Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:54Z

Octo-sloth[edit]

Octo-sloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem notable. Was nominated for speedy deletion and then contested.Hondasaregood 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stephen who found the shortcut faster than myself. --Tikiwont 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Why not? Slippery Jim D'Griz 22:35, 13 March 2007
  • Delete Unnecessary; an entire guideline has been dedicated to these such occurrences (WP:NFT) NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and comment - I have read the article's history page. It was created today, nominated for speedy delete a couple hours later, the speedy delete was contested by the author who promised he would add references, and then brought here to Afd yet a few hours later. I find 0 ghits for the graphic novel "Donnie's Adventures" and 0 ghits for "octo-sloth", so I vote for delete. However, this has all been a bit rapid, hasn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah fine. Delete it. Slippery Jim D'Griz 7:30, 14 March 2007
      • comment - okay, the above person was the contester of the speedy delete. If he's now changed his position, can it now be speedy-deleted? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - Yes. I've decided that your right and the occto-sloth does not merit a wikipedia page of it's own. Sorry Slippery Jim D'Griz 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, so this article was made up in school one day. But this trend of nominating articles for deletion the same day of creation (in one instance that I have noted, a mere two minutes after creation) should be nipped in the bud. Another user (I can't remember who, now) commented that when articles are new is the time that users are able to catch them, before they get lost in the shuffle. I say, if you think an article isn't going to amount to much based on its first save, make a note of it on a list somewhere, and come back in a month. Don't nominate it for deletion because you're too lazy to come back later. . . . I mean no disrespect to the nominator in this particular discussion. I'm just feeling irritable about the trend. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - let me be the first to stand beside you in front of the firing squad - I agree totally. This particular article certainly merited a speedy delete, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Benny Hinn. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:55Z

Suzanne Hinn[edit]

Suzanne Hinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No apparent notability other than being married to multi-millionaire con-man, I mean "miracle healer", Benny Hinn. Saikokira 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a real "so what?" article. Being married to a man of (perhaps) some notability does not confer transmitted notability. Fails WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This definitely needs to be gotten rid of. Damn, what a waste of server space! VD64992 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lol, yes, marraige doesn't transfer notability. However, in some cases, notability is deferred for other reasons, but not in this case. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability, but apart from anything else, if what little is available on the Web about her was included [1] I doubt she'd be amused. EliminatorJR Talk 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Not notable per Alex43223. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Benny Hinn. Otto4711 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the husband. No content to merge. -- saberwyn 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there's more substantial and verifiable info than what is in the article, most definitely fails WP:NN. Pigmandialogue 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable. —dima/s-ko/ 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although I am not a fan of tele-vangelists, a clean-up of his article with any possible better establishment of the work he has done. On a side note, Sakokira, I would avoid make inflammatory remarks when nominating an AfD, as not to incite anyone who may be particulary sensitive to the subject matter. --Ozgod 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Benny Hinn.--TBCΦtalk? 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being related to a notable person doesn't make the person him/herself notable. If this was the case, we would have millions of articles on relatives of notable people. --Fred McGarry 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fred McGarry- notability doesn't transfer. CattleGirl talk | sign! 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable...--Cometstyles 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such little information provided, no information is provided as to the notability of the individual.24.176.25.116 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all content then redirect--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Benny Hinn.-- Fails WP:N but could redirect a few people to her husbands article, as he's the notable one. Hanako 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a one-liner. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems like the right thing. --Lockley 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all content then redirect. —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Benny Hinn, she is already merged there. --Bejnar 04:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fascists[edit]

List of fascists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As "fascist" is a pejorative term that no one uses to identify themselves, this list violates WP:NPOV. In addition, some of the people listed here are still living, which violates WP:BLP, especially given that the entire list is unsourced. Perhaps this could be replaced by a List of historical fascists, as there were political parties and people 60+ years ago who did call themselves fascist. As it is, this list merely invites the constant adding of right wing politicians and others who various editors don't like. Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Maybe it should be renamed to self identified fascists, but that's not the concern in an AfD. Similarly, there may be some entries which should not be there, but that's not a reason for deletion. And people do use the term to identify themselves, just like they do use the term "neo-Nazi". -Amarkov moo! 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The word "fascist", applied strictly, can only be applied to members of the Italian party founded by Benito Mussolini. If it is to be applied to any right-wing politician, from the Nazis down (or up) then the list is so hopelessly incomplete as to be totally non-encyclopedic. Why not add the name of every member of the NSDAP?--Anthony.bradbury 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason not to use the definition in fascism? -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the fact that it's a pejorative term. We don't have List of idiots or List of bastards, despite the fact that we could find sources on low intelligence or unmarried parents. --Xyzzyplugh 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there are a sizable number of people who honestly self-identify as an idiot or a bastard, and they are notable in relation to those things, then we should have those lists. Now, I don't think that this list, or any ideological list for that matter, should be applied to someone who does not self-identify as a fascist/libertarian/conservative/whatever. But it doesn't, so I see no reason to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to list of historical (self-proclaimed) fascists per nom. This could be a useful page, but it has problems. As can be seen from the edit history, it's controversial. Fascism is pejorative in many cases and could be used for a sneaky Wiki-attack. Also, the definition of "fascist" on this page is too loose - if the subjects were self-proclaimed fascists, that would be fine, but some of those on the list could equally well be said to be far right-wing or Neo-Nazi; that's not the same as fascism. As an aside, the page is also a target for vandals. EliminatorJR Talk 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Self-indentified facists. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of communists, democrats, etc... I'm not sure of a policy ot cite, but I think nothing good can come of this article. NPOV does seem applicable enough. Paging Senator McCarthy... --Auto(talk / contribs) 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the reasons for deletion are flawed in a few respects.
    • "As "fascist" is a pejorative term..." is an incorrect statement because the term is used simply as a descriptive term to describe a political ideology. There is an article on fascism used the way you consider it at Fascist (epithet) but the list explicitly does not use that definition. Certainly, the original PNF were called, and called themselves, fascist but no one would say it is being used perjoratively. Any one adding someone who is not obviously a "fascist" ideologically (with references) is immediately reverted as the article's history shows.
    • "...that no one uses to identify themselves, this list violates WP:NPOV." this statement is incorrect since some people do refer to themselves as fascist or a related ideology (falange, national socialist, etc.). In fact, there was a recent Deletion review to allow the Category of Fascist Wikipedians to be re-created [2] for those who do self-identify sa a fascist.
    • "In addition, some of the people listed here are still living, which violates WP:BLP". How so? If someone added George W. Bush to the list (and it stayed on it for more than a minute before being reverted) it would violate it but what about Pino Rauti? Some of the neo-Nazi's on the list could be argued I suppose but that is a separate issue that does not warrant deletion of the entire list especially since most people on the list are dead.
    • "...especially given that the entire list is unsourced." Actually, everyone of those figures does (well, should) have sources for them being a fascist in their own articles. To have the sources for everyone on the list page would clutter it up and is completely unnecessary. Do we have references for everything added to List of Atari 7800 games on the page with the list? No, and, therefore, we do the same with this list. - DNewhall 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The introduction to the article claims not to use the term as an epithet, but the actual items on the list shows that it is being used that way. The problem stems from the way the word "fascist" is used in multiple ways, which could include anyone from WWII Italian fascists to modern Neo-Nazis and white supremacists to simply conservative right wing politicians. Don Black (nationalist) and David Duke, for example. White supremacists and nationalists would generally claim not to be fascist, and being a white supremacist or nationalist does not imply one believes in dictatorship or totalitarianism. A few hundred years ago, most of the white population of the US held beliefs such that we would now consider them to be white supremacists; were they all fascists? The term "fascist" is too broad and too pejorative to make a List of fascists keepable. (And, not that this is reason to delete or keep, but your claims that any items on the list which aren't sourced are immediately removed is clearly not true, there are about 50 redlinks in the list, where are our sources on these? And most of the people on the list which we do have articles on, which I checked, I didn't see justification for calling them fascist) --Xyzzyplugh 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not due to the nom's reasoning, but because the subject of the list is a bit broad. Instead, a category would be better suited.--TBCΦtalk? 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I can see the ideal usefulness of this list, I'm concerned that out of eight people who I picked off the list (most at random), none had the work "fascist" in their Wikipedia entries. In other words, if they were so self-identified, why isn't this mentioned in their articles? (And some articles were quite long with extensive sources.) Yes, they all shared some characteristics of fascist philosophy but, as far as I could see, fascist was being applied to them externally and as an epithet for their Neo-Nazi/authoritarian/anti-Semitic/racist/etc. beliefs. I'm not one to defend such people but if I got a 0 for 8 result, I have little trust in this list. Pigmandialogue 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable topic worthy of keeping.--Sefringle 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has questioned whether it was notable, the criticism of it is that it's not NPOV. "Notability" is not our only requirement for keeping an article. --Xyzzyplugh 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete With a term that could be used pejoratively in the name of the article, we should be insisting on attribution with footnotes because the potential for libeling someone in an ugly way is enormous here, yet there is not one single footnote or reference of any kind in the article. Also, David Duke is a Hitler-loving racist according to the Wikipedia article on him, but I think it's inaccurate to call him a fascist in the terms of the Fascism article that was mentioned earlier in this discussion, because I don't think he adheres to all of the "integral" tenets mentioned in that definition (I don't think he's in "opposition to laissez-faire capitalism"). It does nobody any good to be inaccurate in identifying extremists. What we need are separate lists, with each item footnoted, and with a definition of the label at the top, including what criteria put people on the list or leave others off of it. Delete List of Fascists, then let someone, if they want, start the whole thing over along the lines I described, because I think the current list is useless and unsalvageable. We should have a List of racial supremicists, List of Nazis, and List of Ku Klux Klan members to cover the extremists who don't fit in the Fascists list. Noroton 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A similar article, List of communists, seems to have been nominated as well, for those who are interested.--TBCΦtalk? 06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although many of the entries on the list should probably be taken away. The nominator's statement, "..."fascist" is a pejorative term that no one uses to identify themselves" is in part incorrect. That the term a perjorative term today is true, but Benito Mussolini for instance did refer to himself as a "fascist". Self-identification is a valid and verifiable criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it needs some work and careful watching, I think that it is a worthy subject for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaiderAspect (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable and unqualified criteria for inclusion AlfPhotoman 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete List is indescriminate waste of server space, and furthermore, can an admin block the making of any "List Of (insert contraversial political/religious/racial term here)" page? I'm getting a little tired of seeing one up for deletion every day.--Lostcause365 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Violation of WP:NPOV adn WP:BLP...--Cometstyles 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editing can deal with any who do not belong or whose fascism is not attested by sources satisfying [[WP:ATT] in the primary article on the person. I see a number of well substantiated fascists such as Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Mussolini on the list, and there is good reason for historical information to maintain such a list. Any editor can remove any unsupported entry (such as a prank listing of someone's high school principle or parent). Edison 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If some entry in the list is questionable, someone can put a citation needed tag or still better, provide a reference or remove the entry. But having some questionable entries does not mean the list has to be deleted. Self-identification could be used as a criterion. And the scope is not as broad as List of communists.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If only because "no one" includes the members of Movimento Fascismo e Libertà and the American Fascist Party Lars T. 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is off topic, but - americanfascistparty.com, no alexa ranking. fascismoeliberta.info, alexa ranking 3,809,294. So these parties may possibly have membership in the double digits. --Xyzzyplugh 12:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If for no other reason than how do you define membership of such a list? Comparison with the list of communists is invalid because there is a widespread network of communist parties. Last I looked there wasn't a similar network of fascist parties. I also disagree with the claim that term isn't perjorative --Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is kept, I'm going to create List of socalists, List of pilots, List of people who have seen Star Wars more than 100 times, and List of meat eaters. (I'm kidding.) --PatrickD 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful, really, and can be controversial. People may try this [3], and even if that is kept a watch on, I don't see a real reason for this page. Just gives everyone more work. The Behnam 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV magnet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the criteria who's included here are obviously impossible to enforce. Czechoslovakia includes 4 names of which only Gajda fits here (leader of party named fascist, supporter of corporativism). Moravec was an opportune propagandist, Frank and Henlein mere nationalists and separationalists. Stříbrný, Kramář, Domin - leaders of fascists parties and groups are missing. The list looks degenerated into "list of every bad guy". Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable.--Sefringle 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability has... what to do with it? Nobody said that fascism wasn't notable. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was straight-out delete. Daniel Bryant 09:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Roberts (criminal)[edit]

