's superpower. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, and this article is informative. Mauralarkins 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet. I apologize in advance if that would offend you, Sandstein, but had you not been withdrawn your nomination. I would have called WP:POINT for this nomination due to your involvement with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sealand national football team. SYSS Mouse 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What POINT, exactly, and how am I disrupting Wikipedia to prove it? Of course I've nominated some of these nonnotable teams for deletion, including that of Sealand. This in no way disqualifies me to nominate their (then apparently nonnotable) league as well, particularly if some of the comments on these team AfDs amount to "notable because it's a member of the NF-Board". Sandstein 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admirer of Sandstein because he re-evaluated and changed his opinion. This is the type of person Wikipedia needs. Not everyone is able to second-guess himself. Thank you, Sandstein. Maura Larkins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mauralarkins (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Elisson. Robotforaday 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable organisation. --Bob 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may be 'weak' teams of 'non-existent' or 'fictional' countries as some have stated, the fact is that these teams do exist, have played international matches and are members of an organisation. The fact that it is not well known is neither here nor there. Surely that's the point of Wikipedia anyway? Hammersfan 10.00 GMT, 18/01/07

This is now a moot issue, but the fact that something exists is certainly not sufficient for it to have an article; see the guideline WP:N and the policy WP:NOT#IINFO. Sandstein 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator has now withdrawn his/her nomination, shouldn't this AfD now be closed..........? ChrisTheDude 10:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not generally done if there are any "delete" opinions. It'll be closed soon anyway. Sandstein 10:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ellison. --Suleyman Habeeb 11:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Created by the marketing person at the company which s the source of the neologism [83]. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webability[edit]

This article seems to be about a word which has predominant use as marketing term invented by the company 'Azavar'. At the page http://www.azavar.com/approach/vision_commentary.aspx it is actually defined by Azavar with the 'TM' indicated a trademark. I don't not think a marketing term invented by a company to promote its own approach to web has the "notability" to warrant an article in Wikipedia when it has not spread into wider usage Madmedea 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. When a neologism is used by one, and only one, commercial enterprise, promoting the neologism amounts to promoting the company. Note that article creator has no other edits. Fan-1967 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism and trade name, and this article is in effect an advertisement. Sam Blacketer 21:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert to older version. Reverted version still accessible via page history, rather than deleted. No prejudice against its creation as a separate article ("Z++ (zhmicro version)") but will have to stand its own ground for notability if so.. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestions also left for author's, here.

Z++[edit]

It seems that the main author is just plugging his own, non-notable programming language. Simon G Best 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The reference section show independent, non-trivial coverage. The article asserts notability to a small extent, although it could do better in this regard. While it could use some inline refs, I don't think it should be deleted. Picaroon 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference in the reference section is to a 1990 paper, "Z++, an Object-Oriented Extension to Z", by one Kevin Lano. It's about a different Z++ to the one in the article. The second reference is also to do with that other Z++. The third is about yet another Z++, again not the Z++ in the article. And the fourth is to something written by Kevin Lano, which would strongly suggest it has nothing to do with Zorabi's Z++. The Byte review is of a book by Kevin Lano and Howard Haughton, so, again, it's probably to do with that other Z++, not the Z++ of the article. So, it would seem that all of those references are to do with other Z++s, not the Z++ of the article. Simon G Best 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that certainly makes sense - thanks for figuring it all out. I'm now of the opinion that it should, like you said, be reverted to the version about the Lano's Z++, without prejudice against a creation of a new article on this one if it becomes similarly notable. Picaroon 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response. Mr. Simon G. Best had a disagreement on a point about C++ exception handling, in Google C++ news group. It is a coincidence that I came to this page and saw the deletion notice. I think it is inappropriate for someone to attempt to create pain for someone for a difference of viewpoint in an entirely different context. Perhaps someone with authority should speak with Mr. Best. Zorabi 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "[attempting] to create pain". Actually, I first came to the Z++ article in the hope of getting an impartial view of your Z++ language. Yes, it followed:-

reading your message posted to the Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.c++;
reading your blog post referred to in your newsgroup message;
reading your seemingly Z++-plugging document that your blog post was about;
and then visiting your ZH Micro website to find out a bit more about your Z++ language.

