Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista[edit]

Non-notable attorney related to marginally notable people. Corvus cornix 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only references are a social register. Notability is more than being popular. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again notable and sourced and something fishy about all these AfD on articles I have created. See also my responces to Vinagre Portillo, Alonso R. del Portillo, Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo, Alonso del Portillo-Marcano, and Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista. If any of you read in the discussion page of the article, I explained why to keep him as notable. Callelinea 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abogado-Notario (Attorney- Notary)is a specialized position in the legal field. It requires more years of training and they are held by very few persons for a specific geografical area. Mr. Tamargo was the only Abagado-Notario for Matanzas for over 20 years.. In addition his family was one of the most socially prominent family of Matanzas. As you enter the Cemetery of Matanzas his large family crypt is the first one on the left hand side. His uncle from pre 1900- 1930's owned the only clinic in all of Matanzas. And the family summer estate " La Quinta of Bellamar" was the the largest home on the Bay of Matanzas (the living room of the home is now the Church of Sacred Heart, his daughter having sold it in 1956 to the Catholic Church).Callelinea 04:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be traveling to Cuba from August 10-31, 2007 and hope to come back with more infomation on Mr. Tamargo and his family. Callelinea 05:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miguel_Luis_Tamargo-Bautista"

Delete, I see a well-sourced geneology, but no notability...74.242.184.198 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject appears to be verifiable, but not clearly notable under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 06:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am going to Cuba in August in August.Callelinea 12:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Doesn't meet guidelines for notability. ++Arx Fortis 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. If this guy has a notable descendent, then consider merging with that person's article. Rklawton 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Rklawton. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noteworthy. Nightscream 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INFO SENT TO ME regarding the term ABOGADO-NOTARIO, An "abogado" is simply an attorney, someone licensed to practice law. A "notario" is a notary - but this is much different than from what a notary in the US is. In civil law countries (which Cuba was before the revolution, and which it remains in many respects today), a notary is somebody who tends to do what in the US is known as transactional work (drafting contracts, wills organizing real estate transactions, etc., and also doing public records type work and authenticating documents). It is a lucrative job to have - it generally takes additional study beyond what is merely required to practice law. I don't know if they limited how many notaries there could be at one time in Cuba (in France, for example, there are only so many notary positions allowed.)I hope this information was helpful and I wish you the best of luck in your research. takethemud 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC). There were less Abogado-Notarios in Cuba (all this is before the 1959 Cuban Revolution) then there were Judges. It was a highly specialied field that very few attorneys were able do. Perhaps that can assist some of you in seeing that in the legal field in Cuba anyone who was able to attain the position was very Notable and influential. Their offices would be the equivalent to the Clerk of the Court would be. They would store a copy of all legal transactions in the City. All deeds, all mortgages, all bank loans had be be filed in their offices. Callelinea 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, per nom. MKoltnow 03:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Notabality --St.daniel ^Talk 11:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Bigdaddy1981 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Callelinea 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey McCabe[edit]

Possible non notable person, asserts some notability but gives, but provides no sources. Notability tag has been up for 8 months. Daniel J. Leivick 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if sources are found for the notability claims, this page is a copy-paste of geoffreymccabe.com/Bio.htm. Dr bab 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio per Dr. Bab. (note:I removed the prod.) Chubbles 00:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources indicating notability were found with a search of Google News Archive. allmusic has a couple of his records listed but no bio and only one outside credit, casting doubt on some of the article's claims. --Dhartung | Talk 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. All those red tags and typos, gosh. Bearian 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bearian. Needs total rewrite in order to be decent. MKoltnow 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio even if it is notable. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he seems to be notable-ish, a bit. This is a line call, but, delete per Bearian.. Kripto 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr 13 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso R. del Portillo[edit]

Non-notable former Congressional aide and current genealogist related to marginally notable people. Corvus cornix 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm baised I created the article. He is mentioned in the book about the AIDS activist Pedro Zamora. Is a well-known geneologist in the Miami area. Very influnicial conections in Florida politics. Is notable and well-known for his work in immigration matters and in geneology. Callelinea 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see a well-sourced geneology, but no notability, in fact some sources don't even show what part of the article they pertain to. 74.242.184.198 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a template provided for pointing out apparent single-purpose accounts, {{spa}}. --Dhartung | Talk 10:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Generally Congressional staffers are not inherently notable, and the article does not assert that his involvement in genealogy is anything more than a hobby. (By the way, the anonymous user is entitled to participate in these AfDs under WP:AFD, which provides, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Since User:74.242.184.198 appears to be providing legitimate reasons for deletion, I don't see anything "fishy" about their participation.) --Metropolitan90 06:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see nothing fishy about the only reason he gives is not notable, nor do you aee anything fishy that his IP address was created and only used to comment on these six articles for delitions? what would make you think it would be fishy? can you be that dense?Callelinea 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how no one has explained to me why a IP address that is created just to vote on these six articles is not fishy.. I mearly asked what was a definition as to what would be considered fishy? But you are right he and others are not dense, just commenting on a subject matter without reading what I have written. Not to worry.. I will be placing all my articles for AfD and then I will not have to go through this process any more. I do feel it being motivated by some reasons that are not being spoken. Callelinea 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Callelinea nominated every single article I have created, for deletion. The AfDs were speedy closed and Callelinea was blocked for one hour for disruption. Corvus cornix 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off that is a lie.. I only nominated those articles by you that I felt merited deletion. And once this blows over I will re-nominated them or I will have someone else nominate them. Some of those articles had no independent sources. One was about a small town in France that nothing notable ever occured in it.. I do not think they are notable and If brought to discussion I believe it will be proven that they are not notable.. Yes I was blocked, but I feel it was unfairly done. And have told the person that blocked me my reasons for it. Callelinea 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I have told you, are not duping anybody. Circeus 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, how could I have been mistaken? You nominated every article I ever created except for one. Just get over it and move on, all right? Like I said before, I didn't nominate every article you ever created, just those genealogical articles which make no claims of notability. And please note that the AfD discussions are almost universally supporting my contention. And that ship has sailed, it has already been established by overwhelming consensus that every place in the world is notable. Corvus cornix 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not meaning to dupe anyone. If you bothered to read the articles and my reasoning for nominating them you would see that they merited discussion for deletian. But since you all assumed that I can not see further then my own AfD that it would cloud my judgement as to poorly written and sourced articles.Callelinea 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles are not at issue here. Mine are.. Yours will get their judgement in the future.. And I only put 5 of your seven articles up for deletion.. The other 2 were fine. You proved notability and they had sources.. But your other five are lacking. Callelinea 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm sure when you decide to re-violate WP:POINT by nominating all of my articles again, you'll be blocked by another admin. I have nothing further to say on this subject. Keep up the disruptive behavior and you'll just cut your own throat. Corvus cornix 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing demonstrating notability in either genealogy or politics. Accomplishment is not notability, and notability of relatives is not commutative. --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even if everything in the article is true, even though it is sourced with books and articles, the subject is not notable? sorry now I am sure its a witch-hunt.Callelinea 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read WP:N and WP:BIO? Corvus cornix 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not meet guidelines for notability ++Arx Fortis 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Rklawton 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Rklawton. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While most of the six articles by this author that were AfD nominated should be deleted, I believe the subject of this one is noteworthy enough to keep. I worked extensively on the Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora articles, and del Portillo was indeed mention in one of the main reference sources I relied on for info. He is a public figure (albeit not a household name), and I believe noteworthy enough to have an article. Nightscream 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On re-reading this article in the context of the others in the series, I have nasty feeling we have here the author of the series. It is clear that a genealogist is writing these articles about his family ... I bet it is Alonso R. del Portillo who has written the whole series. Abtract 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is my opinion, as well. Corvus cornix 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable docboat 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established; subject may be interesting and a good person but that is not sufficient. MKoltnow 03:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I'm not convinced he's that notable. Kripto 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone else noticed that the author of this article is the same age (47) as the subject of the article ... plus the article seems to have been written by a genealogist and lo and behold this article is about a genealogist? Amazingly both were born in Cuba and live in Miami, I make again the suggestion that the author and the subject are closely related, good friends or even one and the same person; perhaps this time he will tell us what the facts are? Beware Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Abtract 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and how many times will you mention the same thing over.. you already previously stated that. As far as I know the article is up on its merit or lack of them. Callelinea 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?Abtract 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have. Have you? Because it seams something personal you and Corvus cornix have against my 6 articles up for vote this week. You two seem to back to the articles continuesly to put more and more comments in.. I don't see that in any of your other AfD articles that you two are involved in do you guys put so much effort to get rid of an article.. am i mistaken? Callelinea 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you not think that writing articles about yourself, your father and your grandfather creates just a tiny conflict of interest? Abtract 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this really is Callelinea, I'm not surprised he has taken this personally. Having said that, if it's true, it's unacceptable and downright unethical not to have disclosed that, let alone violating the vanity rules.--Dali-Llama 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the AfD of any of the articles I created personally. It take away my time to work on new articles or of improving articles. I create articles that usally have something to do with Cuba, Cubans, and Cuban-Americans, something which I know lots about. Callelinea 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Callelinea 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the interest in full disclosure, myself and other involved editors would appreciate if Callelinea could either confirm or deny that they are or are related to any of the articles in question. While it is not required, I think it would be in the interest of good faith and intellectual integrity. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel if someone as yourself had asked that question at the begining of this process I would of been happy to answer that question.. But during this process I have felt that there has been a lack of good faith and intellectual integrity in the part of a few of the editors. So I will decline to answer your question and allow these articles to be deleted based on what you "editors" feel is fair. Callelinea 19:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso del Portillo-del Junco[edit]

Non-notable person related to notable people. Corvus cornix 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again notable and sourced and something fishy about all these AfD on articles I have created. See also my responces to Vinagre Portillo, Alonso R. del Portillo, Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo, Alonso del Portillo-Marcano, and Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista.Callelinea 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you've been repeatedly advised of our notability guidelines - and you've likewise advised us that you disagree with our guidelines. There's nothing fishy about that. Rklawton 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability whatsoever... He founded a company 100 years ago that folded 60 years ago... The fact that he is in a family register does not make him notable.74.242.184.198 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - don't worry. We tend to disregard special purpose accounts. Rklawton 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the founder of a notable company is potentially notable, but I find nothing substantiating the notability of the company in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 10:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am going to Cuba in August to find more sources. Callelinea 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not meet the guidelines for notability. ++Arx Fortis 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. If this guy has a notable descendent, then consider merging with that person's article. Rklawton 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Rklawton. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep Of the six articles by this author that were nominated for AfD, this is one of only two that I think might be somewhat noteworthy enough to keep, given that this guy founded the largest company of its kind in Cuba. I admit, though that it's not a strong feeling on my part, compared to say, the Alonso R. del Portillo article, for which I'm voting strong keep. The others, I think, should be deleted. Nightscream 16:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He founded the second largest company of its kind in Cuba. Corvus cornix 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the largest in Havana with a population of 2,000,000 persons.
    - And therefore the largest company of every product in every large city in the world should have an article? Corvus cornix 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In a country that before the revolution had very few companies that were owned solely by Cubans that prospered and expanded and employed many of its citizens, my answer would be yes.. Remember that if you know history, their were very few Cuban owned companies in Cuba.. Most big companies were owned by Americans and other forgeiners. Remarkable how someone with no knowledge of a topic can be so opinionated about a topic. I am trying to keep an open mind that you are doing good faith comments but the more you write about these topics it seams you are taking a very personal role in your critisms. Perhaps I am wrong and If I am I apoligize, But maybe you should step back and re-read your comments and your interest in these articles deletions.Callelinea 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This man seems to be worth an article, by my opinion. And it is suitably refernced, so why don't keep this article? Let us just keep up the good fate here, shall we? I don't see any point in removing a fine article by a (as far as I know) rather solid contributor. -The Bold Guy- 13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — -The Bold Guy- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above is this user's first edit to Wikipedia outside his User page. Please explain what makes him worth an article? He founded the second largest vinegar company in Cuba. so what? You haven't explained how he meets WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I say keep this article. This person was obviously of some importance in Cuba, as he was an industrialist of some note. If nothing else, we should have some kind of article on Cuban industrialists that could include the info. on this fellow. takethemud 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which source says he was an industrialist "of note"? Corvus cornix 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really are petty.Callelinea 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr 13 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinagre Portillo[edit]

Non-notable vinegar factory owned by a person who is also not notable but is related to people who are noted. Corvus cornix 23:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The second largest" vinegar factory in Cuba at the time and now torn down. I don't know where to begin. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, baised I created the article. And hoped to expand on it when I returned from my trip to Cuba (August 10-31, 2007). It was the second largest Vinager company in Cuba and the largest in Havana. I find it interesting and a coinsidence that about 6 articles that I created are now up for AfD all nominated by the same person. Callelinea 03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no notability, not even a hint 74.242.184.198 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found nothing substantiating the notability of this company in Google Books or Google News Archive. Obviously an historical company in a non-English-speaking country that has undergone revolution and trade embargo and whatnot is going to be a difficult proposition and if verifiable print sources could substantiate the importance of this company that would be a different story. --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason I am goig to Cuba in August to find out more info on the subjects. Callelinea 12:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not meet the guidelines for notability. ++Arx Fortis 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced. Rklawton 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noteworthy. Nightscream 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: more info and references added. Callelinea 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would be on the fence about it's notabality but without sources... --St.daniel ^Talk 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should keep this article. It's not exactly "United Fruit Co" or "Bacardi", but it's notable enough as a part of pre-revolutionary Cuban industry. It can always be sourced later. At the very least this article could be incorporated into some kind of list or other article on pre-revolutionary Cuban industry, manufacturing, etc. takethemud 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this stay, if verifiable sources as to the company's notability can be found. In there absence then delete. Bigdaddy1981 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr 13 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso del Portillo-Marcano[edit]

Non-notable person related to notable people. Corvus cornix 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Info appears sourced, but article asserts no actual notability aside from relation to marginally notable people. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, one of the most prominant Abogado-Notarios in Cuba. In addition to being a businessman. Like I stated in the AfD of Vinagre Portillo, something fishy is up.. I am going to Cuba to get moe info and I find this whole set of AfD very insulting. I have created almost 100 articles on Cuban persons and things and all of a sudden groups of them are being broght up for AfD's when there are sources and the persons are notable.Callelinea 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Once again, I see a well-sourced geneology, but no notability. Yes, he was a lawyer for 40 years, but please let's not put every lawyer in Wiki. Being a lawyer does not equal being notable.74.242.184.198 04:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. No clear claim to notability. I don't think this series of AfD's should be taken as insulting; it's just that a large number of articles seem to have been created about members of an extended family, and each of them should be considered on his or her own for notability. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a prominent lawyer but accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am going to Cuba in August to get more info on the subjects.Callelinea 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not meet the guidelines for notability. ++Arx Fortis 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. If this guy has a notable descendent, then consider merging with that person's article. Rklawton 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Rklawton. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noteworthy. Nightscream 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: more info and references added. Callelinea 20:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INFO SENT TO ME regarding the term ABOGADO-NOTARIO, An "abogado" is simply an attorney, someone licensed to practice law. A "notario" is a notary - but this is much different than from what a notary in the US is. In civil law countries (which Cuba was before the revolution, and which it remains in many respects today), a notary is somebody who tends to do what in the US is known as transactional work (drafting contracts, wills organizing real estate transactions, etc., and also doing public records type work and authenticating documents). It is a lucrative job to have - it generally takes additional study beyond what is merely required to practice law. I don't know if they limited how many notaries there could be at one time in Cuba (in France, for example, there are only so many notary positions allowed.)I hope this information was helpful and I wish you the best of luck in your research. takethemud 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC). There were less Abogado-Notarios in Cuba (all this is before the 1959 Cuban Revolution) then there were Judges. It was a highly specialied field that very few attorneys were able do. Perhaps that can assist some of you in seeing that in the legal field in Cuba anyone who was able to attain the position was very Notable and influential. Their offices would be the equivalent to the Clerk of the Court would be. They would store a copy of all legal transactions in the City. All deeds, all mortgages, all bank loans had be be filed in their offices. Callelinea 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If what this article says is true, this individual was politically in active in pre-Batista & pre-Castro Cuba. Perhaps as more sources are found, info could be incorporated into this article. if nothing else, perhaps there should be an article about pre-Castro or pre-Batista Cuban politicians. takethemud 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lawyer related to notable persons. Bigdaddy1981 23:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Callelinea 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba. Sr 13 03:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo[edit]

Non-notable contractor who happens to be related to possibly notable people. Corvus cornix 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Baised I created this article. Besides being notable as a builder of homes in the South Florida area for over 40 years, he is Anti-Castro militant very involved in the Elian situation. Additionally, came from an extreamely socialy and wealthy family in Cuba.Callelinea 03:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see no notability74.242.184.198 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No clear claim to notability. Also, I would note that the link to the Miami-Dade County Clerk's site does not work properly because it is to a search result; unfortunately I can't find a Wikipedia article that discusses this sort of problem. --Metropolitan90 06:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in a Google News Archive search to substantiate notability. "Prominent general contractor in Coral Gables" is not normally going to impress. All accomplishment seems local, and accomplishment is not notability in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not meet the guidelines for notability. ++Arx Fortis 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. If this guy has a notable descendent, then consider merging with that person's article. Rklawton 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Rklawton. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noteworthy. Nightscream 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: more info and references added. Callelinea 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Just barely scrapes by on notabality and has references --St.daniel ^Talk 11:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO seems to be just a non-notable businessman. Bigdaddy1981 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Callelinea 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 05:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayak.com[edit]

Not notable; no references quoted to back article up. VTSPOWER 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep. Article is pretty much a stub, but kayak.com seems to be emerging as a notable competitor to Expedia, Travelocity and similar travel booking sites, and from the number of posters on its forums, seems to have thousands of users.--Spewey 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep news search brings back plenty of substantive coverage, looks to me like it meets WP:WEB. Article isn't that great, but could improve. Capmango 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has many secondary reviews74.242.184.198 05:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep If it meets notability guides just in need of a rewrite, will have a go later, main issue is notability --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did a cleanup and added some sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything independent on this via altavista... tons of hits, but they are all Kayak.com websites.Balloonman 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try a google news search. Capmango 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odigo[edit]

Non notable company. I replaced the speedy tag with a prod tag, and the prod tag was then removed because the article was referenced, even though it was only to primary sources, and it was 'doing no harm', which is irrelevent. J Milburn 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge Odigo Messenger into this article. The company has no real notability outside of the IM product and the IM product is often known just by this name. Don't see the need for two articles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the prod tag clearly states, it can be removed at any time and may not be replaced. It is a company that exists and people use. It's not as if Wikipedia is going to crash and burn if this article remains. I don't see that the opinion of some sticky fingered Wikiphile with nothing better to do than go around deleting other people's articles is reason for it to be removed. And, btw, if you actually check up, 'doing no harm' is listed in the Wikipedia guide to deletion debates as a viable anti-deletion argument. Atraxus 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the opposite, claiming the article doesn't do any harm is listed as an argument to avoid see WP:HARMLESS. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I resent your description of me. Secondly, it is made slightly more offensive by the fact you evidently have no idea what you are talking about, as Daniel so eloquently pointed out. To be quite brutally honest, an article on something that does not meet our notability guidelines does hurt the encyclopedia, as it destroys our credibility. Would you really take an encyclopedia which had vanity perma-stubs on hundreds of useless little corporations, which have since disbanded and never did anything worthy of note, seriously? And yes, the prod was removed, and, as I still believed that it may be best for the article to be deleted, I brought it here, so that there could be community input. Not only is that what is reccomended, but it means that it is not my decision, as you seemed to believe it is. In fact, had you even read what I had said, you would note that I removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a prod tag. I came across it with a speedy deletion tag, and, being an administrator, I could have easily deleted the article and never looked back. But, I gave it a chance, and what do I get? Insults from those who believe it should be kept. Also, it is not someone else's article at all- yet again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please excuse the length of this post, I was somewhat offended. Have a nice day. J Milburn 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wah, wah, wah... At least I was right about the culprit evidently having nothing better to do than stew over what's written on the Internet. Maybe you can prove me wrong by actually putting forward a reason for suggesting this for deletion other than you can and you apparently have nothing better to do? Atraxus 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just goading me. You suggest I have nothing to do but argue, then you come and flame me? I have given all the argument I need to- it does not meet our notability guidelines- I would be happy to be proven wrong. Instead of attacking me, why don't you actually find a decent argument? Things are not notable by default, it is up to those who wish for the article to be kept to prove that they are, and no one has proven that this is notable. J Milburn 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to find a reason. Keeps are winning now! ftw Atraxus 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote where the side with the most votes wins, votes are counted on their individual merit. Atraxus's vote with its personal attacks and obvious misreading of policy is not likely to make much of a difference. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it just leaves me to congratulate you on your part in ridding the world of this unnecessary evil. Maybe I'll honour you by creating a Wikipedia article to commemorate the occasion. Atraxus 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was ready to delete this article after the above discussion... but the reference to 911 makes this notable in my opinion.Balloonman 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Changing to delete upon closer examination thanks RGBalloonman 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP going away, fails WP:V as well; while "Odigo" + "9/11" superficially has a number of Google hits, after going through the first hundred, not a single one is from a reliable source. Instead, they're all conspiracy/rumor/blog sites. It's noteworthy that the 9/11 conspiracy theories article lacks any mention of Odigo, even in the "possible early warnings" section. RGTraynor 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few non 911 related links [1], [2] etc but as the company doesn't exist anymore and we have articles on the parent company Comverse Technology and the notable product Odigo Messenger I don't see how the now defunct Odigo meets WP notability for corporations. Paxse 13:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aether in popular culture[edit]

This is just a listing of mentionings of "aether" in random video games and films. Trivial. Things like "plasma" or "hyper-speed" in popular culture could easily be made too. Nearly all science-fiction books/films/TV shows would have things like this mentioned in them. Bulldog123 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for "Aether 'popular culture'" produced some interesting reading, but nothing that actually discussed, er, "aether in popular culture." Thus, it seems unlikely that this can be expanded beyond a mere list of times "aether" is mentioned somewhere. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of trivia (it does not appear in "nearly all science-fiction"). Clarityfiend 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some merge to Aether.--JForget 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge. Indiscriminate trivia. Someguy1221 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruftlist. Bearian 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Balloonman 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ObiterDicta with whom I seem to agree on the standards to apply to these in popular culture lists. Carlossuarez46 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "In popular culture" articles should be banned. Piccadilly 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, trivial cruft. Secondary sources would be almost impossible to provide. Violates WP:NOT#INFO. María (críticame) 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nichola Holt[edit]

May had a brief but now already forgotten career on Big Brother but as a porn actress, this is where she fail on notability as per WP:PORNBIO Dr Tobias Funke 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She may classify under WP:Music if the top 100 single can be verified. I have added a source as per BLP although The News of the World may not be considered a reliable source. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only reason for the chart position was because of her appearance on Big Brother, and a promotional campaign leading to that and there are numerous other artists who has not got an entry yet they have got lots of Top 40s. Not to mention that the cutoff line for a record to be considered as a hit in the UK is 40, not 100, therefore she fails on WP:Music.Dr Tobias Funke 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per funkeBalloonman 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Dr TF. Kripto 11:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Stretching Crew[edit]

This article is an incorrect name for the Minnesota Wrecking Crew which already has it's own article. The info in this article could easily be merged into Brock Lesnar or Minnesota Wrecking Crew and due to the fact that this wrestling stable is several years old and defunct, it is unlikely to get much more information to begin with. I recommend it be deleted and the info totally erased or merged into one of the two articles mentioned above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Minnesota Stretching Crew is NOT the same thing as the Minnesota Wrecking Crew---although it appears to be a homage to that group. Brock Lesnar and Shelton Benjamin were both notable wrestlers in the WWE---Brock having won multiple WWE heavy weight titles before leaving for a failed NFL career. Shelton has likewise won multiple WWE titles. A tag team, even in a developmental league, between these two superstars is a clear keeper in my book.Balloonman 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to warrant it's own entry. The information is already included on the OVW Southern Tag Team Championship page, and both the pages Brock Lesnar and Shelton Benjamin which seems *plenty* sufficient. Fairsing 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect, this is clearly a different tag team than the Minneseota Wrecking Crew, and to say this isn't a notable enough team when it produced a multiple-time intercontinental champion and a multiple time world champion is, well, somewhat assanine. One might just as well delete most of the other independent stables and tag teams listed on Wikipedia. Same goes for any other tag team or stable that is already defunct. This should absolutely be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.101.81.25 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —MPJ-DK 10:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the nominator may have confused the MSC with MWC, this article is not needed, it can be covered in Brock and Shelton's pages. Next you'll be wanting a page on Shelton's mama! Darrenhusted 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is better covered in Lesnar and Benjamin's respective articles. On a side note, Darren, Shelton's mama already has an article. Look here: Thea Vidale. Nikki311 03:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others have said, this tag team doesn't need its own page and can be covered on Benjamin and Lesnar's pages. Pure Josh 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crease creatures[edit]

My prod was deleted but with no improvement in the article - read not telling us why this is a notable fan group - only a UW-M info box was added. A recent prod of mine for the same type of group at another college (I think it was Nova Nation but don't quote me) was prod'd and deleted and for the same reason, I prod'd this one. College hockey season lasts for a very short time and even if these fans win the best fans award by the NCAA, it is still not worthy of a stand alone article. At best, it should be incorporated someway into a UW-M article either in the sports section of the school's page or the team page. Postcard Cathy 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as per nom - no standalone notability. HeartofaDog 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Wisconsin-Madison. Unlikely to ever grow beyond a paragraph, doesn't need its own article. Capmango 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really worthy of an article. If notability (e.g. NCAA recognition) occurs, add to Wisconsin Badgers. (Incidentally, "UW-M" refers to Milwaukee (see Milwaukee Panthers). Madison is just "UW".) --Dhartung | Talk 10:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, as every college hockey team has fanatic fans -- see my team, e.g., at Unofficial web site of Union College hockey fans. Oh wait, I think I have a COI here! :-) Bearian 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. It might be better to list separately, as Amarkov mentions, to be able to concentrate more on each particular article instead of a bunch all at once. Majorly (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape gods, RuneScape combat, RuneScape skills, Gielinor[edit]

These are fan/gamecruft and violate the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines in that they are inappropriately detailed game guide content. Plus, they have severe problems with citing sources and being verifiable. Much of this comes from playing the game and would be impossible to reference properly. What little is referenced for the most part comes from a single, unreliable source. These articles are unsalvageable, and should be deleted. Andre (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - no solid reasons given for deletion. These are quite clearly not gameguides - the regular editors make sure of this. Percieved cruft is not a reason for deletion - WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy. I see no violations of WP:CVG/GL here. Articles on fictional characters are encyclopedic. Articles on fictional locations are encyclopedic (I'll cite Middle Earth, a former front page featured article on that). Skills and combat are the result of gameplay section splits over WP:SIZE concerns, so form part of the main article. The merge idea for these two can be dusted off, if necessary. WP:RS concerns are a reason for cleanup, not deletion, but I don't see a problem here anyway: official documentation, with the exception of critical reception of a game, is a perfectly reliable source. Finally, note how the closing admin of Gods 5 recommended no more AfDs for some time. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need multiple, reliable sources independent of the article subjects themselves. Official documentation alone is not sufficient for a well-referenced encyclopedia article. Andre (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The violations of the VG guidelines occur in skills and combat, which are inappropriately detailed game guide content. And as for timing, it seems that the AFD you refer to was in January. Andre (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean per WP:N? Well, if RuneScape, the main article, were lacking independent sources, I would have db-a7'd it myself. Thankfully, the RuneScape topic has plenty of independent reliable sources. These subpages exist only because of WP:SIZE - otherwise they would be included in the main article and one would have time to get a cup of coffee and a sandwich while waiting for the page to load. The requirement for multiple, independent reliable sources applies to whole topics, not individual articles, otherwise everything on Wikipedia would be confined to single, mammoth articles. (Edit conflict) How does any material in combat or skills help one play the game? They seem pretty useless as walkthroughs to me, although fairly good at explaining the gameplay to a non-player. True, we do have a problem with new, inexperienced users adding borderline material, but this is normally sorted out pretty quickly. I'll mention the diluting merge idea again now (Deckiller's originally, I wouldn't want to take the credit). In closing Gods 5, Herostratus recommended no more "until 2008 at the earliest". And as an aside, I'm just going to remove the Pures, Hybrids and Tanks section from combat now, as I have never been happy with this recent introduction, and I've been considering it all day. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. The requirement for references and reliable sources applies to each datum of information. I recommend you read over WP:V. And as for Herostratus' recommendation, it was just that: a recommendation, not a decree or a requirement. Andre (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent removal was helpful but the issues with these articles still stand. Here are some more instances of game guide content/content that violates the VG guidelines which are particularly obvious in the combat article: This skill was important in RuneScape Classic because you could only retreat after the 3rd round of combat. Advanced bows, such as Magic Shortbow, Magic Longbow, Dark Bow, Crystal bow, and Seercull Bow, also have "Special Attacks". Monsters are often easier to kill then their level suggests. Andre (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything is exempt from WP:V (which has nothing forbidding the use of official documentation as sources, I might add), I'm saying that subpages of notable topics do not need to prove notability all by themselves. And after four keeps and one withdrawn because of recent keeps, it's time to stop AfDing Gods. (Edit conflict) Thanks for pointing those out, looks like they slipped through the net. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about notability, I'm talking about references and sources -- Wikipedia:Attribution. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.. The official documentation is unacceptable to be the only source to support the articles as per the Attribution page, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, etc. The official site is promotional in nature and is insufficient as a reference.

Here are some more examples of game guide content, this time in the Gielinor article: It is best known for the massive dungeon beneath the island, populated by Dagannoths and the Daggannoth Kings, three extremely powerful monsters who drop unique rewards for use in combat and skill training. The island can only be accessed by paying a ghostly sailor in Port Phasmatys a small quantity of ectotokens, a kind of currency used only by the ghosts of that city. Players can assist them by defending a Void Knight in the Pest Control minigame and earn rewards such as Void Knight robes or bonus combat experience. These articles are full of this stuff. Andre (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most material here is cited (WP:ATT) to a reliable source (WP:RS; are you suggesting that the official documentation is unreliable?!). Any (minority) original research can simply be removed without nuking the entire article. These are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official documentation is reliable technically, but not sufficient as the only reference on an article. Since it is impossible to cite these articles to anything else, they need to be deleted. Andre (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it impossible? Try fansites. Game reviewers usually comment on gameplay mechanics too. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Andre (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles such as Runescape combat and Runescape skills are valid subarticles describing Runescape gameplay. It might be a kiddy browser based piece of shit, but it's got quite a large player base, and I'd also vote keep on articles such as Gameplay of Final Fantasy XI. Although I'm not to sure about the level of detail we go into on MMO characters, such as Category:Warcraft. - hahnch e n 09:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all – RuneScape is a very broad topic that cannot be covered by one article. Multiple articles are necessary for proper encyclopedia coverage of the game. Also, I'd like to point out that fancruft is cause for cleanup of the article or merging with another similar article on the same topic, not deletion. As for reliability and verifiability issues, almost all aspects of the game can be cited from either the game manual or one of the three main fansites that we link to, and although many things are not yet sourced, that can be fixed fairly easily and is therefore not cause for deletion. And the "single, unreliable source," the game's official manual? How is the official manual written by the creators of the game unreliable? I admit we need more varied sources, but the official manual is not unreliable in the least; and again, this is reason for cleanup rather than deletion. We need to be working to improve these articles, not remove them.
I think I'm supposed to note any major involvement I have with these articles, so note that I am the primary author and editor of most of the Gielinor article, and I frequently edit the other 3. Pyro spirit Shiny! 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gielinor - neutral - All appears to be based off the RuneScape KB. Even so, is this really adding

something to Wikipedia? If you're doing research on this topic, there's the Jagex KB. We could add something to

RuneScape saying how it has varied lands? I understand this might be a good topic and informational, but

I dunno...

RuneScape skills - weak keep - Acceptable, could do with some sources.

RuneScape gods - delete - Not sure if all this is really needed. If there is something more about these

gods that is added to RuneScape, (and sourced,) this might be valid. As it is, Guthix/Saradomin/Zamorack

appear to be the 'main' gods of the game, so I'm not sure if all this about the demi-gods is needed.

RuneScape combat - delete and/or merge to skills - Few sources

OSborn^arf 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are never going to get rid of these articles using this approach. It has been tried a number of times in the past and will only polarize the community (anti-cruft editors vs. pro-Runescape fans). I would suggest you withdraw this RfD and spend your time on more worthwhile pursuits. Shoehorn 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RuneScape and deleted per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge and delete, that would be a GFDL violation. Even if that happened, it would be split out again immediately per WP:SIZE. Where does WP:FICT forbid subpages? I see a bit encouraging subpages where necessary, but nothing forbidding them. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not like this. These must be treated as seperate pages to arrive at a meaningful result. Group nominations are very overused, and this is not an appropriate situation for one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 July 2007.
- I definitely agree with Amarkov. The subpages are different enough that this groups them together too much; however, I still believe they should all be kept. Pyro spirit Shiny! 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaptainVindaloo. Some of these are better than others (the combat article is a bit iffy, since it is the borderland between encyclopedic description and a computer game-guide walkthrough; on the other hand the Gods article is quite decent), but RuneScape is such a popular game that there is plenty to write about it, and spinning off some topics into separate articles is only natural. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are valid subarticles of RuneScape, which is easily notable. The requirement for multiple independent sources is only to establish notability. For citing information within articles, we only need a reliable source, which includes primary sources for certain kinds of information. Also, as usual, difficult to form consensus in a mass nomination... — brighterorange (talk)
Keep. RuneScape is a broad topic, too big for one article. Just because they're unsourced doesn't mean they should be deleted. They explain the gameplay in a neutral format that could be useful to a non player of the game. Also, don't put the entire series up for deletion again. Nominate each of them separately if you want them to be deleted. Dtm142 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I view none of these as a game guide, as these articles won't tell how to do something. RuneScape_skills as an example, it tell how do the skills mean to the game. How do they work etc. Many users would like to find about the style of the game near the main article, as the Runescape Knowledge Base is totally a gameguide, and won't tell a big overview about skills in overall, and hunting different pages for small exmplanations is just a waste of time for people just researching. To the tags marked onto the article, I'm sure that these could be easily solved, especially the verification one, because switching sources would almost still do the same purpose as a reference. (There are written references about Runescape in overall, not just in the main website.) ~Iceshark7 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I would have probably said delete, but this is not the right way to do this. Please, feel free to open separate AfDs on the separate articles. In my opinion, a multi-article AfD should only be used when you can be certain that everyone will not have different opinions about the different articles.