Dean Roberts (criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable London drug dealer. Article states his murder would be among the six gangland slayings occurring during 1999, so this isn't particularly unusual or noteworthy. Saikokira 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a wholly un-notable gangland killing, without any features setting it above other similar criminal events.--Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it could be expanded, the noteworthiness cannot. If we had articles for every gangland killing in history, we'd double the encyclopedia in days. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge/redirect to Operation Trident as Wikipedia is not a memorial for drug dealers shot in obscure gangland killings.--TBCΦtalk? 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a small fish criminal who's death was without particular notability. Per above, etc. Pigmandialogue 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As creator of the article, I should point out the murder was hardly obscure as Dean Roberts, an underworld figure and a key associate of the Yardies, was one several killed in a particularly violent gang war. One could equally make the same comparison to any gangland killing in North America or elsewhere (see Arnold Schuster). I've since added several additional sources in regards to his relationship to the Yardies as well as coverage of his unsoved murder. Also it was his death which would eventualy bring down Rickey Sweeny and the Yardie-affiliated Lock Street Crew during Operation Trident, which is certainly a notable event. MadMax 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gang war might be notable, but the gangland killing is certaintly not. Also, being a victim of a notable conflict does not always make the victim notable as well. While it does seem to be true that his death would later lead to Operation Trident, that—at most—merits a redirect or a merge, not a seperate article. --TBCΦtalk? 05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opposition to merging the article to an article on the gangland killings themselves, however the article has yet to be created. While the notability of his criminal career is is question, it is specifically his unsolved murder which not only occurred during a major underworld gang war but would eventually be used to convicted several major Yardie gang leaders during Operation Tridant most notably the life imprisonment of Rickey Sweeney. This is supported by several news reports and articles which have been provided. As many murder victims and minor criminals are similarly covered on Wikipedia I don't see how this would be any different from North American organized crime and street gang related killings. His murder was highly publicized in Great Britain and was the subject of an extensive investigation by Scotland Yard. Should articles such as Ferdinand Boccia or Eddie Cummiskey be deleted as well, simply because they criminal careers are deemed not notable enough despite the obvious effects of their murders ?
  • Delete per nom and all above AlfPhotoman 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable enough. Nenyedi NenyediContribs@ 13:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TBC. If the gangland war was notable, that's what should be an article. I note, by contrast, that this article doesn't actually say anything about its putative subject, other than he was a drug dealer, associated with this gang, and was murdered. That's information too scanty to support a stub. Ravenswing 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I would agree the article does need expansion, the individual was also the victim of an unsolved murder (one of a series of unsolved killings) which eventually caused the downfall of one of the dominant Yardie organizations in North London. This point is supported by numerous sources provided in the article. I would think this alone would be enough to support his notability. MadMax 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and all of the above...--Cometstyles 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and little chance of deletion anyway). -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Shannon[edit]

Terry Shannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's been three weeks since the last AfD nomination, and the sourcing is still terrible. A few of the things are too short to be called sources, and most are from the guy's personal website. I'm sure he was a great guy, but he isn't notable. Amarkov moo! 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to the article from the Boston Globe. The referencing is still terrible, but not enough for deletion. And meatpuppetry is still bad, but that was never a reason for deletion in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a very notable person in the DEC world 80.192.15.161 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep No doubt this AfD will turn into another SPA and sockfest. It's a shame none of those voting Keep in the previous AfD bothered to fix what is still a messy and shoddily sourced article. However, for what it's worth I do think Shannon had borderline notability. The article needs a good cleanup and the removal of irrelevant sourcing. Edit: I just had to revert this diff. EliminatorJR Talk 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sheesh... Another one who is infected with the "if it's not on the `net, it doesn't exist" disease. That is why there are so few online references, save for his seminal book... Dan Schwartz, [email protected] Discpad 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve the refs. - Kittybrewster 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been three weeks. It's been advertised in the Inquirer AND Wikipedia Review AND a bunch of other random sites that we want sources. Is there a good reason to believe that the refs can be improved? -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree with EliminatorJR on the silly fact. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Three weeks? Maybe if there were something negative in the article, but I don't see the current content as grounds for haste in deletion. Try waiting three months instead. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might have waited longer, except that canvassing in defense of an article really annoys me, and the concerns addressed in the last AfD were never resolved, just meatpuppeted into closure. Advertising a discussion all over the Internet should not have the power to postpone it for months. -Amarkov moo! 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think if you are annoyed, the wise thing to do is back away. Wikipedia does not benefit from you succumbing to a personal grude and that's what annoyance means to me. If anything, you've given me further reason to say you should have waited longer. FrozenPurpleCube 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of deleting the Terry Shannon article has been debated and settled; and is also the subject of several stories in The Inquirer, including Terry Shannon nominated for Wikipedia deletion; Terry Shannon gets Wikipedia reprieve and Terry Shannon archive material wanted for Wikiporpoise

It is recommended that computer newbies, i.e. guys that think "it's not a computer `cause I can't plug my iPod in it" should search Google here and here for references to The Register and The Inquirer. Dan Schwartz, Discpad 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    • That doesn't address the concerns at all. At the very most, there is one reliable, independent source. WP:N requires multiple reliable, independent sources. And your incivility certainly doesn't help. By the way, the topic was never settled, it was simply hammered into submission by meatpuppetry. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To second that just because an article survive deletion debate does not mean it cannot be nominated again. Also try and be civil, an new editor throwing the word newbie around seems a little odd to me. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I said you are a computer newbie. The fact that you are only 22 years old means I was programming a PDP-8 and an Altair 8800 (serial number 7) almost a decade before you were born.
Daniel, there's a lot to the history of computing besides just commodity boxes that have an "intel inside" sticker. In case you didn't know, over 90% of the ATM machines worldwide use OpenVMS. Anybody who writes a book on the subject that sells over a hundred thousand copies certainly is noteworthy.
Also, may I suggest you look at the Index of articles in The Register and anotherindex of articles in The Inquirer. Discpad 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up I voted to delete last time, but I think the article can be sourced. It will probably need to be shortened though. A lack of speed in a clean up should not mean that an article should be deleted it can take months or even years. Canvassing and bad faith actions are not reasons to delete an article either, although certainly I know how you feel. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. If you voted to delete last time, why do you now believe it can be sourced? Is there some new information I missed? -Amarkov moo! 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I guess that's why you didn't vote for wiki accountability 80.192.15.161 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give you one of those sources that ends an AfD debate like a independent biography case but I can see that most of the information can be sourced from the provided references although they do not all meet WP:ATT. If I were to make a policy backed argument I would point to the section of WP:BIO that discusses creative professionals. I think it is pretty clear that Mr. Shannon made a significant contribution to the computer world. The policy violations and sock/meat puppetry shouldn't cloud our judgment. If the article doesn't get a good make over in the next six months than I might consider voting delete, but there is no big hurry in the wiki world. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, just wondering if there was something obvious I missed. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup He is a published writer (not that is grounds for notability in all cases), but an investigation into his writings and any effects they have had on any community is worth note. A better picture (if any available) would better suit the article. --Ozgod 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- article appears to have a relatively decent number of sources at the moment, and the subject appears reasonably notable within the VAX/VMS world. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I never denied that there were a decent number of sources. The issue is that most are unreliable, from his own website, or don't really source anything, just tangientally mention him. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A whole lot of helium inflating very little substance. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability seems well-established. --Carnildo 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Also, in response to Discpad, please remember that consensus is not immutable and that it can be changed.--TBCΦtalk? 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not know who the guy was before I stumbled on this discussion, but even the currently sloppy and poorly-sourced article, when combined with a basic Google search, is enough to convince me that Shannon is notable. Consider also that there is no direct relation between quantity of media coverage and notability. If much of this guy's career required him to operate out of the limelight, it is entirely plausible that he would generate far less media coverage than, say, a minor league baseball player, while his role in shaping the world we live in may have been far greater. I agree that irrelevant issues such as sock puppetry appear to be clouding the nominating editor's judgment. -Pete 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs improvement, cleanup and better sourcing, but that is not solved by deleting it. Pax:Vobiscum 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let me talk about this as someone who has been working fairly heavily on sourcing over the last couple of weeks. Much of Terry's work was done offline, in the pre-Google days. Sourcing that stuff requires research beyond 'Google it'. I have been to libraries and have been requesting paper copies of Terry's work, but as you may know if you have ever used a library, this stuff takes time to pull up and research, especially given that it is older stuff. Right now I have magazines and books en route to me to source more of this article.

I don't think anyone is debating notability any more - Terry's notability within the VAX/VMS community has been well established (fulfilling WP:BIO on the contribution to field criterion). If the debate is over the sourcing, it should be noticed that this, like every Wikipedia article, is a work in progress - if the problem is with sources, don't delete the article, contribute and help find the sources.

Unfortunately, the article has been screwed up by the Wikipedia editing community. One cranky editor went through and added citation needed's to every sentence in the article. I went through and removed most of what couldn't physically be cited and added in sources for the rest. Now the editing community says that it lacks meat and has irrelevant sources. Unfortunately, this is what happens when you get over-enthusiastic (misguided?) editors with personal quests.

Hope this helps.Pinkboy 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment Thanks, Pinkboy. Lack of notability seems like the only potential reason for deletion; I can't imagine that anybody would argue with your argument about poor sourcing not being a cause to delete the entire article. Put a {{unreferenced}} tag on it, and be done with it - is there still anyone around who would disagree with that resolution? -Pete 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same as last time (wow! three weeks already? How time flies!) -- Atlant 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While I do not have the time at the moment to find all of the citations, there are many citations to Terry's work. Terry was a regular presenter on the US and international speaking circuit in Digital/Compaq/HP community. I believe that the back issues of his newsletter are available online. The copies of his presentations may have fallen offline due to the re-organization of DECUS as Encompass, and the dissolution of Interex. His contributions to the field were extremely significant -- User:Gezelterrl 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically, agreeing with Pinkboy. The additions to this article are excellent; there is no lack-of-references argument anymore. Most of Shannon's work was done pre-Web, with magazines that never got digitized, so it's understandable that 22-year-old gamers don't know who he was (which is all the more reason for keeping the article). To those of us with a lot of experience in the technology industry, T. Shannon was one of the movers and shakers, back in the day. That's all the "notable" we need. Keep! -- User:[email protected] 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for a stub at the minimum based on the present sourcing, so why push for another AfD? There are better things we can spend time on then play shoot till we win. - Denny 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep - Very well sourced so passes notability...--Cometstyles 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - keynote speaker at major HP user conference [4] --Amaccormack 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No question on notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very significant person within the VMS/OpenVMS community: Bclaremont 20:36 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The "not notable" criticism is ludicrous and appears to be a dead issue. It appears that a consensus is building that more references (or "sources") should be added. Many references to document Shannon's contributions are available in print media only, and many of them are difficult to obtain, except from those who saved them from several years ago. Thus, they take more time to post here on Wikipedia. A request has gone out for old issues of Digital Review and other sources of articles written about Shannon. Harvard-style references to those will be added in due time. The Cape 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important point. It is not easy to obtain a lot of Shannon's writing -- and articles in other tech journals from the same period that discuss Shannon and his work. So it's not that us oldsters are slacking off in our efforts to find more references; it's that many of them are difficult to obtain.User:[email protected] 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- the article has improved since I previously nominated it for AfD in February, and one source has been put forth for the biographical info: "Graham, Lamar B. (1992) The Nerd Who Came In from the Cold, Boston Magazine, February 1992, 52-55, 90-91." If that citation can be confirmed as being about Shannon, and not merely mentioning him in passing, then he does fulfill WP:BIO. Finally, I would again caution those who take an antagonistically protectionist stance in regards to material that doesn't follow our policy, that Wikipedians tend to look disfavourably upon personal attacks and assumption of bad faith. Yes, Discpad, this means you.--LeflymanTalk 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to say that the above article has been uploaded and hyperlinked as a PDF - hope this helps! Pinkboy 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, personal attacks should be avoided; blasting contributors as "meatpuppets" and such like has no place in this discussion. Additional print sources added; varying degrees of Shannon content, including one that is more of a background piece, explaining the dynamics between Ziff and McGovern, which were the two largest tech publishing firms in the 1980s, an understanding of which is essential to putting Shannon's contributions in context.User:[email protected] 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it snowing yet?

Shouldn't this AfD be close via the Snowball clause?