If your Z++ language is notable, please do provide some independent, verifiable evidence of it. My nomination for deletion really isn't out of spite, or anything like that. It's simply for the reasons given. Simon G Best 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The first three cited are not peer-reviewed articles. Byte, however, is a respected professional magazine, now unfortunately defunct. There is thus evidence that the language exists, and that articles have been written about it. How significant ist is I cannot really say. Question--I tried to do a Google search. Quite apart for the 99% of other uses of the term, I can not tell if all the others refer to the same language--my results are on the article's talk page. (I was the one who asked it be deprodded & sent here for AfD to get some more information.)DGG 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep but Revert I'm the one who nominated this article, ~~and here's why.~~ but I've now found that the article was originally about one of the other Z++ languages. I'm now in favour of reverting back to how it was before the stuff about Zorabi's Z++ was introduced. See below for more on this. Anyway, here were my reasons for nominating this article for deletion:-
- I first came to the Z++ article because: I wanted to get some idea of the notability of Z++; and I wanted to learn a little bit more about it without worrying about possible bias from Z++'s creator, Zorabi. But what I found, when I read the introduction, was that it seemed to have been written by Zorabi himself. I could tell it just from the style, having read some of the stuff on his ZH Micro website. It really came across as a case of the author promoting his own language. A quick scroll through the article reinforced my impression that Zorabi was the primary author, as did a quick look through the article history. I was left feeling quite unable to rely on the article for an impartial view of Z++.
- A bit of Googling revealed about 222,000 hits for "Z++", but many (even most) of them were for occurrances of "z++" in code (without having anything to do with Z++ the language). (Googling for "x++" gives about 1,510,000 hits; "y++" 1,300,000 hits; "n++" 1,960,000 hits; "i++" 15,800,000 hits, "j++" 4,630,000 hits, and "k++" 3,840,000 hits.) As mentioned on the article's talk page (where some other Google results are given), some of the hits are to do with a 1990 paper by one Kevin Lano on another Z++, based on a language called Z. I also note that some of the references at the bottom of the article seem to be to do with that other Z++, rather than Zorabi's Z++. Although it was only some quick Googling, it didn't look like Zorabi's Z++ was particularly notable.

Basically, I'm yet to see anything to show that Zorabi's Z++ is notable, and I don't feel able to rely on the article as an impartial, neutral point-of-view article on his Z++ language.

Now, the article history shows that, on the 17th January 2006, User:Jpbowen edited the article and added a brief mention of Zorabi's Z++. However, the article was still about the Z++ that Lano wrote his 1990 paper on (not Zorabi's Z++). Then, on the 6th February 2006, an anonymous editor added "A brief intoduction" about Zorabi's Z++, as if that was what the Z++ the article was about. That same day, Zorabi made some edits, and went on to make many more edits, treating the article as being about his own Z++. The anonymous user who made the first edit on the 6th of February did so from 24.23.86.75, and subsequently made some more edits on later dates. That anonymous editor's contributions have all been to the Z++ article. From the style of that anonymous editor's contributions, it's clear to me that that anonymous editor is almost certainly Zorabi himself. In other words: Zorabi seems to have 'hijacked' an article about another Z++ in order to promote his own Z++.