My actual opinions though: WP:CRUFT may only be an essay, but it brings up very valid points. Also, if you think they should be kept per WP:SIZE of RuneScape, maybe that means that there should not that much information on the subject in the first place (WP:BHTT anyone?). Remember, I am still going neutral and these are my opinions on the RuneScape series in general so I may go either way on any specific article. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per CaptainVindaloo. Cruft is an essay, this breaks no policies. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Regular editors make sure that these articles are well maintained and free of fancruft - • The Giant Puffin • 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Compare these articles to, for example, Articles for deletion/Places in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Andre (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as spam/advertising under G11. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Banker Top 1000 World Banks[edit]

Article that appears to have been written to advertise a specific issue of a magazine, and whose subject could easily have been mentioned in its existing article Paul20070 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I saw looking at it, it's nothing but an advertisement, this could even be speedy deleted. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to KEEP JodyB_talk 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EJ Wells and Samantha Brady[edit]

Delete as Sami and EJ are not and have never been a couple. At the moment only supercouples seem to have their own pages and whilst there is no denying that EJ and Sami have some support amongst the fans, they are not actually a couple. Even if they were Wikipedia is not the place to list every popular couple on a show, only the particularly notable ones, which Sami and EJ are not (particularly as EJ has only been on the show for a year). Magical mia 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a very prominent story line between EJ and Sami, and the evil DiMeras and Lucas' evil mother. The story line is always evolving between the two. Especially now with the pregnancy of Sami by EJ and possibly the other twin as Lukas'. EJ and Sami have been a couple, but they broke up. Now it is obvious that EJ still has strong feelings for Sami, and Sami is shown to have more positive feelings for EJ...again. This could be a Luke and Laura type of couple. EJ and Sami are one of the more interesting relationships on the show. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with you that they "could be" a good couple but at the moment they're not and so don't yet deserve their own page. Wikipedia doesn't have entries for all couples in soap history - look at all Chelsea and Nick for example. They're a fairly important couple at the moment but don't have their own page because they haven't been around for very long. EJ's been on the show for a year and EJ and Sami have not been through enough to warrant their own article. As for Sami showing positive feelings - only today we watched her weep because she found out her children were EJs! Perhaps a section in the Lucas and Sami article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magical mia (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Although I very much agree with you about not all couples deserve their own page. But, I don't believe their relationship can be compared to Chelsea's and Nick's. As their story arc is very weak in comparison, IMO. The DiMera's and Brady's have a long history. Plus Sami's been on the show forever, and now the new thing about "Colleen"? I really don't like the relationship, but I really dislike Lucas too. The EJ and Sami relationship is more interesting and is a very prominent part of the soap right now. (Edit conflict) I don't think it should go into Sami's and Lucas' page, but thought about putting it in Sami's page, but it is kinda long already. <shrug> - Jeeny ^Talk 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EJ and Sami aren't directly called a supercouple in this article. Due to their rabid popularity, they have an article as to being a notable couple, and potential supercouple. Since this article is referencd, while most other soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia are not as of yet, although I'm going to get around to improving each and every one of those articles as such and being a part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas, I feel that this article should stay. Flyer22 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But they are only a "potential supercouple" at the moment. I personally don't think it's necessary to have an article on a minor couple (and in terms of time length they were very minor) based on what might happen. There's no proof that anything more will happen with EJ and Sami, and based on what has already happened they don't warrant an entry. If the writers do nothing more with the characters (which is very possible) will you still think in a year's time that EJ and Sami deserved their own article? And whilst they aren't directly called a supercouple, there is a link to the supercouple entry under "See Also".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magical mia (talk • contribs)
Delete as a plot summary of the two characters' storyline. Otto4711 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flyer22 and - Jeeny who both make persuasive arguments. --164.107.222.23 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EJ and Sami are not called directly a supercouple. There characters have not really been a "couple" but they do have alot of charater history with eachother. They are an important part of the current Days of Our Lives storyline and also in the Brady vs. Dimera Feud. Perfecttlovee 5:31, 2 July 2007
So is anyone who's saying "keep" on the basis of the supposed importance of the couple planning on addressing the fact that this article is nothing but a plot summary of the characters' relationship? Anyone at all? Or is this going to be a popularity contest? Just wondering if actual policies and guidelines are going to be a factor here... Otto4711 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary can be edited down. And there are good articles on Wikipedia, such as the Anakin Skywalker article that is just as long in plot, if not somewhat longer in plot, in which is referred to as an article in which editors should look to for how to write good articles on fiction at Wikipedia. Thus, I don't even feel that the plot summary of this article is that long.

Other than that, this article does provide a Cultural impact section, in which can be expanded on. I'm not a fan of this couple. I do, however, see that this article is better referenced and lower in plot summary than some other soap opera couple articles that I will be working on improving while here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Anakin Skywalker article was listed as good, but now it seems to have a B status, which, of course, means that it's okay, but not tagged as good anymore. Still, there are articles on Wikipedia that are tagged as good, in which have a plot length not that different than the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. As I stated before, this article's plot summary can be edited down, if absolutely necessary. Flyer22 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for this article. Otto4711 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that policy. And that's not my justification for why this article should remain. I already gave my justification for why this article should remain, outside of good articles, which are not crap, with plot summaries longer than this article.

Plot summary which can always be edited down is not a good enough reason to delete this article, which is also referenced. Flyer22 05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I think Flyer22 has made the points that I would make in support of keeping this article and I would just like to voice my agreement and support for those points. EJ and Sami were most definitely a couple for several months and the potential of them to become a couple again is referenced across many neutral media. They have recently been referenced as a potential couple in an article in Soap Opera Weekly comparing them to Luke and Laura from General Hospital and in a current issue of Soap Opera Digest where an executive producer of the show acknowledges the large and growing support for EJ and Sami as a couple. Radiantbutterfly 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment: There is also a moral outrage by fans of EJ and Sami's "rival" couple, Lucas and Sami, because they believe that the show is heading back towards a romantic relationship between EJ and Sami. This moral outrage has manifested itself as a campaign in which fans of Lucas and Sami are trying to convince the show not to go forward with this storyline. Soap Opera Weekly has even mentioned this campaign in their magazine so it would appear that all fans are in agreement that the show is heading towards putting EJ and Sami back together. Radiantbutterfly 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It is policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There are already two separate articles where all of the information about the relationship could be placed (and should already be in place, so there is potentially massive duplication if this article is kept: Sami Brady and EJ Wells. If we want to have a single article about the couple, and redirects from the two individual pages to the page about the couple, fine, but there isn't any justification to have two lengthy individual bios plus a lengthy combined article that covers the same ground. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article on a popular couple allows more room to address that particlular couple, the couple's history/creation as to how the writers and producers came about telling the romance of that couple, which can eventually be added to this article.

The storyline is naturally addressed. And a Cultural impact section of the couple can be addressed in articles such as these, as it is with this article... specifically about this couple's popularity and or controversy. It would be redundant to have a Cultural impact section regarding a couple, for instance, mentioned within the characters of that couple's articles. Also, this type of couple, such as EJ and Sami, causes edit warring more so than a typical popular couple, because this couple has a rival couple, and adding certain details in Sami's article regarding EJ, or adding certain details in EJ's article regarding Sami...can result in a tiresome edit war between the rival fan-bases, more so than usual. The format of this article can always be improved. Flyer22 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Essentially I agree with radiantbutterfly and cannot add very much but I believe this article should be kept. It is a commentary on society that an article on the internet can cause such pettyness and controversy. Edit warring and heated debates about something that should be enjoyable. Regardless, I think the article should be kept.Antigone28 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As pointed out, the individual character pages would be better served by remaining completely free from commentary on these characters as a couple especially in a case where such a heated fan war exists between rival couples. The individual character pages should be about the characters and the characters alone. If a couple page is deleted because it should be addressed as part of the character pages, all couples pages should be put up for deletion and I don't think that is what would best serve the public interested in these topics. There is a precedent set with other pages for specific couples so that would suggest that there is a definite interest in a page like this. I think even more so than other couples, this page is of interest because of the controversy associated with this couple that is continually disccussed on message boards, on official network sites, in soap opera magazines and by network executives. One of the show's executives has admitted that there is a large and growing audience for this couple so I think this information is definitely of interest to people and should not be duplicated on the individual character pages. The information provided pertains only to the article subjects as a couple and not to them individually. The formatting can be improved upon and if it is felt there is too much discussion of storyline, that can be edited as well. Radiantbutterfly 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment But relationships are part of a character's history and unless they're particularly notable, it's fine to include them in their character page, as happens with most characters. Only if a couple is particularly notable and has a lot of history together is it necessary for them to have their own separate page. The next young couple considered worthy of a separate article are Shawn and Belle, who have been on the show for 8 years compared to EJ and Sami's one. The whole of this article reads like an introduction to a main topic - I keep waiting for it to get to the point! Nothing particularly worthy of note has happened between EJ and Sami yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magical mia (talk • contribs)

Keep I think it should be kept. At this point I don't think the it can be denied that the EJ and Sami storyline is one of the biggest storylines on the soap ever since Decemember of 2006. It is a notable article and just looking at all the soap press their storylines have gotten over the past months. I think the section "cultural impact" is very well written and discusses the parrallels between Luke and Laura as well as EJ and Sami. The rape part of the story has been a huge issue and I think that it is notable to have in the article. True EJ has only been on Day for a year and some but he's also been a major part of story for the lenght of time and then some. Yes they might not have any story a year or so later but I still think that the contents of this article is important and very much relevant. -Skinwalker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.94.185 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Completely absurd, unencyclopaedic, and crystal balling fancruft. Cheers, DWaterson 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no "crystal balling" in this article. Only facts have been presented. No one has said they WILL be together but they have caused a great deal of discussion and are popular enough to have spurred a subcouple played by the two actors who portray EJ and Sami. That in and of itself shows the popularity of the coupling.65.13.237.254 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Magical mia, I get your point, and I agree that when it comes to soap opera couples, only notable soap opera couples should be included on Wikipedia, but the controversy surrounding this couple is something notable that has happened between this couple, to the point where the producers of this show have apparently issued a statement and or statements surrounding this couple's popularity, despite this couple's controversy. Flyer22 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a factual overview of a great storyline currently on Days and to delete it to satisfy LUMI (Lucas and Sammi fans) would be an injustice as well as evidence of the fact that Wikipedia cannot be an encyclopedia which would otherwise be a factual restating of culture: EJAMI- EJ and Sami are part of our culture and part of Days of Our Lives. The only question is whether Wikipedia has the guts to remain true to the vision of an online encyclopedia or cave in to the ramblings of one group. Allie0416 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This couple is most definitely notable and has been talked about more than many couples with years and years of history. One of the characters has only a year of history on the show but the fact that he is considered as popular if not more so as a suitor for a veteran character is also notable. As far as "crystal-balling" - there is nothing that projects into the future in the article whatsoever. These 2 characters were a couple (contrary to the original statement calling for the article to be deleted) and remain a fan favourite pairing despite many seemingly insurmountable obstacles and it is this article that will convey the information about both the controversy and about the fan reaction to this couple, good and bad and about the continuing history between them given that it is still not known whether EJ is the father of Samantha's unborn children. The facts in the article are presented in a neutral way and even though it only spans a year, the history between these 2 characters is very complex and interesting. The bottom line as I see it, the article is factual, provides information that is unique to this article and it provides information that is of interest to many people who watch this particular soap opera.

In response to the comment about the duplication between the character pages and the couple page, I agree that the individual character pages should be updated to remove reference to the history included in the couple page with a re-direction to the couple page. Radiantbutterfly 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep the page. There is a well informative page and a huge asset to people who are looking for information on this matter. I think it would be a huge injustice to delete this page. These characters are in one of the hugest story lines of the summer and there fan base is growing rapidly as we speak. I think the "fan base of the other couple" is just trying to ruin everything on the internet that speaks of these to characters together. And a respectable web site like Wikipedia should not give voice to this vicious antics of a few disgruntle fans of other pairings on Days of Our Lives. These characters have been a couple and broke up so that argument is not valid. I know tons of people who have enjoyed this page on Wikipedia and it has served its purpose and will continue to do so if left up. There have been numerous characters outside of Ej and Sami that have said they know EJ loves Sami and it is cleary obvious to everyone or "the other" fan base would not be so upset over this page. There are considered the "Luke and Laura" of Days and have so much chemistry together that their fan base has growen so rapidly the "powers that be" are standing up and taking notice. Deleting this page now will only cause a head ache to the people that put articles up here because they will enviably be putting it back up. Peifgirl 02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) peifgirl[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect to Tommy Tucker (baseball player). I have already merged the two articles & changed the nominated article to a redirect page (non-admin closure). — Caknuck 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Tucker (19th century baseball player)[edit]

Already a page created for this player. Tommy Tucker (baseball player) Neonblak 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since an article already exists. Any article not present in the original could be merged into that one. A redirect here would probably not be of any use, since few people would key in the search string "Tommy Tucker (19th century baseball player)". Dr bab 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. The existing article has templates, but this one seems to have a little more content. Any content not already represented on the Tommy Tucker (baseball player) page should be integrated before deletion. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are one and the same, merge and redirect. This is 1) to preserve edit history for legal mumbo-jumbo purposes, and 2) it appears to be a useful redirect because someone created the article at this title in the first place; the redirect will not kill anyone or cause the servers to self-detonate. -- saberwyn 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Like saberwyn said, merge and deletion would violate GFDL. Corvus cornix 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as well as merging some of the afd nom's content to the already created article.--JForget 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect 74.242.184.198 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename as Tommy Tucker (baseball player)Balloonman 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB_talk 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavriel Olteanu[edit]

Looks like hoax: no references, no google hits Alex Bakharev 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. While web searches are not the end-all and be-all, the complete lack of hits does support the hoax hypothesis. -- MarcoTolo 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article also uses the spelling "Gavril Olteanu" which has Google hits[3]. Some are a language I don't know, some are Wikipedia and mirrors, but there are others including [4] and [5] (PDF). PrimeHunter 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work - I surrender to your superior search skills (no, really). Given PrimeHunter's sources, I no longer suspect hoax-ish-ness. This article needs much work, but I'd now support a keep. -- MarcoTolo 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio of the last section in http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/genoci/genoci02.htm. http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/ says copyright. No reservation against later recreation without copyvio. PrimeHunter 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've deleted the majority of the article to avoid copyvio problems - will attempt to create from scratch (as penance....). -- MarcoTolo 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK. I will change to keep if it gets enough content for a decent stub. It should be moved to Gavril Olteanu, but I don't know whether it's best to do it now or when the AfD is over. PrimeHunter 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extensive searching turns up minor mentions. Recognizing the non-English nature of probable sources, he just doesn't seem to be particularly notable except in regard to this alleged war crime, and we don't seem to have sufficient sources to write about that neutrally. Perhaps worthy of a mention in whatever article covers Romanian guerrillas operating in Hungary during WW2. --Dhartung | Talk 10:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is, but if it can be expanded with reliable sources, this will be a keep.Balloonman 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like there are non English sources available and he passes the 10 year test 6 times over. Let's give MarcoTolo time to get his new sources [6] and rewrite. Paxse 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; hard to judge with so many anons and SPA's with such slanted opinions. Sr 13 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smeaton (baggage handler)[edit]

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

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

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

NOTE: Closing admin please note the number of "anonymous IP's", unsigned comments, and obvious socks voting on this project. (E.g. the only edits of User:Scottybarr, User:MsTreex2 are to keep this article. While User:Barryferguson6 User:Frank Booth have less than 5 edits each---and many of those are vandalism. There are multiple other accounts voting with less than 50 edits and histories of vandalism as well.)Balloonman 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an "anonymous IP" with far more than 50 edits and an edit history rivalling "Balloonman" himself, I urge the closing admin not to discount IP address users outright, but instead to judge on the merits of their arguments. 62.31.67.29 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There's clearly a bunch of people on here for whom this is their first experience of Wikipedia, but that's because W has listed John Smeaton ahead of other Internet sources - that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Doesn't make their arguments invalid. 82.40.183.118 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I wouldn't discard anonymous IP's... but in this particular case, where there is no doubt of socks... care should be taken to identify the legitimate arguments with legitimate points from the puppets. Especially when outside sources are actively soliciting people to come here to vote on this issue.[7]---a clear violationg of WP:CANVASS.Balloonman 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just media hype, not the stuff of Wikipedia. I admire what the guy did, but this is not the place for such an article. Lynbarn 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) – Gurch 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A year from now, nay six months from now, no one will remember his name. Postcard Cathy 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* While topical and newsworthy it is also a credible article illustrating the public's reaction to an atrocity. It is what differentiates each individual event and will be worthwile for future readers to see how the Glasgow public reacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.206.235.134 (talk • contribs).

Maybe delete it in six months, then ? He may yet become an internet phenomenon, despite the language barrier! Who can tell how the future history will work out ? Who had heard of Grace Darling the next day ? Wouldn't it be great if the little dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke was remembered by name ? Almost certainly not Hans Brinker ! IMHO WP:HERO guidelines like WP:PORNBIO would be great for the public good ! 195.137.93.171 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and add a sentence to the Glasgow incident article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there will never be enough material in the foreseeable future to write a notable biography on this chap or a separate article on his actions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are notable biographies for Chuck Norris and Randy Constan ? Comments on [8] are already making references to these guys. 195.137.93.171 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* It needs tidied up a lot but the man deserves an entry as he has become somewhat famous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.73.190 (talk • contribs).
Delete. One incident does not bestow notability. Now, if he could prove he never misplaced luggage... Clarityfiend 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although he can be mentionned in the main article of the events.--JForget 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to delete this? The man is a hero. There are much more trivial pages on wikipedia. Surely John deserves this honour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.78.193 (talk • contribs) — 82.40.78.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. He'll be a trivia question in a fortnight or two. --Finngall ^talk 02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - who? Internet phenomenon? What? Sorry, but this is WP:CRYSTAL at its best - if he becomes an Internet phenomenon, then someone will write about him and provide us reliable sources. As it is, fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind; merge anything not already there to the article on the incident. We don't have articles for the other people who are getting splashes of media attention on this, and that would seem the logical place for it to go. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge his name into the Glasgow incident article.. That's where people would look for info anyway, not at his own page!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.184.198 (talk • contribs)
Keep* won't someone think of the children? Rolf Mayo 08:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* this guy has a tribute site and on many internet talk boards he has achieved a level of notoriety. So long as wikipedia lists internet phenomena then it should document this Barryferguson6 09:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Barryferguson6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep* he is an Internet meme and has received extensive media coverage on the TV and in local, national and international newspapers. The tribute website has taken an extroadinary amount of traffic, and interviews with him are playing on BBC, Sky, ITV and CNN at the moment. As well as his actions, there is the aspect of the media coverage and commentary concerning him of lasting interest. jkirriemuir 11:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Of all the witnesses to the incident, John Smeaton is by far the most televised, most vocal, and most animated. When future historians look back, his numerous accounts will help form a basis for their understanding one way or another. But most of all, he attempted to pacify the attackers, and was therefore a direct participant in the chain of events, rather than a bystander. This alone means he was involved in the outcome and should be listed either independently, or merged with the larger Glasgow incident page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.61.49.4 (talk • contribs).

Keep :

Of interest to social historians as an example of an ordinary citizen's attitude when facing direct confrontation with terrorists.
As of thursday 5th July, Google now showing over 12,000 results for query '"John Smeaton" baggage' ('baggage' added to distinguish him from the historic John Smeaton).
Todd Beamer (the 'let's roll' guy) gets a Wikipedia article. JS's role in this terror attack is similar to TS's role on September 11th. Would JS's article be up for deletion if he was American? 82.40.183.118 11:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor aspect of failed attack by apparently incompetent would-be terrorists. --Dhartung | Talk 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Wikipedia contains details of all Members of the Scottish Parliament, some of whom have never been directly elected but are 'list' MSPs. None of them has done more for the reputation or safety of the people of Scotland than John Smeaton. If you remove him, you should remove all of those nobodys as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk • contribs)

Keep* The man risked his life to protect other people. He has done more than most people on Wikipedia and deserves his place. To talk about removing the article is ridiculous. People like this should be held in high esteem and not pushed aside due to peoples 'Wiki snobbery'. We need more people like this in the world and it can only do us all well to hear about people like this. (First time Ive tried to edit a page.) User- Matt McLeod — 82.41.152.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep this page! There are all sorts of useless crap on here - this guy braved his life and who knows what could have happened if he hadn't nutted the guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nony88 (talk • contribs) — Nony88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge*(See Note..) He did something remarkable in the face of todays terrorism challange.He showed that a ordinary person does make a difference in the big picture and deserves a SERIOUS mention with connection to this incident.***NOTE:If you decide to give the terrorist their own page then I will change my MERGE to a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.217.142 (talk • contribs) — 192.122.217.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep It is the complete opposite of media hype, he is a real person who did what came naturally to defeat the ends of terrorism and is quickly becoming a national hero. I can assure you that a long time from now people will still be talking about Mr Smeaton and the way he handled himself in a tricky situation and in the resulting media glare. I suggest that all of you who think his page should be deleted are just snobs who don't want a working class Scot cluttering up your nice tidy American encyclopedia! Well real life is NOT nice and tidy! How many cartoon characters have a Wiki page? Additional comment - I notice my, and several other comments have been tagged as being the only entry we have made. I have never felt so strongly about a Wiki article that I felt I had to edit a page, and I'm sure the others feel the same! Its not exactly the most user friendly experience you could have on the internet, is it?MsTreex2 12.35, 3 July 2007 (BST) — MsTreex2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia and does not intend to be biased towards the US. Notability is how we determine whom and what should be included, not personal feelings. Also, working class people are inevitably going to be less notable as individuals than others as they are the least likely to have had reliable published sources about them.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* The level of reaction to Smeaton both in the greater Glasgow area and through internet fan sites make him worthy of inclusion as an internet phenomenon. I am a Glasgow resident - this man's appearances on the various news channels are amongst the most discussed topics related to these attacks. As for internet reaction, one need only note that less than 4 days since the incident we not only have several sites, but at latest count 600 pints had been advance-purchased for Smeaton at the Glasgow Airport Holiday-Inn bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.196.190 (talk • contribs)

Wkepedia can NOT be serious. This page MUST be kept. It's an inspiration to humanity in general and to Democratic values in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.195.139 (talk • contribs)

Keep* This is very simple...if Wikipedia maintains a section on "Internet Phenomena" then, since Smeaton has become just that, the article should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Booth (talk • contribs) — Frank Booth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep* In the first terrorist attack of it's kind on Scotland, John Smeaton played a pivotal role in the way events panned out. Without his intervention, who is to say what would have gone on to happen. While others stood and watched, this hero put the safety of others before his own well-being and confronted a crazed terrorist. There is absolutely no doubt that John Smeaton deserves his place in Wikipedia and it would take a cold heart to delete him. Rogue Trader 13.22, 3 July 2007 (BST)
Delete' While I admire his actions, he's still not notable, and a footnote to the incident at best. Wildthing61476 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* John Smeaton has *already* become recognised across the web for his actions, and his approach to the situation shows that the ordinary citizen *can* stand up to criminal behaviour and make a difference.Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~* Why is this even up for discussion? If Guy Goma merits a Wikipedia page (which he does) for giving us a giggle, then so does John Smeaton. More so, in fact, since he made us laugh during very testing times. Besides, if you pull the plug, Sir Smeaton will be knocking at the front door of Wikipedia Mansions before you know it, eager to banjo, malky and/or chib the person who hit the big button marked 'delete'. I'm off to buy him a beer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.61.49.4 (talk • contribs).
- I've struck this comment as it is 194.61.49.4's second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've unstruck the comment, but changed the "vote" from "Keep" to "Comment". People are allowed to contribute as much as they like to the debate, they're only prohibited from "voting" multiple times. 62.31.67.29 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* There are thousands of people on Wikipedia far less deserving of their own page than John Smeaton. The guy did help prevent a terrorist attack through his bravery. If we can have Wikipedia pages on terrorists that try these atrocities then surely the heroes that stop them are fully deserving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottybarr (talk • contribs) — Scottybarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep* To be honest this website has in-numerable gigabytes of data based on obscure hobbies and truely bad web phenomenon, the section needs expanding somewhat, but who could argue that this does not deserve a page on here? The same people who think that there should be multiparagraph sections on what underwear pikachu may or may not wear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.135.189 (talk • contribs)

I resent your implication, good sir, and find your comparison downright slanderous. I reserve the right to feel about this article any way I please and I'll be damned before allowing my opinions be weighed on the crooked scales of some lackwit knowlessman. --Agamemnon2 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. How many lives has all your base are belong to us ever saved? Wayne's World merits separate articles for the SNL sketch and the movie, and genuine hero John doesn't merit an article of his own? Shame on Wikipedia for being US-centric. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's not a big deal over here. 82.40.183.118 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia of the people and places that are part of the moving culture. John Smeaton is someone that has brought some hope to those that had none, and taken away the fear that was intended by terrorism. He has done more than anyone that has been in the Big Brother house, but yet their pages remain. Kylie 3.07.07 — 83.67.59.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and expand, or we'll set about ye! Seriously though, keep and improve. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* He is part of current news so he deserves the right to be on here, Keep John On Wiki, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.66.18 (talk • contribs)

Keep* There are worse articles on wikipedia, at least this has some relevance to life and recent events. Although i think that the article definitely needs some expansion it shouldn't be deleted. Princesskirsty 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* We should certainly have articles on have a go heroes like this, could do with expanding though. Tomgreeny 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a sentence to the main Glasgow incident article. As per WP:BLP1E we should not have have articles on people only notable for a single event. Only if he establishes independent notability seperate from this one incident would a seperate article be valid. Davewild 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I pity the closing admin - what a mess! I don't see how this fellow is different from Bill Clinton (truck driver) (see deletion log), aside from the minor detail that he exists. More to the point, I don't see how this person is notable independent of the incident, so really I'd redirect his name to the incident. Shalom ^Hello 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* How about this guy, Todd Beamer, or this guy, Mark Bingham both heroes like John Smeaton who are only famous for one event when they saved many people's lives, how do they deserve a page when John does not!!! And oh yeah, for the wikipedian who said he was only famous because of media hype how about this Paris Hilton, Jade Goody and Chantelle Houghton, who are these people who deserve wikipedia pages and John does not? --RMC1989 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whoever has flagged this for deletion has gone against Wikipedia's stated policy. This is an article about a current news story. Flag it for want of expanding into a fully formed article if necessary, but deleting this is inappropriate.We'll set aboot ye! :-)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justificatus (talk • contribs).
- This is not an article about a news story - it's about a human being. We already have an article about the news story. All this energy going into trying to save this article in this debate, and the article still contains only three sentences! This is an omen I tell ye. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both John Smeaton and the Internet phenonmenon surrounding him are the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources:

BBC NEWS, UK
BBC NEWS, UK - another article about the Internet demanding he appear at T in the Park
The National Post, Canada
The Glasgow Evening Times, UK
The Daily Telegraph, UK
The Times, UK
Metro, UK
The Scotsman, UK
International Herald Tribune, France

The man is a hero and is not merely an person on the scene at Glasgow Airport, but an international Internet phenonemon. 85.210.60.42 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the above. Passes WP:BIO (specifically, "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" -Wang Weilin, anybody?), supported by multiple non-trivial references in reliable news sources. Tevildo 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, and subject of a large amount of coverage in a variety of media sources. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The John Smeaton story merits inclusion for 3 reasons: 1) Smeaton was involved in thwarting a major terrorist attack, and as such is newsworthy. 2) He is a born communicator, and his involvement in the media's breathless reporting of this incident make him a principle source for academic study of terrorism in the UK. Biographical information on him is relevant to this topic. 3) The internet phenomenon which arose around the Smeaton story will be relevant to all those with an interest in the development of Wikipedia's own medium. The wit and originality of Smeaton's way of expressing himself carried over into the tribute site, with its innovative "pints behind the bar" concept.

This is absolutely not media hype, it reflects the black humour which real and virtual communities use to reinforce those things which they hold in common at times of stress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.137.26 (talk • contribs).

Keep This article should be kept because John Smeaton is a modern day hero in Scotland. Deleting this article would be a disgrace and a slap in the face against the global fight against terrorism. As time passes the content will grow. Who else has had as much press coverage across the world than John Smeaton over the last couple of days?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJP2007 (talk • contribs).

Keep. Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources discuss his heroic actions and internet driven popularity. Hell, at least one source even notes the enthusiasm generated here on Wikipedia. [9] Rockpocket 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Funny guy.--AchtungAchtung 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major media story worldwide. --JJay 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is full of pages with little or no information on uninteresting and quickly forgotten people such as reality TV show contestants, one hit wonder musicians and mediocre athletes. A terror attack in Scotland was until now non-existant and the event is now marked on the history of Glasgow. All major television stations worldwide used John Smeaton's witness report and Glaswegians will always remember his name in connection with the first ever terror attack on our country and as the epitome of the spirit of Scottish people. The fact that the deletion issue has sparked so much debate is in itself proof that John Smeaton's wiki should not be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.201.244 (talk • contribs).

Keep. Speaking as a Glaswegian, I think some of John's view, and particularly his catch phrase "This is Glasgow, we'll set aboot ye!" sum up elequently the determination and principles of the city's people. I also think that the fact that we are having this debate so soon, and the fact that 1,000 pints were pledged within days of the incident is a stunning illustration of the power of the internet as a campaigning and publicity tool which, along with similar internet phenomina of the past (such as the Blair Witch Project) will still be talked about for years to come.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.245.61 (talk • contribs).
Keep. He did something news worthy and non-trivial—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.245.187 (talk • contribs).

Keep. This article must be kept. For a start he has been on BBC, CNN, Fox News, Sky News, a whole host of newspapers across the country and abroad and even has his own website. Scotland has never suffered a terrorist attack and yet he instinctively steamed in. He has been mentioned by politicians in the House of Commons as a "hero". Had this man been an American who put his own life in danger, who foiled a terrorist attack, who ran towards a burning car full of gas, petrol and nails, prevented the attacker from reaching the boot and blowing up the car there would be no questions asked about this page. This man, along with one or two others, perhaps saved the lives of everyone inside that terminal building. Just because he's a "weegie" who you can't understand does not mean his actions are worth any less. John Smeaton is a modern day hero. Instead of running from danger he ran towards it. We, the Scottish people, are a brave and passionate people. We stand up to danger and will not let these terrorists attack our country. We call ourselves the best small country in the world, and I think John's actions epitomised that. So for those reasons, the page should stay Crocodiles 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if no-one remembers his name in a week, he wouldn't be the only person on wikipedia to have such a fate. He has done much for the nation, showing that the ordinary man on the street can make a difference in todays world. Perhaps a similar person would be Guy Goma, who has a wikipedia article. What was his achievement? He was mistaken for someone else. If Guy is worthy of inclusion, John Smeaton cetainly is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.123.32 (talk • contribs).
Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE per Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article This is POLICY not!Balloonman 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your POLICY link simply explains that being in the news once doesn't guarantee an article, i.e. it's not a defense against a valid reason to delete. It says nothing about actively deleting things because they've been in the news once. Please pick another Wikipedia policy to justify your deletion request. 62.31.67.29 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a defense... a person who is the flavor of the day, isn't notable due to his/her 15 minutes of fame. even if Bebo instructs people to come here to vote...Balloonman 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if not for the follow-on attention after the fact that he has received, I'd have said merge with the Glasgow airport event article, but mentioned in numerous WP:RSes for the internet phenom and therefore seems notable for that too and WP:BLP1E ceases to apply. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should stand as a bona fide internet phenomenon. Clearly the popularity of the sub site, and numerous - fixed - news website entries are enough to warrant this page to be maintained. Although it's "early days", the public response is strong (and still growing). This guys 15 minutes of fame are far from over!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.35.13 (talk • contribs).

Keep. In most circumstances, a person notable solely for actions in a single event would be ideal merge candidates, but in this case the guy has received hero status. This is not some mere pop culture phenomenon, but an actual act of bravery recognized by the media, who have devoted individual articles to the person [10]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whoever has flagged this for deletion has gone against Wikipedia's stated policy. This is an article about a current news story. Flag it for want of expanding into a fully formed article if necessary, but deleting this is inappropriate. --Justificatus 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)We'll set aboot ye! :-)[reply]
- I've struck this comment as this is Justificatus' second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What idiot flagged this for deletion? If I hear someone talking about John Smeaton and I'd never hard of him I'd want to look him up and find out who he is. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.190.0.26 (talk • contribs).