Atlant 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. Stick a reference tag on, get rid of the bit about this AfD, and lets give the references time to arrive. EliminatorJR Talk 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too late, I withdrew my nomination. :P -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Luscher[edit]

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

Delete as not establishing notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to be mildly notable in that he worked on the soundtrack to a film (Abby Singer) that seems to be at least somewhat notable (imdb entry, apparently has made several film festivals, and includes appearances by numerous big-names in film) and also on the music for a notable video game (Amped — Xbox release that was apparently successful enough to spawn two sequels). That seems to meet the notability requirement of WP:MUSIC, if just barely. Mwelch 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Mwelch, I think the composer technically meets minimal standards of WP:MUSIC. However, I don't think that's quite enough to tip my opinion in favor of inclusion. Achievements still seem low to me. Perhaps I'm being stricter than I should be but that's my opinion. Pigmandialogue 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Does have a listing on IMDB, so he does at least have a quasi professionally established career, although search results were few. --Ozgod 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. I have a listing on IMDB (I've been on a few film crews), so it really doesn't mean anything to be on IMDB -- I'm certainly not notable enough now to be on Wikipedia. And the music he scored was not for a notable film (the film itself isn't even on Wikipedia). Needless to say, allmusic comes up with no info (though he's there, not a big feat either) and there are very few ghits and even less credible sources (or at least so I can find). All points to delete for me. Rockstar915 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A somewhat obscure songwriter, who's work has only appeared in one video game and in one mildly notable film.--TBCΦtalk? 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Questionable notability, delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIONenyedi NenyediContribs@ 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Nenyedi...--Cometstyles 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Lockley 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iraqi legislative election, December 2005. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:57Z

Justice and Future Coalition[edit]

Justice and Future Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed due to no info on what happened to this party in the Iraqi election in 2005. Author created this article and I think others too on Iraq but they have not been improved on since June 06. Fail to see any notability and there is no content explaining policitial membership, reason for party creation etc. PrincessBrat 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:58Z

Bill Arthur[edit]

Bill Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Commentator on TV with a focus on Rugby only. Not notable and article is made up of one sentence PrincessBrat 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses mayfield[edit]

Moses mayfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability Kntrabssi 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the norm regarding notability. Kntrabssi 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree with those noted as objecting to the application of inclusion criteria 3 of WP:BAND. This looks like a relatively small club tour. I still say its better to delete for now. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, WP:BAND Nenyedi NenyediContribs@ 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice against re-creation until they pass WP:BAND, which at the moment this band doesn't. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not notable...--Cometstyles 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BAND says that the central criterion is that the band "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The references sem to indicate that the band meets the criterion. Having only one full-length album is not a reason to exclude a band if it passes on other criteria, such as the multiple independent reliable non-trivial published works and the national tour. I would encourage people who consider that the band fails WP:BAND to carefully re-read WP:BAND which states, as do most other Wikipedia notability guidelines, that passing a single criterion is enough to establish notability, even if other criteria are not met. --Eastmain 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and rewrite. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:59Z

Dark Ages (computer game)[edit]

Dark Ages (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Section 1 is directly copied from the game's website. A majority of the remainder of the article fails WP:Not#Info, as it is minutiae and descriptions of how to play the game. Also, it fails WP:WEB as it has no non-trivial sources. It is my opinion that this article is an non-expandable stub at best. Faladine 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but clean up the article and remove the cruft. Notable video game websites such as Gamespot, Game Rankings, GameStats, IGN and RPG Fan have included the game in their databases [5] [6] [7][8][9]. WP:WEB does not apply, as this is a video game and not a "webcomic, podcast, blog, Internet forum, online magazine and other media, web portal or web host."--TBCΦtalk? 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems somewhat notable. Game guide aspects need to be removed or moved off wikipedia, but that is not for AFD. Koweja 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- relatively large article, no harm in keeping. Don't delete for the sake of finding something to delete. --Fred McGarry 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and due rewrite Clearly notable but no sources.--Sefringle 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TBCΦtalk?. Mathmo Talk 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a notable computer game. --Carioca 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but do a slash-and-kill editing technique to allow the article to grow naturally. Guroadrunner 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but chop almost everything after the first paragraph. Might want to tag that revision in the talk in case someone wants to copy it to a gaming wiki. — brighterorange (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've done a copy-and-paste dump for the game to Encyclopedia Gamia here. Don't know if it helps, but it does preserve the information better. Guroadrunner 20:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite - Add some sources and remove or improve sections copied directly from website..--Cometstyles 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Info can be added by player, not copied from website. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:02Z

International Wrestling Cartel[edit]

International Wrestling Cartel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established, no outside reliable sources listed. Prod removed by anon, so sending here for consensus. NMChico24 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable local wrestling organisation. Not sourced. EliminatorJR Talk 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very close to CSD A7, but not quite. According to WP:CORP, this article is basically about the the company of a small city wrestling promoter. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN indy fed. TJ Spyke 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, not of broad interest. There is a link, and the organization seems to be a minor and local. Nenyedi NenyediContribs@ 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - as per nom...--Cometstyles 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Not-notable and independent. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:03Z

List of self-referential songs in films[edit]

List of self-referential songs in films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Songs in movies that mention itself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Unencyclopedic and trivial, a list of film theme songs that happen to include the title of the film in them. No more notable than having a list of films that includes the main character in the title, or dozens of other potential film/song title lists. The article introduction makes little sense as well; Musical film score is often employed in the production of a film, but there have been occasions where a song was written in reference to itself. I don't believe any of the songs listed here were "written in reference to itself", they were written for the film they were included in, but that's quite different to a song that was genuinely written in reference to itself, for example "You're So Vain". Saikokira 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar)[edit]

Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. There are no reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Secondly, Google[10] returned less than 200 hits for his arabic name. As for his english name, most of the links are for the congressmen Gary Miller, who is a totally different person. Sefringle 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article fails to establish notability. --Ozgod 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE.-- Dakota 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no non-trivial second party sources. If that should change by end of this AfD change to Keep AlfPhotoman 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only because I think that a better process to deal with this article would be to tag it with {{notability}}, and maybe a {{expert-subject}}, as suggested in WP:BIO under "If the subject does not appear to be noteworthy". I suggest this because he may be entirely notable among the Arabic-speaking online moslem community, and judging by the number of people who have done major content-oriented edits on that article, I suspect he probably is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Gary Miller seems to be quite notable Muslim theologian. Goggle (Gary+Miller+Islam)[11] produces thousands of website containing his bio, books, article, lectures and videos. 202.154.141.243 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Gary Miller is also an outspoken critics of Christianity. His argument is in [12] page well over 6 months without a challenge to his notability or refutation of his argument. without his bio will cause confusion among wikipedia reader as there are other people with same name. 88.241.21.129 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep The article is not complete at this stage. Gary Miller has written many books and appeared as a pundit on television and radio. He is like a mirror immage to Ali Sina.[reply]

comment that doesn't prove him notable.--Sefringle 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As described above by AliSina, this article is not complete and it needs more contribution, it shouldn't be deleted if "references aren't there", the references should be added. Also, Gary Miller's criticism of Christianity is mentioned in other wiki articles. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 11:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 salt. Daniel Bryant 09:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Saar[edit]

  • Moved to correct title and trascluded. Kafziel Talk 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support See above Zazaban 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(page - messages - contribs) 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! Conditional keep

Original comment - There's something I don't understand here. If you do a Google on "Gita Saar" you will get a bunch of hits back that mix "Bhagavad Gita" with "Gita Saar". It appears that the "Gita Saar" is much akin to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. (Actually, it reads more like the Desiderata to me but that's a digression.) So, contrary to what User:Anthony.Bradbury says, I think this article should be kept provided that it is agreed that the Gita Saar Gita is genuine and of the same notability as the Judeo-Christian texts that I provided for comparison. --Richard 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards Delete - Changed my vote per User:GourangaUK below. --Richard 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Geeta Saar, Gita Saar may be different names but they are linked to one and only Bhagavad Gita. As people don't have time in these modern world to read the whole Bhagavad Gita or any other holy scripture, the Geeta Saar just describes the essence or the vital points of Bhagavad Geeta and reminds one to just remember Geeta Saar throughout their daily life. Geeta Saar has been translated from Bhagavad Geeta, scripture written by Swami Satyanandji, the founder of Sri Ram Sharnam Gohana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.12.16 (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge with and Redirect to Bhagavad Gita. These words are very popular among Hindus, and you can find them several Hindu temples and ashrams, and mathas. Googling gives several results[14][15] and there are entire sites dedicated to Gita SaarGita Saar. utcursch | talk 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep Content is memorable and widely seen in India. It may not have the same authority as the Gita itself, but nevertheless, it strives to capture the essence or at least put the reader into the mindset of "let go" which many state to be one of the important aspects of the Gita. I have always wondered about the author/motivator behind this Geeta Saar, and having this additional information would help. Think about it like this: The next time you are in Mumbai, and see this on a taxi windshield or rear window of some car, wouldn't you like to hit wikipedia and know more about it? Savyasaachi
    Comment There are a lot of things I would like to look up on Wikipedia, but not all are notable. It does not seem to be very notable outside India to me. Zazaban 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... "not very notable outside India" so what? India is a huge country. There's lots of stuff in Wikipedia that is not very notable outside the U.S. In fact, some of it is probably not very notable outside the state that it is in. Notability isn't necessarily international in scope. --Richard 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combatic[edit]

Combatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally tagged this as requiring references and context, but the author removed those tags and added a citation *of himself* as reference. That action leads me to believe that this is original research. There's no substantial indication that this "combat dicipline" meets notability standards or attributability standards. Deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who played President of the United States[edit]

List of actors who played President of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - actors can play dozens or hundreds of different roles in the course of their careers. Listing actors by the parts they play is rather trivial. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who have played Hamlet. Otto4711 03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. I would suggest it for a Category, but even then it would still be too trivial. --Ozgod 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright, NO categories. WAy too trivial even as a categorization scheme. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too trivial & hard to keep on top of. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as part of the POTUS trivia series. --Vsion 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of obscure trivia. In response to Vsion, note that inclusion is not always an indicator of notability.--TBCΦtalk? 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite precedence, this list does not seem way too trivial. It's not every other actor who gets to play the role of the President of US. Well, the list is virtually unsourced. If there is some doubtful entry, that may be questioned. But the list apparently seems to be well researched. Yes, Wikipedia is not a collection of obscure trivia. But this is not exactly obscure. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not every actor who gets to play the role of Hamlet either, and in fact there are numerous sources that name Hamlet as the definitive role that an actor can play. They were cited in the Hamlet AFD and were not considered persuasive enough to save it. Otto4711 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not a particularly persuasive argument. One could justify a list of any sort of actor by role by saying "it's not any actor who gets to play..." whoever, including "it's not every actor who gets to play a guy named Bob" and "it's not every actor who gets to play a government employee" and both are every bit as objectively true as saying it about "the President." There's nothing inherently special or notable about playing the President. Otto4711 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking cue from your own opinion this list seems even more significant. You have told "it's not every actor who gets to play a guy named Bob". Correct. And bye the way, who is Bob? On the other hand, US President is someone. That's why this list is significant. Also, as Noroton has stated below, anyone who wants to study how various actors have approached the role of presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... not insignificant at all. As JayHenry has stated below, this list would be a sound candidate for a featured list, provided some more works are put into it, necessary references provided and lead is adequately expanded. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dwaipayan. You certainly wouldn't want a list of "Actors who have played people named Bob" or "Actors who played government employees," but President of the U.S. is obviously more remarkable than that. Someone has put a tremendous amount of work into organizing this list. It's well done per WP:LIST, good for information, navigation. It's also discriminate, verifiable. Not a lot of movies actually have the president as a character, so it's not impossible to keep on top of. Frankly, this list would be a sound candidate for a featured list. And, although it's not a criteria for deletion, I'd propose that in the absence of sound criteria, editors should take into mind whether or not they're destroying the hard, well-intentioned work of other editors. There's just no good reason to do that here. --JayHenry 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Take into the account the hard work of other editors" is, as you rightly point out, an appeal to emotion with no basis in policy or guideline. I would go so far as to say that it should be considered an argument to avoid in AFDs. Otto4711 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean it as a gentle reminder toward WP:CIVIL. AfD is a really hostile, nasty place and it shouldn't have to be that way. --JayHenry 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dwaipayan and JayHenry--Golden Wattle talk 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when someone calls an article up for deletion as "useful" Otto cites WP:USEFUL (not a policy or guideline), but simultaneously we get this comment at the top of this discussion: "actors can play dozens or hundreds of different roles in the course of their careers. Listing actors by the parts they play is rather trivial" So we can't argue usefulness but we can argue what is essentially the opposite, because that's what "trivial" actually means here. Anyone who wants to study how actors have played presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... nontrivial. 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, strike "trivial" and substitute "completely insignificant." It is completely insignificant in the career of an actor who has played hundreds of different parts that one of the parts he played was the POTUS. Otto4711 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the significance to an actor's career of playing the POTUS isn't the only reason somebody might want to read the article. Anyone who wants to study how various actors have approached the role of presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... not insignificant at all. Noroton 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is listcruft at all. JuJube 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said anything about "listcruft" except you. Otto4711 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-laid out list (with more than just names) with finite membership criteria (so long as high school plays and class assignment movies are excluded). I expect that playing POTUS is a significant step in the life of an actor that is not taken lightly, therefore this is not pointless trivia. Anyone who qualifies for this list meets the notability requirements to have a Wikipedia article about them. --Scott Davis Talk 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Otto4711 appears to be objecting to this list on the basis that playing the President is a trivial completely insignificant aspect of an actor's career, not as a list of portrayals of U.S. Presidents in notable films and TV shows (which it is). If this article was renamed and contained an inclusion criterion, would he still object? The nomination cites no policy or guideline and one AfD discussion as a precedent - not enough to convince me that this well-structured and easily manageable list should be deleted. --Canley 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone interested in this discussion may also be interested in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who played Nazis in movies. Noroton 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful index to information in Wikipedia. Someone who wonders "who was the actor who played FDR in that film, I think it was called Camp David or something like that" can browse this list. Categories don't do that. Fg2 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all the keep comments above. The office of US President is a specific and special case in fiction and film. Mdiamante 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JayHenry. List is notable and comprehensive. —scarecroe 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fat actors[edit]