I am therefore now in favour of reverting the article back to how it was before Zorabi 'hijacked' it. Simon G Best 18:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Non-notable programming language given the appearance of notability by bad sources. Since the sources were added since Zorabi last edited, I'll assume a good faith mistake, but I still see no basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein 02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to pre-Zorabi version per submitter. —David Eppstein 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is labeled as biased and not being notable because it was written by the creator of the language. So, who would be a better candidate to take on the presentation of a complex invention that automates distributed computing and mobile agents, among many other things? It will take a few months for a well-educated engineer to appreciate the automations of Z++ and how they reduce the pain of software development. And suddenly you could tell that it is of no value in a few minutes (if not seconds). In order to have an unbiased opinion, should you not know enough about the language so you can indicate some inconsistency, or anything. The reason the presented code looks bad to you is because you are not familiar with its linguistic constructs, and therefore not with their semantics. No one can take a look at something this complex and evaluate it on the fly, unless there is a bias. Finally, I wonder what bothers you from allowing others see for themselves. This is scientific work, not a product. If you think the article needs improvement to reflect that view, perhaps you can help by pointing to certain parts of it, and what you think should be done. Zorabi 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the issue of notability, it's a matter of whether or not it's notable in a relevant sense for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If, as you seem to suggest, you're the only one in a position to write an encyclopedia article about it, it would seem that your Z++ is not actually (sufficiently) notable in a relevant sense for inclusion here. Also, Wikipedia isn't for the publication of original research (but there might be another Wikimedia project that is suitable for your Z++ stuff). Simon G Best 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate the old version. The general rule for notability of programming languages should be that they are actively used by someone else than the creator. This gives some chance that the Wikipedia page will be maintained. The zhmicro Z++ website does not mention existing customers and neither has a public forum and nobody visits Google newsgroup [84]. Removing the text now does not preclude possible recreation of the article in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 11:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literary works with eponymous heroines[edit]

In the same vein as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes (well, at least the bottom half): An exceedingly pointless topic to base a list on. Is there some actual connection between those books other than the fact that they fit some arbitrary criteria chosen by the editors? Some don't even fit the given criteria; Esther: A Novel does not "consist of the name of the female protagonist only", not to mention strange inclusions like The Patchwork Girl of Oz. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra weak keep The debate is whether or not we consider this to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Although the list could use a bit of cleanup, the info in there is easily verifiable so WP:NOT is really the sole thing to worry about. While I personally see no great value in such a list, it could be kept on the grounds that Wikipedia is not paper. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments given in the companion AfD. This list is rather orphaned without its male counter part and there isn't really any good reason to divide this up by gender anyway. I would say that ultimately this is indiscriminant enough to delete. Eluchil404 08:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't establish much of a notable connection between the items on the list. This may have been a closer call for me, but the deletion of the companion article effectively makes this an odd orphan.--Kubigula (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Class Trophy[edit]

No evidence of significance. Possibly worth a brief mention in Ring of Honor, but of no evident interest outside the fanbase who already know what it means. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not deserving of its own article. Could leave a redirect, I guess. Trebor 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted, it could be useful to put it's contents on ROH's main page. Kris Classic 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect) into ROH article. SkierRMH,07:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... Addhoc 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fike Recreation Center[edit]

Nom - non-notable campus recreation center. An editor claims it hosted an important college team, but that says nothing about the facility itself. If that's its only claim for notability, then relevent details can go in the team and/or school article. The same editor removed the prod, so I'm sending it here for broader consideration. Rklawton 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hosted the Tigers for close to 40 years, while they competed in the Southern Conference (when it was a major conference) and the ACC. The fact it is now a rec center doesn't mean at one time it wasn't notable. Many other articles on defunct college basketball arenas also exist. Patken4 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using the logic in the first part of your statement, it would make sense to write articles about the bus they rode in, too. It's just a dumb building that the team played in. So what? The logic in the second part of your argument fails WP:INN. Rklawton 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Articles on major sports venues are notable. Articles on buses teams rode on are not. Patken4 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - If that's the case, then why isn't this stated in the notability guidelines? The building itself needs to be notable, and it isn't. We don't allow articles on people solely based upon their relationship to someone famous - they need to be notable in and of themselves. This applies to buildings every bit as much. Not every location where George Washington slept is article worthy. Those that are have some other claim to notability - like inclusion in the National Registery of Historic Places, architectural awards, or perhaps they've been the subject of some scholarly work. This facility can make no such claim. Rklawton 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply I haven't found any notability guideline on architechure or buildings in general. The generally accepted criteria for sports venues, particularly for college venues that host Division I programs from the so-called "Major Conferences", is that they should be included. For example, California's Haas Pavilion was kept in 2005 based at least partially on the fact it hosted a major college basketball team. This venue, while it doesn't currently host any varsity level teams at Clemson, did at one point and had Wikipedia been around when it was currently hosting the basketball team, would have had an article on it. More about the history of the building should be included, however. Patken4 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks references from outside the university. Addhoc 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. For crying out loud, if it's a D-I venue (or used to be), there is some notability. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 would recommend finding sources for this article, however. Cheers, Yuser31415 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Egan[edit]