Keep. Not just important as a current item but liable to be referred to for years to come as an example of active citizenry and culturally-shaped responses to observed norm-transgressing behaviour. I suspect that whoever flagged for possible deletion has a very non-encyclopaedaic bee in their bonnet as motivation.Endie 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You have to ask whether anyone will want to look at this article in, say, a year's time. There are plenty of other people who have been similarly heroic in such situations (e.g. the bus driver involved in the 7/7 attacks) who do not have articles dedicated to them. MFlet1 10:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia's great, the lad clearly isn't notable by some intellectual standard but he'll be a page of interest for years to come - the media' made him notable, sadly the bus driver at 7/7 didn't get the same coverage. There's 1000s other articles that should be deleted first. And can't some people on Wikipedia lighten up, stop treating it like some holy cow (it's a flipping website) and get on with their lives elsewhere? It really doesn't matter, leave the damn page he's on BBC 6 O'Clock News ferchrissake... Me677 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The actions he performed combined with the the statements he made about how Britain (and more symbolically, the western world) would not accept what is going on, justify this man's reference. His quote will be remembered for a long time. Steggall 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or failing that merge to Glasgow airport incident. Seems notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see a lot of anon/new users in this debate; I wouldn't rule out the possibility of sockpuppet use in this debate.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notable (if rather recent!) Internet meme. Cheers, DWaterson 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The actions of this man show how public action by any citizen can make a difference others les worthy and even fictional characters have pages. why should a real hero be any less worthy? His quote will be remembered for a long time. Adn he should have his own page so people can see how every one of us can resist terrorismUser:Adouglasmhor:Adouglasmhor 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — Adouglasmhor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepI would tend to say that we should keep this article he has done something in the public eye that has earned his 15 minutes of fame and righfully deserves to go in the history of Wikipeida, we prune and publish information on celebritys and other not so well known public figures. (Atrades 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Notable as he has become an internet phenomena, a phenomena which has received coverage in traditional media sources too. Red star 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable due to the massive attention given to this man. The internet has been filled with discussion and references, with the Scottish and UK wide coverage being considerable.

The UK Prime Minister noted the response by the "British Public" who were not going to accept attacks on their way of life during Prime Minister's Questions on June 4th, 2007 - with John Smeaton being held as the first example of this behaviour occuring. It is definitely notable with the possible future backlash that may occur. 82.9.61.225 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to add this to the article, but in PM Qs, all Gordon Brown said was "I want to remind people of just how brave and courageous the explosives experts in London and those who tackled the terrorist activity at Glasgow airport were." The First Minister has "suggested that there should be some formal recognition of the bravery of the emergency services and members of the public after their efforts last Saturday."[11] or "vowed to salute the brave terrorist-battlers."[12] but I can't find him mentioning John Smeaton by name. However, Alex McLeish has "backed calls" for John Smeaton should get a medal and directly referenced him by saying "I love all that 'We'll set aboot ye' stuff. That’s the Scots mentality — and now the whole world knows it."[13] 62.31.67.29 09:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only because everyone is obbsessed with him. There is a website about him for God's sake! Liamoliver 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for the time being, review notability in a month or so, let's not delete it yet and upset everyone, just chill and we'll be able to look at it all more objectively in a few weeks. there's be no harm done. although it needs cleaning up badly. Spunkymcpunk 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you can have pages on people from sport, for being famous for being famous then you can have a page on John Smeaton (JS). Someday someone will write an article on the aattack and this will be a supporting link [or even be inserted in such an article]. 139.80.176.2 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alex Salmond, First Minister of the Scottish Government, has vowed to honour John Smeaton and the other civillians who assisted the police with an honour, possibly the George Cross the highest award civilians can receive for bravery. Surely Wikipedia should recognise his bravery by allowing the page to remain. Techip 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge He is certainly worthy of a mention in the article about the attacks. MarkRandall 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let us not remove it yet, the information is fresh. It could grow into a more substianal article akin to this Wesley Autrey article (which is of a similar vain). Znx 08:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep A lot of Wiki people still think in terms of paper-written encyclopaedias of yesterday. It is not just totally natural to have an immediate entry for phenomena such as the Glasgow terrorist attack and the more prominent people involved -- it is essential to keep the article up for as long as there is a Wiki and space available! Online encyclopaedias deal in real time; they possess vast spaces for depository of information; it's where people turn to when something happens; or when people need to look up something in the past, as they will, probably, in five years time, when wondering about a Trivia entry on someone like John Smeaton. This is a no-brainer decision and only people upset with media's emphasis on instant celebrity are upset. But Wiki is not E! channel or Big Brother. Wiki is simply of this time. The Gnome 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At the moment, John Smeaton is highly notable and what's currently being said about him is positive and can easily be backed by reliable sources. To delete the article now would be presumptuous. This could go either way - either he's further lauded and becomes like Wesley Autrey or Todd Beamer, or he's forgotten about and we have no reason to keep an article on him. As we can't predict the future, it's best not to delete this in the presumption he will be forgotten about in the future. Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy does not demand we immediately delete articles that private people in the news for one event. What it actually says is if the person "remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them". It's too early to tell if we should "generally avoid" having a John Smeaton article, specifically because the media story has not run out and John may well be in line for some award or honour, which would raise his profile. Remember that the media aren't just publishing stories of his attack on terrorists, they're also publishing stories about the website set up in his honour, the calls for him to appear at T in the Park, the 1000 pints pledged to him, the call for giving him a medal, etc. It's about him, rather than his part in thwarting the attack. 62.31.67.29 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment As I said before, I think a merger of the encyclopedic content into the Glasgow attack article would be appropriate, but he's not worth an individual biography for this one incident. Just because The Sun describes him as an hero doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep after reconsidering. Not just notable for one event, also notable for the meme, pints, etc.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Please can this be deleted as this is only a topical news story and not some thing that should be used in an encylopedia.

Delete This is only going to be used by the politicians as a way of keeping something very devious out of the public eye, if he get a medal all you would hear is goodwill stories about how much a hero he really is and keep of the subject really at hand i.e. How the heck these people got a job as doctors and were allowed it to the country in the first place, dispite increased checks supposedly done by immagration and the intellengence agencies.
Comment. Most of the anon/new keep voters here who are saying that he "deserves" an article are using totally invalid arguments. We were all newcomers once but it makes me angry when people don't understand Wikipedia policy and try to push things to one side in a debate that they don't know how to properly participate in.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the article show be kept but highly modified. I think it's interesting and notable that he's become such an internet phenomenon and I think that's more unique than the fact he's a "have a go hero" in what just happened to turn out to be a very high profile incident. Psychofly 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — [[User:Psychofly]|Psychofly]]] ([[User talk:Psychofly]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psychofly]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge, despite gaining fame on the internet behind most heroes, couldn't this all be merged into the parent article? -- Zanimum 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, I am not a regular contributor but, using the links on this page, I have been and read the relevant wikipedia policy sections such as this one and I still feel there is merit for keeping this, even long term. The remnants of this internet phenomenon will survive for a good many years, and should a tangential browsing session present an unwary user with a reference to John Smeaton wikipedia is likely one of the first places they will look. This is a valid use of wikipedia resources.

Pmendham 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd say keep, he is the subject of much public interest, and has become a minor celebrity. Add to that the fact that he has been put forward by the police to recieve awards for bravery etc he is not subject that will fade from the so-called limelight as quickly as some assume. And to be honest... i just don't see the problem with it being there. ~~Psychofly 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.121.189 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete: Pointless article that will hardly stand for much in a few years -- johndrinkwater 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Leith p 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep My first instinct was to think "internet celebrity", but he does seem to be getting a lot of press coverage. Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as first hand participant to a major event in Scottish history (the first ever act of terrorism committed on solid ground in Scotland, AFAIK), and being feted as a modern hero, John Smeaton also serves as a valuable indicator of the role of the media and internet in raising a seeminly ordinary individual to a pseudo-stardom and reknown. Moreso, surely the strong Scottish awareness (John Smeaton has become a phenomenon in this country) is important in consideration - whilst some American or other non UK english speakers may find themselves confused by the person and incident, I don't see that as a strong reason for deletion unless Wikipedias policy is to discourage cultural understanding and cross-referencing. Finally, I think the idea of descriping anonymouse users ala myself as sock puppets is the sort of arrogant attitude that leads to people regarding wikipedia as an insular, arrogant, 'we decide the truth' style resource rather than being as reliable as, say, the encyclopedia Brittania.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.254.89.228 (talk • contribs).
Keep He is noted for the press coverage alone.Journalist1983 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is becoming very notable - The Guardian did a two page piece on him today and the public's reponse, it is also illustrated in the paper verion with various "posters" demonstrating his sttaus as an internet meme too [14] which is why I popped along here to have a look at this entry. (Emperor 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep He is cetainly notable and I'm sure his quotes will be remembered in future. As others have said, many other internet memes have pages here, but the difference is that Smeaton is also prominent in mainstream media in the UK, and has been noted elsewhere in the world. If he's completely forgotten in a few months time, merge it with the Glasgow Airport attack article, because at the very least he deserves a mention there as an imporant part of the aftermath as well as the atempted attack itself. But for now the article is relevant and if it wasn't here many people would be wondering why. Bluejam 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. Please could the editors whose only justification is "the guy deserves an entry" read Wikipedia policy on what is (and is not) notable here, and also what Wikipedia is not for here. Press coverage, by itself, does not establish notability... and is also not necessarily a reliable source. It's a fine line as to how much fame someone needs before they become notable - I would argue that people like Jade Goody, Paris Hilton etc should not have articles either, because they are non-notable people from an encyclopedic perspective. Does Mr Smeaton deserve a medal? I'd be honoured to pin it on him myself... but does he belong in an encyclopedia? Taking an unemotional, rational look at it - sorry, no. EyeSerene^TALK 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. The John Smeaton story has had a large amount of press coverage, but for the moment it probably doesn’t justify an individual entry. But it should be retained in some form. Wikipedia is after all an information resource and somewhere down the line I can see people wondering what this John Smeaton stuff was all about. Spacecool 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is pretty poor quality at the moment, but there is a great deal of interest in this guy - for better or worse he is increasingly symbolizing the response to the attacks. I personally ended up on the page b/c I was hoping that there would be more info on wiki than I have so far found from other sources. Ketchumk
Keep: Hey, Jimmy! Has received a significant amount of media attention, and may well receive an official medal. PatGallacher 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Bebo morons are suggesting that Wikipedia is wrong to have nominated this page for deletion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" didn't nominate this page for deletion, only User:Lynbarn did. They used the phrase "The idiots at Wikipedia", which can be inclusive or exclusive depending on how you want to take it. 62.31.67.29 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP* - He already seems more notable than Paris bleeping Hilton. GrotesqueOldParty 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RMC1989. If people who do nothing notable except die in a terrorist attack on an airplane can have articles without controversy, then I can't imagine what is wrong with this one. Of course, the article could do with some improvement. It would probably be FA by now if all the above effort had gone into it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - John Smeaton well exemplifies the attitudes of Scots, and Glaswegians in particular, to contemporary terrorist attacks on their country. There aren't any other such well-documented exemplars and therefore this one should be kept. To remain engaging, WP needs leavening with this type of colour.
Keep This is a heroic man who played a vital role in thwarting a major terrorist attack. His name and the incident will be forever linked. Certainly it needs edited but if you delete it the only loss will be to Wikipedia's relevance. I have to say I'm surprised that this is even a topic for discussion. FrazR
Keep - BLP and the like were really aimed at something else. I can't see this harming him in any way. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ultimately, if you delete this article because of it's 'limited' attention time - then you should delete thousands of others - e.g. Wesley Autrey? I don't see his page being deleted. What's the difference? Similarly, there are pages on Renetto, Worzel Gummidge and Nikki Hilton. Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia - not a definitive one. 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - His contribution & notoriety are roughly equivalent to those of Crispus Attucks, Todd Beamer, Joseph Gary -- who all have their own entries. A historian might well be interested in more than Smeaton's name, age, & job title; his actions & attitude can be interpreted as reflecting broadly on citizens' response to terrorism (though Smeaton is braver than most & therefore a standout).Mc sputnik 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Mc sputnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - John Smeaton is my hero, he has saved Scotland from terrorists, although if he is to be deleted from here, it proves what sad people wikipedia are with no thought for the world.
Keep or failing that Merge to Glasgow airport incident. Notable for only one thing is still notable, look at Gavrilo Princip . Edward321 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What? Are you guy's nuts? I'm in Chicago and he's the talk of the town here even. This is a special moment in time - recording it is required. It is an encyclopedic event that will be forever known and mythologized. jombl 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — jombl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The mergists are arguing that WP:BLP1E applies here - will he be remembered 6 months, a year, five years down the line? WP:NOTNEWS suggests that we should not cover hype, or at the very least merge it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHis interviews were completely visceral and honest and he deserves to be well known (unlike most famous people).

139.133.7.38 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a higly topical item of news, he has been in every major paper since the event happened and is still being interveiw on international T.V

saintmarkpeth 11:14, July 6 2007 (UTC) — saint_markperth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep – his participation and commentary on this historically significant event has been given significant mainstream coverage, and the internet phenomenon has also achieved mainstream coverage. Well sourced, clearly notable. Do we have to wait for the movie? ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Demonstrable name recognition, multiple sources referenced. Passes WP:BIO. Buy him a pint. Badgerpatrol 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have to be honest, at first I couldn't imagine why this article was being considered for deletion, and having read the posts here and trawled the policies and guidelines, I'm still not sure. As someone who has used Wikipedia for some time but without contributing, I am also fairly worried that my opinion will not be counted in this discussion. To combat this, I have examined the issue very closely and measured this case against Wikipedia's own Criteria for notability of people.
Strong Keep. His is a very interesting modern day anthropological case study and he is fast becoming an important mascot with regards the war on terror at home - interesting too for the modern historian. I genuinely think this page will be returned to for years to come, especially if terrorism in Scotland becomes a common theme. His statement regarding Glasgow's treatment of terrorists is also very important and is as poignant (at least to those from the city) as Churchill’s ‘we will never surrender!’.Martshaw81 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC) — Martshaw81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

THE CRITERIA

. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If we take the original interviews as primary sources, then it is clearly demonstratable that there have been a number of secondary newspaper, internet, radio and television articles, and that John Smeaton should be considered notable on this measure

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Even if the depth of coverage were to be deemed 'not substantial'. which I personally feel would be incorrect, there exist multiple independent sources that have been cited, and these continue to grow. I don't feel that anyone could argue thatthe coverage is 'trivial'.

The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. I am sure it is only a matter of time before we are reading the John Smeaton biography, no doubt entitled "We'll set aboot ye" and serialised prior to publication in one of the redtops.

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Scotland's First Minister has already assured the country that the heroes from Glasgow Airport - including John Smeaton - will receive appropriate honours.

The person has demonstrable wide name recognition I think that in this case, demonstrable wide name recognition is undeniable. Try it - I'm sure if you ask a number of people who John Smeaton is, the majority will mention he is a baggage handler at Glasgow airport rather than a notable 18th century civil engineer

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. That John Smeaton made a widely recognised contribution is in no doubt. I'm not sure that any of us could claim at this time to be able to state with certainty that his contributiion will NOT become part of the enduring historical record. My own inclination is that it will, much like Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" or the actions of Mayor Giuliani after the 9/11 attacks

Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products I have to say, this issue causes me the most distress. We sit and discuss John Smeaton's merits for inclusion in Wikipedia based on his heroic conduct, his forthright interviews and his burgeoning cult status during and following the terrorist attacks on the airport where he worked. However, once he signs the well-nigh inevitable Irn Bru promotional deal, then no more discussion is necessary. Doesn't seem right somehow.

Given that the Criteria for Notability state "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards", I would say by virtue of the fact John Smeaton meets so many of them the article is not a candidate for deletion. two other points to consider are that other less-notable people have an entry, so why shouldn't he, and secondly that the argument that 'he won't be remembered in a year' is a spurious one. Having read both What Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not, I can see no grounds for this being a valid argument for deletion. An encyclopedia is after all a repository of knowledge, often of knowledge that may otherwise be forgotten. 80.80.187.181 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quote from Bebo: "The idiots at Wikipedia are flagging John Smeaton’s page for deletion. We need to make sure this doesn't happen. Get on to Wikipedia and get involved in the discussion. We can't let these idiots at Wikipedia remove a Scottish hero, as easily as that!".[15] To set the record straight, we welcome anyone to Wikipedia who wants to get involved... but please note, this is not a discussion about Mr Smeaton's heroism, which is uncontested, but about whether an article about this incident belongs in an encyclopedia. Someone being newsworthy is not the same as someone being notable - check out articles on other Scottish heroes (eg William Wallace) for comparison - it makes it clearer what sort of content and standards we should be aiming for. EyeSerene^TALK 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of articles on Wikipedia about utterly non-notable members of the "nobility" of Europe going back to the Middle Ages. I somehow think one article about a baggage handler who happens to have done more than all of them combined can be allowed to stand without bringing down the sparkling edifice that is Wikipedia. GrotesqueOldParty 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis event happened, John is a real person and people will come here to learn about him (whether you consider it media hype or not). Are you trying to censor real events, real people and real history? There's a word for people who try to do that, and you can find that on Wikipedia. This entry can not be deleted. Ellisario D.M.M.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.202.130.202 (talk • contribs).
Keep. He meets several aspects of WP:Bio and his article is referenced by multiple non-trivial sources.GiollaUidir 23:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a real person. He is someone who has featured in the news. He also happens to be a Internet Phenomenon. Cm619 23:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack even though I'm sure the result of this debate will be keep. Seems a lot of people are using the "he's awesome" reason or the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning. But overall he is probably notable. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack - He has no notability except for being involved in this incident, of which he is not even remotely a key figure in it, and therefore does not deserve his own article. A mention or two in the main article is all that is necessary. The359 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, you'd hate to have an article devoted to someone who helped stop a terrorist... it could take attention away from articles about nasty cats. [[16]] Not that I have anything against Lewis. GrotesqueOldParty 03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Wikipedia:Pokémon test, User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Articles are judged on their own notability, not on the notability of other articles. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I know - and the argument isn't really over "notability," it's over the degree of notability. As I said above, let this article stand. It can always be revisited later. Meanwhile, if you really believe what you say, how much time have you spent trying to get unnotables deleted lately? (Don't mess with Lewis, though. I like Lewis.) GrotesqueOldParty 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Aurora[edit]

This "Model/Actress" has done nothing notable to warrant her own Wikipage. All she has done is be eliminated from two reality shows. Additionally, this article does not cite a single source to back any of its claims. I fail to see how this article passes WP:BIO) Gamer83 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reality show contestants are not notable unless they do something notable outside the show. In this case, her modeling career is not notable enough for inclusion Corpx 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flavor of Love 2 and/or Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School.--JayJasper 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (I favor deleting). Non-notable, no references (and two MySpace pages!). Precious Roy 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect Save the energy; just redirect like Bootz was. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There isnt a reason why she should have a wikipedia page in the first place, she isnt a major person and hasnt done that much. If people want to know something about her then they need to go to her website. You could link her site on her name in the Flavor of Love 2 article. MarkDonna 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nandesuka 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of loosely-associated topics. Similar to the many, many articles deleted because they share a common word or words in the title, the items on this list have no relationship to one another beyond the author's happening to pick the same two words as a subtitle. They are drawn from multiple styles of "books" (including fiction books, textbooks, plays, poems, "erotic fiction" and anthologies) from across disparate centuries, have dissimilar protagonists, do not share the same "virtue" and the virtue does not garner the same reward. This list tells us nothing about the fiction or the real world. Keep arguments from the first AFD are incredibly poor, including among others such unpersuasive reasons as "interesting" and "well-written." Otto4711 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The inclusion criteria to this list seems completely random. Dr bab 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place to categorize subtitles of books. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT as a list of loosely associated topics. Corpx
Delete. The introduction tries to make a point that "Virtue Rewarded" is a subtitle of special importance in literature; but this goes completely unsourced, and hence must be considered original research. Without this point, however, the list remains a collection of loosely associated topics. --B. Wolterding 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be joking. If you think that's OR, then you simply know nothing about either the novels or scholarly discourse on the 18th century novel. You do not source common knowledge, even if there is someone somewhere who doesn't know it. Geogre 11:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AfD result and the Keep arguments of Bunchofgrapes and Everyking therein; nothing has changed. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) deemphasizing in light of my more detailed remarks infra Newyorkbrad 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Do you refer to the following arguments from the previous AfD? Write an equally well-written and -sourced list/article hybrid on any other specific subtitle you care to, and we can keep that one too. / This is well-written and interesting and I imagine some people will find it useful. If you think these are valid arguments for keeping the article, please have a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; in particular, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --B. Wolterding 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad, and this is a distinct and unique list of books, with a very specific historic link. It is certainly not random. (Is random really a reason for deleting an article?) Peace.Lsi john 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a reliable source for this historic link? --B. Wolterding 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul August ☎

All right. I conceived and wrote this piece. Quite a few books, as such, have been added by other contributors over the years, but, well, I planned, designed, and started it, and wrote the unsourced lead, and made the table... I was trying firstly to be funny, and secondly to make a WP:POINT about silly lists. Long time ago... [is lost in nostalgic musings. ] I wasn't an admin, I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about. I hope the gods of Wikipedia won't ban me for it, and I think the time has come to speedy the sucker. Just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep anyway per WP:ILIKEIT, an argument whose disfavored status is overruled in this instance. I think it's good to have an occasional article whose painstakingly assembled content is to be found nowhere else ... and it's certainly not doing any harm. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I won't add more alphabet soup here... just this one: If you're looking for articles whose painstakingly assembled content is to be found nowhere else, have a look at WP:BJAODN. There's plenty. --B. Wolterding 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711, and especially per Bishonen, whose opinion is one of the most cogent I've ever seen in an AfD discussion. And Newyorkbrad, you may want to strike out one of your keep !votes, as you're entitled to only one. Deor 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closer would recognize a certain amount of playfullness in my participation in this particular AfD, but in the interest of comity I will take Deor's suggest. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad and also because the whole renominating it so soon is kind of overkill. --164.107.222.23 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD was held last year and it certainly should have no bearing on this one. The only connections these books have in common are that they share 2 words in the subtitle. This is the textbook definition of directory of loose items (WP:NOT) Corpx 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. Capmango 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well nominate AFD for AFD then Corpx 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete Virtue should be punished.--Perceive 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a good list, with substantial information, & a clear criterion. DGG 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. 1) This list is totally sweet. 2) In the vast corpus of academic publishing on The British Novel I'm sure there's something about the significance of the subtitle; if not, I'm going to draft up "Literary filiation and the subtitle, or Virtue Rewarded." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these books have anything in common except two words in their subtitle? Corpx 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes--the post-Pamela books are making a very clear allusion to the title (though perhaps not the substance) of Richardson's novel. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the list is negated if all items on it dont meet the set critera. Unless you remove the first two entires, do the items have anything else in common?

Well, the subtitle, obviously. The problem is that I haven't read most of these books, but I think it would be possible to argue that they share a common focus on sexual morality (or in the case of the erotic novel, sexual immorality). Is that focus exclusive to these works? Hardly. Is the list silly? Absolutely. But that's the essence of its charm. --Akhilleus (talk)

I think the WP:NOT list of loosely releated items is referring to lists like this. Corpx 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree, exactly--to me, "the subtitle is 'Virtue Rewarded'" is a pretty tight criterion. The more cogent objection is "why should we have a list based on what appears to be an insignificant characteristic of these novels?" And my answer is "because it's cool"! And yes, I realize that this could be construed as an argument for deletion instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just dont think an encyclopedia is the place to catalog boot titles and subtitles by the words in them. It seems way too trivial. If a bunch of books share similiar focus/content, they should be placed in a category, like Category:Books about sexual morality Corpx 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the fun in that? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually WP:ILIKEIT is a reason to delete the article. "Because It's Cool"? Akhilleus, you are right that is a pretty good reason for deletion. Wildthing61476 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the phrase has entered common parlance (witness thesetwo very disparate headlines as examples), and an exploration of its literary origins seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Rewrite the opening using less WP:OR and more WP:RS, and perhaps rename to simply Virtue Rewarded (literature) or something similar. --DeLarge 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question is, are there any WP:RS for the opening? As User:Bishonen admitted above, she created this intro as a joke. We can hardly expect that there are any sources "just by chance" - unless you can provide some. --B. Wolterding 12:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please use a little more care with your wording. I didn't admit it. Nobody cornered me and forced it out of me. I freely acknowledged it. The intro isn't a joke, as such, though the list is—while the claims in it aren't verified, I'm convinced they're correct. I might be able to find some sources. But I'm afraid I'm not prepared to undertake the research effort involved, since I'm in any case recommending "speedy the sucker". That's "she", not "he," btw. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Excuse me if the word "admit" was slightly incorrect; I'm not a native speaker. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying source what's there, I'm saying rewrite using sources. As I said, it's an established phrase in literature. I created Selling coal to Newcastle in a couple of hours after it had previously been transwiki'd and deleted, and it was nominated for a DYK within a couple of days. Would this article take less time or more to improve? I don't know, and since my lunch hour is almost over I'm not likely to find out for several hours. But I see an encyclopedic article here, regardless of its origins. --DeLarge 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources you mention refer to this phrase in the context of medicine and corporations. I've never read these books, but an editor mentioned above that the usage in the list was suggestive of sexual morality? I dont think the two sources you provided are talking about the same "Virtue rewarded" Corpx 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The links were a demonstration that "virtue rewarded" isn't just a ye olde literary subtitle, but a phrase long established in English and used in a variety of contexts. I recommended renaming the page because I think there could be a more expansive article, with the list serving to demonstrate its etymological origins in 17th and 18th century literature. And since the basis of this article would still be what's currently here, I'd infinitely prefer an expansion/renaming, rather than starting from scratch with a userfied version that doesn't give credit to User:Bishonen (which may be a GFDL violation). Regards, --DeLarge 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the first AfD, vice is where the real rewards are. Nevertheless keep because ILIKEIT. And if that super-strong argument doesn't hold up then userfy until reliable sources can be found. Haukur 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Witty, thought-provoking, no possibility of edit warring anywhere in sight. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Listcruft of book that contain the same subtitle. Obviously there's thousands/millions of subtitles and you're bound to get a collection of subtitles with the same name. Wikipedia is not a listing site and there's no relevance in this list. Wikipedia is not the place to categorize subtitles of books and it is not a place for original research. The only form that this article should remain on is the users own page. Englishrose 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedents and due to irrelevant coincidence of name. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. I've seen a whole lot of list that should not be included here, but this isn't one of them. This is definitely informative, definitely enjoyable and much better than any pokemon aticle out there! (I know other crap exists and all that, but come on people, this is truely more encyclopedic than any Pokemom article!!!!!)--SGT Tex 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then nominate the "pokemon article" for deletion, instead of keeping this one because that exists. Corpx 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Retitle. With the following articles beginning "Moral... Special:Allpages/Moral_* and the article Morality play, there should certainly be an article Morality fiction or somesuch, with this list as an adjunct. There seems to be an obscure and fearful suspicion that a hint of wit hangs about this list... --Wetman 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a notable, coherent topic. Everyking 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find more on this - it may ultimately need to be rewritten, per DeLarge (the suggestion to rename to Virtue Rewarded (literature) is a particularly good one), as a list is not the best form for this, but the article on Subtitle (titling) is woefully short at the moment, and I am sure the literary Wikipedians out there can find some obscure book or articles about the meanings and usage and interesting example of subtitles. Possibly such examples need to be scattered throughout Wikipedia as interesting trivia in the relevant articles, but there should be a unifying article somewhere. If deleted as a list, some of the worthwhile content should be rescued and placed in Subtitle (titling). I am very close to being bold and renaming to Virtue Rewarded (literature). Would anyone object to that? Carcharoth 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would. Feel free to re-work and rename it, but just renaming doesn't fit the present page. Pro primo, it's a list. And not all of the examples are literature. There's a handbook about writing dissertations, and ... [can't bring myself to go look] ... there may well be other non-literary books. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Those are on there as ironic recreations of the original gesture of critical self-defense. I now see Marshal MacLuhan being brought to bear on this future dissertation, and the genre studies stuff, and the people who claim to be writing about parody but are really writing about Roland Barthes. Geogre 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't quite bring myself to type the K-word. See, <pedant> "virtue rewarded," as Bishonen knows, was the 17th and 18th centuries' version of "a thriller" or "romantic." Fiction was under severe attack as useless, and the conventional defense was the one they'd grabbed from Sidney's Defense of Poetry (and which he had cribbed from Plutarch's Moralia and Horace's Ars Poetica and sort of from Aristotle's Poetics) that fiction could be defensible if it showed us a world where virtue is rewarded and vice punished. Therefore, nearly every entertainment that showed kings and queens behaving badly would say that it was "virtue rewarded" in the Restoration. Richardson's Pamela carried that over to the novel (which was very, very suspect as silly and a swamp of vice that taught girls to be sluts). A Puritan writing a novel? Unheard of! "But...but...it's going to show virtue rewarded" (where "virtue" is code for the hymen). It's the abstinence education novel of 1749. Once Richardson did it, his allies would use the same subtitle from time to time, but then it just became a subtitle that referred back to Richardson. When you see the later ones, they're pretty explicitly trying to invoke Richardson. So there is a really cool bit of social and literary history one can get from the list. </pedant> Bishonen knows this. I have urged her to write it, but it's kind of hard to take such a light romp through four centuries and into the heads of all those authors to say it in a scholarly fashion. So: the list could serve as a very nice hint to a future researcher -- this is a dynamite master's topic, if not (with some literary theory thrown over the mess) doctoral dissertation -- but it's a list. I hate lists. Geogre 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But, Geogre. It's a list that says "I hate lists"! Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - "A list that says I hate lists"? Isn't that a bit pointy? If there is something there, write an article (or do a dissertation on it if an article would verge on original research), but don't just leave it as a list to make a point. Carcharoth 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A bit pointy? I guess you didn't notice my delete (indeed, speedy delete) !vote here? As in "I was trying ... to make a WP:POINT... I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about ... speedy the sucker.". WP:POINT was my principal delete reason. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      - I had read that, but had forgotten you had said that. Still, I think that your pointed point misses the point, if you get my drift. I, for one, can't wait to read something about the history and meaning of the subtitle in literature. I searched, but failed to find anything. Carcharoth 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And then, therefore, I would agree with its sentiments in hating the lists and so would want it kept, but that it's a list and wants to delete itself. I concur with that sentiment, too. (You know how I have argued that an article on "virtue" and "virtue rewarded" should be written and how you should do it.) Do we eject the baby (the things on the list...and all those things that should be on there -- those "virtue in dangers" and "virtue saved") to get rid of the dirty bathwater it's floating in? Geogre 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen's D vote is persuasive and Perceive may have a point too. More worryingly, these "books": Do they run on Xbox, on PS2, or what? Where can I download them, and how many channels is the sound in? ¶ Keep the sucker for now and then think of eventual delistification per Geogre. -- Hoary 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela and the Xbox: [17]. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, but that's a good link! (No, video games are not just the same as novels. Pamela taught country girls to sell their virginity for a wedding ring, according to Henry Fielding. Hitman teaches young boys to aim for the head. There is at least a slight difference. Good on them, though, and great link.) Geogre 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the title of the article may seem ridiculous and utterly trivial, the list appears to have some value in the field of history of literature. It binds together some works with a common theme, so it is not really indiscriminate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the intertextual links between these works, which make it not a random list. Why not also just move to Virtue Rewarded? I too hate "List of..." articles, but why should this be one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several above, and against the author's protests. Nomination seems to miss several points - Virtue is a general, well virtue, which does not need to be divided up in the medieval fashion. Rewards are not the same - well fancy that! Johnbod 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first glance, it sounds like an arbitrary focus for a List, if one knows next to nothing of pre-20th c. English literature, but that's part of the List's charm and attraction, one can't help but wonder, what's this list really about?. Of course, the List is actually well-researched, coherent and "legit", though it may lack the obvious virtues of Lists like List of Pokémon characters, et al., whose virtues include zillions of living fans. Apologies to Perceive, this List should also be rewarded. Pinkville 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to emphasize something that has been suggested a few times above but not actually said, Virtue Rewarded is not merely two words that happened to come together as the subtitle of a number of written works, Virtue Rewarded is a cultural phenomenon, a defining concept that had some power in its day, and demonstrably (via this List, for example) to this day as well. The argument against this list would be akin to claiming that books with generative grammar in the title have nothing substantive in common, and that the fact that such books feature those two words in their titles is mere happenstance. But generative grammar and virtue rewarded are subjects, intellectual concepts that are/have been the subject of debate - whether in novel form, or the form of academic texts. Pinkville 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette, or Vice Amply Rewarded is further evidence that a notable literary theme underlies these subtitles. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Good example. Pinkville 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the theme of "virtue rewarded" may or may not be notable as an intellectual concept does not mean that a list of every time the words "virtue rewarded" appear together in the subtitle of a book is notable. That is the distinction that is too often missed by people who want to keep these sorts of catch-all lists. The notability of Subject X does not automatically extend notability to every example of Subject X or everything that discusses Subject X or parodies Subject X or uses the words "Subject X." Otto4711 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To quote Simone de Beauvoir: "Must we burn Samuel Richardson?" Mais non. Ça serait la vertu infortunée.--Pan Gerwazy 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it me, or are all the 18th century literati crawling out of the woodwork? :-) Carcharoth 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Virtue Rewarded" is a commonly used term and apparently originated from one author after another in the 17th and 18th century using Virtue Rewarded as a subtitle for their book to provide a connection between their book and existing books that already carried the Virtue Rewarded subtitle. This list is a collection of book subtitles having a definite association. The very useful list probably does not appear anywhere in print other than Wikipedia. What a valuable addition to Wikipedia this article makes! Good job. Some modern uses of the term:
- Virtue rewarded: the new dependency of the NOW woman. (reliance on government for solutions to social problems). Harper's Bazaar (May 1978)
- Capitalism, or Virtue rewarded. New York Times (February 9, 1986) Pg. 718
- Finance and the Family: Virtue rewarded / Ethical investment. Financial Times (July 26, 1986)
- Little Nell, or Virtue rewarded. New York Times (March 13, 1988)
- Straight talking: Virtue rewarded. Evening Mail (April 27, 2001)
- Virtue rewarded Evening Standard (April 18, 2007)