List of fat actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there is no possible objective definition of what makes for a "fat" actor. Especially in body-conscious Hollywood, what's "fat" there is healthy weight for height and age somewhere else. Being "fat" is not a permanent condition and actors frequently gain or lose weight to play parts. See for example List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role, none of whose gainers are listed as "fat actors," as an illustration of the subjective inclusion criteria of this list. Otto4711 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This does not seem to be intended as a list of actors who are fat, but a list of actors well-known for playing fat people. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if kept, the name of the article should be changed, or it will rapidly fill up with names of merely overweight actors. --Xyzzyplugh 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneccesary listing Julia 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. More like actors who are known to be fat and who play characters known to be fat, as I interpret the lead paragraph. It wouldn't include Martin Lawrence for playing Big Momma. There is no objective definition for 'fat', so the reliable sources label them for you. If the list doesn't contain any actors you feel should be on it, it means the list is in progress so you should add them, and there shouldn't be much of an overlap with list of actors who gained or lost weight for a role as nowhere does it say those actors are known to be fat. Consider a rename to List of overweight actors. –Pomte 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Obesity in film, which seems to be a much suitable title as evident by its content.--TBCΦtalk? 05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. Fat can be seen as offensive to many people. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete Near impossibile to objectively decide what constitutes 'fat'.60.231.76.127 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps rename to Obese actors in Hollywood. - Richard Cavell 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether the article is renamed as suggested above or not, the definition of "fat" remains largely (sorry) subjective, at least in the interface between skinny and gross, and it is therefore not possible to make this article encyclopedically complete or reliable. Therefore it should not be here.--Anthony.bradbury 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the article is very well referenced, and if the 'fat man' stereotype can be verified, then that's all the better for this article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-referenced. And let's stop making pointless euphemisms here; the older actors would not have flinched at the word "fat", and modern ones tend to be playing the humorous part of "the fat guy" (or gal) - calling them "obese" is just confusing. And you know that in 20 years people will be saying, "Don't call them "obese", that's a slur - call them 'metabolism-challenged'." Brianyoumans 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious! --Lostcause365 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm surprised someone has put this much effort into digging up sources for one of these lists. Anyway it really needs a new title as the current one implies something that the article is not. I disagree with Obesity in film as it's just a list of "fat man" character actors and not obesity in general. Obese actors in Hollywood suffers the same issues as the current title. The title needs to convey the fact that this is a list of character actors whose role is a fat person, but in a more succinct way. Arkyan 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm...a debate like this reminds me of Kirstie Alley and, even more so, Eddie Murphy. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please take a look at the article, its talk page, its numerous references, and its history before "voting" to keep or delete or rename. The primary reference is to "Warner Brothers' Fat men"[16] by Dana Gioia from the book "O.K. You Mugs: Writers on Movie Actors." All names are referenced to sources such as that book about the character actor genre of the fat man. None are just someone's personal opinion that an actor needs to go on a diet, and there has not really been a problem with keeping such original research out of the article. The list has been stable for months. It does not include present day comedians who put on a fat suit to play a role, or who happen to put on a few pounds, but only those whose girth was their fortune. The men listed made their livelihood by working as a character actor in that genre. Most of the individuals are from the golden age of Hollywood, such as Sydney Greenstreet, who played "The Fat Man" in "The Maltese Falcon". He certainly did not play "The Obese Man." Likewise on the list is silent movie comic "Fatty Arbuckle" who we should not try to rename "Obese Arbuckle." I searched each name which I found on the original list in such databases as the New York Times to confirm in their obituaries that they were there referred to as "roly-poly character actor" or "rotund character actor" to conform to the definition made in "Warner Brothers Fat men." Disagreements should be dealt with by the normal editing process, not be eliminating a valid type of character actor from the golden age of movies. The nominator should also have notified me on my talk page since I am the principle contributor to the article with 49 edits, per [[WP:AFD}}. Edison 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OR/POV that's at issue here is not whether someone will add actors who they think need to go on a diet. The OR/POV that's at issue is the lack of objective standards for the list. Otto4711 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The standard is having a reliable source say that an actor primarily worked in that genre. Likewise we do not have an objective standard for other types of character actors than second party coverage in reliable sources. Edison 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding nothing on Google indicating that there is such a thing as a "fat actor" genre. Even your essay source does not assert that there is such a thing, only that the author likes some actors who were fat. One opinion piece does not a genre make and we are left with the same problem, that there is no objective definition of "fat." Otto4711 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor. to add a random thought, is there any rationale I can see to accept the definition from the cited opinion piece as authoritative. Otto4711 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please note that the "essay" was a chapter in a published book, which should satisfy WP:ATT. The term used for the genre varied over the years. In the obituaries of many of these men or in reviews from the 40's they were often referred to as "rotund character actor" or "roly poly charactor actor" which seem more objectionable than "fat" but if the collective wisdom is to term the genre "obese" I could live with that. It was and is clearly treated as a genre like "leading man" in reviews and casting calls. At present it is still a genre. The IMDB bio of John Banner refers to him as "roly poly character actor" [17]. Ditto for Buck Taylor [18]. Please check the references for documentation of references to all the names listed as "roly poly " or "rotund" character actors. Edison 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Genre means what you think it means. That a number of actors shared a physical type and as a result may have played similar roles in a number of films does not mean that a genre exists. There is no "fat man" film genre any more than there is a "scared Negro servant" genre or a "sultry French maid" genre or "stock character of your choice" genre. The actors on the played a wide variety of roles across a wide variety of genres, everything from menacing murderer to comedic foil to romantic lead, and they cannot be classified as "fat actors" on the basis of a genre that simply doesn't exist. Otto4711 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping actors by physical type could serve a useful purpose to anyone studying acting, including actors and comedians themselves (but others, too). The footnotes show that some actors were known for being fat and the proper use of sourcing provides an adequate way to regulate the list. Whether or not you want to use the word "genre" it's clear that some actors have used their fatness in at least some of their roles. Noroton 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument to keep an article. Otto4711 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you want to use the word "genre" it's clear that some actors have used their fatness in at least some of their roles. Noroton 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (1) because the existence of the character type (or types) in the movies is shown in the footnotes; (2) because the list is well regulated by insisting that any actor included on it must have a citation showing at least some responsible party out there thought the actor was known for being fat; and (3) because there is at least one serious purpose to the article (it is a good first step in looking into how fat actors use their size in their roles). "Strong" because the article is cited so impressivly and because insistance that there must always be some objective outside standard (other than citations) for who can or can't be included in a list would unnecessarily restrict Wikipedia. Noroton 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (minor change made in first line Noroton 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think your point is a classicly bad Reductio ad absurdam argument. If such an article were nominated, it wouldn't be nominated for improper sourcing but as a hoax (if it treated the claim seriously). If it didn't treat the claim as true, or more precisely treated the "Clinton is the first black president" meme as an encyclopedic subject, it could potentially make an interesting article (if a bit trivial). If, say, you were to find a more serious example, where a bad article had sourcing that was seriously deficient, then you'd have something to discuss. But you haven't argued that the sourcing is deficient, and if you did, the first step would be to tag it as poorly sourced and explain yourself on the talk page, not to go first to an AfD discussion. Noroton 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (edited my first sentence Noroton 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • As I said in different ways twice above, "proper" sourcing from "responsible" parties. What you're looking for Otto (correct me if I'm wrong) is a Wikipedia standard where we can't list anything unless some outside authority certifies all of its items as being on the list. Cultural lists can't work that way, so it seems you want them all out. Well there's a value to lists that aren't quite like the Periodic Table of the Elements or some genus of fauna or family of flora. You make some of the same points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christmas dishes. Noroton 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I'm not saying that there are not sources in which these guys are called "fat." The problem with this list is not sourcing. The problem with this list, as I've said repeatedly, is that there is no possible objective standard for "fat". There is, infamously, a published source that calls Karen Carpenter "fat" (or "chunky" or "chubby", I don't recall the exact word, doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion). 95% or more of the population would not have considered her "fat" at the time the source was published or thereafter while she was starving herself to death, yet because it exists she would by your standard be eligible for List of fat musicians. It's not unreasonable to expect that lists like this be restricted to things that are objectively defineable. Compare this to the aforementioned list of actors who put on or lost weight for a role. I have no problem with that article because it restricts itself to factual, defineable entries that don't rely on the opinion of either Wikipedia editors or external people. Otto4711 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Objective" is not the proper standard. "Fair" is the proper standard and it is necessarily going to have some gray areas on the edges. If that results in some debates on the article's talk page in the future, why not let the editors who are interested in the subject deal with that — they certainly are willing to take the risk of that. And the risk seems a fair price to pay in order to keep the article. If some editor puts Karen Carpenter on a list and provides the citation, other editors can counter that with other citations or pictures that would convince 95% or more of the population. Noroton 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fair" is the standard? I'm not familiar with WP:BEFAIR, but if you say so. So if it's not "fair" that actors are listed as "fat" then I can take them off the list? Fine, then in that case it's not "fair" that any actor is listed as fat so the entire list should be deleted. Or, we could use an actual standard that makes some sort of sense, which would be objectivity. Expecting that a list article have an objective definition for existence and inclusion may or may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than sitting around trying to figure out whether it's "fair" to put someone on the list. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be popularity contests or votes and the idea that editors should spend time trying to convince each other that it is or isn't "fair" to call Karen Carpenter "fat" is bizarre. Expecting editors to spend time trying to convince one another that an actor is fat enough to be on a fat actors list is ludicrous. Otto4711 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, here's what you sit around and do: You discuss whether or not the authority being cited is correct. You do that by first trying to find other citations that either help or hurt the assertion made in the questionable citation. And when you've exhausted other resources you only have your common sense to rely on and you use it. That's being fair. When we sit around and do that, we do the actual editing that Wikipedians are here for. What's bizarre is that you don't think Wikipedians can use their heads. There is an area between rote rule following and complete subjectivity and you don't appear to recognize that, but it's in that area of reasoning things out and judging what weight to give the opinions of particular sources where encyclopedia editors make many of their most important decisions. The solution is not to run away from subjects where this kind of work needs to be done. Noroton 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced with external opinions of who's fat Fg2 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list does not arbitrarily claim some actor as fat. Most of the entries are externally sourced. However, if one needs an objective definition of fat, there is Body Mass Index to calculate that. For that, every actor's weight (at a particular arbitrary age) and adult height have to be known! It goes without saying the process would be cumbersome! With such detailed referencing, the list should be kept. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I agree that the current title doesn't imply the kind of selectivity that's actually being used in this list. Should probably be renamed somehow, but I'd rather let someone be WP:BOLD than try to make consensus happen on it. Mangojuicetalk 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep, they're all known for their talents and for their weight, but an article? I would recommend making a category of Fat Actors, which would serve the same purpose. There are lists of American actors, Jewish Actors, i.e., so why not this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mghabmw (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Exactly, even you're unsure. This article doesn't belong here. This coming from a fat guy. Bigman17 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as other seem unsure above, let's get real. First of all, it shouldn't be fat, it should be obes or something like that. Secondly, it DOES NOT belong here. Bigman17 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the name of the article is completely wrong. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, rename to List of obese actors. Obese is at least defined. Vegaswikian 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo the name should reflect that it is about the golden age of Hollywood, not became list of every fatty actor. The word list itself is inappropriate. Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No objection to List of obese actors. If the article gets deleted (looks now like there might be a consensus for Keep) could those on the list then be added to a category such as Obese actors? Dead obese actors?corresponding to the list? Does it seem right to restrict it to male actors (some actresses refer to themselves as "actors") and would it be ok to limit it to nonliving ones (takes out some WP:BLP issues and maintenance issues everytime a present day actor puts on a fat suit for a Saturday Night Live sketch.) Input welcome on the discussion page of thee article. Edison 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe overweight is the more appropriate term here, as not all the actors are necessarily obese. –Pomte 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In theory justifiable, but that doesn't make it a good idea. --Dtcdthingy 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because some actors' whole identity are sometimes focused on their weight, such as comedians type-casted as a loveable fat guy. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:04Z

Calvin Dean[edit]

Calvin Dean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO either in terms of general notability or under the specific criteria for entertainers. Otto4711 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to National Youth Theatre On second thought, just delete it, as there are hundreds of National Youth Theatre participants .--TBCΦtalk? 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Eh. He's a non-notable, obscure stage actor who fails WP:BIO by a furlong. Ravenswing 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable... yet - grubber 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:05Z

Tokgrum[edit]

Tokgrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • This article seems to be a joke, and made into this article, I removed irrelevant images and alot of other stuff. Artaxiad 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very sophisticate hoax, unless someone can post an RS that this is real. --Selket Talk
  • Delete. At first glance, the article seemed to be legitimate. However, going through the article's history, it clearly was a hoax, as evident by inaccuracies in the original editions of the article, such as the captions which inaccurately labeled Iraqis as Armenians, Uyghurs as Tartars, etc.--TBCΦtalk? 08:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Grandmaster 08:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A high class hoax, it is very good, but still a hoax.--Longend. 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No Google hits. Very good hoax - a shame that the author cannot do something more positive with his clearly significant IT skills.--Anthony.bradbury 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such area exists, this is clearly a joke. -- Aivazovsky 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Lockley 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking WP:ATT, which could be because it is a hoax. I have notified User:Lilidor of this afd in case they can provide some insight into why this word is unknown to google (inc. news, scholar, etc), amazon and worldcat. John Vandenberg 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am from Azerbaijan and I can confirm what you all already know, i.e. that such place simply does not exist. This is WP:HOAX. Grandmaster 10:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a speedy for this. Artaxiad 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:07Z

Alaska![edit]