No sources, non-notable local activist. General Idea 21:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not local with the "awards" she has won.

Comment Only 700 google hits for "Carolyn Egan", many of which are for other people with the same name. However, one actual commentary from CBC mentions an award this Carolyn Egan got (no date on the award though). Interestingly, this source talks mostly about how good it is for "behind the scenes" type people to get awards; is it a signal of notability to have a article about you talking about how sad it is that no-one knows who you are? I need to know more before I have an opinion on this, but this article [85] might be helpful. Enuja 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second page and farther in the google result pages, there also appear to be a lot of left (listen to what this person is doing!) and right (careful, we've got an activist around) press releases and biased stories about Carolyn Egan's campaign against Steven Harper. I don't know enough about canadian politics to know what's a good source and what isn't, but I'm starting to suspect that there might, indeed, be multiple non-biased sources about Carolyn Egan. Enuja 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been included in the list of Canadian candidates for deletion Enuja 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep though I disagree with her politics mostly, pretty damn notable persyn on the left in Kanada and particularly in Ontario. Very active with steelworkers and the Trotskyite I.S. --Mista-X 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete. Can find nothing that really meets criteria of WP:BIO. Combing the ghits doesn't really bring up anything useful to persuade me otherwise. If reliable sources and BIO criteria are added, I could easily be swayed. Agent 86 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis-nexis produces about 200 articles for her name, most of which have her as the pro-choice advocate to be quoted during the abortion wars of the 80s and 90s. For an article about her, see Sandy Naiman, "For Egan, life's all about choice", The Toronto Sun, May 18, 2000, Final edition, p. 75. (I quick glance suggests to me that it is the source of much of the detail in the article.) Bucketsofg 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can state categorically that it's virtually impossible to be even remotely connected to Canadian politics, even only as an observer, and not know who Carolyn Egan is. If somebody who lived in this country and was involved in the political process in any significant way said they'd never heard of her, I'd find that about as believable as if they'd never heard of June Callwood, Judy Rebick or Michael Coren — that is, the only possible answer to that statement would be "bull freaking shit, dude". She's entirely notable enough, IME; keep. I'll work on improving the sources. Bearcat 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure hope you're not calling other editors ignorant (or worse), because it is coming across that way. "I heard of this person" is not an inclusion criterion on WP:BIO or on any other policy or guideline. I've also heard the name before, hence my taking the time to look for other info, but for the life of me fail to see how this article meets the policies we have in place (such as WP:V and WP:RS. At present, the article still fails to meet any of these. Agent 86 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is in the news sometimes for her abortion rights campaigning. For example, the New York Times has a subscription-only article with her [86].--Oakshade 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bearcat. CJCurrie 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bucketsofg 04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat (or worse). Static Universe 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat, and we ought to note that the Google test is US-centric. --lquilter 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by RadioKirk. Tevildo 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brastel[edit]