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB_talk 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Law[edit]

Non-notable neologism (this version of the law found only on one web site). If it sticks around, we can add it later. Phaunt 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say it actually did stick, with 12,500 GHits. It's not called Grey's law though, but it's variously attributed to Vernon Schryver or Arthur C. Clarke (although it's just a paraphrase of his third law); see the discussion of origins here (Paul Ciszek claims the invention and calls it "Napoleon-Clarke law").
Back to the question of sourcing, which is a bit difficult to find, and notability (apparently far less than the Hanlon), I'd say merge into Hanlon's Razor#Origins and similar quotations. Duja► 10:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ZZ 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, make into redirect and add it again if it sticks and adequate citations are found. .. dave souza, talk 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Ubernostrum 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, add citation history. dml 13:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Variants would supplement and add to each other Tagasilab 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, notability not asserted, no sources. NawlinWiki 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queens The Musical[edit]

New production with no substantial claim of notability, and no third-party reliable sources cited. I had tagged with {{prod}} but page creator deprodded. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google hits for "Scream Queens the Musical", but apparently none for this. --Javits2000 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There'll be plenty of third party sources when the play is performed at the end of the month for Pride Festival —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tartimarty (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Write the article once sources are available. --Javits2000 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case would you like me to temporarily remove it? Tartimarty 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:CSD#A7) by Anthony Appleyard. WODUP 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive prints[edit]

Contested prod. Small, local, defunct clothing manufacturer. No assertion of notability, no sources. Ford MF 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed; there doesn't seem to be any sources and the product have largely been forgotten. --Stormbay 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait a few days and see whether the author adds material supporting notability. For the current version: delete per nom. Han-Kwang 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete DB-BIO Corpx 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JodyB_talk 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Centennial Group[edit]

Delete While the speedy tags were clearly put up by a disgruntled customer, I think the article falls under speedy deletion. I fail to see any notability; it reads like an ad. I wonder what message you got that made you think it's notable? Could you post it? --Edokter (Talk) 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no outside verification of positive or negative claims. All the Google hits point to company pages, company officers' pages, or Wikipedia, which not only erodes RS, but also leads me to question notability, because there's not even a third-party product or company review. MSJapan 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a staff of this company, I understand there might be some conflict of interests of stating points. I understand where I stands hence if the community of Wikipedia feels that the article should be taken down, it should be taken down. Period. As of response to Edokter, the company received an email from National Library Board (Singapore) for nominating the company website to be archived. In the email, it states "NLB has deemed your website (URL: http://www.virtualoffice.com.sg/) to be an important part of Singapore's documentary heritage and would like it to remain available to researchers and generations of Singaporeans in the future. Hence NLB will be taking snapshots of your website under the appended terms." However, I will see to it that the article will be cleanup to fit Wikipedia's standard. As of response to MSJapan, there are no credible sources of third-party in our niche industry and as a private company, there are limitation to disclosure as there is difficulties for verification. All-in-all, there is a fine difference between fair opinion and outright vandalism. To me, a fair opinion must contain verifiable evidences or sources and not a blatant statement. In short, I understand and totally agree that we must preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and do allow me about a week to cleanup the article to make sure it's of quality & unbiased reference to the general public. Sg wiki editor 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Check out traffic ranking Alexa for proof of such blatent activites of "fugged traffic" against competitor companies. Starting June 2006 there was fugged traffic and you can see a sharp increase in traffic from no where with then entrace of new competitor, http://www.smartvirtualoffice.com.sg, (compare us with them over a 3 year period and you will see the trend ) suggesting the use of "methods" to quickly gain higher position to ranking which may not be a true representation of data, and now this to try this way to get further ranking, while we would also like ourselves to be in WIKI, but we know exactly what wiki is NOT for and never fanthom the idea that we would be on WIKI. We have also conducted a search in the National Library Board website at NLB Search Sitefor this article and found nothing, search terms include fredom group, pacific, centennial, virtual office. Also to consider, if the library already archived this info, why the need to be here. I will be making a phone verification tomorrow to confirm this. Yes I am his competitor but I do think that WIKI has better purpose than this, If they are the Development Bank of Singapore, that is different, 1000s of employees with practically the whole of Singapore in it, they have a place in WIKI to inform people should they come to singapore and need a bank account. To MGJapan, I am truely sorry for having labelled his site with additional information, but we feel that it was fitting that all info regarding the company be presented. If you need proof of such history, we have verifiable sources showing his history. I use WIKI since my days during my U to hunt down words required in entomology, to find difficult to find recipies of curry i miss from home while i was in Boston studying for my degree, to get drug names found pharmaceutical companies, to learn about new discovery, and now to teach children i work with about research. I really do not want to see a great system be misused for such devious purposes. We are strictly not using this for a grudge match. We came into the picture because he decided to add our names and attacked similar competitors like ourselves. We have always though WIKI was a civilized place, dun you think so.--Smartvirtualoffice

Keep - Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP as a point of reference, I believe that Pacific Centennial Group could be notable for two reasons - 1) It has won an award from an independent organisation and of which was received from President of Singapore, and the source is credible; and 2) It has received an email from National Library Board of Singapore, noting that their corporate website will be archived as part of Singapore's online heritage. However for the 2nd reason, the source is an email and verification could only be made via forwarding of email to qualified administrator to prevent abuse. Being small isn't a problem. What's important is that the article must be independent, accurate and is notable enough. And while Wikipedia is not a business directory, commercial organisations do play a part in people's life and wikipedia users should be able to use the articles to take a neutral reference of the organization. The article must not influence the reader, positively or negatively, or directly used for advertising purpose. A proper article must be factual and provide academic insight about the subject, without distortion towards commercial agendas. I believe that the newly revised article of Pacific Centennial Group should be able to fulfills the basic expectation of an academic researcher. Lastly, based on the history of this article, it has been aggressively vandalized from open IP addresses and the edits were generalized into two classes - external link pointing to www.smartvirtualoffice.com.sg and uncivilized spams. DO NOTE THAT I'm the primary editor of this article and I'm also a staff of the company mentioned in the article. Sg wiki editor 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why it should be deleted. Check out WP:COI. Evilclown93_(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting this I will remember this, Evilclown93,

Strong Delete The use of a public community service as your personal campaign signboard is a big NO NO. While your self rightousness of not allowing self selling on certain forums, I have a strong agenda here at WIKI. I love WIKI and use it everyday. WIKI is definately the place for you to put this. You are far better at twisting words around to make you look right. I just state facts.

No your note about awards, for all concern, there are so many awardees each year, so should all of them come to WIKI to have a piece of the pie. What sort of ideology are you representing, Democracy? WIKI is not about democracy either. Please take your agendas else where to advertise.
2. Being featured in the National Library Board, we have been featured and invited on multiple occasions by our PM for closed door discussions lately, to help resturcture some of the Entrepreneural guidelines, do I also qualify to be put here. DO NOT throw name like the president of Singapore here and the National Library board here and expect that you will be elevated to some new level of being. WIKI is not about making you a hero, if we condone this, then everyone who shook the hand of the president of the united states with a photo will need a spot here on WIKI including my father and my mom, who incidentally did just that! You want to advertise your site, take it else where. To Evil Clown, if you have noticed, he has taken the opportunity to put links of ALL HIS related site on the page, and made attempts to quickly index that information on GOOGLE, further proving that this is strictly for SEO. I recommend the action of SPEEDY DELETION.
3. We made several calls to NLB to enquire about this heritage thing, no one knows..... if this is meant for our heritage, it should be known to as many people as possible, and I was passed around all morning from one department to the next and they no clue what this is about.

Let me put things in perspective. I'm here to present cases of notability and its up for users to present their feedback. I would be happy if you could also present constructive feedback, but time after time, I see that you posted your opinion right on the article, of which can be clearly seen for vandalizing purpose. The links of all of our sites are to facilitate the user to quickly find the right website for reference purpose. However, you have yet again accuse us of leveraging Wikipedia for commercial purposes. Where's the proof? As for the email from National Library Board, I will present the evidence to a credible third-party for their review if necessary. Currently, I'm just presenting my case to the administrators just like a defendant. I believe I have the right to provide necessary information so that to convince the community that the article stays, but I also believe that if the community of wiki admins still feel uncomfortable and taken the article off, I will not challenge.

Based on your statement, you claimed that we abuse Wikipedia for our own commercial gains. You also claimed that we made attempts to quickly index the information on Google. On other articles, you also claimed of traffic spikes on Alexa. Seriously, Wikipedia did send people to our site. But which article don't? Also, on what evidence you have to show that we index the information on Google? As for Alexa, that's just our estimated traffic pattern. End of the day, it is well-known that Google has its own algorithm for indexing and that Alexa lacks of accuracy due to browser dependence. It seems that you just taking pot-shots to keep us busy in giving our evidence and presenting our case. However, the ball is back in your court now - What's evidence do you have for whatever you had claimed? For example, you claimed that certain staffs of NLB don't know about the archiving of websites. While there may be possibility that I lied, there is possibility that the archiving is known to just a department which they didn't know was handling the project. It is of no surprise in large organisations where disparate departments don't really know who does what. Still, I have the email for this and as mentioned, I will present it as an evidence to wiki admins if necessary.

While you claimed to be helping Wikipedia, your actions do not seems to be so. And while you claimed that it is because you want people to know the truth, the previous edits were in the largely in nature of malicious purposes. The difference between "THIS PROVIDER HAS MOVED 3 TIMES!" and "Previous Locations of Pacific Centennial Group" is that the former is for spiteful purpose and the latter is for users to understand more and draw their own conclusion. I deleted your opinions on the article because it was not factual and doesn't have reasonable evidence. And if you claimed that you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart, you should help to cleanup the article or recommend for speedy deletion, and not taking law in your own hands. If you believe that we moved 3 times (we actually moved twice) or increased our prices, then do add them appropriately like "Previous Location" or "Previous Packages & Pricing".

I seen how MSJapan, Evilclown and several other administrators work and their explanation were largely inline with the policies of Wikipedia. Evilclown made the decision that the article may be notable but because I'm a direct staff of the company, I maybe in conflict of interest. I could have lied on that so save that article, but I believe that honesty is far more important. If Wikipedia don't accept the article now and delete off, I will put it more effort to make it more notable and hopefully in the future, someone else would recognized us and put us up again.Sg wiki editor 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here are an article which could resolve this situation - Resolving Dispute. I seek your co-operation in abiding to this official policy during your replies. Should you feel that the articles lack of certain information, I will be pleased to amend and include them with either citation or references from RS.

BTW also, we may still proceed to file a report to the police or engage a lawyer for those edits that was vandalized for malicious purpose. Since you claimed that it was not from you and was from your customers, I seek your co-operation to inform that customers of our course of action. However, if it was really from you, I hope that you could stop these nonsense. Seriously, a man must have courage to admit their wrongdoing. If wrong, then just apologize. Likewise, if after the police investigation has completed and the vandalism was not from you, I will issue an official apology with a reasonable compensation.

In short, I hope to settle this amicably, sincerely and honestly. Sg wiki editor 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about notability. Being notable also depends on the targeted audience. Taken for example - a famous jazz bar at Orchard Road. For a person who want to research about Singapore, this article is not notable. For a person who want to know about Orchard Road, it may be notable. For a person who want to know what famous places of entertainment at Orchard Road, Singapore, this article is highly relevant. I think the best question to ask is - "Why Bother?" Why should users bother about Pacific Centennial Group and what it does? Seriously, if I am just a typical user, I would probably think of that "Why Should I Bother About This Company?. There's tons of article. Is it worthy enough? From this point, another way to establish its notability is industry recognition. Let's just say that in 100 years time, if someone want to do a research on virtual office industry in 21st century, will the article provide any critical information? Is the company recognized within the industry? If the article is removed, will it impact the general view of the industry? Fundamentally, all these still depends on the user. Sg wiki editor 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some thoughts, I think the article should be deleted. Here's my explanation:

- First of all, I had reasoned that being notable is about being recognized by the industry. While it maybe true that Pacific Centennial Group is recognized, by itself may not be sufficient to be listed. I came to this conclusion after reading a magazine and was looking through the advertisements. Each of the company has its importance in the industry they are in. However, it would be nuts if I say all of these companies will be recognized within in their own industry. For example, if we think about burgers - we think about McDonalds, Burger King or even White Castle. That is what most people will know about burgers. Would people care if there is a guy who is famous for grilling delicious burger? Will people have a difference opinion about burgers if this guy is gone?

- Second, I was thinking through the comments of some users. Would its article add value to the user? Did Pacific Centennial Group founded something? Invented something? Created something unique? Vastly improved the industry? Yes, it did win awards and maybe recognized by the National Library Board. But will that be relevant to someone who want to research about the virtual office industry of Singapore?

- Third, I'm a staff of Pacific Centennial Group. While my reasoning may have its merit, it is simply not wise (recommended) that I should edit this article. Even if I want to achieve neutrality, readers may be skeptic about the accuracy of the article and that defeat the entire purpose. Likewise I know that the article is created by the staffs of that company, I would certainly have some doubt about the accuracy and NPOV.

Eventually after these thoughts, if unless someone could prove otherwise (I would be glad though), I hope that the article to be removed within these few days. Also, while I might not really like the tone of this smartvirtualoffice user, I think some of his comments have certain merits and has successfully challenged my thoughts. But still, I do not condone his methods of vandalizing the article. Sg wiki editor 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dun think I need to say that much. Peter Tan Jun Long, you are not any where near as noble as you present yourself to be.
1. In Wiki, when we added our links as alternative, you could not stand that could you. 2. We feel you have vandalized WIKI, and would consider putting that up in a police report as well..
3. We feel you are a man with many double standards, especially when it comes to treatment. You think you run the Virtual Office Scene, think again. Regus and Servcorp with many offices worldwide does not have to win awards to be placed here. Signature space with more offices around does not have a 4. ALL ADMINSTRATORS now want your site deleted, do you agree it needs to be?
That's why it should be deleted. Check out WP:COI. Evilclown93(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC). You keep stressing how great the company is, we are arguing on very different terms. 2 ADMINISTRATORS have made their case to have your site deleted. This time, it is not ME who says delete and you still do not want to, that says a lot about you. While you took pot shots at us way back in 2006, no one agreed or disagreed with you, this time ADMINSTRATORS are telling you to delete. I may be adding fuel to the fire, but fact stands that you need to be deleted. I am sure you will want the last words on this and you will go into lengthy explaination as to why you are the best and need to be here because you won an award that was voted and INTERVIEWED by students who are naive and took a medal with SR Nathan, so what....

Please include your name when adding comments. By the way, my name is not Peter Tan Jun Long.

1) You add a link which doesn't relate to the article but just for the purpose of luring readers to your site. Anyway, you mentioned before that the links were from your customers and not from you. Now you said that it was you who added the links. Contradicting.

2) Feel free to put up a police report if you think it's necessary or valid.

3) When you mentioned double standard, in which circumstance did I show that I have such a behavior? Did I mentioned that my article should be placed up and other people's articles shouldn't be place? It seems that to you, deleting away your biased opinion is double-standard. I deleted because it is not factual. That's all. Also, I have never once in Wikipedia dispute your claims on your company, whether your parents shake hands with US President, or whatever.

4) Yes, most administrators feel that the article should be taken off. I never claimed that the company is great. I only present evidences that I believe the article has certain notable values and hopefully that the administrators could evaluate. Also, I never hide behind any other usernames or IP addresses to disguise my relationship with the company. As for Spirit of Enterprise, I think you have no clue on how it works. Companies are nominated for SOE award and are interviewed by tertiary students. SOE has a Board of Governors who determine whether if the company should win the award, and these Board of Governors includes experienced businessmen or professionals. Award winners are also co-determined by public voting too. And whether if we receive an award from Mr. SR Nathan, President of Singapore, it is just a factual statement (just like stating that our office is located in Robinson Road). We didn't spin any stories but I guess that my previous statement of "one of the leading..." may not be proper and feels a little advertorial. That is why I clean-up the article to be more factual and removed statements that I have no concrete evidences.

I'm not here to claim how noble I am. I'm not. All I trying to do is to place an article and present the evidences to show its notability. Throughout these times, I begin to read up on Wikipedia policies and try to figure whether if the article has complied with the given guidelines. The more I read the more it becomes clear that the article has both its merits and demerits. While I still believe that the article is notable and neutral (merits), after careful thoughts I feel that there were two critical issues - I'm the staff of the article's mentioned company (COI) and that the company may yet to become a valuable study in the field of virtual office industry (demerits). That's why even I think the article should be deleted, but in a more civil and analytical way.

Anyway, don't be that spiteful. If you really care for Wikipedia and wish to police around, do use the time to help clear up the loadful of articles that wait to be clean-up. Don't forget to add you name. Sg wiki editor 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start with yours... --202.55.71.12 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:COI. However, that said, well done to Sg wiki editor for being open about potential conflict of interest and to Evilclown93 (sorry for the vanilla sig) for bringing it to AfD - gotta love the transparency all round :) Paxse 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmarks in Chicago[edit]

This article survived a prior AFD when List of Chicago Landmarks was less well developed. Now, that the List of Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL it should be clear that a listing of the official Chicago Landmarks and National Historic Landmarks in Chicago, Illinois is the proper list for this topic. A quick read of WP:WIAFL should help one to understand why this page is not a good list. It constitutes WP:OR. The only source for this list is the editor who has posted his favorite buildings. There is no reason for anyone to post a list of their favorite buildings and pass them off as a list of landmarks. It is not (WP:NOT#OR) encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator as stated above. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment merge is unacceptable as it would cause us to put WP:FL status at risk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of the more complete List of Chicago Landmarks. This page now has no useful information. Speciate 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the same reasons it should have been deleted last time. Otto4711 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same reasons it was kept last time or merge with List of Chicago Landmarks. --164.107.222.23 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Landmarks as likely search term. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category:Registered Historic Places in Chicago, Illinois and List of Chicago Landmarks are officially-selected and verified lists, whereas List of landmarks in Chicago doesn't have set criteria for listing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree that it might be best to redirect to Chicago Landmarks for searches.--Kranar drogin 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richest cities by 2020[edit]

An article that solely consists of speculation about the future wealth of cities is not encyclopedic. If this information belongs anywhere on Wikipedia then it's as a link to an article about the *current* ranking of richest cities. It certainly doesn't deserve its own article, especially when it appears to be lifted from an uncited PricewaterhouseCoopers article. Hux 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious crystal balling. Batmanand | Talk 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reference to show the Statistic studies on this subject , It's someone's imagination. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AND HE HAS INCLUDED MUMBAI EVEN. ! Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and check this out : Richest cities in the world . WHYYYY MAAAN ? WHHHHYYYYYYY ? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ? Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I can nominate that article for AfD? Hey, I'm first for the day! Woo hoo! Clarityfiend 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hehe , yes , it includes the same reasons . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure speculation! Corpx 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as WP:BOLLOCKS. Whatever "GDP in 2020 in $US BN" is, it's not based in reality.~~ per everybody else. Okay, the AfD discussion for Richest cities in the world made things clearer. Clarityfiend 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is speculation. Cedars 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it is true that PwC did make such a study, said studies are still speculative. remember the flying cars that were supposed to be common by the year 2000?Balloonman 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Frigo 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stink! My city didn't make the cut. pure speculation, delete. Kripto 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy Morley[edit]

Chanllenged speedy deletion, (notability concerns) Evilclown93_(talk) 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable comedian. Might be famous in one town, but not in the big picture Corpx 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No noteability is established in the article, but I found this article in the NY times that may help. Unfortunately, you need to pay to read the article, and I don't care enough about mr.Morley being kept on Wikipedia to pay to establish his noteability. The abstract claims he has "been South Jersey Shore institution since 1949 and still draws older crowd at Copa Room at Sands in Atlantic City, NJ". Dr bab 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotableBalloonman 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, non-notable. Kripto 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G8. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Security Measures[edit]

Totally WP:OR TexasAndroid 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally nominated this for speedy, but I do now agree with the fact that it doesn't necessarily fit nicely into any of the speedy criteria. Many things about the article just don't fit with what Wikipedia should be about, though, in my view. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - author request (author tried blanking the article after AfD nomination.) Han-Kwang 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? - why shouldn't I blank the article. No one cares about it anyway. I've had requests from administrators to delete the information. And that is the end of it. Chemical.Reaper 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Author blanked WP:OR Q ^{T C} 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD - DB NONSENSE - That was the funniest page nominated for AFD. Ever. Corpx 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReCAPTCHA[edit]

on the grounds of not notable and WP:SPAM Sycarr 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into CAPTCHA? -- Senalishia 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concept has appeared in scholarly literature, and in a recent article in The New York Times. Alansohn 03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with CAPTCHA imo. -- Noam 84.108.243.66 07:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Novel use that helps with digitizing printed works MeekMark 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Describes a technology using CAPTCHAs to do OCR. Has potential for enough content to be distinct from the CAPTCHA article. Given that the technology got relatively wide news coverage (NY Times article, Wired article, Digg, Slashdot, Reddit) it's pretty clear that it's notable. 64.9.236.172 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article and let the relevant bits be taken out from CAPTCHA. If let stayed in CAPTCHA, it tastes like a certain kind of pork. --Kakurady 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. It's an implementation of CAPTCHAs from the original inventors of CAPTCHA, and is therefore notable. As an editor above mentioned, it's been covered in many mainstream news sources, including the NY Times and the print version of Wired. As an academic project at Carnegie Mellon University, it is likely that there will eventually be peer-reviewed papers published about reCAPTCHA. Colin M. 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been covered in Wired, NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. It's also very useful for the Web!

These two comments were on the talk page, and should probably be counted as votes:

Keep Why on earth would this article be deleted? It describes a real tool used by thousands (maybe millions) of people. The article should very much remain. --Thorwald 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither can I see a reason for deleting this article. And before deleting it completely, I'd merge it into Captcha. Glaubigern 11:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and protect as recreation of multiply-deleted article. Daniel Case 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Ortolani[edit]

Like Kenny McCormack, this article has been deleted and keeps coming back lots of times and deleted again and needs to be stopped from recreation. Dr Tobias Funke 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and not a single reference for WP:MUSIC criteria. Shalom ^Hello 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the page till this person gains notability Corpx 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Shalom. Oregongirl0407 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Shanley[edit]

Does not take any clear hint why this person is notable and originally researchd. Dr Tobias Funke 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As I surmised from the tone of the article, we have a clear WP:COI from Jaapmeeuwsen (talk · contribs), who has no unrelated edits. Shalom ^Hello 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. There is an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the original editor, but the subject of the article does meet WP:N, in her own right and as a member of De Dannan (and in the non-wiki sense of her records being readily available in my not-very-big local record shop :O)) If deleted, at least delete without prejudice to recreation. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but the page states her as a guest performer and not as a main performer as this is what I am getting the impression of. Dr Tobias Funke 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable solo performer in her own right. I just cleaned and de-POVd it slightly. It's a stub, but could easily be augmented. If the AfD goes keep, I'll re-visit it - Alison ☺ 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relatively well-known artist who in addition has collaborated with a number of notable acts and entertainers, including the aforementioned De Dannan and Ronnie Drew, with whom she has recorded two albums. Article is now a stable stub. Cromag ^{talk to me} 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Coleman[edit]

There is more news journalist that is more famous and she is famous for this Bush thing, henceforth not notable at all. Dr Tobias Funke 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me.. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not into the Irish media, but if the affair warranted an article in the UK Sunday Times it seems to meet the notability threshold. Han-Kwang 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, seems notable enough to Keep --Rocksanddirt 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Hankwang. JJL 22:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but rewrite, and maybe try a little harder with the POV. Kripto 11:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, I don't mind recreation, though. The subject is notable, but the article is unsourced so it's better to start again. Sr 13 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Maxwell[edit]

As I have seen the original nomination, I had to remoninate this as the person who originall ynominated it has a good reason to only he is stupid to call himself a sockpuppet, I mean why not have a user call himself a wikipedia vandal

The reason is, not notable, vanity article, originally sourced and only 763 ghits. Also anybody can write an Autobiography these days and get it published. Dr Tobias Funke 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a vanity page. JJL 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but without prejudice to recreation. The subject of the article does exist and GAA players playing at that level tend to be notable in their own right, but this article is unsalvagable. Better to start again, if necesssary. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :: as well as the questionable style, there is also the issue of the potential defamatory nature of the "personal life" section. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup. I have edited out the silly (or sillier?) stuff. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The current edit still looks like fancruft to me, I still say delete it all as all that appears to be unsourced and that autobiography where all that is cited does not even exist on Amazon, therefore it means non existent source. Dr Tobias Funke 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I deliberately left much of the article in place, despite obvious reservations about the tone and removed only the material that was clearly made-up or were of BLP concerns (or both). There is a sports journalist called Kevin McStay, who sometimes contributes to the The Sunday Game programme, who may or may not have made that comment; I can't find an online reference, but he quite possibly did. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is an unsourced BLP. However this person is notable per the guidelines at WP:BIO "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.". Notability should not be used as a reason for the deletion of this article so that people feel free to create a new better article. -- Patleahy 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to unanimous consensus as unverifiable. Daniel Case 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Richards (football)[edit]

Not notable; can't find any independent sources Cordless Larry 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a possible autobiography of a non-notable individual. Useight 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not meeting WP:BIO -- Ban Ray 10:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing links to the article either. Govvy 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable autobiography created by an SPA. Nothing to suggest this bloke is notable in any field..... ChrisTheDude 12:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability in the article. Jogurney 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to have played professionally, and I personally can't find any information elsewhere about the player (or his subsequent non-football career for that matter). Robotforaday 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a candidate for speedy deletion. ArtVandelay13 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes across as a hoax, and even if not so, it is clearly still not notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, insufficient notability with a lack of references. Sr 13 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another illusion[edit]

I don't find any coverage of this band in reliable sources, at least not in English. Their notability is not really asserted (or barely asserted)--it's not even clear if they actually cut an album. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not firmly stated. Unless quality sources can be provided during the AfD it should probably go. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:MUSIC, no references. Precious Roy 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, neologism created by article author the day before he posted the article. NawlinWiki 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaya effect[edit]

Non notable neologism. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NFT. The term cannot be notable because it was just invented yesterday. Shalom ^Hello 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, have a heart. This concept is relevant and is going somewhere I assure you. It has been under discussion, by members of the political/technical community for sometime but lacked a name. Try and see past black and white orthodoxy and consider the relevancy and necessity of the principle itself. Thank you very much for your consideration hamilsizzle

Be serious hamil. This is a name that was created YESTERDAY and I suspect it is simply a way for the guy credited with coming up with the name to get his name on the net. If you believe that the concept is important, then the idea can be discussed on Sanjaya's page, if he has one (I have no desire to read about him so I don't know if he has one or not) and/or the American Idol page. Postcard Cathy 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS Hamil, you are the guy mentioned in the article! And might I add that the community you talk about is also the name of a section of your website?? Perhaps the political technical community you talk about are your friends and not the community at large? Postcard Cathy 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you everyone for your input on this. This is my very first wikipedia entry, so it's a great learning experience about the community and the platform.

Postcard Cathy: the idea cannot be discussed on Sajaya's page because it is not about Sanjaya, we just use his name. The wisdom of crowds principle, which is what makes wikipedia work, and is the same principle behind what makes google work, says that large groups of people with a diverse body of opinions are predisposed to make the wisest decisions. Which is how a site like wikipedia can be opened to anyone to add content and committed wikipedians like you an others add their thoughts and opinions to help shape the final product.

But sometimes people game the system. With google, the practice is called a google bomb. There has been no definition for gaming another crowd-wise system like online voting.

I work for a member of congress and I and a group of people in the democratic political community are working on ways to use crowd wisdom technologies for things like developing public policy or voting on which questions to answer in an online town hall. This is where what I'm calling the sanjaya effect comes in. This would be like google bombing, but not on google...an attempt to artificially affect the outcome for humorous purposes through the crowd voting for the worst option as opposed to the best option.

So If I had my boss the congressman doing an online townhall, and the crowd voted to ask him a question on a salacious topic instead of a relevant one (much like a adolescent prank call), then that would be the sanjaya effect.

Sanjaya was an american idol contestant who was voted by the audience to stay on the show precisely because he was awful, and not good (and so many people found it funny that they continued to vote him on to stay).

I don't care about getting my name on the net and have removed the part of the definition that referred to me. I do believe that this is a relevant definition and an easy an important way for people in politics to describe a phenomenon they should be wary of when introducing web 2.0 technologies into politics.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this page.

Thanks for being civil, but you are missing the problem with the article. Myself and other have called the term non notable. Notability in the Wikipedia sense, largely refers to WP:N which stems from WP:V. In order for articles to be kept they must be sourced from reliable sources. As the subject of your article is a neologism that you invented a couple of days ago it is unlikely that sources discussing it exist. In general it is best to make sure that sources exist before creating an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, understood. I will return with more references. Thank you for your assistance and your advice. --Hamilsizzle 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that the phenomenon exists (cf Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf , for instance), but this is not what people call it. What do they call it? I dunno; find out. DS 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - since the article does not even claim that the term is notable. It is important not to confuse the term with the concept. The article is about a neologism being applied to a phenomenon that may or may not have been discussed under other names (and thus may or may not itself be notable under a more common designation). Online searches, which are not a hard and fast rule, do give some idea that the term, while it has been used at times in entertainment news, identifies the effect that one particular contestant had on one particular show, not a phenomenon that has any real relevance apart from American Idol. In other words, a casual Google search (for example) might return a number of hits, but they aren't about the subject being addressed by this article. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another name for this is market manipulation, but this is a very particular kind of manipulation (humor/nefarious) to a very particular kind of market (information). You guys are missing the forest for the trees here. I understand the need for references and will return.--Hamilsizzle 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, "market manipulation" might warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and the various types can probably work as sub-headings to describe particular factors and effects. Perhaps, since you have an interest there, you can spearhead this entry; it doesn't currently exist under that name. The "Sanjaya effect," on the other hand, does not seem to be a notable term for any phenomenon related to this kind of manipulation, and I will probably be surprised if you can find references (independent of yourself or internet blogs) that use it in the manner described by the current entry. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I don't disagree with the concept, but I do dispute the notability. It just sounds like the kind of thing that gets made up over a few beers. Kripto 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'merge to Sanjaya Malakar if refs provided show some notability, delete otherwise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Druids: Animalkin[edit]

No references cited, can't find any hint that this game even exists. Probable hoax. Tim! 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as hoax. The only Google hits for this game or the alleged company that made it is this article. Ravenswing 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another nonsense article by MrFijiax. Miremare 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short of the article's creator having the name wrong, this game doesn't exist. Someguy1221 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to unanimous consensus as hoax. Daniel Case 16:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacterium(Doctor Who)[edit]

Complete rubbish, but there is no speedy criterion which covers hoaxes. Tim! 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Hoax. Doctor Who is currently on its tenth doctor, this article claims to be about the twelfth. -- MisterHand 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see it's a complete fabrication. -- Hux 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - user:MrFijiax only seems to edit Wikipedia in order to create hoax Doctor Who related articles and add made up information to existing articles. BTW Tim!, I think his previous ones were speedied simply as {{db-nonsense}}. Miremare 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. Complete Rubbish --OZ OO (What?) 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must have missed some episodes. Kripto 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have also speedy-tagged The Street's End, The Bacterium and The Bell Tolls, Doctor as they are also obviously hoax articles. Stephenb (Talk) 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as spam. Should have been speedied originally, IMO. Daniel Case 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lattimore Records[edit]

NN record label. Spam/advert, doesn't state notability Lugnuts 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, spam. Shalom ^Hello 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it's clearly spam. -- Hux 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no google news results. John Vandenberg 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable television event per Kalathalan. Daniel Case 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Disney Channel's Wish Gone Amiss Weekend

Disney Channel's Wish Gone Amiss Weekend[edit]

Poorly written article about a 1 night event on Disney Channel. Not Notable enough to have its own article. All it is, is a new episode of 3 of their series with similar plots. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable non-event. Brianyoumans 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brianyoumans. --Metropolitan90 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Brianyouams. Definitely not notable enough; Wikipedia doesn't cover other television station "events," does it? Kalani ^[talk] 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Probably made by a die hard Disney channel nerd. OfficerPhil 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You got a problem with Disney channel nerds?! :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; this "episode" is going to happen on July 13; no google news results yet and the article doesnt demonstrate any notability. John Vandenberg 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as nn and per previous speedy. Daniel Case 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nesto[edit]

Surely a laudable effort, but no evidence for encyclopedic notability (no reliable independent sources, no hard facts like the number of members or the yearly budget). Note: A previous article at NESTO has been speedily deleted as "CSD A7 (not notable)" some months ago. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Pelzner. High on a tree 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content not encyclopedic and no assertion of notability. Han-Kwang 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six Ages of the World[edit]

Contested prod. Article asserts significance of this chronological scheme, but doesn't show that it's important outside the work of St. Augustine, and doesn't provide evidence of its importance within Augustine's work. Searches on Google scholar turn up nothing useful, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have an entry on this and doesn't mention it in the article on St. Augustine ([18]). Conte's History of Latin Literature doesn't mention the work this concept supposedly comes from (De catechizandis rudibus). Therefore, I don't think this conecept is notable, and I suspect there's a fair amount of original research in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A systemization of history found in many medieval works. I'm at my job, without access to my books at the moment, but to the best of my recollection this appears in Orosius and Vincent of Beauvais, among others; and it's covered in C. S. Lewis's The Discarded Image and other secondary sources. I'll try to add more when I get home. Deor 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other sources, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Six Ages of the World doesn't seem like the right title, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Pelzner[edit]

No sources, no evidence of notability. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesto. Note: A previous article at NESTO has been speedily deleted as "CSD A7 (not notable)" some months ago.) High on a tree 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person. -- Hux 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GATS, Inc[edit]

Non-notable company. The creator's other contributions are adding links to spectralcalc.com (registered to GATS, Inc.) to dozens of pages, and the creator's name matches the company's COO, i.e. COI. Delete Han-Kwang 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, plus probable spam. -- Hux 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rosen[edit]

Non-notable author. Prod tag removed by original author without comment. Delete'. DMG413 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Author does initially appear to be rather non-notable; however, he does seem to have an involved career in the liberal arts which makes him notable in my book. If this article were wikified it could pass, but it is questionable whether this is self-advertisement by the author himself. Since there are some verifiable sources on Google, I think this page could stay if improved. --David Andreas 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Author certainly is notable. He has generated a significant amount of public awareness to the Off-Grid campaign in the UK - including BBC TV news & radio interviews in May 2007 - and he has indeed had a colourful career in the liberal arts. Nick Rosen is an award-winning producer and an esteemed journalist - I believe he wrote several articles on the dawn of the Internet for The Times newspaper in the early nineties. I respectfully suggest that this does indeed makes him notable. One has only to conduct a search for "Nick Rosen" on Google for verifiable sources. This link points to an article for the Daily Telegraph: [19] and an article by the Times Online [20].