Alaska! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially prodded with concern "Don't appear to be very notable," but article does seem to assert some notability, though the claims are unsourced. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong Keep Notable band, though I did just strip the article of some blatant allmusic.com plagiarism. That said, they've got a full entry on allmusic, they're selling on amazon, they've been singed to two indie mainstays, the frontman is Russell Pollard for pete's sake, and they've had at least one national news story (not to mention they've been on at least one national tour). Needless to say they meet WP:MUSIC sans problem. That said, the article should be cleaned up a bit and expanded (and have some references too), I'm not arguing against that. But it's definitely Wikipedia-worthy. And I'm generally a stickler for that. But the band has Russell Pollard! :) Rockstar915 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as it meets most of the criterias at WP:MUSIC. The band has recored two albums with Columbia Records [19], and most of the band's members were previously part of other notable bands.--TBCΦtalk? 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons that others have stated--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Alaska! (band) to clarify that it is another band article and not an article about something else. Most band articles on Wikipedia need to be so labelled to avoid confusion. Edison 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree about the renaming. Do we need an article with a name as specific, as, say, Emerson, Lake & Palmer to have the (band) put on the end? I don't think so. This suggestion goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. The article is a stub, however is is not neccisary to delete it. Kelseyak90 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does meet Music bio criteria, so it can be improved. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:07Z

Psychological resilience[edit]

Psychological resilience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable subject. Almost all linking references are simply "See Also" and provide no context, in an attempt to generate credibilty to a non-notable non-subject. Published reference are nothing more than self-help propaganda, using WP for promotion. Shoehorn 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Certaintly a notable term [20], but the article does need to be cleaned up with a lot more references and citations.--TBCΦtalk? 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep based on the existence of the University of Minnesota National Reliance Resource Center. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at the sponsorship, but that's my opinion only and we can't second guess them. If they think it's N, that's sufficient--along with the other refs. DGG 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Resilience" is a commonly used term, and there is no reason to suspect that the National Resilience Resource Center is using the term for anything but the ordinary everyday meaning. Other than as a definition, this page is essentially an orphan that doesn't need to be here. Shoehorn 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given by TBC and DGG.--DorisH 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has sources enough to establish the term's use. (Editors are always welcome to add more) It is a stub, but may be expandable. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to LOL (Internet slang). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:08Z

Lolsy[edit]

Lolsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. References in article have nothing to do with the word, so it is unreferenced. Has been speedied at least twice [21]. At first I prod-ed it, but when I saw that the warnings on the creator's page, I decided to go for the AfD, with a request for some salt. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva goals[edit]

Gilberto Silva goals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Does Wikipedia need an article merely listing the goals scored by a not-especially high-scoring player? Daemonic Kangaroo 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i would presume you saw the talkpage of the article and disagreed with the reasons stated there. also, if this article is indeed deleted it would merely be transposed back to where it once belong, the GS article itself. a separate page was created to deal with the length/layout issues of the GS article. Chensiyuan 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I did read the talk page, but I am not convinced by the arguments. I feel this needs to be considered by the wider WP community. If they're happy to keep it, then so be it. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of soccer statistics. Nor is Wikipedia a directory of links to the locations and dates in which a soccer player scores a goal, especially when there's essentially only one line of actual context.--TBCΦtalk? 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the link you directed me to does not convincingly preclude the existence of this page. Chensiyuan 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response to the the reasonings listed in the talk:
        • This is the most comprehensive football|soccer player's article on Wikipedia, and just because Pele's article is not so comprehensive, it shouldn't mean that others are limited to its size. It seems like an unnecessary bottleneck. It doesn't matter how "comprehensive" the derivative article is, if it doesn't pass WP:NOT, than it doesn't deserve a seperate article.
        • The goals which Gilberto have scored are encyclopaedic information And why? Please explain.
        • The information which is listed on Gilberto Silva goals was listed on his main article (Gilberto Silva) for a number of months, proving it is indeed fit for Wikipedia, and... Though an article's subject might be notable, by no means does it make every section of said article notable enough to merit an individual article as well.
        • It was only moved to a separate page because it was too chunky for its parent page. If the goals page is deleted, the information will only be pasted back onto the main article; I feel that would be less tidy/organized that it having its own page. At 43.5 kb, this page is defanitly not "chunky", especially compared to articles such as the United States, which is currently at 118.9kB, or David Beckham, who's article is currently at 56kB, even without any of the statistics like those that this article has.
        • The reason Pele doesn't have his own goal page (or table) is due to the sheer number of goals that he has scored. Some of the details of the goals are probably lost to history. Gilberto will only ever score about 50 goals, and they are all fairly recent, so his page can exist quite easily. The information is readily available. This is not to say that just the fact that Gilberto has scored LESS goals than most allows him to have his own goal page. Quite the opposite. There is even more reason that Pele should have his own page; the only reason that he doesn't though, is that nobody is willing (or able?) to compile a list of his many hundreds of career goals. This is a first step to more comprehensive soccer player articles; it shows editors a new added level of useful detail which can be attained. It doesn't matter whether Pele does or doesn't have a goal page. None of these articles should have a seperate goal page, as Wikipedia is not a directory of links to the locations and dates of when a soccer player scores a goal.
        • Maybe Gilberto's goal page will lead to Pele (and other notable footballers) having their own statistics/goal pages. Maybe not. But the fact that no other editors have taken the time to compile such lists which require their own pages, surely does not mean that those editors which have, cannot have their pages exist. See my comment below.
        • Some Basketball and American Football players do have their own 'statistics' pages. See Career achievements of Dwyane Wade or Career achievements of Michael Jordan. True, this page isn't on the same scale as said career achievements pages, but the fact that Gilberto is so much less famous means his small goals page is correct to scale.I usually dislike citing essays, but note please note that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Due to Wikipedia's nature of being an "encyclopedia that everyone can edit", many articles that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines exist, as there's nothing stopping them from creating the article.--TBCΦtalk? 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've also clarified my original objection.--TBCΦtalk? 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT Matthew_hk tc 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per talk. Chensiyuan 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far too detailed. A list of every goal someone has ever scored? If there's a textbook example of "cruft", this may well be it. A season-by-season tally of appearances and goals on the individual player article should suffice. - fchd 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original counter-arguments outweigh weak objections. Manderiko 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've extended and clarified my objections. I hope that helps.--TBCΦtalk? 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for bothering to explain. Chensiyuan 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of goals scored by a soccer player? How does thet not fail WP:NOT? TJ Spyke 07:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fchd. Punkmorten 08:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Since when has goals scored by a soccer player deserve an article? --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unnecessary detail for an encylopedia, more suited for a sports almanac, which wikipedia is not. I don't like the precedent that would lead to full lists of goals for every football player ever. Robotforaday 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The intro states This page lists the details of goals scored by Brazilian football player Gilberto Silva giving the impression that it will be detailing all his career goals but that isn't the case, it details only the goals he has scored for Arsenal and Brazil and overlooks his other clubs, so at the very least (unless those details were added) it would need to be re-titled to something catchy like List of goals scored by Gilberto Silva for Arsenal and Brazil..... ChrisTheDude 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a list of everything. Good grief, if we do this for every well known footballer, where will it end? This level of informations is suitable for a Gilberto Silva fansite but not for an encyclopaedia. Jules 10:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't think this level of detail is appropriate. Qwghlm 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of informaition. HornetMike 10:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscrimate collection of informaition. And Wikipedia is not ESPN either. – Elisson • T • C • 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why not just include a link to his entry on Soccerbase instead? EliminatorJR Talk 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia might not be paper, but it's not wastepaper, and I agree that this is information far more suited to a Gilberto Silva fansite. I'm also completely unconvinced as to how the career achievements of certain superstars equate to this listing. Michael Jordan's career achievements do not include an indiscriminate list of every basket he's ever scored, no matter how inconsequential. RGTraynor 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edison 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - this goes well beyond providing encyclopedic statistics for a footballer, and into excessive trivia. Also, do not merge back to the main article.--Whpq 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kurt000 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Angelo 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As the article currently stands I don't think it's particularly noteworthy. The most interesting notes about his goals should be included within the prose about his career (e.g. scoring the first goal at the Emirates). The complete tables are overkill though. aLii 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season and other similar discussions. Neier 02:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, that is complete overkill... Robotforaday 10:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without merging. That table on Nakamura's page looks really silly and is clearly far too much detail for WP ChrisTheDude 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:09Z

Douglas James Cottrell[edit]

Douglas James Cottrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Cottrell 2007.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Thumb cottrell2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Secrets of life.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Orginal research (see WP:OR), and somewhat promotional language. E.g. "... is among a select few who are able to genuinely demonstrate so many different mental/spiritual abilities: remote viewing, clairvoyance, prediction, prophecy, communication with disembodied souls, ... " --Vsion 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person has published a book, thus I don't question the notability at this point. The problem is OR. --Vsion 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do question notability. A search for the phrase "Many Mansions Press" turns up only 90 results, and the ones that actually pertain to a publisher are all about this book. Being published by a major, reputable publisher confers notability. Being published by a single-purpose publisher does nothing of the kind. Deranged bulbasaur 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:V. Article is verifiable. Self publications are not a judge of notability Change to Delete. Didn't consider WP:OR or WP:COI. WP:NN is a guideline not a official policy. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that says is that self-publication is not a definitive indicator of non-notability. That's far from saying that it is a positive indicator of notability. If we exclude the book as a source of notability and examine other factors, what are we left with, exactly? To be honest, I don't understand your reply. Deranged bulbasaur 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; NN, fails WP:ATT big time, WP:OR, WP:BIO. Cottrell has about 130 unique Google hits, his book is over 1.1 million in sales rank on Amazon, and I just found a full seventeen egregious enough unsourced statements on the article to warrant citation tags. Even stripping out all the self-promotional, unproven twaddle, on the face of it as a faith healer he's non-notable. Ravenswing 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he's verifiable, but still not notable. -- Whpq 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only non-self published information is from the forward by a journalist in one of his books. This is not independent sourcing. The only way to see whether a psychic is N or not is to see if there are significant references to him. An elaborate page with no such sources is advertising, not a WP article. DGG 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:10Z

Deep trance meditation[edit]

Deep trance meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research (WP:OR). Unsubstantiated claims, such as "The mind of the practitioner is in contact with the mind of the conductor."--Vsion 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related afd : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas James Cottrell --Vsion 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept that one can meditate in a deep trance sounds reasonable, and if someone would like to find sources, they should write an article. That was not the case here. Delete as OR without prejudice to recreation with sourced content.DGG 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, possibly original research. Dragomiloff 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A7. – riana_dzasta 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospecs[edit]

Retrospecs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn website Meakswerf 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion A7. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brickipedia[edit]

Brickipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn website Meakswerf 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SecWatch[edit]

SecWatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:SecWatch.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

nn website Meakswerf 05:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation[edit]

Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Redhorse.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

nn website Meakswerf 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile, Alabama People[edit]

List of Mobile, Alabama People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a generic list. This would be better served as a category. /Blaxthos 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to category as nominator. /Blaxthos 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a category on the subject already exists.--TBCΦtalk? 09:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per how big is the population of Mobile, Alabama? AlfPhotoman 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment About 200,000. --Charlene 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a list already exists. It's called a "phonebook." RGTraynor 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong if not Speedy Delete, Wikipedia isn't a phonebook, It should be a category, and one already exists, so therefore this article is pointless, so therefore delete. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to category and smerge the most important ones into the Mobile article. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn' exactly a phonebook or directory. Yes, that's what the title implies, but the article contains mostly people who have WP articles. However, I agree that a category is a better replacement to this list, so delete. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:11Z

Radio free colorado[edit]

Radio free colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lacks multiple non-trivial sources and is therefore unverifiable. The majority of the article looks like Original Research. The first 60 google hits are all web directories, blogs, forums and the like. I would have expected a notable radio station to have had the odd reliable source amongst that. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:11Z

The scrunchers[edit]

The scrunchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability, only reference is MySpace, article reads like a hoax. Apparently they have sold over 25 CDs [22]. Was a contested prod. —dgiestc 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With songs like "hasgfkajbgkhdgjiyri#", "Mitchell is a Pansy again", and "Brenton likes Ryan" it's quite obvious that the article is a hoax.--TBCΦtalk? 07:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Rockstar915 07:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Partly or wholly a hoax, and very unlikely to have sources independent of the subject. —Celithemis 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX and possibly because of the song titles, WP:NPA. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there's no way this band even comes close to meeting WP:BAND, and I am in favour of the inclusion of lesser groups. Unreferenced, too. We can't have articles for every band with a MySpace.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a hoax due to the song titles. Fails WP:BAND, WP:HOAX. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, I'm amazed my prod was deleted... fails WP:BAND, smells like WP:HOAX, fails WP:ATT.Garrie 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:12Z

She Walked down the Aisle with Me and out of My Life[edit]

She Walked down the Aisle with Me and out of My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Rock opera 2 (2).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Rock opera 3 (2).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Rock opera 4 (2).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Google is evil but in this case returned no results when searched on the whole name. lack of third party sources - well any sources at all except for the YouTube links to the article. Reads like a non-notable vanity spam crufty article and needs deletion. Also including associated images (or do they need to go to IFD?) Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Dōjin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H dōjin[edit]

H dōjin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First, one needs to realize a few things about dōjin:

  1. The majority of dōjin are H. They are the rule, rather than the exception.
  2. Dōjin means that something was self-published, making it inherently non-notable unless proven otherwise.
  3. There are literally thousands, if not millions of H dōjin out there, so having a list of all of them is futile.
  4. The (incorrectly name) Category:Dojin and its subcategories takes care of any dōjin that actually might be notable in some way. SeizureDog 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, the term seems notable. A complete list would be pointless, but it doesn't appear to the the point. The article could use a LOT of help (what is a dōjin, what does the H stand for? Where is the term commonly used?) --Hobit 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably should have pointed out that dōjin is its own article, which pretty much answers what you're asking. Ecchi answers your question about the H.--SeizureDog 10:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if possible, otherwise delete. SYSS Mouse 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think the idea of this article is inherently hopeless. I think this could use some attention, probably just a few knowledgeable folks to reduce the list to a reasonable length and perhaps add some text about the history of this specific area of dojinshi. I would like to say "establish notability criteria for the list", but that is hard to do for self-published material. If deleted, this should definitely be merged back to dojinshi, which links to it. --Brianyoumans 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as presently constituted, this is nothing more than a dicdef. RGTraynor 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to dojin. Although I wouldn't say H dojins are the rule... _dk 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep doesn't have to be just a list like it is now: it can talk about the type of work, with perhaps discussions of some. DGG 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to dojin. I have never seen a non-H dojin, and the association between the two is storng. There is no need for a seperate article. MightyAtom 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak merge to doujin. OK... dojin is not dojinshi but a broader category of self-published works. Not all things dojin are sexually explicit and claiming as such is just silly. The article itself is a dicdef with a red-link farm of non-notable titles. Just mention it in the main article and be done with it. --Kunzite 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never claimed that all dōjin are sexually explicit. I specifically said that the majority are, which can hardly be argued. I've actually yet to even see a non-sexual dōjinshi...--SeizureDog 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 anyone would like this userfied to aid in creating a category, just ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic conferences 2nd nomination[edit]

List of academic conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Woefully inadequate list that has not improved since it's last AfD nomination in December 2005. The arguments then were that is was unmaintainable, but to see how it developed as it was nominated after just half an hour! Unfortunately it hasn't developed very far, and is full of redlinked articles (suggesting non-notability of the conference) and external links to conference websites, as borderline spam Steve (Slf67) talk 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The idea of producing a useable list of conferences was never a good idea. There are ten of thousands of them so at best it would be highly selective and prone to spam, and in any case almost no-one ever edits this page. The conferences that are there are pretty unimportant - not a single major medical conference for example. There are some excellent commercial sites that produce these lists and also have an alerting service and that's what academics really want - Academic conference#Lists of conferences had been deleted as spam but I've restored it because these sites provide a far better resource than this page.

andy 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too vague of a subject for there to be a list; a category would be better suited. Also, as andy mentioned, the list is highly prone to spam due to the sheer number of conferences out there.--TBCΦtalk? 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace by Category to see the possibilities, see List_of_computer_science_conferences. there are more of these than in other subjects but there are reasonable numbers for other subjects; they could form reasonable separate lists, maintained by the subject people, which could then be combined using categories. This would probably be a cleaner way to do it than the present list. There is an existing category, Conferences, which could easily be reorganized for the purpose. I have started the reorganization by making the Category:Academic conferences, and will then make the Category:Academic conferences by subject, and follow up from there. I suggest that when developed this will replace Academic conference#Lists of conferences. Specific subject subject lists will avoid the spam problem to a considerable extent.
Comment a quick pass through List of computer science conferences shows that many of the conference abbreviations are actually incorrectly linked, mostly to the computer term rather than the conference, to disambiguations, and one even links to Damascus International Airport! So it may seem this is a well sourced list of notable conferences but that's not quite the case. --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many uses for such lists besides that mentioned by andy: for example, the abbreviations for the names of these conferences occur in many articles, and are used in bibliographic references. Admittedly, they should probably all have articles, but this is impractical to do quickly with the present resources. DGG 09:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that lists would be adequately maintained. The number of categories is big and that of conferences is even bigger. If you had very narrow specialisations it might just be possible but I doubt it. For example, just on computer science conferences alone check out Google at [23] and then drill in to one or two of the directories listed there and you'll see what I mean. For example [24] - and that's just the letter A! The person who maintained the Wikipedia list would have to duplicate this list at the very least. So why not simply add a link to it from relevant places in Wikipedia? Surely Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to duplicate external resources that are already perfectly adequate? andy 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restrict to links that are about a series of conferences, not one-off conferences. I have added two such conferences for chemistry but there are many more. These regular conferences deserve an article and a list can be a valuable link to them. Unlike a category, it could contain red-links to encourage articles to be written. --Bduke 10:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had always assumed that it would be about series--the vast majority of academic conferences are. In fact, all but one of the present list is about annual or biennial conferences. (In contrast to public affairs, where obviously one-off conferences have been of monumental importance), In science, there have been occasional times when a particular one in a series was of special importance, but I can think of no individually held ones that would be worth listing for their academic value.
This is therefore the opposite of the commercial lists mentioned by the nom., which are devoted to announcements and dates of particular conferences. We no more need lists of those than we do of lists of individual football games.
Suggestion: we Delete this category and let any ed. who wants to do a more specific list go ahead and try, and judge them on their merits. There is no point in a general list where only one or two sections are maintained. (A new Category: Lists of academic conferences) is enough to keep the articles together. I am not aware of any in WP except the one I mentioned, List of computer science conferences, and its related ones, List of cryptology conferences, etc. and those only include series. (There is also a related List of writer's conferences' which also includes only series of conferences. A "List of chemistry conferences" would fill the need BDuke mentions--as he says, there are enough for a list. Ditto in biology. But we do not need a general list. I used to think otherwise. DGG 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we are discussing the deletion of a list article here. That decision does not impact the associated creation and maintenance of conference categories, extending those categories that exist, and tagging existing notable conference articles with the appropriate category. I don't think any new categories have to be created, and it's against naming conventions to have "List of" categories. Putting the category against an article automagically creates the list --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
of course--we have just been thinking aloud to try to keep this compatible with other things we're doing.DGG 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace by category Impossible to keep such a list manageable or up to date. A category would be the right approach NBeale 07:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable. Vast number of candidates for inclusion. --Folantin 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Hip Hop[edit]

Atheist Hip Hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable. No evidence this form of hip hop is different from normal hip hop. No reliable sources. Michael Johnson 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Non notable. No evidence this form of hip hop is different from normal hip hop. No reliable sources." maybe not notable to you, but many have heard the term. I don't hear normal hip hop talking about anti-religion, unless you know of some? No reliable sources? If I was less half-assed I would find some.

"seems to be a vehicle for promotional links" It is only for people to understand what it is, I only provided links and names for people interested in those people. I am in now way affiliated with them other than knowing of them.

"Lol, who the heck made this up?" Multiple artists when there was no genre for what they were producing.

"just because music can be described using a certain adjective does not make it a genre." But it does when it can't be described by a adjective, it is similar to christian rap, but not christian.

"lacks sources and barely asserts notability." I'm just placing the starting off as a stub for people of knowledge of it to give their 2 cent.

"Delete or maaaaaaybe merge into hip hop" I bet you 1000$ that hip hop would be vandalized more due to the large ammounts of african americans that pretty much hate Atheists.

"seems like part of a promo vehicle for Greydon Square" Not at all, I just wanted to give him a wiki since I know him. I would have made wikis for others if I knew them more.

--CrimsonSun99 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Note: CrimsonSun99 (talk · contribs) is the article's creator and primary editor.[reply]

    • "I bet you 1000$ that hip hop would be vandalized more due to the large ammounts of african americans that pretty much hate Atheists." This is getting pretty rediculous and bordering on personal attack. For more of the same from CrimsonSun99 see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greydon Square where he makes the claim that "if you are christian i don't think you have the unbiasedness to even speak on deleting it" and other such unsubstantiated and divisive allegations. Deranged bulbasaur 08:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greydon Square[edit]

Greydon Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable vocalist Michael Johnson 10:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria passed:
"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."
He has released 1 album and is releasing 1 more June 5th, that is multiple.
"Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble."
He is noted in a Magazine article: http://www.briansapient.com/images/newhumanistpage2.JPG
--CrimsonSun99 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Note: CrimsonSun99 (talk · contribs) is the article's creator and primary editor.[reply]

  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More notablity via the web:

Institute for Humanist Studies (Segment 2)
Richard Dawkins .NET news article
No God Blog
Not A Blog
Rational Response Squad (Was a front page mention)
Digg Mention (Got to front page, 900+ diggs)
(Another Blog Mention)
(And Another Blog Mention)
(And Another Blog Mention)
(And Yet Another Blog Mention)

  • Comment Blogs are not reliable sources --RaiderAspect 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Chirino[edit]

Pedro Chirino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability - he merely recorded an incident. Guroadrunner 10:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, normally people from the 16th Century who make it into WP tend to be notable. Surprisingly, a simple Google search found plenty of references for Chrino on the web. hateless 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Someone from the early 17th century must be notable for them to be remembered 400 years later in history. But the article needs extreme cleanup, if not a complete re-write. --Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- he recorded something interesting, but that doesn't mean he's notable. But I am in favor of the slash-and-kill method if the AFD doesn't go through. Guroadrunner (original nominator) 13 March 2007
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now passes WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements by Carolfrog (see diff). -- Black Falcon 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Massachusetts Minuteman Marching Band. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:14Z

Umass drumline[edit]

Umass drumline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Expired ProD. Well overdue for deletion, but strikes a small notability chord. No opinion here. Bubba hotep

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hessian (social group)[edit]

Hessian (social group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is just a reincarnation of the infamous ANUS article under a different name. Non-notable organisation, Original research, and very POV. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearhead (talk • contribs)

  • This article was deleted before for plagiarizing this: [25]. I've also seen this article describe a type of skateboarder. Given the contested nature of the subject, its rather fuzzy description, and POV issues. I think Delete Steve-g 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unattributed to reliable sources, and unlikely to soon be (see talk page). Sandstein 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - little to no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited to support notability. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've found 1600 G-hits of "hessian" + "metalhead," and a cursory look over some of the links indicates that the term's in wide vogue in the metalhead community. The article itself is a turgid, scanty mess desperately in need of genuine definition and sourcing, but that's what the Pages needing attention list is for. RGTraynor 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Traynor and WP:NON. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another NN and NA. Alex43223 T | C | E 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. As per RGTraynor. I think this term was once as widespread as hipster is now, though referring to different people. The sources available for any part of popular culture won't be the same as those for something academic, but I don't know what they would be. If someone can find them, I think an article on this belongs here.--Parsleyjones 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources--Sefringle 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is an example of an episteme constructed by the crowd. As such, it praises that which is acceptable to the masses, and spurns that which is anathema. The 'knowledge' portrayed on this site is not a set of facts in one-one correspondence with reality, but rather a set of opinions which represent the current status quo in society. There is no need for this article, or those whom it claims to describe, to be on Wikipedia. To understand why, see this.--41.243.210.79 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. The comment on the article's talk page (that members of the group are the sources) does not particularly inspire confidence that the article's content is attributable. -- Black Falcon 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:15Z

Rush Studios[edit]

Rush Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a scam. NSYE ticker symbol comes up as invalid in the link provided. Company claims to be private while claiming to be traded on the stock exchange (which would make it a publicly traded company). Google searches for "Rush Studios" don't pull up anything relevant, which seems unlikely for a supposed $400million company. Looks like either a blatant Hoax or someone trying to build a fake history of success for their company. Strong Delete Improbcat 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. UnitedStatesian 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete; it isn't "patent nonsense" by the definition, but it's certainly a hoax. RGTraynor 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, no other information could be found. Delete. WP:BULLSHIT (Not an official policy). Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and LOL about above. The corp. doesn't even exist. Alex43223 T | C | E 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1, A3, A7, G1, WP:SNOW, and WP:BULLSHIT. Cbrown1023 talk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Vatican City[edit]

Scouting in Vatican City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I created merely this page since it is the second nomination. The nomination is by Largo Plazo below. I also rolled back the original discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City where the second nomination was appended. No opinion. Tikiwont 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I marked this article for deletion and then found the earlier debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City. I don't understand how "the result of the debate was 'keep'" when the "delete" opinions had good reasons and the "keep" opinions mostly gave no reason at all, or superficial reasons that didn't address the main problem. One said something to the effect that "It's good to have articles on scouting—there's a developing interest in them." This person was oblivious to the key issue: this is an article the whole purpose of which is to say that its topic doesn't exist. As someone else pointed out, what's next: An article on "Scouting on the moon"? How about an article on Antarctic wineries?

Someone else pointed out that while, as someone else noted, the scouting articles all began as copies of each other, they were now beginning to diversify. Again, this is beside the point, since the main argument for deletion has nothing to do with diversity of text but with the fact that the article is about something that doesn't exist.

Moreover, the final paragraph is about scouting in Italy, not in Vatican City, and the paragraph before that isn't about scouting at all, it's only about an award given to the Pope by a scouting organization.