PR page written almost entirely by an employee of the company --awh (Talk) 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism (journal)[edit]

non-notable, low circulation annual publication. General Idea 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, seems to have been published only twice (2003/2004) see:[87]. Arnoutf 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, 2 issues in 5 years = non-notable. SkierRMH,07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please, check out an article before assuming it to be needless: International Socialists (Canada) is a most decent quality article that mentions the publication in the intro section. An annual publication is not less notable than a daily newspaper, else we could not keep articles on any one-time events either. Such publications normally have in-depth articles or handle one or a few topics very thoroughly. The number of members of trozkist organizations is typically minute in western countries, but a publication like this is just as typically read by the theoreticians (think-tanks) of the larger left-wing parties, and thus indirectly but sometimes considerably influences public debate. The article at hand is required so as to avoid the forementioned article to needlessly grow, as Wikipedia does not work with subarticles. — SomeHuman 15 Jan 2007 09:14 (UTC)
- Merge it with International Socialists (Canada) then. There isn't enough here to merit an article on its own and I see no evidence that the annual has any of the influence you speculate about on theoriticians, thinktanks, or larger left-wing parties. Can you list any theoritician, academic or larger party who has cited an Marxism article for some purpose? General Idea 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 13:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Minute Drill UK[edit]

A hoax. No such television programme existed. Article is self-contradictory (lists hosts for 2007 for a show said to have finished in 2005). Sam Blacketer 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails WP:HOAX, self contradictory article, no sources. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even on IMDB. --Dennisthe2 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just a prank, and not even a very plausible one. Tubezone 03:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Denni ^talk 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercuism[edit]

No verifiable information, it is created by a Wikipedian as noted in the text Jeff3000 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources suggests that this is a joke/hoax. (aeropagitica) 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense (the tag was added by an editor, then removed by author). Trebor 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, either G1 (nonsense) or G3 (vandalism), and I don't care which. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense article Arnoutf 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is that blueberry? That flavor's off da hook! I mean, religioncruft. JuJube 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Because Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and Trolls & Vandals are from Mercury. SkierRMH,06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - complete nonsense. Jayden54 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone Delete - can't we just do some work on it, i say postpone deletion. User:Talib 72 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry D. Alexander[edit]

Unnotable and unverifiable. (Could not find his book at the Library of Congress.) Note: Author is User:Larry d. alexander. Aleph-4 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced (which seems very unlikely). Also a conflict of interest with the article. Trebor 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates autobiography WP:AUTO; and notability WP:NN. Arnoutf 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POD publisher Lulu.com, it seems, continues to send their unknown authors here to promote themselves ([88]). Unable to find any real reviews of his work or other indications of notability. -- Fan-1967 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. janejellyroll 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V in that it is not verifiable and WP:BIO in that the subject is not notable. The fact that it is also autobiographical is not reason in itself for deletion (although the article certainly is autobiographical). TheMindsEye 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 4chan. Yuser31415 05:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/b/tard[edit]