I propose that I edit article is edited for neutrality, to remove any suggestion of self-advertisement. Thank you. Nightfly1 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agreed with Nightfly1 above: he's notable enough so the article should stay provided its style is significantly improved. -- Hux 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think its passable, sufficient varied aspects, though perhaps none of them by itself would qualify. DGG 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punktastic Recordings[edit]

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable, plus it looks like a clear case of self-promotion. -- Hux 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3-man company with 11 obscure titles looks like non-notable. Han-Kwang 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing indicates notability. Precious Roy 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmasking St. Minver[edit]

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. A G-search excluding Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages returns only 29 hits. RGTraynor 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. Han-Kwang 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Times, Late Nights..[edit]

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not even assert notability. Han-Kwang 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Seat In The House[edit]

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. Han-Kwang 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop McGuinness High School (Oklahoma)[edit]

Delete: Non-notable school Kilburnian 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep School has won some 47 state sports championships and two state-wide academic bowl championships. Sources are provided for the overwhelming majority of these achievements, with many more sources to come. The schools boys and girls cross country running teams have won more than 3/4s of the state championships in their class since the early 1990s. Notability is established. Alansohn 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notablity asserted, article development well underway. EagleFan 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A school with twenty-five cross-country state championships in the last seventeen years must have had numerous newspaper articles about such a notable level of dominance. On that alone the school would pass WP:NN and WP:V, even if it was otherwise wholly unnoted and unremarkable, a stipulation lacking in evidence. Ravenswing 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep — Nom. didn't even present a case against for deletion. What was the point? — RJH (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that the overwhelming majority of high schools are notable, and this one is no exception. I also wonder about the lack of justification an reasoning of many AfDs, and the fact that this AfD was created by a new user in his first five edits on Wikipedia. However, you may want to take a look at the article as it existed when the AfD was created. Alansohn 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn, certainly notable for the sport section.--JForget 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a remarkable and notable sporting record. TerriersFan 17:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kneehigh/The Maple State[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kneehigh/The Maple State

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release by non-notable bands on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punktastic Unscene 1[edit]

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Least Until We've Settled In[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/At Least Until We've Settled In

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punktastic Unscene 2[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punktastic Unscene 3[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable release on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maple State[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser (band)[edit]

Article does not assert notability and is promotional. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 07:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Rising[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Khorasani[edit]

My prod was contested since googling the poet gave the contester reason to believe the poet is notable. I disagree with that as a reason. One shouldn't have to google someone to figure out if they are notable or not. One should be able to read the article on the person at hand and see from that info that they are notable. This article has been around for a while and no one, not even the original author, has done anything to let us know that this guy is notable. They simply state he existed which IMHO is not wiki worthy. Unless the article is improved significantly before the time is up on this AFD, I say strong delete as unnotable with no sources. Postcard Cathy 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likewise unless expanded right away. There's a minimal bio here. Googling his name in Persian finds this BBC Persian article, an obituary I think. But unless anyone bilingual is prepared to translate something pronto, there's not enough to justify keeping the article. I've posted a request for help to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. Gordonofcartoon 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two years without the slightest improvement to the article's content is long enough for me to think that nobody's ever going to bother, and the article doesn't meet WP standards as-is. Propaniac 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Movielife[edit]

Article fails WP:N, also is unreferenced. Suspect label using WP as a platform for advertising. aliasd·U·T 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with comment Please explain. I have found multiple non-trivial references to this band, Vinnie Caruana and I Am the Avalanche, two of which come from no less than MTV.--Ispy1981 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the MTV bio to the article. --Darksun 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets several criteria of WP:MUSIC, including two albums released on very notable indie label Drive-Thru Records. Chubbles 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band passes WP:N and has charted on the Billboard charts in 2003, breaking into the Top 200. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable. I think the nom got a little (understandably) carried away following a trail of non-notable spam. Precious Roy 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Keep as per Precious Roy. The article when nominated was unreferenced, and I am still of the opinion article was written up here for promotion, however, I am now convinced of WP:N. I guess 90% of my AfDs from that day will be deleted, so not a bad average, and for the record, I am not a deletionist, just dont like WP being used as a platform for marketing. aliasd·U·T 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Meets so many of the WP:Band notability criteria. I don't know why anybody would nominate this for deletion. Gekritzl 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Avalanche[edit]

Article written as an advertisement, and fails WP:N, also is unreferenced. aliasd·U·T 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just added a bio from MTV.com that denotes some notability.--Ispy1981 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the MTV bio and the other sources I listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnie Caruana --Darksun 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On a notable label, have toured multiple times nationally, and has received significant press coverage. Needs a little cleanup but definitely meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 23:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Keep As this article was quickly referenced after AfD nom, this still requires a cleanup, but am now convinced that the subject matter is notable. aliasd·U·T 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Precious Roy 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Stan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Autobiographical page, should really be a user page VTSPOWER 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Robert Stan as CSD:BIO. This one's a seventeen year old kid. Tagged it. Checking Robert Stanek.--Ispy1981 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Robert Stanek is different than Robert Stan. My vote stands.--Ispy1981 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense. Gan fon 16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)[edit]

Yet again another non-notable album track which user:Superior1 refuses to allow to be redirected to the album it comes from. Corvus cornix 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there aren't exactly guidelines on what warrants a song its own article. Superior1 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This album reached #10 on the US charts so that gives slight notability Corpx 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the album. Not to every track on the album. Corvus cornix 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he meant the single, which hit number 10. Superior1 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thriller--Ispy1981 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And by that, I mean, of course Thriller (album)...d'oh.--Ispy1981 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am opposed to the indiscriminate creation of the various Michael Jackson articles and am probably already on the blacklist of WikiProject Michael Jackson for also trying to stem it. However, this song actually is notable - it wasn't just an album track. It was an international chart hit, U.S. included. GassyGuy 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Thriller page. Gan fon 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Top 10 in one or more markets is inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to withdraw this, if it's okay with everybody else, it was a single, though it's only obvious by reading the non-prose headers. Corvus cornix 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WTF? Album track? More like hit top 10 single. Superior1 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Far from a Michael Jackson fan here, but this was a pretty huge album. All the other songs have their own links, and this was a top ten single. It's noteworthy.--Fightingirish 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A top 10 single from the biggest-selling album of all time. JavaTenor 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top ten hits are notable in and of themselves. Chubbles 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. And it looks like a concensus to me. The Moving Finger Writes 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like many others have noted, this was a hit single = Notable. Precious Roy 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it got to number 11 in the UK as well, according to everyhit.com, so it was successful internationally ChrisTheDude 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borisav Knežević[edit]

Contested Prod (prodded by myself); recreated by Boriswiki (talk · contribs) from Google cache, which I took as a contest to the prod. I restored the history now, which also contains references (in the form of x-links).
The article reads like a resume. It does not establish notability of the subject. Most of numerous "references" do not discuss the subject of the article at all; rather, they serve as kind of "wikilinks". I could not find anything by Google which would indicate the subject's notability and distinguish him from numerous government officials and lecturers. At best, they indicate that the article is true [21], [22], [23]. Which, I'm afraid, is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Duja► 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. He may be a bureaucrat in the Serbian government, but isn't an important enough one to show up on a search on the Serbian government website. Ravenswing 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment - No notability established for the government worker. Corpx 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing Bigdaddy1981 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Rosie O'Donnell Feud[edit]

personal feelings about Trump aside, let's just say they are not good, I don't feel this is worthy of a stand alone article and feel it is best covered as a side note (if it is covered at all) in the articles on Trump and Rosie. Postcard Cathy 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We're not a tabloid or a celebrity watch website - a minor blurb on the article for the involved celebs is more than sufficient. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedy. This does not provide a unique resource, nor could it, beyond what is already said in the Trump and O'Donnell articles. It is not particularly encyclopedic. Additionally, it currently stands entirely unreferenced, meaning that it does not comport with WP:BLP (though the relevant portions are referenced in the individuals' respective articles). · jersyko talk 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. This is a prime example of recentism, and five years from now, no one will give a damn about any of this, if they remember it at all, which they won't. Ravenswing 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This article was already deleted once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy and should probably be mentioned at wikinews and not here. Corpx 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. Junk like this doesn't deserve it's own article. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Just add the content to the articles of the people involved.--Fightingirish 21:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should only be mentionned in Trump's, O'Donnel's and the View's articles.--JForget 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as long as the information is covered in the individual articles. No one would search on that awkward title, so there's no reason to repeat the information ina separate article. Tvoz |talk 03:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom., and all previous comments.--JayJasper 12:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bratton[edit]

I have no knowledge of the subject to establish whether or not this is notable. In any case, it's in need of a serious tidy, but that's not why I'm putting this to AfD. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP You don't need any knowledge to know this is wiki worthy, assuming the info is accurate. Postcard Cathy 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio, with no prejudice against re-creating as a valid article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment. I've just removed the material that was a straight copy-and-paste of a St. John's University page bearing an explicit copyright notice, leaving only one sentence in the article. I don't know enough about the consensus on notability of college athletes to register an opinion on this AfD, but if the article is kept, it should at least state what sport the guy competes in (the original article failed to do even this). Deor 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it ought to have been speedied anyway - when nothing but one sentence is a copy-paste and there's no other article history, the offending version is still lingering in the article history and I don't like that. Anyway, still arging for ~~delete~~ unless someone wants to write a sourced article prior to closure. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this is virtually speedy A7 - asserts absolutely zero significance. And sorry, "You don't need any knowledge to know this is wiki worthy"? Absolutely incorrect - I have no idea why this article should exist - it has no context, no assertion of notability, no verifiability, so it's got to go. The Rambling Man 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current single-line stub is POV, but looking back on what was removed, there are claims of notability, and if he was captain of a US team in an international competition, even if he's only a college-level player, that is a weak notability. Corvus cornix 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for the non-US collegiate aficionado's amongst us, could the article please provide some context? Strikes me playing for a college team and coming second is hardly notable. I'm prepared to accept that the US-college-sports-scene is considered (in the US at least) to be more significant than that of, say, the UK, but this article in its current state is unacceptably weak. The Rambling Man 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and how does the only external link help me verify any of this? The Rambling Man 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, collegiate fencing is about as high as it comes. I don't even know if there are any competitions outside of international competitions. This discusses his international accomplishments. Corvus cornix 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks handy with a pointy stick! Well, I find "Recently represented the U.S. as a member of the National Team at the World Championships in Turin, Italy" more notable than college achievements, and would be happy to rethink if someone could make the article verify the notability under WP:BIO. As it stands, it doesn't manage that at all. Thanks for your help explanation Oh Hooded One... The Rambling Man 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I cleaned it up a bit an added info. It appears he was a three time all-american in college and is one of the ebst in the world at using the epee. CraigMonroe 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned it further, so will be reconsidering... good effort to save this, to all you who contributed... The Rambling Man 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (although I've spent too much of life on this already!!) - I've found sufficient verifiable sources to validate the notability of this. Just a quick note - if the article has zero sources, it has zero verifiability and is indefensible in my opinion. If y'all want to keep this or similar, I'd suggest being pro-active, like Mr Monroe, grab some sources, bang them in. It doesn't matter how untidy it is, as long as there's some verifiability there, bingo. So, to cut a long story short, keep it! The Rambling Man 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'd rather it was just cleared as a copyvio and rewritten - I don't like seeing that original blatant copyright violation sitting in the article history. But the current version is good and should be kept. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An admin can remove the copyvio from the history, preserving the rest of the info for GFDL purposes. Corvus cornix 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established. Copyvio issues can be addressed separately. Alansohn 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G12. The page was tagged for speedy deletion, and has been deleted.[24] The deleting administrator has not closed this AfD, so I am closing it, as it no longer needs to be open. Acalamari 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Elig[edit]

does not appear to assert notability, but I don't know much about this topic so I figured I would not just prod/speedy it. Calliopejen1 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copyvio of [25]--Ispy1981 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I tagged it. --Evb-wiki 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability. In defense of nom, I have to ask, know much about what "topic?" Reading this turgid and airy paragraph, I have no sense of what it is the subject actually does. RGTraynor 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable subject with a copyright-violating article. Acalamari 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media portrayal of homosexuality[edit]

While this could be a great article, it's currently nothing more than a list of lists, with a smattering of information that's duplicated in the lists and articles referred to. Should be deleted until someone writes an actual article about the subject. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but do not salt, per SatyrTN's excellent nom. This is a situation where the information would clearly be better handled by a category. Heather 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous books have been written about this very subject and WP is better served by improving the article than deleting it and all the work that has gone into it so far. Was article tagged for sources, expanding? I'm disappointed that we are so ready to throw out good work because it's not in a preferred mode and suggest that numerous methods to improve the article should be addressed before deleting it. Benjiboi 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd be disappointed to throw out good work too, but this isn't it. A number of these citations aren't even about general homosexual themes as opposed to (as in the case, for instance, with most of those comics citations) being fictional works that just happen to include homosexual characters. Beyond that, "media portrayal" implies the mainstream news media, and any such article along these lines should more properly be named "Fictional portrayal of homosexuality." Why, look, there are already two: Lesbian literature and LGBT literature. RGTraynor 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There may be an encyclopedic article to be had under this title, but this article is not it. It's not even a start. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to go through that list and expand on how gays are portrayed. As it stands now, it is a "List of movies with homosexual elements", which is is a violation of WP:NOT being a list of loosely associated themes. Corpx 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and write a real article instead of this list which contains no text. Corvus cornix 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete encyclopedic topic, terrible article (rather a shame). This is one of the worst list articles I have seen. Usually they are strongly biased to the present day; this one seems to exclude everything but the present day and very recent past. Bigdaddy1981 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this info already exists in a more complete format in the many sub-lists linked here. Plus, the name of the article is misleading; I would assume it was actually discussing trends of positive/negative portrayal per a GLAAD perspective, rather than just a redundant list. TAnthony 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete Great topic, would be an awesome article.. But needs alot of work and unless someone is up to the task should be removed as it presently is. Callelinea 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eculture[edit]

Prodded as Original Research, prod was removed for reasons not at all related to the subject of the prod. am AfDing mostly as a way to handle this without it turning into a series of added and removed prods. Weak Delete Improbcat 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete bollocks, and possibly speedy delete as patent nonsense:

eCulture is a construct upon, and advancement of, the typical corporate culture – in acclimatizing the modern organization for best success in the quickening business-technology environment.

No organization can thrive in today’s world without its technical supports - but increasingly, actual business survival involves managing an accelerating, even forced, evolution of critical technical empowerments.

If people insist on writing stuff like this, I will taunt them a second time. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism.--Ispy1981 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:BULLSHIT. This encompasses bureaucratispeak at some of its turgid worst. Given Smerdis' example, just that last clause alone is a hoot: what, there are "unreal" or "virtual" business survivals? Ravenswing 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What it seems to be trying to say is, "Computers are so complicated! But you need them for your business. Therefore, if you want to make money, you're going to have to spend even more money, and I'm the guy you need to spend it on." Stated this way, the motive becomes too transparent, and the underpants gnome plan is too conspicuous. So the aspirant needs to re-cast his message into the sort of language this "article" uses. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and there are no sources. Corvus cornix 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cut-and-past of some half-witted kid's homework paper most likely. This one can go, imo, as total and utter bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Maršál[edit]

Possibly non-notable painter and artist. All possible sources are in Czech, so I'm neutral. Anas ^talk? 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the burden of proof lies upon the article, and I don't even really see the assertion of notability, let alone anything backing it up. Doesn't Meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people (under creative professionals). His entry in a dictionary of Czech artists would seem to be considered "trivial," and the article doesn't show his work was a significant part of the art show cited. No mention of an individually significant work is present. --Ybbor ^Talk 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Article is not tagged btw. Johnbod 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Practically all references to Josef Maršál on the Web are about a TV reporter. The en: text is the same as in [26]. Czech Wiki text is copied from [mujweb.cz/www/m.grafik/]. All these (Czech and English) texts on the Web and in Wikipedia are likely written by a single person, his sister, who keeps a webpage about him [mujweb.cz/www/m.grafik/]. Pavel Vozenilek 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd wait until he gets covered by some publication. The Czech Wiki page (much better since created by a native speaker) could be translated to en: if someone finds him notable enough. Pavel Vozenilek 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept on withdrawal of nomination and WP:SNOWBALL. Well done to all who worked on this. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere tractor[edit]

While this topic merits encyclopedic inclusion the current article is nothing but an advertisement for the John Deere Company. All references are to the company website and the article basically gives an overview of what products John Deere has to offer and gives a handy link to the company as well. The article, in its current form should be deleted unless someone can salvage it. I marked it as an ad almost a month ago and it has undergone no significant changes. IvoShandor 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep then it needs clean-up not AFD. --Fredrick day 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a blatant ad to me. I don't know if any of that content is even salvageable. Have at it, I know nothing about tractors. IvoShandor 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You say yourself that it merits encyclopedic inclusion, thus there is no argument against it. This is a "Sofixit" scenario, not an AfD scenario. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a blantant ad, that's enough. IvoShandor 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and Keep; this is fixable, and could be sprotected if anons persist in inserting adspam. Heather 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, actually. Needs some cleanup, though. Maxa megalon 2000 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing anything particularly spamlike in either content or tone. Products described are indisputably notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't seem excessively spammy to me, either, but certainly could use some cleanup. Might suggest a withdrawal of this nom? Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. John Deere tractors are very well-known and very notable. Deleting this would be like deleting the article on the Ford F-Series. --Charlene 15:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep None of the tractor articles are much to look at - see Farmall, International Harvester and Oliver Corp., but they aren't delete-worthy, and neither is this. Acroterion _(talk) 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there are books about the history and development of tractors, with this being a major brand, and certainly hundreds of article over the years on developments of new features, comparison of brands, sales, etc. This article is, however very lacking in the history, market share, comparison to other brands. I saw a number of vintage Deere tractors in a recent parade. People buy, collect, and restore them. I'm surprised tractorholics haven't yet seen fit to work on this article. Anything excessively spammy or sounding like a catalog of current products can certainly be edited down or removed. Edison 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article like this need not describe every product. John Deere tractors are so integral in agricultural history that this article doesn't even come close to being encyclopedic, ~~I will not withdraw the nomination~~. I hope someone fixes it, it's a shame that this kind of content is allowed to stay here. IvoShandor 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this puzzles me--you say it is critically important , and therefore want to delete it? DGG 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point, there is plenty to put in an article besides a rewrite of their catalog. IvoShandor 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed almost all content, anyone want to try a rewrite? That was an ad, no matter how you paint it, tagged as such a month ago, no one cared about it then, which led me to believe the article would never be cleaned up, ever, remaining an ad for John Deere, I had no choice but to AfD it, if it gets saved all the better, I stubified it, anyone with knowledge of the history of the tractor should attack it. An encyclpedic topic doesn't make the content encyclopedic.IvoShandor 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the article stubified I will withdraw my nomination, provided someone doesn't revert my change. IvoShandor 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to do next, remove the template? Is that okay? IvoShandor 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- would merge to Current characters of Neighbours, but there's nothing here to merge -- just a one-sentence article saying "Caleb Maloney is a character played by...". NawlinWiki 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maloney[edit]

DELETE - This is a minor character who will only be on the show for a short time. Kogsquinge 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Neighbours per guidelines esatblished for minor charecters in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia. --Ybbor ^Talk 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not present any secondary sources to establish notability, per WP:N. --maclean 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct and merge as per WP:FICT Assize 11:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. —« ANIMUM » 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic probability[edit]

Unsourced article that makes rather extravagant claims. Unless these can be backed up this article should be removed.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original essay. The term is unused. BTW the article doesn't have an author! `'Miikka 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Dan Gluck 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete iNic 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent original research. Someguy1221 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dan Gluck. --Ybbor ^Talk 13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research in absence of verifiable attribution. Even if it were not, its non notable for lack of evidence of any serious usage. Neologism. --soum ^talk 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 952[edit]

Apparent fake incident; no mention of accident in Aviation Safety Network or Airdisaster.com databases or any returns for Google searches. This diff claims 16 fatalities, but as in the article no source(s) are provided. Lipsticked Pig 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a hoax to me too. Might ought to be snowballed. - BillCJ 07:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I traced the aircraft to Mexicana both at the time of the accident and to this day, and therefore also tried searching for Mexicana Flight 952 on Google; similar lack of results. What I did find was this, a tracking page for the flight in question, which landed yesterday. Had it really been a fatal accident, the flight number would have been retired. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (the preceding comment was mistakenly signed late, see the edit history for the original time of posting)[reply]
Delete - complete hoax. A query for "N764MX" at airframes.org shows that the aircraft is still registered and was transferred in 2005, then reregistered as N403JS. airliners.net shows a number of photos without any mention of damage. Finally, a query of the National Transportation Safety Board's aviation accident database doesn't show anything for N764MX. So, it's a hoax. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may not be a hoax but simply a non-notable incident that took place in another country. This aircraft landed in Guadalajara, which is in Mexico, a country with its own rules, regulations, and investigative board. Although the aircraft was US-registered, it was not US-based and the incident didn't occur in the US, so why would they bother reporting it to the NTSB? Despite this, it's certainly not a notable incident; nobody died or was injured, and the aircraft went back into service. --Charlene 12:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile I agree with your overall line of reasoniong, I would like to pont out that just becuase this is the English Wikipedia, we are not confined to events that take place in the English-speaking world, and should in fact avoid Anglo-centric bias. --Ybbor^Talk 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm usually the first to say that, but a mechanical problem that doesn't end in loss of life or serious injuries isn't notable per Wikipedia precedent. There are at least a hundred minor incidents of the same severity every month in the US alone, and possibly a thousand or more a month worldwide. This one is no more notable than any of those. --Charlene 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Oh yes, I agree with you completely, the article should be deleted. I'm just saying the fact that it happened outside the English-speaking world isn't a valid reason to do so. --Ybbor^Talk 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment -The fact that it happened outside the "English-speaking world" isn't a valid reason to assume it's being nominated for that reason. That is just as biased as the view you are tying to counter! It might make it harder to find information, but as this is a US-registered plane, that should not have been a factor in this case. And I would point out to Charlene that this diff - linked by Lipsticked Pig in his nomination above - claimed that 16 people had died (added by the same user at around the same time). It is "facts" like this that led me and others to conclude that this is indeed some kind of hoax, not just a minor, unreported incident. - BillCJ 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - yes, if that was what I said I would agree with you. I did not, however, say that that was why it was being nominated. I was responding to Charlene 's comment that "This may not be a hoax but simply a non-notable incident that took place in another country" (emphasis his). This to me implied an anglo-centric bias; that Wikipedia should only cover accidents that take place in the English-speaking world. --Ybbor ^Talk 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - OK, I understand what you're talking about now. You have mis-understood her reason for the emphasis. She said right after that: "This aircraft landed in Guadalajara, which is in Mexico, a country with its own rules, regulations, and investigative board. Although the aircraft was US-registered, it was not US-based and the incident didn't occur in the US, so why would they bother reporting it to the NTSB?" That was what "in another country" referred to - that the NTSB might not have investigated it because it was "in another country", and therefore we might not find information. She was in no way implying that it was not notable because it happened in another country, nor are any of the rest of us. I can see how you might have mis-comprehended. - BillCJ 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - ah, now it make more sense. Appologies to all for the misunderstanding. --Ybbor ^Talk 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think, it being a US-registered plane, the NTSB does tend to take an interest if it is involved in a serious accident... I think international laws give countries the right to insist in a foreign investigation under certain circumstances that give them a genuine legitimate interest, and I'm pretty sure the aircraft being registered or built in a specific country is on the list of things giving that country the right to know and investigate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I think the NTSB investigates incidents and accidents on commercial aircraft that fly from the United States into another country, such as this incident on a Continental Airlines flight flying from Houston to Buenos Aires, which encountered turbulence in Mexico. That doesn't mean the NTSB would have records on every such incident, but I used the database query as a check to see if the Flight 952 incident was likely to have actually happened. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Blood Red Sandman's research. --Ybbor ^Talk 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blood Red Sandman. Gan fon 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete IT NEVER HAPPENED, as Lipstick notes. The first clue might be that there was no airline mentioned, just "Flight 952". If it had really happened, this would be just another badly written article... it isn't every day that airplanes just split in two because of "pessure". Mandsford 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of an airline. 70.55.86.129 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mandsford and 70.55.86.129, please be aware that although no airline was mentioned, it was originaly linked to Mexicana's Wiki article, and as per abaove I traced the airframe to Mexicana, so no problems with that aspect - just another bad title. I'll agree with you it never split in half though - instead of being written off, it's still regularly flying. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Can you point to even one Internet site, outside of Wikipedia, where this incident is mentioned? An accident doesn't have to be a fatality to be mentioned in databases like airdisaster.com; was it in the news somewhere? Can you find anything reliable with a google search? Mandsford 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'm not saying it's not a hoax altogether, I'm saying that the lack of airline counts for nothing and is not what makes it a hoax, since I succesfuly traced it to the same airline who's article it was originaly linked to. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, it's just a copy-and-paste, no reason to let it stay for 5 days. Punkmorten 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svetla Yablanska[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear nonsense. The text is a bio of Santiago Cañizares, a footballer already covered; I can't see any connection with the article name. --Javits2000 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is also listed and discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Mihaylov--Tikiwont 07:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete don't redirect; writing Karen Taylor (fictional character) to get a redirect to Nia Peeples is unlikely. Sr 13 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Taylor (fictional character)[edit]

DELETE This is only a minor recurring character. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough character to warrant an article. Merge some content back to show page? Corpx 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nia Peeples. JJL 22:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not present any secondary sources to establish notability, per WP:N. --maclean 22:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylee (Y&R)[edit]

DELETE. This character appeared once, in April, and does not look likely to appear on the show again. Kogsquinge 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability of character, no secondary sources provided. --maclean 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Hills Village[edit]

This article should be deleted on the grounds that no sources are cited (not even the mall's own website, if there is one). Also, there is a notability issue with this mall as it appears to be a standard mall. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 July 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In spite of the rather detailed history given here there is no real proof of notability. Possibly OR too, given the lack of sourcing. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a shopping center - Shopping centers are not inherently notable Corpx 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, default is keep JodyB_talk 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine[edit]

This page is little more than a PR rewrite describing the actions of a small group of people. Dakdakdak 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article named in the title of this section/transcluded page doesn't appear to be the one nominated for deletion. --ElKevbo 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, this page is little more than a redirect to an article on a public university, which I would assume to be notable. Maxa megalon 2000 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now I'm just confused. --Maxa megalon 2000 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the nom's edit history, it appears that what xe intended to nominate was Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. I've attempted to emend this page to indicate that; hope it works. Deor 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not part of the University of Oregon (if it were, it wouldn't be separately notable). They call their senior staff faculty, but there are no students. Its an independent institute with an ambiguous title, & notable, it's because of its extremely controversial path. But there need to be some independent references. Otherwise, merge with the article on its founder. DGG 03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to clarify, for anyone who may be coming in late: The article name that originally appeared in this AfD was Oregon Health and Sciences University, which is what ElKevbo and Maxamegalon2000 were commenting on above. Deor 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. There's not really enough evidence of notability in the article, but this group's role in the Oregon Petition might make it notable as a separate organization. I don't have a problem with redirecting to Arthur B. Robinson. If the article is kept, it should be made clear that this organization is regarded as a political organization/think-tank rather than an academic/research organization. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little evidence of any notability.--Sefringle^Talk 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recent news and 180 archived news. John Vandenberg 06:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - notability established. Only delete argument is WP:JNN. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pageflakes[edit]

Delete as not notable. Sapphic 22:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. A Google search returns more than 5 million hits, the top 50 of which contains multiple third party non-SPS sources. Ranks among top 10K site, which is not trivial. --soum ^talk 06:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing a few reviews which show PageFlakes is one of the top three start page sites, it seems notable enough for me. It may be competing niche market, but by no means in an insignificant one. --soum ^talk 08:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A promising-looking stub about a service in a fairly niche market. Notable enough for me. Will McGree 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prue Brown[edit]

DELETE. This character will only be a short-term guest. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. A mention in Frazer Yeats and Ringo Brown would be enough. Kogsquinge 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Not notable. --Bill.matthews 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE As per above. Hardcore gamer 48 09:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Penny Cook absolutely yes Prue Brown minor character no - Ye Gods is Neighbours still running? God I'm old :) Paxse 13:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already renamed. NawlinWiki 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation Hypothesis[edit]

Rename to Simulation hypothesis --Sapphic 01:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. in line with Wikipedia capitalization guidelines for titles. Doczilla 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 except those withdrawn by the nominator. —Kurykh 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ledbetter[edit]

There appears to be systemic bias in respect of several articles relating to the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, a body that is notable in its own right but whose individual members are not notable unless they have achieved notability through other activities. It seems apparent that the creator of these articles is a member of the ACS committee acting via 195.50.93.237 and that one of the articles is about himself. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of apparent systemic bias and because none of these subjects have notability outside the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians:

--BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete all. I don't know much about sports statisticians, but none of these people look notable to my untrained eye. Calliopejen1 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For information. This deletion page has been blanked by PatsyHendren who is believed to be the creator of these articles. A warning has been placed on his talk page. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The organisation is notable (or at least borderline), but individual members and officers are not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that BlackJack — Wikipedia's premier cricket historian — is making this nomination is significant. My opinions:
Neutral on Philip Bailey (statistician) because I have heard of him in his Cricinfo context.

Merge ACS Statistician of the Year into Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians.

Neutral on Robert Brooke (statistician) per discussion below. (Added 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)).

Delete all others.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete all. per Calliopejen1 --Bill.matthews 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nothing notable about these people. You dont gain notability by serving on a board of this magnitude Corpx 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete all These statisticians worked for or volunteered for record keeping. As such, they are no more notable than those who volunteered for, or worked for, any other organization or company. Cricket is a notable sport, and the association which maintains records of it may be notable, but that does not percolate down to every worker. Billions of people are employed and/or volunteer to be on a board, without becoming encyclopedically notable. They would have had to have multiple and substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources, and the obituaries, personal websites, and links to the statistical association do not satisfy that. These articles fail WP:BIO. That said, the article were nicely written. Edison 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Bailey. Not very interested in the rest. Tintin 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I have a lot of respect for any views expressed by both Tintin and Stephen Turner. As it happens I have been a little uncertain myself about Philip Bailey because I have remembered that he is the statistician and record-keeper for both "Playfair Cricket Annual" and "Wisden Cricketers Alamanack". As such, I think he is notable enough, but his article needs expansion. Providing I am allowed to do so, I wish to withdraw the nomination in his case. Having said that, I have no doubts at all about the other nominees. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Ledbetter. However I think that at least Bailey, Brooke, Lodge and Vic Isaacs are genuinely notable. Lodge has had "proper" books (ie other than ACS publications) published, though this is not obvious from his article. (In fact most of these articles are weak on their subjects' non-ACS activities.) Isaacs was Hampshire scorer for over 30 years. Philip Bailey is one of the two people behind CricketArchive, which I think makes him notable. Robert Brooke edited the Cricketer Quarterly IIRC, and had a column in The Cricketer. I think that most of the others should go, but if Bailey and Brooke are to go then, to be consistent, so should John Leach (writer). OK, I wouldn't really be in favour of that. :) JH (talk page) 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be in favour (but I know some people who wouldn't)!! Seriously, I think a lot more information is needed about Brooke as my knowledge of him is that he was the editor and, er, "book reviewer" for the ACS' own journal. If he has done more than that it needs to be in the article. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add something to his article. Hopefully I can find a citation for the Cricketer Quarterly editorship. (This was a statistical supplement to The Cricketer which could be bought independently of the magaizine.) JH (talk page) 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon has several books by Brooke. His columns were made into a book in the late 1980s but it is not listed there. Vic Isaacs was the co-author (with Bill Frindall) of Wisden Book of One day cricket - the counterpart of the much more famous book on Test cricket. The first edition came out in 1985, don't know whether there were more editions. Amazon has a small Hants records book.