There's no reason for this article to exist. —Largo Plazo 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am a little baffled that this article was kept, as well. The article itself admits that Scouting has no presence in the Vatican and likely never will, so what is the point in having the article? Arkyan 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, no assertion of existence, never mind notability, and per WP:BULLSHIT. How in the hell could anyone vote to keep an article that basically says "There is no scouting in the Vatican City and it's unlikely there ever will be"???? Was any vestige of common sense applied? The nonsensical argument that we need a Scouting article for every nation-state in the world, whether there is any active Scouting there or not, just, well, um, "because of completeness," is meretricious garbage that does nothing save to provide ample ammunition to Wikipedia's detractors, never mind damage the concept that closing admins pay attention to anything other than the voting tally. RGTraynor 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and I'd suggest checking to see if similar potential AFD nominees exist regarding the other 35 non-scouting countries. Does the Vatican even have any children? 23skidoo 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The remainder of the articles that survived the previous AfD are in bad shape. The best that could be done with them was to dig up images of postage stamps that "seem to suggest" (actual wording in the articles!) the existence of scouting in said country, as well as all linking to a single website run by a scout troop out of Colorado as a reference to prove the existence of scouting. That source is pretty dubious as a reliable reference. I'd not be opposed to lumping those articles into another AfD, as well as scouting out (pun intended) other speculative, skeletal and unreferenced articles on the topic. Arkyan 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant, this can be info on the main article. It doesn't require a seperate page. Alex43223 T | C | E 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:15Z

Ahmed Abd Rapo[edit]

Ahmed Abd Rapo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Ahmad Abdrapo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Ahmed Abdrapo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Ahmed AbdRapo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)


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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Brinias[edit]

Dimitris Brinias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This player does not appear to come up to the level required to be on Wikipedia. I can find no trace of him on Soccerbase, nor can I find any reference to him playing at Bournemouth.

If he did play at Panathanikos, I guess this meets the required level, but is this verifiable? Are the Welsh and Irish clubs at the required level?

The Galway website [26] says absolutely nothing about him! Most of the content in the article appears to have come from the Welsh Premier league profile[27]. Daemonic Kangaroo 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If he's really an Australian Under-17, the chances a first-team appearance with Pana are small at best. We're probably looking at a junior player who may or may not pan out. Delete unless somebody finds the necessary sources. (Further below)-- BPMullins | Talk 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I can find no record of him having played for Panathanaikos or AFC Bournemouth (which is presumably what it's meant to say, rather than Bournemouth FC who are a non-league team) so the debate would hinge on whether having played for Galway would suffice (assuming it's true that he played in their match last Friday - their website has no report on the game) - personally I'd say no therefore delete ChrisTheDude 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The admittedly loose standard for athletes in WP:BIO is "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league." The Welsh premiership qualifies, I think. I admit the article's a mess, and the Panathinaikos website doesn't have any record of him [28]. Ravenswing 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Welsh Premiership is not a fully professional league ChrisTheDude 16:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They don't pay their players? Ravenswing 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The players for at least some (probably most, maybe all, but definitely some) clubs are semi-professional i.e they have day jobs as well. The website of Port Talbot Town F.C., for instance, notes that midfielder Chris Pridham is a trainee solicitor by day and team-mate Dean Johnstone a firefighter. WP:BIO guidelines refer to fully professional leagues i.e. leagues in which all players are full-time professional footballers ChrisTheDude 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brinias is a full-time professional footballer.

Match report for his debut for Galway Utd. (a profesional team)- http://www.galwayunitedfc.ie/match-reports/report-galway-united-0-sligo-rovers-2.html Galway United FC Official Site - Report:: Galway United 0 Sligo Rovers 2

It is AFC Bournemouth!

For people looking for extra info on him he is often called Dimitri Brinias (incorrect)

http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=39327 NonLeagueDaily.com

http://www.welsh-premier.com/news.php?ID=4807 Welsh Premier League Football - all the news from Aberystwyth to Welshpool

He did play for Pana.

He is an Australian U-17 international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juve curr (talk • contribs)

  • Okay, good enough on Galway. The article cited has him as a reserve for AFC Bournemouth, which isn't enough for notability, and there's no evidence of a first-team appearance for Pana. We're down to whether the Galway appearance by itself is enough for notability. I'm not changing my !vote just yet, but I'm following with interest. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to one site, Brinias signed with Panathanaikos, but it seems he actually only played (appeared) with GS Marko (a Greek third division "feeder team" associated with Pana). He signed with Galway in January this year (the press release says he was "attached" to Pana). The Galway press release does, however, say he played for A.C. ChievoVerona, which is a Serie A Italian team. Might be worth looking for proof of this rather than Pana. --Canley 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been through the match reports on the Chievo website and can't find any evidence that he even made the bench, so we're back to either :
  1. finding some proof that he played a first team game for Panathanaikos (none as yet provided by the article's creator) or
  2. deciding whether having played in the Irish Premier Division is sufficient for notability..... ChrisTheDude 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten and wikified the article which was a bit of a mess, and added several references, but that doesn't really address the notability issue. For my money, an appearance for Galway United in the Irish Premier League is sufficiently notable. I guess that's the trouble with being a goalie - Brinias seems to have spent much of his career being third or fourth-choice goalkeeper and does not seem to have actually gone on the field for many matches. --Canley 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per what I said above: I think Galway United is notable enough. --Canley 12:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above, Galway Utd is notable enough, barely. Lankiveil 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Barely enough indeed, but I'll go with the apparent consensus on Galway. Note that the article is out of date: he was an Aussie U-17, but his dob is 2/3/1984 [29] so he's a bit long in the tooth for that team. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep as Lankiveil, barely enough to qualify iaw current consensus, but qualify he does. Just. Springnuts 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spirited Away. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:16Z

Chihiro Ogino[edit]

Chihiro Ogino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:17Z

List of America's richest people[edit]

List of America's richest people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of America's Richest Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
List of America's richest men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Competely unreferenced article (the one George Washington link does not work) that constitutes original research. Earlier prod by different editor was removed by author. UnitedStatesian 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, article lacks sources and looks like OR. Arkyan 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, its missing too much info to be helpful, and with inflation, it would be hard to make inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over -- I think the article could potentially work with WP:V, but the easiest way to establish that kind of list is to scrap this and begin again. Dylan 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current list is uncritical--I am not sure GW was the richest planter, and the first entry is undocumented even in WP. There probably are real sources for such a list. Start again, if someone wants to do the work. DGG 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what's the source??? Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Snus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:19Z

General snus[edit]

General snus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Adding other brand articles:

  • Delete Looks like advertising to me Avi 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added others of this ilk. -- Avi 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no attribution therefore failing WP:A AlfPhotoman 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Lack of content and nobility, article prone to spamming by product promoters. Cocoma 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these items have received specific third-party notice pursuant to WP:ATT and WP:CORP. --Charlene 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- The brands are listed in the Snus article, and the differences (if any) between them can be outlined there. --Bonadea 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerst, Forrest J.[edit]

Gerst, Forrest J. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom and vote to ...
Del this patently n-n 16 (or barely 17) -y.o. high school student who so far defends it in part thus:

... I am only wishing to post information about me on a credible and well-established website. In no way I feel that I should be counted out from Wikipedia and I feel that I deserve and article just as much as the next guy. I eagerly await discussion on this issue and am more than willing to provied evidence of my notability.

Give him what we'll give the next n-n self-promoter.
--Jerzy•t 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An article under this title, apparently essentially identical, has been Speedy-Del'd, and it has been recreated. It is now speedy tagged again (i had to resolve an ed-conf to get the AfD tag in), but IMO it is worth finishing the AfD for the edification of this apparently sincere but clueless reader's edification: besides being more definitive for enforcement, it will lay to rest the assumption on the bio's supporter(s') part that a few blockheads are standing in the way.
    --Jerzy•t 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO by a country mile; this is just some high school kid. Perhaps Mr. Gerst could review WP:BIO and explain to us which elements of its criteria he thinks he meets. RGTraynor 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • delete Not being able to spell "provide" is not sufficient notabillity.DGG 20:07, 13 March 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:20Z

20thCC[edit]

20thCC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article says this is a company with two people that just added a third. No independent references provided. Recommend deleting as per reasoning presented in WP:INCLUSION and WP:N Dugwiki 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Okpara of Agbor Alindinma[edit]

The Okpara of Agbor Alindinma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The aricle tells us that Okpara is a title meaning the oldest man in the village. This village in Nigeria has no article in Wikipedia. So, we only get the name of this person, and I have never been persuaded that the 'oldest man in the village' was sufficient notabilty for an encyclopaedia article. (Incidentally, the link to Okpara is unhelpful but does sho that Okpara is a Nigerioan surname. No hel;p to this article though.) Emeraude 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trivial and unsourced, deletion is an easy decision here. Arkyan 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, At this point, I will agree with Arkyan and say it is trivial. It is not encyclopedic on its own. The article could however be merged with Agbor Alindinma, his location, if it is notable enough to have its own article. If there is any power associated with being "Okpara", then it could be notable if explained and sourced, but I doubt this, therefore delete, under CSD A1. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Towson University. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:21Z

Burdick Hall Memorial Pool[edit]

Burdick Hall Memorial Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod and local tag removed without changes. The article is about a university swimming pool. No claim for notability, no sources. Nuttah68 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No assertions of notability, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Can merge back into the school article if it warrants a mention there, I suppose. Arkyan 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, The athletic facilities at many schools have a wikipedia article, many of which may not have many assertation to notability except for their association with their school. It could be cleaned up though. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, just because other non-notable school athletic facilities have their own articles, doesn't mean we should keep this one, it means we should delete all of them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article on school, its facilities or similar topic. Even if the topic is not worth an article on its own, the information seems worth keeping. Fg2 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Like he said before, most sports facilities on Wikipedia don't have importance, I really don't see the problem with keeping it on THX
  • Merge and Delete but do not keep. Information on the school should be in the school article unless it is truly notable on its own. Vegaswikian 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:22Z

David All[edit]

David All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
David all (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Only sources so far seem to be a blog, the subjects own website, a youtube link, and a facebook link. (will retract AfD if reasonable sources are added to the article)--VectorPotentialTalk 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:A, WP:N, and WP:BIO comment added by by Christopher Jost (talk)

I'll add sources.

  • Strong Delete, Subtle violation of WP:SPAM, and most definatley a violation of WP:BIO. Not-notable, spam, delete. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the refs are blog entries. No evidence of notability NBeale 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as CSD A1 (insufficient context) and CSD G7 (author requests deletion) per Drewwiki's comment below. Kafziel Talk 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financial market valuation[edit]

Financial market valuation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

completely meaningless article whcih says "valuation is central to the operation of the financial markets" without any meaningful amplification, without any useful links, and without any sources, further reading. "valuation" in the financial markets is a huge and nebulous topic which i am sure is already well and appropriately covered in Wikipedia. This article does nothing to aid comprehension whatsoever. ElectricRay 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I wrote this, (Aparently) but i don't remember doing this what so ever. Possibly I created it as a place holder and wanted to get back to it, but I just have no time, After my CFA, if I figure out why the hell I created it, i'll put it back and make it meaningful. Until that time (possibly never) TOSS IT! --DrewWiki 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:24Z

PSI List (Mother series)[edit]