WP:NN, citing sources, WP:AD, among other things. Mitch 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; violates WP:CIVIL, plus WP:NONSENSE --Mhking 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; but can someone fix the above link? It can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//b/tard....
Forgot to sign. But on a related note, you might find this in ED, and I would link it if WP didn't ban it. Mitch 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fix'd.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merge or keep as there is a resource that mentions /b/tards that is used in 4chan. I will link to it in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep; the article is an actual classification of 4chan's inhabitant's. however, i don't think it deserves its own article. merge it into its own section on the wikipedia entry on 4chan --Buttons 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly redirect to 4chan. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 4chan. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to 4chan. Metrackle 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to 4chan. OR, really, and there's no way around it. There's nothing that can be put here that can't be put in 4chan. While not all /b/tards ARE 4channers, the majority are. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I don't think it's owrth merging. JuJube 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 4chan ~~per WP:CIVIL~~ per WP:NEO and Jayden54. The term requires its own notability to justify including it here, and I don't believe that the single newspaper article establishes it. You could bring over material from the 4chan article to establish notability, but then the need for a separate entry seems eliminated. EdJohnston 03:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per WP:NEO and generally no indication whatsoever that the name is used outside of this community. By the way, I might be missing something but I really don't see what WP:CIVIL has to do with this debate. Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 4chan. --- RockMFR 03:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per all of the delete as violations of WP:OR and WP:RS (what WP:CIVIL has to do with all of this is unknown), I did add cite a reference that shows the usage of the term "/b/tard" outside of 4chan (somewhat) that being the news report that Hal Turner's website suffered a DDoS attack by individuals who called themselves /b/tards.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That's great, but the article itself only says "people who identified as /b/tards" not "4chan == /b/tards, or 7chan == /b/tards" etc. I think there's room for OR here but sorry, no go. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - with 4chan, where this description belongs. Definitely doesn't need its own article. Jayden54 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan - The article was originally a redirect, and most of the information in this article is already in the 4chan article. I don't think a merge is necessary. --Transfinite 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire as the /b/tard expression goes. Anomo 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 4chan ~ IICATSII punch the keys 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 4chan ::mikm t 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely noteworthy and should be kept. lol j/k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.252.124 (talk • contribs) 02:15, January 17, 2007
Redirect it to 4chan, per Transfinite-DE SU 10:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 4chan as the article is well written and accurate but not noteworthy on its own. The section in the 4chan article should make it clear however that there are /b/tards who lurk mainly on 7chan or other imageboards. --Einsidler 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (possibly a protected redirect) to 4chan. The information in this article either belongs in the 4chan article, or is already in there. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 14:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 4chan. Korinkami 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if sources can be found, else Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kosmalla[edit]

There is no information on her beyond her name and place and date of birth. The long filmography looks impressive, but in fact it's not clear that she was any more than an extra in most of them (there's another long list at IMDb, but checking the details for individual entries often reveals no mention of her). I think that she's a very small-time actresss, and that either she or someone connected to her (perhaps a fan) has been at work here and at IMDb to try to raise her profile. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my looking at IMDB showed that she indeed was credited in most if not all of the filmography. I did not see any major roles, though. She looks like a small-time actress who gets regular work, but always with small parts. Most of the roles seem to have character names attached, rather than descriptions; they're clearly more than extras or bit parts. I'm not sure how we treat an equivalent actress in English-language works - someone with frequent appearances but never major roles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my fault — I just looked at a random scatter of entries, and I must somehow have hit those which didn't mention her at all. Still, I think that it's clear that she's not a significant actress, though I might not have opened the AfD if I'd known that she's at last had bit parts (which are often named, unlike extras). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can ignore the long filmography list because she is not referred to or linked to by any meaningful page anywhere else in Wikipedia. Part of the reason we know to care about the filmography of Shirley Temple or Elizabeth Taylor is that individual film articles mention their names, or should mention them. YechielMan 05:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search on the web showed that the top hits were for sites like IMDb and Yahoo movies. My German is very poor, but I couldn't find any newspaper articles on the subject among the top hits.--Oden 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Croteau[edit]

Another vanity article, this one about an "actor" with a single role as an unnamed character in a home-made movie that is allegedly out on DVD somewhere, but not exactly easy to find. A user with several accounts has been doing a lot of these for a long time. Obviously promotional. R. fiend 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Very little Google hits and no Google News hits at all. Jayden54 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn actor credited as "Battalion Soldier" in movie with homepage on geocities which was deleted two years ago and later recreated. Static Universe 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note 5 of WP:BIO asserts that notable actors will have been multiply written up by independent sources. Per this criterion, it is not sufficient that an actor has appeared in a movie that reached the public. EdJohnston 20:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadmoor EP[edit]

Totally NN album by a marginal band. Article full of OR and is an obvious product of a conflict of interest. - crz crztalk 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable album, since Google provides nothing noteworthy and nothing else shows why this album is notable in any way. Jayden54 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible grounds for notability in article, but few outside references cited/citable, combined with lack of nomination detail as to how it fails WP:BIO criteria. As a borderline article, too few responses to consider a consensus for deletion was achieved.. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Aldrich[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - crz crztalk 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somewhat borderline maybe, but on the wrong side of the border. There is the writeup on cnet.com, but (1) that is the only writeup offered and (2) it's online, thus not as strong as a writeup in a paper source (because publishing an online article is easier). And there's nothing else given. Lead designer of SimuLearn's Virtual Leader, but Simulearn redlinks, so how notable is that? Herostratus 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - google book search offers plenty of sources... Addhoc 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Levi[edit]