I've now expanded Robert Brooke with as much material as a brief search on the web would turn up. The new Bibliography section includes all of his books that Amazon UK are aware of. I found an online article from an issue of The Times from somewhen in 2003, saying that he was statistician and historian for The Cricketer. He may well still be so, but I don't have any evidence for that. JH (talk page) 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Brooke and Bailey. —Moondyne 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. Having read the expanded article about Robert Brooke and also made a couple of verbal enquiries about him, it appears I have underestimated him and I would like to withdraw his article from this nomination. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for an admin: if I as nominator wish to withdraw a nomination, can I remove the AfD tag from the article or am I committed to this process? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were 100% opposes to the nomination, then it would be OK to request the nomination be withdrawn, and that would generally need to be done by a closing admin, not yourself. However, if there's mixed votes, as we have have here, you're pretty much committed to see it through to its conclusion. The tags really should stay on the Brooke and Bailey pages for the time being. —Moondyne 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Moondyne. Much appreciated. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For information. The person who blanked this page on Monday is masquerading under at least four usernames: User talk:BlueJohnMine, User talk:PatsyHendren, User talk:Soames and User talk:JackHearne as well as under the IP address quoted above. He is indeed the subject of one of the articles nominated and he has sent me a personal e-mail to tell me in no uncertain terms that I have no right to amend "his article" without his permission and that I am acting "beyond my remit" in trying to delete the articles about "prominent members" of the ACS. He has been served a number of warnings on Wikipedia besides one about blanking this page. May I suggest that one of the admins investigates his activities and takes the appropriate action. Thank you. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This point is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Admin assistance required, and it might be better to concentrate the discussion there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely appear that some of these articles should be deleted. I note that if any are kept (including the ones withdrawn from the nomination), the use of Category:English statisticians is a bit confusing, as the primary usage of that category is for statistical researchers, quite a different thing to compilers of sports statistics. JPD (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very good point. I've removed all cricket people from Category:English statisticians as they are inappropriate to that category. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Bailey, Brooke and Vic Isaacs, who's also doubled as a reporter for Cricinfo ([27]) amongst other roles. --Dweller 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent. Huw Nathan is the membership secretary of the ACS and a similarly nepotic article about him was summarily deleted very speedily in this discussion. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Coldheart[edit]

Non-notable character from obscure TV show. Gammondog 11:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mentions in the media except trivial ones Corpx 16:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "DICversioned programme" apprently refers to Drive In Classics? Do they make their own versions of television shows? Corvus cornix 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Dicversioned programme" probably refers to DiC Entertainment. Still not notable. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources for real world context. Jay32183 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Friedmann, Politician[edit]

Non notable - politician running for a minor office. Trugster 10:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might be notable if he wins the election, but from what the article currently says, he's not presently notable enough for his own article. (See WP:BIO for inclusion criteria.) --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he wins, I dont think he'll gain notability because he's just a local politician ("county legislature in district 7 of Rockland County"). Corpx 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This strickes me as a campaign advertisement. —The preceding comment is by User:Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!
The link to this page from the article page no longer works. It has been edited by user:71.251.20.83 to alter the spelling of the name. WP:AGF suggests that the anon is simply correcting the spelling as the same edit also adds a good deal of background on the subject. None of the added material suggests the subject it currently notable. I am going to edit the AFD template so that it points here. If that is incorrect please let me know. I am watching this page and the article. Thanks Trugster 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evilclown93 under A7 critera. --Hetar 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesan Velayathan[edit]

Doesn't assert notability well, no verification. east.718 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard under CSD A7 criteria. --Hetar 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saad imtiaz[edit]

Not notable. WP:SPA creator removed {{db-bio}} tag. east.718 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:BIO completely. No reason to keep this longer than required. Also, block the creator for a) spamming Wikipedia with an obviously non-encyclopedic autobiography and b) removing the speedy tag from an article he created himself. The speedy tag clearly tells him what to do and not to do with the tag. MartinDK 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. I would have put a speedy tag on the article itself but am reluctant to do so because of the AfD template already there. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, CSD A1, A7. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a7. Yeah, you don't have to take it when someone removes the speedy tag. That's a violation of policy. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete When in the first couple sentences the most significant fact is what kind of soda to subject likes, you know you're looking at a non-notable article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for deletion cite possible WP:COI issues, which has been disputed if not refuted, and is not supported by evidence, and WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV issues, which can be handled by rewriting rather than deletion -- the move is a reasonable start on that. Arguments for keeping establish notability by means of press coverage, and discussions of usefulness where are really not to the point. Note that "merge" is a form of "keep", and a possible future merge can always be done without an AfD provided that there is consensus on the relevant talk page or pages. DES ^(talk) 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Phillips -> Katherine Phillips detention incident[edit]

Was delete-tagged "{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Wikipedia is not a news service, borderline notability}}}|month = July|day = 2|year = 2007|time = 07:42|timestamp = 20070702074219}}" and then was tagged {{hangon}}.

Talk:Katherine Phillips says: This page should not be deleted as it describes the pitfalls of teaching overseas if a teacher comes into conflict with a student from an influential family. Unlawful detention of overseas workers is a violation of human rights and articles like this which illustrate the dangers serve to benefit humanity at large. Further, this article is a helpful reminder to American ex-pats that they should not depend on their embassy to assist them when they are being unlawfully detained. The case detailed in this article is cited by a regional and international news organization and is being widely discussed in various Internet educational discussion forums. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GFRD,GFRD:2007-03,GFRD:en&q=kuwait+katherine+phillips

08:18, 2 July 2007 Anthony Appleyard 09:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Requires massive cleanup, given rampant NPOV issues and uncited OR, but it shouldn't take much to replace the article with three or four paragraphs covering the Reuters and what-not, especially since that last link contains multiple emails from the subject. As the nom mentioned, it is plainly possible to make a proper case for notability, albeit not an overwhelmingly strong one. MrZaius^talk 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep:~~ The argument that this article ought to be kept because this represents a valuable lesson to others is unpersuasive and has zero grounding in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. What does is that it just barely passes WP:V, although I agree that it might be better suited to a Katherine Phillips detention incident article. Which it seems to have been, so I'm changing my view to Merge. RGTraynor 16:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like an atempt by the person invloved to try to drum up international support for her case. Corvus cornix 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Agree with move to Katherine Phillips detention incident. I agree that we are not a news service, but this is not really even a big news story at this point. The tabloids and the news channels have not covered it at all. The three references are Reuters, The Arab Times, and International Schools Review. It is not a routine crime story, but more of a case of teacher abuse in Kuwait, which could be an article. The teacher (actually assistant principal) allegedly ran afoul of a rich Kuwaiti businessman by giving his son a day's detention in the office for fighting in school. Now the government of that country won't let her leave on grounds that she "put him in jail" illegally. The references include other instances of powerful and rich families threatening teachers for trying to punish their children for cheating, or for giving them low grades. The International Schools Review has as a result advised foreigh teacher not to return to Kuwait. The teacher fails WP:BIO, but the incident of a teacher following school policies blowing up into a minor international incident is somewhat notable. At the same time, if someone at the White House made a call to the Emir and the teacher was allowed to leave the country, it would be a tempest in a teapot and not very encyclopedic. This is not "Help people who feel threatened and are getting bullied by rich jerks-pedia" or "Substitute for the US Embassy which is not doing its job-pedia." Edison 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Don't KeepNo, the article was not created by the person involved just to gain sympathy; rather, it was written by a concerned US ex-pat who lives in another emirate. Having said that, Ms. Phillips will probably be allowed to leave Kuwait shortly, and by shortly, I mean within a few weeks or months; she'll probably be home by Christmas. Thousands of laborers, unskilled workers, maids, etc are virtually imprisoned in these emirates for years without pay. In many cases suicide is preferable to the abuse. Perhaps this is the article that needs to be written and Ms. Phillips' story can be linked from there. This is let's share information for the betterment of humankind-apedia, is it not? And if not, then perhaps Wikipedia's critics are correct when they say this site is little more than a repository for over generalizations and glorified trivia masquerading as information .

Are you saying merge with Human rights in Kuwait? The article in discussion is not an article about the general human rights track record of Kuwait. MrZaius^talk 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOAP. Corvus cornix 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:NOT. Despite the persistent efforts of many of Wikipedia's critics to push this encyclopedia into becoming an advocacy forum for this cause or that, I'm afraid that, in fact, it remains an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Wikipedia is not meant to be a soap box, but even a rich article about a past and current controversy can and should influence opinion despite being written from a NPOV. Slavery. Genocide. Human rights abuses. Cold hard numbers can speak volumes. Regarding the case of one detained educator, putting a face on one incident of worker abuse does not, in my opinion, cross the line from encyclopedic information source to advocacy. WP:SOAP allows as much, ". . .Of course, an article can report objectively about (advocacy etc), as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." The article, influenced by useful comments here has been heavily revised and moved to Katherine Phillips detention incident and should be deleted from simply Katherine Phillips (where it conflicts with a 17th century poet of the same name)User:Davidallenoliver I do need admin help with a redirect. Thanks 06:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Phillips has been redirected toKatherine Phillips detention incidentOliver 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, please review "merging or moving the article during the discussion [at]...the guide to deletion" per the AfD template. It is generally preferred to let the person closing the discussion implement the selected fix. MrZaius^talk 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't add my vote on the keep or don't keep debate, I will however state that since the incident behind the article has been resolved (Katherine Phillips has been released), the article is pretty well self contained in it's current revision. Also, since I personally know the owner of the International Schools Review website that originally posted Ms. Phillips letter, and this article does provide a link to those articles, I will try to make sure that International Schools Review doesn't delete those pages. (I am not directly affiliated with the International Schools Review site, I just contract to make updates to some of the program code.) I will also state that I was delighted to discover this article on Wikipedia (which I use heavily), even if it only remains for a short time. Thanks -Draxxon 06:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability is not temporary, and WP is not a news service. EyeSerene^TALK 09:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melanie Brown#Personal life. NawlinWiki 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Gulzar[edit]

Non-encyclopedic chap - was previously a redirect to Mel B, which I believe is no longer worth it Petesmiles 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on your reasoning? Just brushing it off as "unencyclopedic" tells us nothing. Morgan Wick 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing s/he is referring to the fact that this man is famous for absolutely nothing other than having been briefly married to one of the Spice Girls....... ChrisTheDude 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that's exactly right, Chris - thanks.... Petesmiles 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Redirect~~ Keep Canley has done fine work in updating /- unless someone can be bothered to add > 1 line about him Kernel Saunters 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article considerably. I understand and agree that he's only famous for being married to a Spice Girl, but whatever the reason, he is notable now - the subject of a BBC documentary and a load of articles on his various assault charges! --Canley 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Canley. That he only entered the public eye through his wife is obvious, but plainly there are many news articles about his doings, most well after his divorce. That's a pass on WP:V. RGTraynor 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. Nothing worth keeping, only famous for 1 thing and that is the marriage. Metallicash 18:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Violation of WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, no. As I stated in my reversion of your removal of almost all the article's content, WP:BLP calls for the removal of poorly sourced or completely unsourced contentious material, and specifies that sources used must be of high quality. Each and every one of the sourced statements you removed were from the BBC or CNN. You cannot claim that those sources are suspect. RGTraynor 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are no blp issues as far as I can see Kernel Saunters 09:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BLP. There's more to WP:BLP than sources alone. For one thing, this article violates NPOV as it is not a neutral, balanced biography. WP:BLP amplifies the problem by its requirement that policies should be strictly observed in BLPs. This is not a biography and unlikely to become one due to the unbiographic nature of the available sources. As such, it will always have serious WP:WEIGHT/WP:SYN/notability problems. Unless the guy becomes "notable" as in "encyclopedic" some day; if that happens, I'm sure we will see sufficient sources to write his biography. Avb ÷ talk 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've removed the BLP violations. Please do not revert without a consensus to do so (i.e. Keep). Avb ÷ talk 10:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but why did you remove the BBC press release about the documentary? That doesn't violate WP:BLP, surely. I hope you didn't just delete everything except the first line. --Canley 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a source, no; like most of what I wiped, this item is verifiable. Ideally the article should be deleted and/or redirected straight away; I only left a neutral stub for the duration of the AfD. The problem is that we need more diverse information for a bio. Perhaps it helps if you ask yourself what you would want your own bio to look like. To me this is in the spirit of WP:BLP; but its letter is also informative. See e.g. here. Also note that a redirect can be done keeping the history intact, so that it would be easier to retrieve if the article can be revived at some point in the future if we have enough information to write a true biography. Avb ÷ talk 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. --Canley 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The marriage is covered adequately in Melanie Brown and the Gulzar article seems to have been used, recently, as a coatrack for all kinds of silly tabloid stories. We obviously don't want to encourage people who come here to abuse Wikipedia in this way. --Tony Sidaway 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I was the one who expanded the article, and believe me I have no opinion of Mr Gulzar one way or the other. I certainly had no intention to be mean to him[28], to "abuse Wikipedia", or to use the article as a "coat-rack" for POV opinions. I'm a strong supporter of WP:BLP policies, but in my opinion this is going a bit far. I guess that's the perils of using the media as a source, even "silly tabloids" like the BBC are more likely to report negative stories such as criminal activities, foolish statements and accusations. I made considerable effort to keep the article neutral but if this comes down to a notability issue then so be it. --Canley 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify - I didn't want to cast aspersions on you at all - and apologies if it came across that way. You'd probably agree though that the article had a negative tone (which yes, reflects the sources) - and I see that as a) conflicting with trying to be neutral and b) not very nice / mean! - thanks, Petesmiles 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the "Jimmy Goldcard" reference, which was exceptionally poorly sourced and seemed quite gratuitous, was the worst thing about the article. The rest is for the most part just celebrity gossip. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I didn't add that by the way! --Canley 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am no sure it even rates as trivia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not transferred by association. EyeSerene^TALK 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. enochlau (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CD Publishing[edit]

Seemigly non-notable. Has been deleted once before under notability guidelines. For a publishing company their site only lists 11 books. No news stories that I can locate, no evidence of any notability. Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Hughes[edit]

I call WP:BIO - Non-notable self advertisment Peter Rehse 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a WP:COI violation from the very beginning in 2005. Shalom ^Hello 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tags have been in place here for well over a year to encourage improvement of the article, with no effect. A claimed link (see article talk page) to a verifiable site concerning an honour for this chap has never been inserted into the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAPPI[edit]

Clear Conflict of interest; author's username = article name and he has 4 edits as of my writing this. I honestly can't tell, without references, whether this group is notable, but the burden of proof rests with the author. I am also nominating the following miscellany:

User:TAPPI - similar content as the article.

Shalom ^Hello 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs to be monitored for COI problems, apparently, but TAPPI is certainly a notable organisation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as noted by Starblind. (COI notice: I placed the tags there.) Bearian 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the leading organisation in the industry. I've editing it down-it said everything at least twice, including an irrelevant justification of why trade organizations are important. DGG 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers alone don't necessarily create notability. Unsourced numbers... ? -- Y not? 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources if one looks for them. Google News Archives for TAPPI +paper brings 3,500 results. They're notable enough that even personnel changes within the organisation make news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. The consensus is clear. Those firms that may ber actually notable can have new articles written by editors not in violation of WP:COI. If any such editor wants any of these articels userfied for reference i will provide it. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 Ventures[edit]

Blatant COI by User:Danthony21 (presumably the David Anthony listed on 21 Ventures' management team), on 21 Ventures and its companies Dicklyon 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about private companies funded by 21 Ventures (Or their product), and all were created by Danthony21:

Addendum: You might as well throw in

another of 21 Ventures' investments, though this article is originally the work of Yfrimer (talk · contribs), for which this constitutes his entire contribution to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "A golden ring on a pig's nose" (Book of Proverbs) - the references don't ameliorate the fundamental WP:NPOV problem caused by the COI. Shalom ^Hello 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam. See WP:COIN#21 Ventures. MER-C 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no claim of notability is made here, and there are multiple COI problems as noted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvagable POV due to COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to the substancial conflict of interest and the fact its simple SPAM, nor is suitable. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for the main article, delete the others. The company probably is just notable enough. DGG 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? The article's only refs are some press releases and a trade magazine announcement that clearly started out as a press release. Wikipedia doesn't really do faith-based notability. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Welcome to David Anthony's unsourced and unnotable walled garden. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, delete some:
- 21 Ventures -- it meets our notability critieria by having an article written about it in the Jerusalem Post.^[29]
- BioPetroClean appears non-notable
- BioNanoMatrix has multiple articles in the Philadelphia Business Journal^[30][31] -- but is that publication notable? (The parent, American City Business Journals, has an article, but most of its papers do not -- this question has been a gray area in discussions of notability in other AfDs.) From skimming the first 100 Google search results, I'm guessing BioNanoMatrix may be notable.
- Juice Wireless has articles in GigaOM,^[32] venturebeat.com,^[33] American Venture Magazine,^[34] Business Week (but just 2 paragraphs),^[35] Mobile Marketing Magazine,^[36] Wireless Week,^[37] and Xchange Magazine.^[38]
- JuiceCaster is a Juice Wireless product and should be merged into Juice Wireless.

I did not have time to check out Orion. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected to List of magical objects in Gargoyles. NawlinWiki 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Gate[edit]

The article is on a fictional object with no sources to establish real world significance. Jay32183 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:FICT. Material not suitable for Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to List of magical objects in Gargoyles. It is a rather important plot element to the Gargoyles story, and it's highly plausible that someone will try and look it up here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a criterion for inclusion. Importance to the plot is irrelevant if there is no real world information. Jay32183 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And did I argue for including this article? I proposed redirecting it elsewhere - that's completely different. "Merge" does not mean "copy this information and paste it there". The intent behind my comment is to take a few pertinent lines and list it in the "magical objects" article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is unsourced, so there isn't anything to merge. Jay32183 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the information is the television show. Primary sources are acceptable for factual, neutral information. The paragraph that exists in the "magical objects" article is likely sufficient in which case a redirect will accomplish what I mentioned, but I suggest "merge/redirect" to allow for some discretion there. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Not notable outside the show and can be adequately covered in the list of magical objects. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edward) Michael Porrazzo[edit]

Blatant coi, self-promotion, and such Dicklyon 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The article seems to fit the notability guideline however the conflict of interest does come into play. I would suggest deleting it and having it re-written from a neutral point of view more suitable for wikipedia with less copyrighted text etc. So therefor I suggest...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conforms? I thought that required refs to sources. Even his sock puppet hasn't helped there. Dicklyon 06:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- AfD is not a vote but a discussion. You are expected to provide some reasoning for your opinion, not just spout "keep" or "delete". Morgan Wick 08:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without outside references. The award of patents is not enough and there is not the slightest evidence otherwise to support anything in the article. DGG 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find much verifiable in this page written by Mr. Porrazzo. Claims "Discovers Fractal Wave/Particle component of Electromagnetic Spectrum and Invents first practical "Fractal" planar antenna". The patent cited - 5,627,903 does not use the word "fractal" nor does it claim or depict a fractal antenna. Nathan Cohen holds numerous fractal antenna patents and does not reference Porrazzo as prior art. suggest deletion Robertboarst 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I observe that the above comment is the only edit Robertboarst has ever made. Tualha (Talk) 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I had doubted it at first due to the outrageous claims, this person does in fact exist, and is listed as co-inventor on each of the cited patents (though, as Robertboarst points out, #5,627,903 is for a transducer, not an antenna). He is also co-author of The Parents' Guide. While I did not find the other books, please note that all of those, and the claim that Patent #5,627,903 is for an antenna, and the outrageous claims of inventions made in childhood and patented much later, were all added by anonymous user 217.126.123.20 (consolidated diff). (However, please also note that in Mporrazzo's most recent version, he claims he "holds the equivalence of two PhDs from the Advanced Data Institute", which he also claims to have founded!)

This article is, of course, blatant coi. That guideline points out that while coi "is not a reason to delete an article...lack of notability is." Mr. Porrazzo has invented some interesting devices, which might bring him fame in the future, but thus far his work does not seem to have garnered strong public recognition. Therefore, I recommend that we delete this article, and the associated images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), all of which will be orphaned if this article is deleted. Tualha (Talk) 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am putting this here for context. Please repeat wherever appropriate.) Vsandor (presumably the "Veronika Sandor" credited on his photo) appears to be Mr. Porrazzo's meatpuppet. All three of her edits are related to him in some way. Her first act, three minutes after her account was created, was to remove the proposed deletion from his article. This now-orphaned image mentions Porrazzo and cites one of his patents. I recommend deletion for the image and blocking for the user. Tualha (Talk) 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranma Vol. 32[edit]

Can't recall that an individual volumes of manga were notable. Article is entirely recaps of each chapter, a possible violation of WP:NOT. No reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Confusing Manifestation 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per if not WP:NOT then at least a liberal interpretation of WP:EPISODE (based on perfectly straightforward interpretations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:ATT) - if there are no reliable third-party sources discussing Ranma Vol. 32 (and I highly doubt that there would be), then the article shouldn't be there. Confusing Manifestation 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book, from a notable series, published by a notable publisher, and by a really notable mangaka. So based on that I don't see any reason this wouldn't be notable enough for an article by our notability standards. (WP:BK is the applicable one.) Reviews and the like would be simple to find as well, whether in English or otherwise, and aren't present simply due to lack of effort on the part of the authors.
That said though, it really kind of sucks in its present form. Why is there an article on Volume 32 but not the previous 31 anyway? Further, why is none of the basic information about its publication or anything else present, even though it would be totally possible to write that part with 10 minutes of thought? On top of that, it's at the wrong title.
~~So... I'm not sure what to vote here. Disagree with all the arguments for deletion, but I really don't care, perhaps?~~ Keep anyway, it wouldn't take much to bring it up to standard. --tjstrf talk 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last I checked, individual volumes aren't notable enough for their own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual books in a series are indeed notable enough for their own articles. Certainly, it's not the standard way of organizing information on manga series, but as I laid out above, there should be no notability issue here. Have any other reason that I didn't address which you're using to say it's not notable? --tjstrf talk 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason individual DVDs aren't notable. Is there any 3rd party info on them? Is there something that makes it stand out from the other 31 volumes? Individual books often have 3rd party RS, and if they don't they stay within the author or series's article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RS of what? The book's existence, or critical reviews and the like? The first is incredibly simple to find, the second would probably require a magazine archive but still almost certainly exists since Ranma is a rather major series (though in my opinion, it doesn't deserve it). In fact, reviews are far more commonly done on a volume-by-volume basis than for series as a whole. As for individual DVDs not being notable, groups of 5 of them are. --tjstrf talk 03:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reviews and such, it's obvious that it exists considering I have it. We already have a lists of manga chapters. I don't see any need to separate then by volumes, especially since not all volumes contain the same chapters. Volumes differ between countries and companies who translate them. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What next, articles on individual comic magazine issues? Articles on a single novel chapter? Because this isn't much better. I also don't know of another case where we create articles for each individual manga volumes, or even individual DVD releases. And considering the length of most manga series, such practices is absurd. --Farix (Talk) 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido Shinju-kai[edit]

Not that notable Aikido club - advertisement Peter Rehse 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable, very little info written like an add. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious nn spam. VanTucky 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JJL 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the numerical result would be "Delete". The arguments for deletion are a challenge to notability, and suggestions that the content would be better as part of other arguments, and an implicit suggestion of "undue weight". The notability arguments are refuted by the mention of the scholarly account, if not by the fame of the people involved. What remains is a good argument for merging, but not for deletion. but since no one was arguing for a merge per se that can not be the consensus result. So i am closing this as No Consensus. Note that a merge and redirect can be done at any time without an AfD. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch's testamentum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Petrarch's testamentum

Article is about Petrarch's last will and testament. Doesn't assert notability, and I don't think the will of a famous person is automatically an encyclopedic subject. First paragraph is copied verbatim from this website, without attribution; the rest seems to be copied from public domain sources, but I must admit some anxiety as to whether any text is copied from the Mommsen edition listed in the "reference" section. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything notable in this is already covered in other articles. Is there no way to persuade this guy to stop cobbling together snippets of Web sites, books, and other WP articles to create unnecessary new articles? Deor 12:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the will of a famous person may not automatically be an encyclopedic subject, when the will names Giovanni Boccaccio as one of his heirs, Petrarch's disposition of his property marked the foundation of a major library, and the will was apparently the subject of a scholarly book, it seems notable enough to get by. Adding this back into Petrarch would make that article much longer, and a separate article on the will may well be justified. FWIW, I looked at the website, and if anything was copied, it was the date of the document and the list of the heirs. These are uncopyrightable facts. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at the entry for 1370 on that website. It's the same as the first paragraph in this article, with the exception of the phrase "besides his son-in-law Francescuolo da Brossano as the executor of the estate". The date and identity of heirs are uncopyrightable, but the individual wording of these facts, such as "His heirs, among others, are Gherardo (his brother), Boccaccio..." are copyrightable. The point is that the creator of this article makes a habit of taking snippets from other websites, altering the text superficially, and copying it into Wikipedia.

As for merging back into Petrarch, I think it would be easy, because Petrarch's testamentum includes very little significant material that's not already covered in other articles. Let's go paragraph by paragraph:

- - Paragraph 1 tells us that "Petrarch wrote his will on April 4, 1370." I'm not sure this is significant, but it might be. The rest of the paragraph lists people named in the will; of those, only Boccaccio and Francescuolo da Brossano are worth mentioning.
  - Paragraph 2 is about da Brossano; but he's got his own article, so we don't need to cover him extensively in Petrarch.
  - Paragraph 3 is about where Petrarch wanted to be buried; interesting, but not necessary material for an encyclopedia, and doesn't have to go in Petrarch.
  - Next is a list of items left to his heirs. Most of this we don't need; simply mention that he willed "memore of his ristrettezze" and fifty florins to Boccaccio (why didn't whoever wrote this translate the Italian?). If you want to add "Francescuolo da Brossano was the executor of his estate and got most of the swag," fine.
    - This omits the clause, in Morris Bishop, that half of Brossano's share was left to him on the understanding that it should go to Petrarch's natural daughter Francesca; what is the point of this detail if Petrarch's actual wishes are omitted? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paragraph 4 is about the fate of Petrarch's library, which already gets its own article. There should be something about it in Petrarch already--yep, there's a sentence.
  - Paragraph 5 is about where Petrarch lived in his last years. This material is already in Petrarch, at the end of the "biography" section.

So, I think it would be simplicity itself to take the useful content from this article and put it in the biographical article where it belongs. After that I would delete this article, because I don't think it's a useful redirect--will many people search for "Petrarch's testamentum"? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However they would quite likely search for Petrarch's Will or Petrarch's Last Will, or Petrarch's Last Will and Testament, or maybe even Petrarch's testament - redirects already in place.--Doug ^talk 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as part of the deletion, these can be amended to point to Petrarch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Library-relevant references can go in Biblioteca Marciana, anything else in Petrarch, but creating separate pages for wills -- even of people far more famous (and with far more to dispose of) than Petrarch -- is very much out of the ordinary. RandomCritic 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Petrarch's library. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deor and RandomCritic. Wareh 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First I will have to say that I believe this is not a good faith election to delete an article. Akhilleus is not working in good faith to actually delete an article he feels should be deleted (since he never brought it up before), but just nominated this (along with several other articles I started) after an undesirable outcome from a decision of a highly disputed article. This article Akhilleus knew about before, but only elected it because he did not approve the decision of the outcome of another settlement. Now I will try to answer the objections of the article itself (which mostly are nit-picky minor points). First I will have to say, Why didn't any of these objections come up prior to the outcome of this other settlement. Many items can just be edited like any other article, if the objections are brought up like in any other article. For example:

I also am confused on the listing of the names, which I feel also are uncopyrightable facts. If it is in fact just the objection of the wording: ""His heirs, among others, are Gherardo (his brother), Boccaccio..." - it so happens if you look closely at the article, this wording is not used. The actual wording is "His heirs, among others besides his son-in-law Francescuolo da Brossano as the executor of the estate, are Gherardo (his brother), Giovanni Boccaccio..." This wording certainly can be reworded, if it is a good faith dispute.

- Additional reasons to keep this article of "Petrarch's testamentum" are:
  - The Will names Giovanni Boccaccio as one of his heirs - a very notable person in his own right.
  - Petrarch's disposition of his property marked the foundation of a major library - the Biblioteca Marciana.
  - Should be a seperate article so that it doesn't make the Francesco Petrarch's article even more lengthy .
  - It speaks of Petrarch's son-in-law Francescuolo da Brossano, which happens to be another article.
  - The Will was the subject of Theodor E. Mommesen's 1957 book Petrarch's Testament.

There is no text copied from this book, so this is just speculation from Akhilleus to make the article look bad. It so happens that I scanned all pages of this book when I was studying it. If anyone wants a particular page I will be glad to e-mail to them -or- they can get a copy at their local library (or through ILL) or at a large University library (most have a copy). It should be noted that the article has never been edited by any Wikipedian since its introduction in May. Petrarch and anything related to Petrarch is read daily by several Wikipedians as well as many scholars worldwide. If there was truely any objections to any of these nit-picky points, somebody would have said something before and certainly brought it up. This shows that it is not really a community consenses of the objection to the article itself, but just basicaly a venting by Akhilleus because of a previous outcome of an article he elected to be deleted. This now is even in dispute as some feel he has circumvented the AFD process by just redirecting the article rather than going through the recommended process.--Doug ^talk 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not civil to accuse other editors of acting in bad faith. I'd appreciate it if you retracted that accusation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out that I am just interested in working on articles in good faith. I have no particular interest in trying to delete others articles or make any particular person look bad (as I personnally do not know them), however am interested in improving all Wikipedia article and policies. As a matter of fact I have never elected an article to be deleted. I would rather contribute in good faith to improve articles. However sometimes there may be a rule or part not quite right. Usually this is minor and it is always unintentional, since I am not trying to circumvent anything. I would even dare to say other Wikipedians make similar mistakes. Just edit in good faith, as I am doing just that. Then perhaps we wouldn't have all these hot disputes. I believe my points will stand, since the article that you didn't get a favorable conclusion on of that you wanted of being to Delete it, however it was an end result of Keep on 30 June. On 2 July then you decided that several of the articles I started should be deleted or completely reworked. Does that sound like good faith? Does wording like "I must admit some anxiety as to whether any text is copied from the Mommsen edition listed in the "reference" section" when you don't know that for a fact. When you make statements like that, please be specific as to which text you think I copied from his book. I have all pages scanned, so I could double check your accusations and implications. Which text are you talking about, page number please - or is that also just implications? Please keep to these particular subjects at hand, thanks.--Doug ^talk 18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, in good faith, I think that Petrarch's testamentum, and many of the other articles you've contributed, aren't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Since I've already turned up one instance where you've plagiarized copyrighted text (on Genealogia deorum gentilium [39]), I think I'm in the right to worry that you've done it in other places, especially since the first paragraph of this article is a near-copy of text from another website. Only the phrase "besides his son-in-law Francescuolo da Brossano as the executor of the estate" breaks up what is otherwise a direct quote. Since the text is given without quotation marks and attribution, this is plagiarism. It's not very severe, but it is still copying someone else's text. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've rewritten the first paragraph to avoid plagiarism. Anyone curious about the copyright issue will need to look at this old version of the article, and compare to this website (check the year 1370). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, see what I'm talking about - excellent improvement. Now isn't that better to edit to make improvements like others usually do on all the other Wikipedia articles, instead of just nominating an article for deletion. So obviously you want to make this article better and that's why you made this great improvement. Thanks for the improvement, it looks good! Now that's editing in good faith and working with other Wikipedians. Improving on articles is far easier and I think the proper thing to do - instead of just electing an article for deletion. That edit took maybe 30 seconds, however nominating an article for deletion takes days of time (not only for you, but for many others including administrators). Did you find the page number for the text you thought I might have copied from Mommsen's edition of Petrarch's Testamentum? Let me ask you: Have you read this book? When? --Doug ^talk 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you are not going repeat the canard that by editing the article I have changed my vote to keep, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism. Rest assured that I edited the article from a belief that plagiarism is a bad thing, and it should be removed from Wikipedia as quickly as feasable. I still think the best way to "improve" this article is to place the few sentences that are relevant in Plutarch and then to delete Petrarch's testamentum. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that then go under Parallel Lives or Plutarch's influences?--Doug ^talk 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional improvements to this article of Petrarch's testamentum.--Doug ^talk 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) And adding the word "among."--Doug ^talk 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find Coldwell's claimed reliance on Theodor Ernst Mommsen's edition doubtful. If he had the book before him, he would not persistently misspell the name of the editor and translator. It is, as indicated, Mommsen, not Mommesen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked my scans and you are exactly correct - I have misspelled his name. In addition, the front inside cover says "To Henry and Byba Coster" whomever they are. Would you know?--Doug ^talk 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC) This was just an accidental misspelling of a name. Sometimes other Wikipedians do that.--Doug ^talk 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and~~ delete per Akhilleus. The few statements of interest belong in Petrarch, and I will be adding them there. We don't have an article on George Washington's will although it is substantively interesting; this is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The testament that has perhaps been the subject of the most scholarly comment of all is Shakespeare's will, and WP doesn't have an article about that, either. Deor 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have included all that seems to me of general interest in Petrarch, here. In the process, I have discovered that Petrarch's library has a truly bizarre emphasis. As Morris Bishop says, "the books did not go to Venice, but fell into the hands of Padua's rulers, and thereafter were scattered all over Europe, from London to Naples." (p. 366) It therefore spends a great deal of space, including the lead, discussing something that did not happen. I will be editing, appropriately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I wrote a new lead to the library article. It probably needs more work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas tree (bodybuilding)[edit]

This article is incredibly short and I see no possibility it could ever be explained. It needs to be merged with one of numerous bodybuilding articles. There's no reason for it to exist as a separate article. Numerous other articles probably already contain the same information, which is simply a sentence. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it even needs to be incorporated into any other article. There is no content there. Bigwyrm 07:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, per Bigwyrm, and per WP:NEO, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:DICDEF. Oregongirl0407 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research and stub.--Sefringle^Talk 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. Perfectly good article. Sure, it's short right now, but that can change. It'd be good to have someone knowledgeable about anatomy to add content. And maybe a list of famous bodybuilders who have christmas trees. And maybe some pictures of christmas trees on famous BBs. I have been meaning to do this myself but can't find photos with appropriate copyrights. It is absolutely not OR: it's standard terminology in the BB world. And, if the article is expanded along the lines I suggest above, would be unsuitable for a dictionary entry. I'm only sorry I can't contribute to the article myself (not for lack of trying). Keep keep keep. Robinh 11:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polemic[edit]

Article is origional research and dictionary definition. No source after 4 years, and no encyclopediac content beyond definition. Sefringle^Talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It's not original research per se, but it is a dictionary definition and fails WP:NOT. Wiktionary already has an entry for it. If there were more to say about polemics, which is a branch of oratory, an article wouldn't be amiss, but this is nothing more than a dicdef. --Charlene 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Agree with Charlene. nlyons162 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make this redirect to wikitionary's entry?
Keep, the best solution for the raised problems is to edit the article. This is linked to by 100s of articles. John Vandenberg 12:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, afd is not an improvement mechanism. the idea is notalbe and encyclopedic, it should have been marked for improvement, citation needed, not afd. oh and oratory is just one side of polemics. --Buridan 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected to Hitman (series)#International Contract Agency (ICA). NawlinWiki 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Contract Agency[edit]

Mostly Original Research. The stuff that isn't is trivial and mentioned elsewhere DurinsBane87 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if re-written in an out-of-universe context, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), there's going to be barely anything here to talk about. Redirect to Hitman (series)#International Contract Agency (ICA). Marašmusïne_Talk 07:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hitman (series), as there doesn't appear to be enough encyclopedic to say here to warrant its own article. — brighterorange (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. Andre (talk) 23:26, 2 July 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emhs[edit]

Nom - non-notable high school forum website. Fails WP:WEB. Lacks reliable sources. Rklawton 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. No references. MartinDK 06:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic topic unless it differentiates itself (with sources) in some way from the myriad of other forums out there. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Etiological concerns are extrinsic to the taxonomic aims of Wikipedia--Perceive 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nicely written article, but the subject is totally non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about it and, as a consequence, lacks reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Male[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a second nomination--still appears to be based 100% on WP:OR. Probably self-promotion. SESmith 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered good form to include a link to the old discussion. Morgan Wick 04:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it could certainly use a bit more support. A quick search shows that they are notable enough for inclusion. The article just needs work. -- Bigwyrm 07:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum! I added a few references. The page still needs work, though. -- Bigwyrm 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep A big number of albums means squat if it's not on a fairly large label, but it does appear to have coverage in multiple independent sources. Morgan Wick 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly well known within their field. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keep arguments amount to "I like it", "Other stuff exists", and "its useful", none of them policy-based. delete arguments are policy based. If anons are discounted, the numerical consensus is also clear. DES ^(talk) 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Honch[edit]

This article is a meandering list of entirely non-notable places to eat and places to drink reviewed by people who like to frequent them. The fact there's an area of town popular with foreign military can be summed up in one or two sentences on the relevant city page ShizuokaSensei 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide for the U.S. Navy. The two intro paragraphs of this are present (verbatim) in the Wikitravel article on Yokosuka, which is where the rest of the article should go. Deor 12:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the above reasons - fails what Wiki is NOT. ShizuokaSensei 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it here

i think it should stay here or at least in the travel guide to Yokosuka as a guide of the nightlife district in yokosuka for forigers, also it is what wikipedia is all about and just listing the basics and not going into too much detail about the place and just giving the "pedia" of the place and to let people know whats there and if the want to got there or not. it is very basic in its words and understanding and also gives insight into what this bar district is. keep it here

Just some notes from the Wikipedia policies page. Something to think about.