Grounds for notability have not been established, with the sole exception of being the first Sephardi rabbi to achieve semicha at a notable university, which may be notable for that university or for Sephardic Jewry and can readily be noted in those articles. This doesn't make the man notable for biography purposes though, and consensus seems to be both in favor of deletion, and also weak or lacking a stated basis why he is otherwise notable. If significant grounds emerge for other notability, then the article may have a basis to be recreated. (Note that nominator's presence or departure does not really change much as regards Elias Levi and his notability).

Totally NN rabbi, WP:BIO - crz crztalk 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The above nominator has resigned from Wikipedia [89] and thus this AfD should be withdrawn under the circumstances, until the motivation for the nomination can be put in greater perspective and the situation regarding User:Crzrussian's resignation (he was a sysop as well) and its impact on Wikipedia can be clarified. IZAK 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge parts of it with Yeshiva University.Week keep. Tom e r ^talk 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Part of me says he's not notable, but the other part says that he might be notable for his work, except that it will be hard to track down sources. I guess that doesn't help much. I would say NOT to merge with Yeshiva University because he has no major association to it, i.e. he didn't teach there or work as a high-level administrator. YechielMan 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there may be a small amount of information available on the web about him that might theoretically make him a bit more notable. I'll try to sort through it and add to the article tomorrow. (gsearch) Tom e r ^talk 06:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability. No prej. to recreation if reasons to merit inclusion are in the article and sourced. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this person was the first Sephardi Jew to receive semicha at YU -- a very notable event in the Jewish world, especially for Orthodox Judaism in the United States. I also fear that this may not be a WP:GF good faith nomination, since the nominator has decided to suddenly resign and leave Wikipedia in his present incarnation [90], so this nomination should be withdrawn for now. IZAK 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This nominator wishes to reaffirm his nomination as an IP user, and further, wishes to remind his good friend IZAK to adhere to our vaunted principle of assuming that very GF where no good reason to the contrary exists. Beyond that, I think we could focus on verifiability from reliable sources, rather than grounding keep arguments in unverifiable sectarian mumbo-jumbo (can you even prove that he was the first sephardi out of YU - not that that would make him notable?) P.S. haha I get to call your opinions "sectarian mumbo-jumbo" and you can't recall me! anonymity rocks! 67.83.12.62 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - He wasn't Sephardi, he was Iraqi. Tom e r ^talk 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi: Well, you realize that there is no way of knowing if you are "the nominator" or not. No way to know if you are our late lamented friend User:Crzrussian or someone making silly comments and not having the guts to sign their name. Either way, this was no way for User:Crzrussian to take leave of Wikipedia by taking a pot shot at a YU (if you don't know what that means look it up) rabbi, and from my past experience Crzrussian has tended to nominate for deletion rabbis from the Modern Orthodox Judaism spectrum claiming "he" had never heard of them, and this may be just another case. Finally, assuming good faith is a two-way street and whoever wrote this article is also deserving of that courtesy and should be asked to give more information and not have the article rushed for deletion as Crzrussian heads for the door and does a disappearing act on us. But the final quote ""sectarian mumbo-jumbo"" makes me think it's not Crzrussian because he knows full well that "sectarian" differences in Judaism, especially the main ones between Haredi Judaism; Hasidic Judaism; Modern Orthodox Judaism; Conservative Judaism; Reform Judaism etc are all critically important. If anyone thinks that this refers to "sectarian mumbo-jumbo" they are very obvioulsy lacking any serious knowledge of present-day Judaism and only make themselves look dumb by leaving such pathetic comments. IZAK 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't care who that IP is. If this AFD needs someone to "sponsor" it then I am sponsoring it. Ignore the IP, nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving, folks. — coelacan talk — 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: strange IP comments and IZAK's complaints aside, this AFD does not depend on any one editor to continue moving forward. I still see no evidence of notability. I stand by my opinion to delete. — coelacan talk — 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability Avi 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, conditional on finding at least one WP:V. The events noted in the article would make this a marginally notable person, and marginally notable people are still notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has access to it (which I don't), there's an entry for him in the 1980 "Who's Who in American Jewry". Tom e r ^talk 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: a couple of attempts to remove the afd notification from the page by Special:Contributions/69.231.177.67... not that activities of wikipedians should reflect on the notability of the subject, of course, just an observation. -- frymaster 04:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, another anon (140.247.125.224 (talk · contribs)) has said s/he has material to add on the article's talk page. Curiously, nothing has been said here by the article's creator, User:SamuelLurie. They two are, perhaps, one and the same user. Tom e r ^talk 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Fools Improvisational Theatre[edit]

NN Theater, obvious conflict of interest - crz crztalk 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence for notability surfaces, and credible third-party sources. I see nothing to distinguish this from many thousands of such theatres worldwide. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete actually, I would say that 500+ shows is something of an accomplishement that separates these guys from the "many thousands of such theatre companies worldwide". There's also evidence that they made it to a festival [91]. However, unless some more reliable third-party sources surface, it's going to be difficult to turn the article into something that comes even close to our standards. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

350-in-one[edit]

Non-notable multicart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrackle (talk • contribs)

Delete Unsourced, and no evidence of existence or importance. A compilation of pre-existing games is not notable in itself, without other reasons, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. CiaranG 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and no reliable sources that show notability. Jayden54 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had one of these pirate cartridges. There were several types floating around back in the NES era, with varying numbers of games on them. None are notable in and of themselves. Static Universe 04:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR. Exarion 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Weintraub[edit]

Vanity page for a non-notable person

Delete --Xtreambar 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. --TeaDrinker 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per TeaDrinker. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:BIO RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio JuJube 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - and so tagged. Jayden54 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 15:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia NC9400[edit]

Unverifiable speculation about unannounced product, previously deleted with WP:PROD Wibbble 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced original research about speculative product. Delete as unverifiable, no bar to recreation once good sources exist. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If good sources ever exist, which is unlikely. Nokia products don't use that naming scheme, so while this - or something like it - might eventually appear, it won't be called 'NC9400'. Wibbble 07:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks any reliable sources, fails WP:V, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Jayden54 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bartram[edit]

Can't find any references to this person. Seems like a hoax or just not notable. Glendoremus 23:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant Google or Yahoo hits. Soltak | Talk 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO and maybe even a hoax. Jayden54 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Difficult to believe a 16 y.o. would be producing the kind of shows listed and not get press. This YouTube bears his name though. Static Universe 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admin RadioKirk (copyvio). Non admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River Ems (Hampshire)[edit]

Copyright infringement of http://www.hants.org.uk/brook-meadow/bm-river-ems.html ? Anthony Appleyard 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 (copyvio). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriendsmeet.com[edit]

Speedy was declined on grounds that the article does not seem to be blatant spam. I would tend to agree with that statement and there's a distinct possibility that the addition was made in good faith. However, the website (a dating/social networking site for lesbians) seems to come up well short of WP:WEB. Google comes up with tons of hits but that is a bit misleading since these seem to be almost entirely advertisement links. Unless we can obtain reliable third-party coverage of the website, this article should go. Pascal.Tesson 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this website passes WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It may not be spam (though it seems quite spam-like to me) but is definitely a website that does not assert its notability. Number of users by itself does not amount to such an assertion. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Could have been speedied as A7, no assertion of notability or importance, please correct me if I'm wrong. CiaranG 12:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slow Delete 40K members is a lot - crz crztalk 13:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be notable per WP:WEB. Jayden54 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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