1) Before nominating an AfD, Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.

2) Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

If this battle to keep this article separate is doomed to be lost, why not add a section in the Yokosuka city article, for "The Honch" and redirect this article to that? Although from reading into the Honch, and reading the yokosuka article, I really do think it should be kept separate. 206.39.111.20 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it should stay on here. There are a number of articles of very similar subject matter on Wikipedia, and I do agree that the information provided is useful in many more ways than a 'travel guide.' Take a lok at the Las Vegas Strip article. Why not restructure this article in a similar way? The Honch, albeit smaller, is definitely in the same category as the Strip. And there's difinitely not a lack of information to be found on this neighborhood. It would be interesting to see it all consolidated here into something more useful, and separate from the Yokosuka article; I think it warrants that. Especially by emphasizing the historical importance in addition to it's modern appeal. Several rather important agreements (at the end of WWII) were signed in the buildings of Dobuita street outside the Naval Base between Allied and Japanese officials. I don't know much other than seeing the plaques outside some of the buildings, but I'll do more research into that. I think it would be a waste to delete this article. Being stationed here, I've realized how famous the neighborhood is, by the emails and questions I get from friends and acquaintances back home. S. Hulce 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Added a 'History' section, could use some help adding content. Hoping to make this article more 'encyclopedic' to meet Wiki standards. Hoping that the end result will just use the original article as a small subsection of the whole article. S. Hulce 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments by S. Hulce above are part of a transclusion from the article's talk page made by 206.39.111.20. Just wanted to clarify that S. Hulce didn't actually bother to come here to register an opinion. Deor 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of this material would look to be useful on Wikitravel's page/s about the location and should be written up there forthwith. As it stands, this is simply uncited, subjective reviews of places to have a good time, which is not what you might call encyclopedic. If there are citations underlining the importance of the district, then they should be added here. That would suggest that the article would need to be rewritten, though, since all it says here is that people get drunk there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would make a great Wikitravel entry. jdb (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it here! - I definitely see the encyclopedic value of this article. I wasn't aware that it was Wikipedia's policy to delete articles that merely need some work/additions to bring it up to standards! This shouldn't even be a debate! Some background, inclusion of historical significance would make it a great article and a great read. Dobuita street/the honch is famous worldwide, I'd heard about it from my grandfather who was stationed in the Pacific in WWII, and that's how I found this article.— 125.14.180.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Delete, even discounting my Delete entry below. NawlinWiki 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theme park builder 3d[edit]

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

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

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

Not notable no references Dureo 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Don't Delete Well I might be part of the project I strongly fell that it deserves to have an entry. This game is not just an idea that a few people came up with and decided lets see I we can pull this off but has actually been extremely thought out and by people in the know including professional programmers how will be working on the project. This game is going to happen and is going to be deserving of a page here wether now or latter. I also fell we deserve to have this page because we are working to produce a free, open source game with no strings attached that every one can enjoy, which is similar to what this site is based on providing a resource for people to use and change free of charge. So I fell that if you say that our project is not deserving of a page then you really don't want to support the same belief of free resources which is what has made this site what it is today. In a world of mass companies and corporate politics its up to the creators of these free projects to stick together and help each other to show others that there are people left how actually care abut there product and not just the moony there making off of it. Heck the whole inspiration for this game which now started over a year ago was because of fans of a certain park building game that were feed up with the lack of support and cooperate politics that was making the game that they invested in (by buying) left in sate of much need improvement and decided sense we cant fix the game our self lets just make something by our selves that will have everything we ever wanted in a theme park simulation game. Coaster sim. fan
Delete per nom plus the fact that the game does not seem to have been released yet. Also, the people behind this game seem to be aware of the article [40], most likely because the person who created it is also involved in the project, so be prepared for off-wiki canvassing of keep !votes. MartinDK 06:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Fredrick day 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It's a big game in progress and it deserves a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.48.112 (talk • contribs) — 216.164.48.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Don't Delete The game has existing coding and models for rides and scenery. Many coders and modelers are participating and the game is in its 5th Game Design Document revision. A check of the existing TPB3D forums will show that the project is moving along at a fast rate. It was noted at the start that this largest project in the history of Open Source Software would be on a two to three year schedule, but too much already exists. I urge you to check out the http://www.tpb3d.net forums and see the actual progress that exists. -- Slickdude 9:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't Delete This game is community project that deserves the right to a wiki article. This project is non profit and is beginning to grow at a rapid rate, this community based project has been recognized by so many of the gaming community and should also be recognised for it here. If you check the TPB3D forums you will notice that it is not just a mere idea, rides are being created and many other objects are being made as we speak. The coding is starting to go together. This is simply not a day out of people attempting to do the impossible, this is happening and happening now. -- User: surfingoz 2:10, 5 July 2007 (NSW)

this is not a vote - the only arguments for keep being made are 1) it exists (which we know and nobody doubts) and 2) it will be important in the future - neither of those are valid policy reasons for keeping. The only way the article will be kept is if multiple independent sources are found that demonstrate that it is notable. So getting people from the forum to come over and repeat the same ILIKEIT arguments is a waste of everyone's time --Fredrick day 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response of common sense - Wikipedia is an everything knowledge encyclopedia mixture. The purpose of wikipedia is to have information on significant things and even less significant things. This is a major significance. Sir, if you remove knowledge and information are you not defeating the very reason for wikipedias existence which is information and knowledge? I think that "The largest project in sourceforge" history is quite significant. As for insulting other's participation, they participated because common sense has been substituted for communism sense. Wikipedia lives or dies by its growth and this is a part of history that is being made. When you say notable sources you refer to a college institution or a gaming magazine I presume or perhaps the President of the United States all of which could be notable and independent. Some one's aun't could be considered notable, could they not and they could be independent too. Your comments do not hold water, in fact judging Frederick Day by your comments, a wiki could be destroyed on the most ludicrous of reasons couldn't it. But the end result is the destruction of significant information and a tiny piece of the wiki not being there. So again if you want to destroy the wikipedia community this is a first step...I am always amused and surprised at how many people do the worst things to themselves Slickdude 11:22, 4 July 2007

You deleter's win. I just deleted my original wiki topic. In fact it would be best to remove this valuable information from the community. I don't think you or this community are worthy of such information as this. We will install our own software and boost it in the search engines, but I honestly am going to give you guys exactly what you want, and the best thing about my decision is that the TPB3D community wins and wins big, because they are a much larger group of people. The truth is that this has been deleted and marked over and over again and harassment after harassment and for who? Your amusement. Heck, we have high enough search engine rankings by just the forums and I can quickly get a separate wikipedia software going and rapidly get it searched in high rankings without your folks pompass attitudes and harassment over some important information. We don't lose, but your community does, because now they do not have the information anymore. So now its easy enough. Go ahead and delete my original topic from your system and get it over with, cause the TPB3D community will have the very last laugh. Slickdude 11:37, 4 July 2007
- Okey-dokey. If it ever meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, I'm sure someone outside of the project will create a new article, and that one won't be deleted. Propaniac 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. I don't see any references to this project anywhere of any substance that would justify leaving it. Also, I'd classify the article as spam since it seems to be nothing more than an advertising pitch for the project. Drachemorder 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I will ask the TPB3D community personally to forego putting TPB3D in here. We already got our own wikipedia going and it will be bumped up in the search engines too, se we don't need people acting like morons because they have nothing great in their lives and like to laud power over others. Yeah you may have rules, but like district Judge in the United States once said, if we enforced every rule on the books, people wouldn't be able to live anymore. That is what is happening here. You have attacked this project from one end of the spectrum to the other. Have you ever considered that wiki is about knowledge and that by removing knowledge especially when it is significant it goes against what this was intended for. A bunch of people have made up so many rules that those very rules negate and trample the very purpose of what the wiki is supposed to be. In an ironic sense, I can see why the wiki idea in the long run will be doomed because your rules being so tightly enforced will be what consumes your project. Sad, very sad.

As far as TPB3D goes, I would prefer it be deleted as I originally established it and I also don't want it in here either anymore. Not to benefit an evil community that runs on ego rather than common sense, using rule after rule to attack great things. TPB3D has grown well beyond the significance you all require in here, but some of you are so jealous of a project like this that you don't realize what is being created. Stick with a dying product of Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 rather than a community created and will be permanently ongoing project such as TPB3D. This community doesn't need you guys either. There, now if this doesn't get you to kill tpb3d as a wiki in here and remove significant information, I don't know what will. Slickdude 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of Roller Coaster Tycoon, guess it's a video game - I doubt anyone here cares about that product. You seem to be taking this as some personal slight. What you have to understand is that this is not about the product, it's about the lack of sources. It's not about what this will happen in the future with this product, it's about the lack of sources. Nobody is saying you are not working hard on your product, nobody is saying that your product shouldn't exist. What we are saying is that wikipedia has certain fundemental policies that we try and apply equally to all articles - at the present moment, your article does not meet those standards - that's it. This has nothing to do with ego, nothing to do with being jealous - it's about applying our policies consistently. Your personal attacks are a waste of time, we don't delete articles because someone makes some snide remarks. If someone provides some sources for the article that are notable - this AFD is over - it's that simple. --Fredrick day 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources establishing notability. Original author tried to blank the article (presumably per comments above), but is not the only significant editor of the article, so we can't speedily delete under category g7. NawlinWiki 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the name of giving this article as fair of a shot as we possibly can, I have spent the last couple days searching through articles for any legitimate sources of notability. There are a little more than 2500 google hits, of which less than 50 are truly unique. I've searched through all of those fifty as well as every post on the project's web forum looking for something to pass WP:N. I'm confident in saying that there is nothing. My position is that this article should be deleted for failing WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:COI. -Trusilver 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Both policy arguments nd numeric consensus favor deletion here. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval life[edit]

This article contains little real information about the middle ages and the Middle Ages category contains all of the information in this page. This page is nothing more than a category listing middle age topics which the middle ages category already does. This page serves no real purpose. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically just a selection of links to other articles. The only common theme here is that they somehow relate to medieval life but so does countless other articles not mentioned at all. So... delete as a list with little if any limit to what could be included per WP:NOT. MartinDK 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mere collection of internal links. No significant structure is provided by the sectioning of this list. Deor 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A school assignement. Pavel Vozenilek 12:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like an article that just needs expanded with prose. Medieval society and medieval culture, two subjects I'd expect an encyclopedia to cover, redirect to this article. This provides a good starting structure for a rather large and very much needed article. If this entire subject is indeed covered elsewhere, then redirect without deletion. Otherwise, keep. --- RockMFR 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Society and culture are for encyclopedic purposes not the same thing, and merging them into one article is a dubious venture to begin with. Peter ^Isotalo 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article has been here for four years and this is the best that could be done? I don't disagree that we do need an article on the subject, but this is a list, not an article. Allow for recreation if it's made into text. Corvus cornix 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is agreed that an article like this is needed, there is no point in deleting it now only to see it recreated later. Current article can be completely changed by future editors if need be. Joshdboz 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in that article already exists in the Category:Middle Ages. This article adds nothing new. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and all WWII info lies in Category:World War II, but that doesn't mean it can't have a portal article to link the many subaspects. Joshdboz 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does a very bad job at that. If you think such a page should exist that does that then improve Category:Middle Ages, this page itself really serves no purpose as far as I can tell. If we're to have a page that does nothing but link other pages but isn't itself a category then what about "Medieval war" or "Medieval death"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle Ages without merging content The idea is not bad per se and I understand the reasoning behind the article. However, any article called "XXX life" or "life in XXX" isn't a doable topic for encyclopedic purposes and will hardly attract any serious punters, and four years resulting in nothing but a fairly arbitrary collection of links pretty much confirms this. "XXX life" (or "life in XXX") basically means "everything related to XXX" and can just as well be equated with "XXX". It's an attempt to rewrite Middle Ages with less focus on kings, popes, wars and grand history, but has the unfortunate downside of making social history seem like a mere sub-topic, rather being an integral part of general articles. Peter ^Isotalo 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite, expand. The Middle Ages article is already quite large and daily life within particular time periods are incredibly interesting and there has been a vast amount of scholarly books and articles published on this very topic. The sources are there, the article is waiting to be written, someone just needs to do it. I'm sure someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle_Ages will oblige. CaveatLector^Talk 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + Rewrite? If you vote for a rewrite then you should rewrite it since I don't have the time nor do I even believe it could be done and I doubt anyone at the middle ages project will do it either however you're more than free to ask. At most, the article should be deleted UNTIL it's rewritten since such a project would no doubt take weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing is merely a suggestion to future editors. As for deleting an article until it is rewritten -- this is silly. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Would you suggest deleting all the stubs until they are all written into lengthy articles? --- RockMFR 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for whom? If anyone were going to dedicate time to this article they would have done so already. This article is 4 years old, it contains the same exact info as the middle ages category, it's badly written, badly put together, needs to be totally rewritten and even then I doubt it would be salvageable. Deleting it until it's rewritten is frequently done in AFD's. If someone cares enough about rewriting it then they can put a draft on their user page and rewrite it there since no one is just going to come along and rewrite it into something acceptable, they would have done so already. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete for now unless an actual article is reason at which time it can be brought back. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, definitely meets WP:PROF after improvements. NawlinWiki 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. White[edit]

Speedy userfication is being contested by DGG. It seemed obvious to me that this was autobiographical in nature, but whatever the case, it's here now. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain Wafulz 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a clear violation of multiple policies including WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS. Criteria under WP:SPEEDY clearly states that an article can be removed if not encyclopedic in nature and amounts to a personal advertisement for an individual. I'd also like to note DGG's comment regarding speedy deletion that "some encyclopedic information and sources were needed" prior to his removing an article lacking the above ([WP:V]] and WP:RS, in other words). Unsure of why there would be a double standard simply because the subject of the article is a university professor, however until there are third-party sources this should be removed post haste.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:PROF in this discussion. Morgan Wick 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability - the only reason I can see is his invention...and since no detail is given about it, even that isn't asserting notability (we have no idea whether it's notable or not). --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep. The article now asserts notability. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on it is at Density matrix renormalization group.-Wafulz 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after it gets improved. Speedy was first claimed under G7--but any rational assertion is enough, certainly developing a major theory. It was then argued under G11, but a one paragraph bland description of a person's career is not an advertisement. And WP:AUTO is not a speedy criterion, just a reason to look carefully. . But the article is now at AfD--a perfectly appropriate place to discuss it, if one doubts the importance. One form of meting WP:PROF is development of a notable theory. And he is in fact listed as the developer in the lede paragraph of the WP article on the theory. Yes, proper references needed, and are forthcoming.

As a brief guide , he has published 99 peer-reviewed article according to Web of Science. His most cited ones have received 1075,843,283,266 248 references--obvious recognition of notability by others in the field, WP:PROF. His h-index is 38,that is38 papers cited 38 or more times. Doesn't take access to Web of Science. Google Scholar lists 214 articles--some of them will be duplicates--giving 1139 & 997 references to the top two. Netkinetic marked it for deletion with the edit summary: "Sorry Steven, but you aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. Regards." DGG 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I subscribe to the DGG theory that full professors at major universities are notable, and we should keep them even when the articles aren't well written. I added a link to his home page at UCI and an Arxiv search showing 47 submissions there (many of them republished in refereed journals such as Physical Review). This search link should eventually be replaced with a short list of notable papers, when someone has time to rewrite the article properly. EdJohnston 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short list has now been done. There are another 73 articles in arXiv under a variation of his name. One of the shortcomings of their search engine is that it there seem not to be any name cross-references or links. (If there is a way, I haven't found it). DGG 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hindutva terrorism[edit]

The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe similar/identical articles have been speedy deleted before. Not much to explain here. Whatever is salvagable from this article is already covered in Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing much from this article. There is a lot of OR, some sources do not work, and I think that those sources that do exist do not generally confirm a concept called "Hindutva terrorism." The information should be covered elsewhere (if it isn't already) instead of in this ill-constructed fork. BTW, if you can find the similar deletions, please post them. The Behnam 05:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly origional research, and what isn't is poorly sourced.--Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To answer Behnam's request, there is a Islamist terrorism article which is much more developed. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the "similar/identical articles" mentioned as previously deleted. It would help solidify this case if nearly identical prior deletions were linked to here. The Behnam 05:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not the quite the same - I even voted 'keep' for that one. My guess is that if these were CSD like deeptrivia suggested they would be find in the deletion logs. Hopefully he will have a better idea exactly what he was talking about as I don't know where to look. The Behnam 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were some "X Terrorism" articles as well as "Hindu X" / "Hindutva X" articles. I tried finding an easy way to search deletion logs after reading Behnam's comment, but it looks like the only way to go about it is to check all logs over months, which will be a huge task. If it's possible to apply any search over the logs, please let me know. deeptrivia (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deleting-They have one on Islamist terrorism, Christian terrorism but nothing on Hindutva terrorism.What's more is the article is fully sourced.-Vmrgrsergr 08:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's never a good argument. "Buddhist terrorism" generates the same order of magnitude of google hits as "Hindu Terrorism" or "Hindutva Terrorism", both being of the order of 100 times smaller than "Christian terrorism" and 1000 times smaller than "Islamist Terrorism". deeptrivia (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And because The Hindu is a major english daily in India (which discusses terrorism, Islamic, Christian, and secular) the true total is closer to 200 ghits. However, most of these sites are Muslim and Khalistani, or leftist forums. A realiable source is nowhere to be found.Baka man 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MilliGazette is a Muslim advocacy newspaper. It has a vested interest in ignoring their own kinsmen blowing things up and attacking religious groups hostile to Islamism. Nationalism is not terrorism. There are no Hindus blowing themselves up in front of Airports in the name of Krishna.Baka man 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hm, nobody claimed they did. The article's claim is that they burn mosques, not that they blow up themselves, and nothing about airports. dab (𒁳) 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt prevent from being a cesspool of leftist fringecruft. The word terrorism is not used by any reliable sources. In case you were unaware what the allusion was, you may want to check out what is going on in Glasgow.Baka man 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs, Milligazette, is a reliable source as is evident by the fact that it is available through Google News.Terrorism by any religion followers is worthy of an article, this is what I believe, if people are terrorised in Gujarat by the Hindu cultural organisations - it should be included..Why not, dear Sirs Terminador 10:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is nothing but a collection of OR. Per nom. Gnanapiti 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-To keep terrorism articles related to a certian religion and to delete teror articles related to another is clear violation of WP:NPOV.-Vmrgrsergr 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I dont know how an article that has sources for it's claims and enough external links is the work of original research.-Vmrgrsergr 22:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the sources aren't cited in the proper way, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Secondly, have you checked that the sources are Reliable? Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into communal violence. ~~The title is inherently pov~~ seeing we have Christian terrorism, there is nothing to prevent us from covering this phenomenon as well, but Terrorism in India should be treated in context, and not by faction, and at present, the article isn't well-referenced enough to stand on its own. Begin by creating "by faction" sections on Terrorism in India and wait until they deveolp into something that can stand on its own. dab (𒁳) 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On top of being OR this article is a big bunch of lies. A foiled attempt to burn a mosque by some crank cited from so called "reference" morphs conveniently into "Hindutva militants are also known to have many times try to burn mosques in India"!!! A statement by some church taken from a reference(?) changes into a fact in the article! Article cites another wiki article as a reference! There should be some truth in the article at least to merge. Gnanapiti 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: If I got dab right, he is not necessarily proposing to copy the contents of this article into Terrorism in India, but to start a fresh section there related to this, built from scratch. deeptrivia (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --D-Boy 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear evidence.Harlowraman 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously. I know its hard for some to understand that there is absolutely no fascism in Hindutva. Most of these people try to find an analogy with Islamism or Christian fundamentalism. Its natural, but it is, at the end of the day, just ignorance.
As another natural tendency, We may believe that the youngsters in a country like Pakistan would be similar to the most youngsters around the world and so they may demand for fewer rules than there are. But then, a quote from a Kaafirs book will dispel this [miss]belief too.

“

After my sixteenth birthday, I studied history at my aunt Alia's college; but not even learning could make me feel a part of this country devoid of midnight children, in which my fellow-students took out processions to demand a stricter, more Islamic society -proving that they had contrived to become the antitheses of students everywhere else on earth, by demanding more-rules-not-less.

”

.

Both of these are exceptions, and we must accept them as they are.--nids (♂) 05:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but hopefully you understand that this discussion is not about whether there is terrorism/fascism in Hindutva or not. deeptrivia (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there was, than what would have been the problem with the article. nids (♂) 05:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. deeptrivia (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The 'information' currently in the article is of little or no value to an encyclopedia. Gouranga(UK) 08:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is original research. The sources provided are from newspaper and they do not provide any encyclopedic content.Sbhushan 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to communal violence. No sources satisfactorily cited. Hornplease 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, POV and neologism with no reliable, neutral sources. Just because we can conceptually define a term doesn't mean we need a wikipedia article on the subject. Funnily enough, "Christian Martians" ("Residents of the planet Mars, who adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament") has almost as many ghits, as "Hindutva Terrorism" ("use of violence or other means of intimidation to enforce the Hindutva point of view on people who may oppose or simply choose not to believe that ideology.") and in both cases most of the links are blogs, discussion boards, blatantly partisan and unreliable sources or simply typos. Abecedare 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that this title MIGHT provide a basis for a relevant article...but in practical terms this article is nothing more than warmed-over POV pap, and largely misspelled POV pap at that. --Nemonoman 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AjitPD 11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOREASON. utcursch | talk 14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR — Lost^(talk) 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Zoboroski[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Biography; article about an unmemorable reality star on a show with low ratings Irk _(talk) 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Former reality television star" is an oxymoron. She's just a college student, folks. Shalom ^Hello 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reality show stars are not notable unless they do something notable past their 15 minutes on the TV Corpx 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Corpx. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 10:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Piercey[edit]

Just a local radio presenter. Article doesn't show how he's notable. No references/links. Reads like a CV. Aillema 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Reywas92^Talk 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary coverage given; hence fails WP:BIO. --B. Wolterding 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable due to various involvements with BBC. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I worked for PBS for two years does that make me notable? No. Whispe ring 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources indicating notability. Fails WP:BIO. Whispe ring 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have a feeling this DJ may pass WP:BIO, given his appearances on a number of major local radio stations. And after all (as they say), if you promote a person enough, eventually they become famous. I think this guy might be just about. Sources would help though. DWaterson 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just. Google news archive turns up some sources [41], [42], [43], [44]. Helping the Children's hospital, sponsored by Elton John to run the London Marathon etc. I'd say there's enough non trivial mentions for WP:BIO - but he's kept it very local in a long career in radio. Cheers, Paxse 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. TerriersFan 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSCAR Radio[edit]

Not notable secondary school student radio broadcasting on a RSL. stripped of school related weblinks, the subject scores 148 Ghits, most of which bear no relationship to the subject at all. Ohconfucius 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If RSLs are part of the standard regulatory scheme for broadcasting in the United Kingdom, then radio stations which operate under RSLs meet the criterion of being duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority...especially if it's an RSL that's renewed on a regular basis. A station that got one RSL to broadcast for one isolated period might not necessarily meet our standard, but an RSL that's renewed as often as legally permissible is effectively as close as such a station can get to being a permanent operation. So keep. Bearcat 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From this link posted as a reference to the article, clearly the station falls into a different category than is suggested by the above assertion "an RSL that's renewed as often as legally permissible is effectively as close as such a station can get to being a permanent operation". True that the subject does appear to be continuous, but the school has a short term RSL, whilst there is the category of the long term RSL, which several schools have. I am not suggesting that the possession of such a renewed temporary license would be a bar in becoming notable, but the reasons why it does not have a long-term license may be relevant, and could, I believe, be further explained in the talk page Ohconfucius 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page and also the person who set the station up and currently runs it I want to assure you that this is a factual description of the radio station. As Bearcat states, OSCAR Radio is a regular broadcaster, it also happens to be seen as one of the best stations of its kind in the UK. In the world of UK school radio stations it was deemed the best one by the BBC when they did a trawl of school radio station in 2004, it is certainly the largest, with studios that most university stations would love to have. It has a good presence in the local community and plenty of people listen either on the internet or locally on the FM transmission. OSCAR Radio is seen as a good model for other schools to view and we get plenty of visits from schools interested in putting together their own radio stations. So keep Dfcf 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many articles on wikipedia have been deleted because the subject does not possess sufficiently notability even though they are completely factual. The fact that there are many people involved either in the creation of the article or the subject is completely irrelevant argument to avoid deletion. Although it is a fairly well-written article, it was put up for deletion mainly because I did not find insufficient independent and reliable sources which support the assertions of notability within the article. Being "best", or having a "good presence" can be quite subjective if not properly benchmarked with an important award, audited audience figures or press commentary. Dfcf cites a number of things which could be indicators of a greater level of notability than is suggested in the article, and it would be of considerable help if, for example, the BBC mention was sourced within the article. Ohconfucius 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a little searching found a couple good links, which I have added, and indicates that the station does get some attention (as a Sony Music CEO came to open their new studio). The article needed some cleaning up, with the frequency and range it has, it's certainly of note, even if it only runs part of the year. --Thespian 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree that the station has the potential to be notable, but I remain not totally convinced that it is. I would point out that the links are not independent - one was issued by a PR agency on behalf of the school, and the other clearly names the school as the source of the story. Ohconfucius 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you agree that it has the potential to be notable, then this nomination should be withdrawn at this point, especially considering the only comments on it have been your nom and Bearcat and I saying 'Keep' (that's aside from the obvious keep of the page creator). And yeah, it does name the school as the source of the story - but not in terms of 'the school handed this to us and we ran it'. All secondary sources have to have a primary source *somewhere*, so while the first one, I'll concede, is not completely independent (though all I cite out of it is the 'only station operated by under 18s', which is in other articles, too), the second one is a perfectly good source from a local newspaper, and I spent about 10m on this. More could be done, though one needs to convince Dfcf (to whom it is obviously central, though he did a fairly good job of avoiding COI, some of which I fixed) that more work is needed in this direction. Give it a month and renom in August if we still haven't fixed? I'll work with him. --Thespian 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OSCAR Radio is a radio station that is part of the fourth largest public school in England. The fact that the Music CEO of Sony, Sir Howard Stringer helped fund lots of development in the station. The fact that Sir Howard Stringer is now the CEO of Sony. Isn't this enough for OSCAR to be notable?. A few years ago a number of OSCAR presenters visited the BBC radio studios. I don't know the full story but my understanding is that they appeared on a show there, they also received awards from the BBC. OSCAR broadcasts on FM to Oundle and the wide surrounding area reaching a little into Peterborough. It broadcasts to entire world via a SHOUTcast stream. I know the RSL licence for OSCAR is a short term licence, but the station has been running since 1998, nine years! Over this time the station has grown massively, with the new studios. A main studio and a news studio with a satellite link to IRN. I am in full belief that OSCAR will continue and the reason that it only has a short term RSL licence is because of an administration issue, or maybe it is easier for the school to buy a short-term licence. It doesn't matter. I know that OSCAR will be continuing in to the near and far future. Some of what I have said is fact and some is views but I believe in it's entirety and think it is petty to try and remove an article to not being notable enough. Maybe it is a rule but I think people might want to know about OSCAR and removing maybe the second port of call after the OSCAR website (which I do admit needs a bit of work) is annoying for people searching Wikipedia and not finding the information they want. I came to this discussion with a favourable idea of saying keep but with the evidence that Dfcf has written and the opinion of Thespian I am now in full belief that OSCAR is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. So in full entirety my belief is keep. Pimms 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. In light of Thespian's arguments, I will withdraw my nom, pending further work on the article. However, I would point out that Stringer is an old boy at the school, so that the visit from this industry luminary is not entirely coincidentiial or without connection! Ohconfucius 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The playground live[edit]

NN musical. — Music Maker 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet any WP:MUSIC guidelines. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references verifying notability. Propaniac 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. --Attilios 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Tap[edit]

NN musical. — Music Maker 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think it need to be tagged {{expert-subject}}, but it does meet WP:MUSIC. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How can this article pass WP:MUSIC if it doesn't pass WP:ATT? The sources don't look good enough to me. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Carolfrog said, how can it pass WP:MUSIC with no WP:RS (or any references, for that matter)? Precious Roy 07:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two credible independent sources on the first page of google results [45][46] and a number of google news archive results. John Vandenberg 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as John says, plenty of sources available through Google. Paxse 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as notability established. Please note this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Schooner[edit]

NN musical. Only holiday productions. Article is mostly advert-type review quotes. — Music Maker 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial notability--Sefringle^Talk 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the awards it received. They give small sign of notability Corpx 04:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This musical has received productions in various cities and even internationally and has been reviewed and discussed in mainstream media sources. See [47], [48], and[49] for examples. The fact that a Christmas-themed musical only gets produced around Christmastime does not affect its notability. --Metropolitan90 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to satisfy WP:N, and having traveled overseas seems to rate some importance. --Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Vulnerability Assessor[edit]

Appears non-notable and is advertising and spammy in nature. Falls far short of the notability guideline. GDonato (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; created by a single purpose account with a probable COI. Shalom ^Hello 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a very brief article entirely free from context. The title would appear to describe a person holding an office or credential; the article itself purports to be about a training program. The "vulnerability" that people here are being certified to assess is "IT vulnerability", suggesting to my mind that this is some newfangled neologism invented by someone selling a consultancy. Quære: what does this have to do with Norway? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Smerdis of Tlön stated, the title of the article would suggest a possible conflict of interest in the article, the lack of context and references is too small even to be considered a stub. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Changed to disambiguation page for the magazine (without link) and for Cruella de Vil. NawlinWiki 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruella[edit]

Non-notable magazine, no references or sources. Contested prod. Videmus Omnia 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep did a seach seems like to be a number of sites of information for this magazine makeing it notable enough it does not more information and sources but this does not mean it should be gone from hereOo7565 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no real claim to notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hell (radio)[edit]

Dubious notability; likely conflict of interest (note the large number of external links). Yechiel Man 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 10:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, the article is full of POV claims and unencyclopaedic prose. /Blaxthos 11:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some sources are given; but taking a closer look, there is substantial coverage in a college newspaper (not independent), some trivial mentioning (not substantial coverage), and a blog (not reliable). Clear case of COI by User:Elvisdemorrow, even admitted in the edit history, makes me doubt that the show is as notable as the article tries to put it. --B. Wolterding 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The assertion of no notability seems to be addressed with the link to the public radio quest contest in the references section. The host of This is Hell is a finalist in the competition, and people wishing to research the contestants may want as many sources of information as possible on the show, including a Wikipedia entry of course. If the concern is that the show does not exist, please download any of the hundreds of shows archived at the site or check the WNUR broadcast schedule to confirm its existence. If users are concerned about the subjective nature of the article contents then they should obviously offer constructive edits to the body of the article instead of campaigning to delete a perfectly good (albiet new!) article. --daftmunkie 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'm not concerned about the show being real, or about the subjective nature of the article as such. The topic of the debate here is whether the show passes the notability criteria. However, since the article was created by someone closely affiliated with the show, it is even more important than usual to have reliable secondary sources (which the article lacks). Second, your claim towards notability is the award nomination. Actually the show host is one out of 10 finalists in that competition. My concerns about that are: 1) It's the host that is nominated, not the show. 2) For the host, the guidelines WP:BIO would apply; the relevant criterion is: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. It is not quite cleat whether the talent quest can be considered a "significant recognized award". 3) He did not win the award (yet?), he's only nominated. --B. Wolterding 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe your concerns are well placed given that the article was clearly initiated by somebody affiliated with the show. However, this would be more of a concern if the show was somehow for profit (It airs on a university radio station and is almost entirely listener supported) which would be in direct violation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies. That said, Wikipedia is full of articles on radio programs with no independent published articles about them. Even given this disadvantage of being a small college radio program and having few independent articles about the show, a simple google search for ""this is hell" radio chuck mertz" returns approximately 1400 relevant web page hits... mostly listings on podcast directories, blog entries, and references from guests that have been on the show. To me, this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per the notability guidelines). To take your concerns point by point: 1) That there is no Biography on Chuck Mertz the person is irrelevant since he is not a public person outside of the radio show, and so does not meet the notability guidelines for people outside direct reference to the radio show. 2) see 1, it is not necessary that the host be award winning to have an article about the show. 3) see 2. A purpose of wikepedia, as an outgrouth from the wikimedia foundation is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Having a wikipedia article about this radio program is in line with this mission as it gives access to all people to download freely available mp3s containing long form interviews with world renowned scholars, activists, and reporters. In light of this, it seems absurd that the article is being threatened with deletion. --daftmunkie 03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable show on a college radio station. No non-trivial references. If the show wins the contest, it might make notability. Precious Roy 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Chicago Reader article now listed in references is arguably non-trivial. Also, I may be a Wikipedia amateur, but the first rule noted on the official Wikipedia editing policy page is "Perfection is not required". Based on this official policy, it appears evident that this entry should allowed to grow and improve as per the stated policy, instead of premature deletion. laddieo 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Chicago Reader goes to a page on the radio show's site that doesn't even mention the Chicago Reader. And presuming a non-trivial article in the Chicago Reader does actually exist, that's only one article on the way to "multiple non-trivial" published works. Precious Roy 14:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica Vs. the World[edit]

Article prod on 2007-06-21 as "Non notable band, fails WP:BAND". The band do have a record on Tent City [50], which is listed here [51] with their main acts, including Choking Victim, The Foamers and Antarctica Vs. The World. It appears that there may be reasonable doubt about a swift deletion, and a wider view may be in order SilkTork 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT. Notability of the band is not established; links to personal websites and myspace are not sufficient EyeSerene^TALK 10:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC in lack of independent mentions, not a "major label" Corpx 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph: A Victorian Fairy Tale[edit]

Book is a nonnotable self-published (through Lulu.com vanity press) title that clearly does not meet the book notability guidelines. DreamGuy 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling turns up no evidence of reviews or other third-party coverage. Deor 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article even comes right out and says it's published by a vanity publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orb (video game)[edit]

Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No outside verification nor clearly verifiable notability. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a tricky one, depending on where we draw the line between 'fan/hobby' and 'indy' games. A google search brings up nothing concrete, just brief mentions on lesser gaming sites. There are no mentions on established gaming sites such as Gamespy, Gamespot or Eurogamer, and only the briefest of blurbs on IGN. I tend to agree with the assessment of this blogger. Four years, only artwork, no screenshots, no publisher.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. I don't necessarily think we need to wait until games are actually released to cover them, but they should certainly be further along than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn (video game)[edit]

Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No outside verification nor clearly verifiable notability. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another game apparently not very far along in development. Per the article, "No in-game images are available at this time", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight (video game)[edit]

Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No outside verification nor clearly verifiable notability. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is about an unreleased game. I think this game might deserve an article once its actually released (WP:CRYSTALBALL) depending on the reviews. The interviews conducted are not from established media sites Corpx 04:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "Midnight is still in early development". Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Online Gaming[edit]

Non-notable gaming website. No reliable sources or any other evidence that this website meets WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and accompanying vanity nonnotable horribly unencyclopedic advertising page Six Souls Tale. DreamGuy 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Also nominating another creation of the author, The Abyss(Game) and marked another article he created, Freiheit Unterhaltung, for speedy deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Notable websites are not hosted on _____.freehostia.com . They can usually afford a domain + web host. This is spam!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:WEB. It's on a free web host, come on. Not even remotely notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 14:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3)

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries, as these articles clearly are Corpx 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:EPISODE. These articles contain more than plot summaries of the individual episodes, including information on guest stars, creative staff and other production details. The actual plot summary portions of the S1 and S2 articles look to be of reasonable length. The plot summary portions of S3 for a few episodes could stand some trimming but that's an editorial rather than an AFD issue. Three season-length articles like this are preferable IMHO to 70+ individual episode articles. Otto4711 04:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above and WP:Notability (fiction); in addition to the short plot descriptions (easily under the usualy length of acceptability, as it's accepted that describing the show/film/book/etc often involves short plot summaries), these pages also contain a fair bit of description; information about the episode, director, writing credits, music content, etc., which are clearly what we're supposed to be doing in articles that include plot summaries as well. --Thespian 08:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These season-based episode guides are much preferable to full articles on every episode with 20Kb plot summaries. --Canley 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all above. Does not violate policy, similar to every other TV shows episode pages. Gan fon 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an established precedent to allow pages about episodes. This definitely needs some reorganization and clean-up (as do many episode pages all across Wikipedia) but that's an issue for talk pages, not AFD. --JayHenry 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitely Strong Delete I am voting delete because I feel bad that the delete side isn't getting any votes--Perceive 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If wikipedia isn't the place for plot summaries there are hundreds, and probably thousands of articles that need to be deleted. Perhaps if it was a little known show, not in English it wouldn't belong here, but it is a well known show. Bassgoonist Talk 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Will ^(talk) 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy, WP:NOT#PAPER. Articles could probably benefit from being split per WP:SS. Matthew 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something has to go. The first season has individual episode articles, which are duplications of what is on the "season 1" page. Since they all fit on the season page, and the subsequent season pages don't have individual articles (at least not linked so that I can find them), it seems the first season episodes should be merged into the season article and all the three seasons should be kept but massively cleaned up. Plot summmaries are not a reason to have a non-free image. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as cleaned up. Please note that this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 6 University[edit]

As it stands, this article is an advertisement; but it contains a lot of information, and could be rewritten if anyone cares to take the time to do so. Xiaphias 03:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & clean up, a good trim would make it less objectionable. Seems to be accredited by the Egyptian government[52]; I don't know how we judge non-US educational institutions but it certainly seems to merit inclusion at first blush. (Btw, .eg web address is down, try o6u.org instead.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I zapped all the blatant copyvios from the website. Stubby now but not an advert. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't soundlike Xiaphias actually wanted to delete the article, in which case he didn't need to take it to AfD. Morgan Wick 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable, but clean-up/wikify/rewrite like other Egyptian universities. I can help with that. — Zerida 21:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think all world universities should be considered notable, assuming we have enough information to write an article, as we do here. The practical problem is that a great many such articles are copyvios & need rewriting, without that much to go on besides the website. DGG 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup Universities are inherently notable. Students, developements and alumni are likely to be mentioned all the time by local media. However, the article should be cleaned up to not read like an ad.--Kylohk 12:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with RMS Titanic. No keep arguments, no clear consensus reached between merge and delete so article is merged as the least destructive path JodyB_talk 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisioning of the RMS Titanic[edit]

Wikipedia is not ~~an indiscriminate~~ a collection of nn statistics (a grocery list? c'mon). Clarityfiend 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JJL 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
- Could you expand on your reasoning? Just brushing it off as "unencyclopedic" tells us nothing. Morgan Wick 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RMS Titanic. I don't think the information is inherently unencyclopedic. But it's only encyclopedic within the context of the ship and the story of its sinking. The information is notable because of its association with the sinking of the unsinkable ship. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As fascinating as it may be that the ship had 20,000 bottles of beer onboard, the provisions were not notable to my knowledge. I'm not opposed to merging into the main article. Someguy1221 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. ("Delete and merge" raises GFDL concerns.) This info isn't notable even within the context of the sinking. Does anyone even care how much beer the ship had on board? What does that have to do with the sinking? Was the food going to be used as a floatation device? Morgan Wick 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether "anyone" cares is irrelevant. I (for one) thought it was interesting, but that is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. However, just because the beer had nothing to do with the sinking itself doesn't mean it is not historically significant in the context of the historical significance of the ship itself. There may be sources (which I am too lazy and sleepy to find at the moment) which would provide a scholarly analysis of the provisioning of the Titanic. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree that the historical/cultural angle is the crux. There are ships' provision lists where there's such an angle making it worth documenting: for instance, 1800s British naval ships and the gross amounts of alcohol they carried; or the (by some accounts) toxic tinned food and ludicrous amounts of tableware carted around by the John Franklin expedition; or early polar expeditions where the lists show they grossly underestimated the calorific requirements. But this has no such angle; it's just food. Gordonofcartoon 02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well in the territory of WP:NOT#INFO,"Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data". What context can there be but the blindingly obvious one that it was a big ship so had to carry lots of food? Gordonofcartoon 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RMS Titanic --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with [[[RMS Titanic]] article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs)
Delete per Gordon. I'm also opposed to merger, because this trivial list could expand to infinite size. How many bars of laundry soap, anyone? Spare bolts for generic repairs? Spools of thread for mending uniforms? RGTraynor 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RMS Titanic]. How could a list of food on board expand to infinite size? If someone found accurate info on exactly how many raisins and toothpicks were on nboard, such trivial info could be edited out. The food on board is a large part of what makes to be a luxury cruise. It is not miscellaneous information, because it is the actual provisions on board one of history's most famous and disastrous cruises. We do not have to remove all information from coverage of a disaster-related Wikipedia subject which did not contribute directly to the disaster. If all they served was bread and water, the rich and famous would not have been on board. Edison 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are literally thousands of pages of archival documents relating to this topic. They all amount to trivia, in a historical perspective. --Haemo 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RMS Titanic]. The list IS encyclopedic - perhaps obsessively so :) - but that's part of the fun of a paper free encyclopedia made up of 0101010101's - we can keep this sort of fascinating but obscure information. Paxse 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Malaysia Baru[edit]

The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible violation of Wikipedia:lyrics Xiaphias 03:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of all involved, I would like you to explain why this fails WP:LYRICS, rather than just saying it does. That said, Delete per nom. Insufficient context to establish notability. Morgan Wick 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As P. Ramlee died in 1973, the lyrics will still be copyrighted, and the article has no analysis or commentary that might justify the extensive quotation. Gordonofcartoon 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy Delete as G7 (author request) per the notes on this AFD.--Isotope23 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business creation[edit]

It is not clear that this is completely legitimate. Sobar 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Author requests deletion. --- RockMFR 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Sobar was the initial editor. --Stormbay 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I know I was the initial editor, and now I realize, on behalf of the Wikipedia community, that this is an unnecessary page. I might as well be honest and sacrifice my own Wikipedia reputation and say that this, something I wrote, is not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Sobar 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7, tagged article as such. Caknuck 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LadyParasyte[edit]

Biographical non-notability not challenged for 30 days. Suspect it is autobiographical. Brianhe 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty far from WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Bucketsofg 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To LadiParasyte--Perceive 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable autobiogrpahy, see: RedLilyLives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bearian 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, merge or keep. Therefore is kept by default JodyB_talk 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Staircase of the Titanic[edit]

Unimportant staircase. Only "notable" due to its appearance in movies about the Titanic. --- RockMFR 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator. All main areas (and probably some minor areas) of the Titanic are inherently notable. The article could use some cleanup and rewriting, but the staircase is notable for being a part of the unsinkable sunken ship. The sources listed in the article confirm that explorers of the Titanic and scholars who study the Titanic have covered the subject of the staircase in multiple reliable publications. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 02:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, notability is not inherited. Morgan Wick 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge to RMS Titanic - Sorry, but connection with a notable subject does not make something inherently notable. It has to be notable in its own right. --Hnsampat 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I can't believe I'm in favour of an article for a staircase, but this is a fine one and appears notable on its own. --Stormbay 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firm delete, the staircase is not independently notable, as fine a staircase as it may have been. For an historical artifact or architectural structure, these are extremely weak sources, and two really border on WP:SYN in that the importance is asserted by our article and not our source. I could see an extensive and sourced article on all the ship's notable architecture, but the importance of the staircase is as the nominator states a construct of the James Cameron film Titanic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partially merge into Titanic. It's a staircase. Even though it's one of the most notable/remembered parts of the ship, I believe that the Titanic article should have enough insight into it. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe it's anywhere notable enough. The information should be cut down and put into the titanic article. Staircase on the titanic or not, it's still just a staircase! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The grand staircase is notable in its own right. CraigMonroe 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to elaborate on that. Morgan Wick 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained my rational--nothing more is needed. If you don't agree with it, fine. However, since you seem to want more information why, the Grand Staircase is considered by many scholars to be one of the prime examples of design of the gilded age. It was renowned in its time, and is still renowned today. Just because it was in a ship does not meen it is non-notable. CraigMonroe 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: C'mon. It's a staircase; what is the basis for proclaiming it notable above and beyond the ship? Yeah, yeah, we've all seen Leo and Kate lounging on a replica in a movie ... and that fictional movie is the source of the image in the article. On that basis, let's create a Front Doorway of Tara article. There is nothing here that cannot be merged into the main article. RGTraynor 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Should we have Shuffle board courts of the Titanic article too how about deck chairs. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Titanic article after cutting out a great deal of trivia and original research. There is no good reason to spew out a multitude of articles about every microscopic aspect of an encyclopedic subject, when all that needs to be said would fit into a paragraph in the main article. The sources are of less than reliable and independent quality. It can be verified that there was such a staircase, but outside the movie it does not seem to have been all that important. Ballard also found that the Captain's bathtub is still down there, with hot, cold and saltwater taps, but it does not need an encyclopedia article either. Edison 23:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge what is useful). Bucketsofg 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the article on the ship. I tried to save this article by adding sources, since the original was a load of urban legends and fiction that someone had taken out of that odious Cameron movie and assumed were factual. The problem is that only in the movies was "the staircase" (in reality, two almost-identical staircases) considered that unusual. Hundreds of staircases throughout the Western World and on dozens of ocean liners were just as ornate. The reason it's considered even marginally notable is because other staircases of its type have mainly been destroyed or renovated, and because it was so ornate that numerous filmmakers have used it as a symbol of the Gilded Age. As a staircase, though, I'm still not convinced it was that notable. --Charlene 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is some huge catastrophe going to befall Wikipedia and the world if we do? Atraxus 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have any grounds to Keep you'd like to advocate? RGTraynor 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Can you answer my question? Atraxus 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to answer your question. Don't worry a huge catastrophe would not befall Wikipedia if it is kept. However unencyclopedic articles lower the overall quality of the project. The problem with your argument is that it gets made all the time, if every time some one came along and said "what harm does my article on my schools bathroom do?" we kept the article the encyclopedia would quickly be filled with articles on marginal topics. We have to draw the line somewhere and the community seems to feel that this subject does not pass the bar. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to answer any pertinant questions. I rather doubt, for instance, that some huge catastrophe would befall either Wikipedia or the world were your user page replaced with obscenity-laden exhortations to defile schoolchildren, but that would likewise be against Wikipedia policy. I see that you've made less than a half-dozen mainspace edits, so you might be unfamiliar with such policies, and recommend you review WP:NOT, WP:AFD and WP:NN. RGTraynor 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an article is of poor quality or bringing Wikipedia into disrepute then I can understand its removal. But not just removing articles that you personally don't see the point to which is what this discussion comes down to in the end (I don't care how many policy pages you direct me to... that IS what it comes down). And the "if we let this one get away then the whole thing will be over run with them before long" argument is just hysteria. If you think it brings the website into disrepute then by all means appeal to get rid of it. But if you don't agree with it then don't look at it or make a counter argument. Don't just start ranting about how it should be taken down. Sheesh, I thought we'd left these Internet content arguments back in 1999 Atraxus 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that some discussion has taken place in response to your question, could you perhaps please provide some reason why this page should be kept? --Hnsampat 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. This deserves to stay because it covers one of the most unique elements of the ship. Unlike the engines, funnels or propellers which can be discussed in depth generically in pages for ship building or ships, the staircase is a feature which is unique amongst features of the RMS Titanic and staircases in general. I therefore put forward the case that it deserves its own article. Happy now? Atraxus 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I, however, must disagree for all of the reasons that have been laid out above. --Hnsampat 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what are they exactly? From what I can see it's just a load of people stating that it's non-notable and not being challenged versus a load of people saying it is notable and being asked to elaborate. Maybe you could elaborate on the reasons for non-notability beyond simply stating that it is "non-notable" as most of the deleters seem to have done. And I'm aware where I can find the guidelines for notability so don't simply post a link there. I want to see someone explain exactly why it is not notable with reference to the guidelines rather than simply state "non-notable" and expect that is good enough while at the same time saying that simply stating "notable" with no explanation isn't good enough. Atraxus 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. The Grand Staircase of the Titanic is non-notable because it has not had "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. Sure, it has been mentioned in a few sources as part of a larger discussion of the features of the Titanic (as cited on the page), but it has not been covered extensively. Put another way, the Grand Staircase is not notable in its own right, one of the key requirements for an article to exist about a subject. Hence, while it is proper to include a detailed description of the Grand Staircase in a larger article about the Titanic, it is not proper to have an article strictly devoted to the Grand Staircase. --Hnsampat 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well with that attitude Wikipedia would just be regurgitating information that is already out there and the whole thing would have little or no encyclopaedic value at all. Using the argument that you don't like the way it is sourced is just an easy way to go around dismissing articles you don't like Atraxus 10:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on my part. It's not that I don't like the article. It's that it is "unencyclopedic" as defined by various Wikipedia policies. It does not help anyone here if you simply presume that those who argue for deletion here are doing so only because they don't like the article and just dismiss their arguments accordingly. I could easily say that you're basing your arguments on the fact that you do like the article and that therefore we should ignore you, but that would not help anyone, would it? --Hnsampat 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep saying that because I keep pointing out that most, if not all, of the arguments for deletion seem to be based in blind faith rather than good faith. I've still not seen any evidence that I haven't already dispatched that the article is 'unencyclopedic'. I'm also noticing that the pro-deleters are switching between 'non-natble', 'unencyclopedia' or 'unreferenced' as to why it should be deleted which doesn't look particularly consistant in terms of having an argument Atraxus 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The Titanic is most certainly notable, and anyone familiar with it's history will know that the grand staircase was one of it's main features. I find the comment about deck chairs offensive and ignorant as this was a centrepiece of the grandest ship to sail the seas at the time, made all the more notable by it's fate. Irishjp 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take offense at my comments, also before you go around labeling people as ignorant you might want to learn a little about Wikipedia yourself, reading up on policies like WP:NPA for a start. To clarify my point I was trying to emphasize why notability is not inherited. If being a piece of something notable grants notability then we should probably have articles like John Edwards hair it has received some specific attention from reliable sources, but it is always in connection with John Edwards, just as this staircase is unlikely to receive attention outside of the Titanic context. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! There's no article on John Edwards hair?! >:( Atraxus 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the staircase wasn't noteable on its own how come if you ask most people about the titanic, they'll most likely mention this particular feature?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- That's a rather broad generalization, isn't it? I've talked about the Titanic with many people and the subject of the Grand Staircase has never come up. (What usually does come up are things like how it was supposedly unsinkable and yet sank anyway, icebergs, lifeboats, and how an award-winning movie was made from the ship.) --Hnsampat 01:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An award winning movie in which thousands of pounds were spent accurately recreating a totally non-notable and irrelevant staircase, eh? Atraxus 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, one could argue that Spire of the Empire State Building deserves to be its own article, since it was accurately recreated in not one but two highly acclaimed films (i.e. the original King Kong and its 2005 remake). However, clearly we would say that any information about the spire of the Empire State Building should be part of the Empire State Building article, not its own separate article. Likewise, nobody is saying that the Grand Staircase of the Titanic is "totally irrelevant and non-notable." The arguments for deletion here are that the staircase is not notable enough to have its own article. --Hnsampat 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Empire State Building or its spire but it's not out of the question that it could have its own article. And that's a totally shallow understanding of the example I was making too. Atraxus 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I work at an exhibit about the Titanic, right now, and it's definitely not indepedantly notable. --Haemo 01:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. Everyking 09:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a good example of fantastic archeticture --Brent Ward 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it was a feature on the titanic, it is the titanic; the titanic wasn't just an engine, it was all of its features too; and as this is one of its most noteable features i think it should be kept --Hadseys 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must disagree here. First, being a feature of the Titanic does not automatically make it notable, because then even the most minute of objects on the ship would be considered notable. Now, I do agree that this is a somewhat more notable feature than many others, but I do not believe that it is notable enough to have its own article. Just because it's a "good example of fantastic architecture" doesn't mean it's notable enough to have its own article. A discussion of the grand staircase is appropriate as part of a discussion of the features of the Titanic (and I notice that that section is rather short on the Titanic page), but it should not be a separate article. --Hnsampat 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into RMS Titanic Will ^(talk) 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The information is probably worth keeping, just not in an article of its own. So, I'm changing my vote to Merge. --Hnsampat 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Does this staircase represent a particular achievement in the world of architecture? If not, merge.--Ispy1981 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant and notable information (which is unlikely, I think) to Titanic Giggy _U^CP 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. It's clear from the article that the staircase itself hasn't been the subject of works, but has been considered as an interesting part of the ship as a whole. Take away the obvious notability of the ship itself, there's no indication that this particular staircase is or was of particular note beyond its oppulence. Finally, the article only mentions the notability of the staircase as being a featured setpiece in movies made about the ship. Merge the useful information here into the main article, which could use a little more meat in the "Fixtures and fittings" subhead. — Scientizzle 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is & Chris:The Movie[edit]

School project film of zero-notablility which gets an impressive zero Google hits. Also nominated for deletion is the equally non-notable Is & Chris:The Movie Soundtrack. Masaruemoto 00:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and WP:CRYSTAL as movie hasn't even been screened yet (article says not until December). Wikipedia is not for films made in school one day. The film's makers might like to know that in real life, "everybody who helped with the movie plus some friends and family" do NOT decide a film's rating (the MPAA does), and in fact most uber-tiny films like this don't even get ratings. Morgan Wick 04:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this "movie" lacks sources that would indicate it as being notable per WP standards. See this past deletion of a similar article for precedence. TheLetterM 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable crystal-ballism. Acalamari 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Acalamari. Bucketsofg 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krizia Vega[edit]

Minor actress in very small roles such as girl with string and wannabe in the three films she was on, I been prodding many of these articles lately but unlike those, she is more of a conterversal prod because of her famous sisters, so I'm placing it here instead. Fails WP:BIO, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tough one. It seems to lack good sources but she does have a level of notability. My instinct would be to delay an article until the notability is firmly established. --Stormbay 03:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What level of notability might that be? Her resume is as an extra, and as a not very busy one at that; my brother-in-law [53] has a resume as large. It doesn't merely seem to lack good sources, it lacks any sources at all save her IMDB entry. This fails WP:BIO going away, and as it stands, she's gained no more notoriety than to be named in her sisters' articles. RGTraynor 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and nom. Notability is not inherited automatically from sibling to sibling, and Krizia's only credited acting role so far was as a character identified only as "Wannabe #3". If she gets more significant roles, she will get more publicity and then a proper article can be written about her, but not right now. As a remote second choice, redirect to her sister Alexa Vega. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is definitely a non-notable biography, quotes like she speaks Spanish well (in a trivia section) are irrelevant. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasonings or re-direct to Alexa Vega instead. Acalamari 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etheric boxing[edit]

Confirmed conflict on interest on the noticeboard. The external link from the very two first words seems to indicate an intent to spam; at any rate, there's not much to assert notability. Shalom ^Hello 01:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources, just multiple links to the same website. Durova^Charge! 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have tried to encourage the main editor (see talk page) to find some decent references but I suspect there aren't any and that this is indeed a spammy article with a major conflict of interest. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shalom's reasoning: conflict of interest and hardly anything to assert the notability of the subject. Acalamari 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shalom. Bucketsofg 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the shameful reasons noted above. Bearian 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Iliad Story[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and fails WP:V. The film's title get 5 Google hits. Even if it ever gets made, it's unlikely to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The article for the production "studio" is also nominated for deletion. Masaruemoto 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Google hits besides creators' sites and Wiki mirrors. No evidence this would be notable even if completed. --Allen 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When it is produced and becomes notable, it should have an article. At present it appears NN. --Stormbay 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. The release date is supposedly 2011, as mentioned in the article's infobox. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.- Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable crystal-ballism. Acalamari 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal. Bucketsofg 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If their primary film is deleted, this should be as well. Sr 13 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AirLex Animation Studio[edit]

Non-notable "studio"; gets only 11 Google hits. Another article for this studio was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations, so it's a potential speedy as G4, but this was created a year later so probably isn't a repost of the previous article. Masaruemoto 00:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Studio that no third party seems to have written about and has never released anything. --Allen 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No works in existence. No sources = OR. the_undertow ^talk 04:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The studio has a verifiable affiliate, Silver Sky Studios --Lexington 004:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would argue that, Lexington. The article itself does not meet criteria for inclusion because there are no sources. the_undertow ^talk 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gokhan Ozaysin[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:BIO. No major media coverage or major awards. Article is more of a resume. Nv8200p talk 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost speediable, except that saying subject is in a "Who's Who" directory might count as a claim of notability. Article demonstrates poor understanding of what Wikipedia is. --Allen 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this bilge per Wikipedia is not Myspace. Bigdaddy1981 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete such a pretty page too. Kripto 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Myspace, and doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Who's Who is a paid service. You pay them $500 and you get a biography. You just have to fit one of their categories. Who's Who in Science, Business etc. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a vanity page and, as mentioned, "such a pretty page". --Stormbay 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is not notable. Acalamari 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bucketsofg 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Menards. —Kurykh 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest manufacturing[edit]

I really don't think this passes WP:CORP. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of the article is (to date) a single purpose account. Shalom ^Hello 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that. Thanks. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It reads like promotional material for the subject. It is a good company, no doubt, but does not appear to meet notability guidelines. --Stormbay 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menards. This company is apparently a subsidiary/division of Menards and it looks like there has already been a request on the talk page of that article for information related to this company. --- RockMFR 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menards. A privately held subsidiary, and we have no sources asserting its notability. But a redirect is cheap and as an in-house supplier they merit a mention on the store's page. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menards. Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Bucketsofg 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it does not meet notability guidelines, there is insufficient information to verify - to this point in time - that it is indeed a subsidiary of Menard, Inc. Nbuuck 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[54], [55], [56], etc. --- RockMFR 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menards per the tag on the page, and the arguments above Giggy _U^CP 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratman (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Delete. The article admits that this creature is a fan creation rather than a creature from any published or official source. Sean Curtin 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and per lack of sourcing. I'll alert the people at WP:D&D, too, to get their opinion. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we consider Keeping it. Ratmen have found their way back into official D&D canon: See here. It urgently needs clarification and better referencing because (I suspect) we are talking about something notable here (inasmuch as D&D monsters are ever notable), but the text of the article can be interpreted to mean that it is a fan creation. BreathingMeat 03:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we start allowing D&D stats in articles like Zoophilia, List of Pokémon, and List of Neopets, Delete. I don't want there to be a Dungeons & Dragons monsters test on the level that Pokémon has had. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom and above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Lacks any notability whatsoever, and not even cited. Makes a pretty big claim, I'm pretty sure the concept of "Rat People" has been around a bit longer than D&D, lets say, oh, a good few thousand years of Chinese Mythology.Piuro 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan-fiction, and not in any official products. Unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "Ratman is not an official D&D creature". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gan fon 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Bucketsofg 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Andre (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to History of Freemasonry. Since I know nothing of the topic and there is apparently a whole Wikiproject of people who do, I'll turn this into a redirect, leaving the history behind it so that project members (and other intrepid editors) may take at will from the old content. — Scientizzle 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry in Russia[edit]

This article has no reliable sources, no context, and gives little to no solid information on the subject. Most of the external links are personal sites ("Obolensky" is a pseudonym for the owner/author of the site the book is on, and the other stuff is mostly on Geocities type sites. The California Freemason article says nothing of value to the history of the article, except to underline that no one really knows about the subject. MSJapan 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Freemasonry, not enough info to substantiate separate article, however that little bit can be included in main article --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ... some of the information might be copied into History of Freemasonry but better sources would need to be found. Blueboar 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable and a lack of quality isn't sufficient reason to delete. This article seems to be part of a series and could definitely be improved. Tagging and contacting the freemasonry project would be more constructive. Malc82 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's where I found it. We have no sources or resources for this, which is why I tagged it. MSJapan 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not so sure that this is a notable topic. Freemasonry spread throughout Europe during the 1700s and the fact that it was instituted in Russia is nothing special. That is was then banned by the Soviets is not all that notable either (just about everything associated with the aristocracy was supressed). Malc82 says this seems to be part of a series... it isn't (the Freemasonry Project discourages "Freemasonry In <country>" articles because we don't consider them notable.) Again, if there are better sources, this might be worth a brief mention in the History of Freemasonry article, but is not notable enough for an article on it's own Blueboar 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notified the Wikiproject about this AfD 4 days ago. Since this garnered no response at all, I strike my "Keep" opinion and remain neutral. I still think that an encyclopedic article could be written about this topic, but since nobody seems to intend to improve this article this may not be enough of an argument. Malc82 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs expanding by someone who knows more history than me, but, not that even masterpieces of fiction are prime sources for Wikipedia, the place of freemasonry in the novel "War and Peace" shows that Russian freemasonry was unique in being a left-wing group, in contrast to the right-wing leanings of Western freemasonry. This is interesting, and the article needs expansion, not deletionDaverotherham 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The following is my own original research, and thus not suitable for including in the article... but... knowing the history of Freemasonry in general (and in Europe in particular), I can address Daverotherham's comments. There were really two different forms of Freemasonry in Russia. There was what I will call English style Freemasonry... non-political, purely fraternal, with a philosophical, charitable and moral focus. This form of Freemasonry was favored by the aristocracy and upper-middle classes throughout Europe. Then there is French style Freemasonry... highly political, anti-clerical, with a focus on radical egalitarianism. This tended to attract the bourgouise intelegencia and (to a lesser extent) the working classes in Europe. This is the Freemasonry that Tolstoy is writing about. It is more tied to France than to Russia (actually, this form of Masonry is more tied to the various revolutionary movements of the 1840s than to 1812... Tolstoy is a bit anacronistic in how he uses the fraternity in "War and Peace".) But back to Russia... In Russia, you had both forms. Neither was really liked by the government (whether Tsarist and Soviet), and the fratenity was actively surpressed. During the Soviet era, what small footholds the fraternity had were completely wiped out. All records were destroyed. References to it were banned. Thus, while we know that Freemasonry did have an on-again off-again existance in Russia prior to the soviet era, we have no reliable sources to use in writing about it. Yes, this would be an interesting topic to have as an article... but anything we might write would be pure speculation. Malc82 did not get any response to his notification at the Project Page... not out of indifference, but because the editors who form the project agree with deletion: because 1) there are no sources, and 2) one of our project goals is to cut back on "Freemasonry in <location>" articles. Blueboar 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Malc82 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salvageble (ie: properly cited) material to History of Freemasonry, preferable with better sources. Would also benefit from having anything at all on the periode between 1772 and 1917... I know some Russian Lodges used the Swedish rite, but have no reliable sources for it. WegianWarrior 06:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the information is useful and the seperate article creats the maina rticle from becoming too large. I.E. with history of freemasonry in every large country would create an unmanageble article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History_of_Freemasonry#Freemasonry_under_Totalitarian_Regimes_.281900-current.29 where verifiable information is available RichardColgate 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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