PSI List (Mother series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
PSI List (mother series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Wikipedia is not a video game guide. "Article" consists solely of lists of powers in a video game, hit points, etc. Nothing to merge, since this information doesn't even belong in the parent article. It just needs to be deleted. Kafziel Talk 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep PSI has relevance to the storyline in each game of the Mother series (and should exist in the article, but does not), relevance which was suggested by another user on my talks page to be added not thirty minutes before this AFD was suggested by A Link to the Past, who already has several open discussions on his talk page pertaining to other articles he has attempted to redirect or delete when a user disagrees with his blanking and/or redirecting. All this, and a bit of meatpuppetry too. That aside, the storyline significance is relevant enough that it warrants a separate article, and it would be redundant to enter the information in each game's respective article.--PeanutCheeseBar 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a simple battle mechanic that can be placed in a gameplay section. Nemu 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also: "The information on this page was taken from the Nintendo official guidebooks.", based on the presentation in the article, I would suspect copyvio. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thin list with relatively little context. I think it's possible for the information to be included in another article (eg. see Category:Video game magic or Category:Video game weapons), but if it were, it would have to be rewritten as prose rather than a bare list. --Interiot 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even after I removed the amount of damage done, who can use it, the Japanese name, the effects of the attack, the description of the attack, and the multiple variants of the attack, it's still pretty pointless and nn. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a rather vague list that if expanded, would transform into a guide. Metrackle 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this belongs on a gaming wiki, not an encyclopedia. Koweja 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, Sounds like it could be somewhat useful in another context, but when presented in this form, it needs to be deleted, and could even be speedily deleted under CSD A1
  • Storyline significance has been added to the article, and other improvements have been made as well. My vote remains strong keep --PeanutCheeseBar 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've adequately added the Mother backstory content to the series article, so this list still isn't necessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you added was hardly "adequate"; it covered the discovery of PSI in one game, you didn't even list WHICH game it was, and the intro paragraph that you copied was one of the rewritten entries. It isn't a "pick and choose" event. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I merged everything but list content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you still didn't merge everything. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I merged it my above statement was true. Regardless, the content doesn't belong on a list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's already been determined that you're not the best person to make that decision, as demonstrated by your repeated attempts to get rid of the Frank Grimes page and as Kafziel has shown on his own talks page in reference to your other mergers of Zelda locations. Once or twice, I can assume good faith; repeatedly (and over the objections of others several times), it's vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I'm sure that any self-respecting Wikipedian would say that because I remove content from Wikipedia on the basis that it doesn't belong, that I am intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. I'm not the best person to make the decision? Right, I guess because I do an obviously disliked act - merging articles - what I think should get merged doesn't matter. People don't like that I merge articles that they like? My Gosh, I didn't think people like that existed! Also, nice job reading the Zelda dispute - if you had, you would have figured that Kafziel disputed it because I didn't open discussion, not because it was a controversial move. I'm also wondering who committed meatpuppetry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think a self-respecting Wikipedian would say that if you blank pages and make them redirect elsewhere and it's drawn complaints in the past, that you need to open a discussion before doing so again. I took up issue with you because you did not open a discussion (which was my bigger complaint) before doing the merge, and it appears that you hardly EVER (if at all) open up a discussion before doing so. Even then, part of the problem is that when you DO merge, you don't do a very good job of it (and I'm apparently not the first person to take notice of this). You've created a list of articles on your user page that you say will "possibly be merged", yet when I randomly click on a few of them, NONE of them have templates suggesting they be merged. You may do it under the guise of "improving" Wikipedia, but in reality all you've done is created a "hit list" of articles that you'll either blank and redirect or merge without further warning; the only way people will know what articles get hit will be if they look at your page, and that's not nearly enough warning, nor does it open the floor for discussion. Wikipedia is not your own personal sandbox. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No policy suggests that I need to open discussion. The only thing that is said is "don't merge/redirect if it's controversial". And how do you say I don't do a very good job of it? My merge of the Kanto, Johto, and Hoenn locations had me making hundreds of edits to fix links, redirects, and orphaned images. Next time, Cheese, assume that since I've been here for 2+ years, I know what I'm doing.
                    • And I once again ask - who committed meatpuppetry? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Given that you've made quite a few merges/redirects in the recent past that have been viewed as controversial (if they weren't, people likely would not object on your talk page), I'd say you're not following that policy very well. Regardless of whether or not it's a policy, it's still good practice to open a discussion first, and it would likely save you some controversy and conflict if you did open a discussion before making a merge or redirect; if nobody objects or participates after a week, you've got some justification to do so.
                      • You said you merged 'everything', although you merged the content for ONE game. I checked the other pages after you said you did, and it was quite obvious that you didn't; I'd hardly say that's a quality merge job. I don't care how long you've been here, that's still no excuse to blank and redirect things as you wish, and given my objections and the objections of others on your talk page, it seems I am not the only person who takes issue with this practice of yours. So, I will ask one last time that you cease this practice until you can either learn to "play nice" and hold a discussion (or at least put a merge template on the page for a while) before you decide to make any drastic changes, and maybe finish what you start before you decide to go and blow away other articles without giving it a second thought; after all, if you've been around for two years, I have no grounds on which to ask why you created an article stub and left it alone for six months (though I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually). --PeanutCheeseBar 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, they weren't. Very few articles DON'T have controversy over them. However, I'm not going to say "because someone wrote this article and definitely will be unhappy to see it go, I won't merge without discussion". Good practice, huh? Well, it's POLICY to be bold. I was bold in my actions. I did not merge ANYTHING that had controversy to it. I'm not going to ASSUME that people will react that way - and very few of my merges have been of articles with controversy over them being merged. At no point does Wikipedia say that you should assume that an article's merge is controversial.
                        • Nice job selectively reading there. You read where I said that I merged everything, but not where I said "at the time that I merged it, I HAD merged everything"? And, yes, there is - I repeat, it is policy to be bold. I don't have to ask peoples' permission every time I merge or redirect. And so what of List of Mother locations? I created it because Magicant could not stand alone as its own article. If I had AfD'd it instead, it'd be deleted, redirected, or merged into one of the EarthBound/Mother articles. I have no intention of improving List of Mother locations - not just because I still think that it's not that important, but also because I never got very far in Mother.
                        • And AGAIN - who committed meatpuppetry? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • If you wish to continue this discussion, it will not be on the AfD page; try your talk page instead, as that's what it's there for. Of course, I don't need to tell you that... --PeanutCheeseBar 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I wonder if there's a reason why you won't answer me when I ask you who violated policy by committing meatpuppetry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a game guide. While this information is factual and absolutely true about the Mother series, that doesn't make it a valid inclusion on Wikipedia. This is game guide material which will not be relevant to anyone who has not played the game. Even if it were couched in phrases meant to try to broaden the audience it is directed at, it's excessive detail on a subject which doesn't require it. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic, entirely in-universe, nothing meeting WP:ATT. Wickethewok 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tracks[edit]

The Tracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, written like a fanpage. Primary author is User:Atrack, so possible WP:COI as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Clearly a violation of CSD A7. Not notable, only link/source is to a MySpace page. Purely not notable. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, this is not a WP:CSD candidate since the article asserts a claim to notability. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Whether this band is actually notable should be decided by this AfD discussion. Gwernol 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - written like a subtle advertisement, actually. - Richard Cavell 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I forgot to add that it was a disputed prod, no reason given. ShadowHalo 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Ezeu 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unholy Alliance[edit]

Unholy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete An unholy alliance of unreliable sources, original sinthesis [sic], and unsubstantiated attack claims. More suited for someones blog, not wikipedia Avi 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE THIS ARTICLE The two voters above clearly identify themselves by their religious affiliations. I prefer to keep that part of my life private. If it disturbs them to see such ideas in print, let them refute them, point by point; otherwise keep still and reflect upon them. I have lived nearly all my life in Kentucky and North Carolina and know the Unholy Alliance for what it is, a fixture of American life. It was a common topic of discussion for as long as I can remember. The political abuse of well-intended religious impulses is something that must be reported and brought to light, not hidden. Intellectual cowardice has no place in Wikipedia. Several vague allegations have been made. Be specific or be quiet. For shame... --Mbhiii 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please comment on the article content and not on the editors. While the Unholy Alliance you mention may or may not be true, what you may know from personal experience constitutes Original Research. To include it in an article you must have verifiable, reliable sources per WP:ATT. Blueboar 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Religion has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia core policies of WP:ATT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, do. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox; please review wiki policies and guidelines, and edit accordingly. Thank you. -- Avi 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does have something to do with it, if it keeps you from looking at facts. You cannot simply list policies without relating them to the article and call that an argument against it. A SOAPBOX is defined at that site as one of these: 1. Propaganda or advocacy... 2. Self-promotion. or 3. Advertising. none of which are present in the article.
Comment My personal religious belief had nothing to do with my decision, I am offended that you would even think that. I am assuming you made these comments because Avi and I have religious themed userboxes on our userpage. As for "Intellectual cowardice," I would suggest that you avoid personal attacks as they will only help to discredit you and influence other editors to vote to delete. Please remain civil. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A judge who mistakenly did not recuse himself from hearing a case involving his religion might say the same thing, and it's entirely civil to point that out to you. --Mbhiii 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The POV, non-reliable sources, and Original Research is just the tip of the iceberg.... without that material it is little more than a Dictionary Definition re: WP:NOT. I could see an article on this, but it would require a LOT of clean up. Better to delete and start from scratch. Blueboar 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing non-reliable about using Google searches to establish that a term has wide use, but my main intent is to use them as temporary hooks for better citations later, which seems acceptable to others (read discussion). Still, if all one wants to do is establish wide use of a term, Google searches would suffice as permanent citations, but for that purpose alone. I'd accept a radical rewrite to conform to Wikipedia standards that does not delete previous versions. Wanna do it? But let's go point by point on what to add back. --Mbhiii 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - personal religious motivation, especially when identified as such, is germane to the discussion. The article is not written as personal experience, but tied to outside, verifiable, and reliable sources, the sum total of which establish Unholy Alliance to be a real phenomenon. Its qualities, character, and instances remain to be detailed, in progress, just as are some of the scandals it names. (The preceeding was added by user:Mbhiii please sign your comments.)
  • SAVE Google sources are the start of sourcing, a work in progress. Something you've never heard of does not constitute Original Research by the writer. (The preceeding was added by user:Mbhiii please sign your comments.)
  • Strong Delete this inflammatory piece of WP:OR. Arkyan 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your gut reactions have no place here. A collection of facts pointing to a new idea can be inflammatory alone, but does not constitute OR. Inflammation of the imagination can be painful, but some wisdom and moderation helps deal with it. --Mbhiii 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you are coming up with the "gut reaction" thing
your "piece of ..." comment
but ad-hominem attacks against people arguing to delete the article are not going to curry you any favor or do anything to advance your cause.
When people identify themselves as editors, and religious, they are open to question as to their motivation when editing or deleting an article on religion, i.e. are they trying to advance their own?
A collection of facts pointing to a new idea is, in fact, OR - read WP:SYN for clarification.
Yes, of course if the meaning is a "totally new idea," but it isn't. "Unholy Alliance" been around for a long time, as a general, vague epithet, and, as a very specific, and generally regretted, lack of separation, in the South, of politics and religion.
Not one of the references listed in the article supports the notion of the "unholy alliance" as a concept.
Frankly, I wonder if you read any of it at all. All three articles mentioning Baptists and Bootleggers in the title do offer support. At least one article has the very concept named in the title! Would the writer use it in his title if the concept had no immediately identifiable meaning?
Google results cannot be used as references,
That's a matter of opinion (if you read the discussion).
and culling references where the term is used does not constitute reference material, either.
I'd agree, but it's a good starting point for documenting something that seems to exist, heretofore, largely in folk-lore, until recently.
Add some verified, reliable sources documenting the subject of the article and the OR concerns may be alleviated.
I'm willing to do that, but Jeez-Louise, if you read the discussion you'll know I'm a strapped single-parent, and on top of everything it's tax time.
Spamming an article with Google results and unrelated sources DOES NOT satisfy WP:ATT.
I'm not trying to spam anything, but provide hooks for myself and others to investigate further.
Furthermore the unsubstantiated allegations of the Catholic Church colluding with the Nazis comes across as rather inflammatory and the article could be interpreted as a thinly veiled attack page and qualify for speedy deletion.
Do I have to document that, too? It's been on PBS and the History channel for decades it seems, and it qualifies as an example of an Unholy Alliance. Read up on Pope Pius XII and the operation to spirit Nazis out of Europe at the end of WWII to South America.
I suggest, if you feel this article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, that you clean it up, source it, and refrain from making baseless jabs at the nominator and other participants in the discussion. Arkyan 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to keep trying and responding to criticism, so long as it is very specific, not general or vague as is much of what's on this page. Look, any editor who identifies their religious preferences must expect their motivations to be questioned when editing a religious article. I'd propose such people be required to recuse themselves, like judges, as a matter of Wikipedia policy.--Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor's religious views do not constitute a conflict of interest as they are citing valid Wikipedia policies that have nothing to do with religion.
You don't seem to understand the analogy of a judge. It doesn't matter that the laws (policies) have nothing to do with religion. If he's hearing a case that involves his religion, he must recuse himself.
The motivation of the contributors to a debate is not relevant to the veracity of their observations.
It most certainly is, because of the iceberg theory of mind, only 15% is above water (conscious).
Trying to discredit them due to what you feel to be a conflict of interest is still an ad hominem attack and disruptive to the flow of discussion on the merits of the article.
It is not in the least, rather it is a concern that should be common to us all, and please note this discussion is flowing with civility.
Please refrain from trying to discredit others and focus on telling us why the article should be kept.
It is no discredit to address that which we cannot help (the 85% below water) but to ignore it is stupid. The article has merit, and I'm willing to work getting it up to standards. 'Nuff said.
As far as your sources in the article are concerned, yes I have looked at them insofar as I am able to. Whether the writer of an article would use the term unholy alliance or not has no bearing on the discussion of the concept.
...a simply amazing statement, in light of questions as to whether the term refers to anything real at all. Given that it does, then your criticism has value, but also if it does (refer to something real), don't delete the article.
The article establishes an unsourced dictionary definition of what unholy alliance means and then dives in to a lengthy recounting of examples of what one might percieve as such.
Yup, and consider just how many Wikipedia articles do exactly that.
Let me reiterate : it does not matter if you can come up with a million articles where someone uses the term.
I'd say that'd pretty well establish it as a term of use; wouldn't you?
Unless the term istelf is the subject of the source, then the source does not help with attribution.
Point taken that assertions about the term need to be documented (if not blatantly obvious).
Finally, yes, you must be prepared to cite sourced for information you put in an article. You cannot expect readers to do your homework for you and simply "figure it out".
Certainly not for the long-run, I agree.
You cannot expect future editors or the AfD participants to sift through Google results and find something to defend your point of view. I am sorry you are a strapped, single parent with little time but that still does not put the burden of proving your point on anyone else. Spin the issue all you like, but unless the article is properly sourced and cleaned up, it fails Wikipedia policies. Arkyan 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good answer; lemme chew on that. Though it does seem to have worked to some degree, attracting other contributors and editors. I'm willing to cut back to what can be established or proven about the concept, and let others add what they will as time goes on and new sources come to light. --Mbhiii 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The judge analogy does not apply - we are not judges. We are not a jury. This is not a vote. We are expressing ideas for consideration by the closing administrator. It is an attempt to establish consensus. In any case let me break this down into simple terms - the bulk of your article is not about Unholy Alliance as a topic, but is being used as a medium to exposit what by your definition are unholy alliances.
There are a very great number of articles here, megalomania for instance, that are exactly in that format. Examples serve to flesh out and make real what would otherwise be pretty dry stuff. Please, add your own examples, if you know of any.
The entire section of the article about the term unholy alliance is unsourced and unreferenced and that is the problem.
I concentrated on trying to answer the original objector (see discussion) who is a Baptist and concerned about the prominence of Baptists in the article. Having done that, I'm ready to address yours, if you don't kill it first.
That your Google searches and links establish the existence of the term is not in question, but establishing that something exists is NOT the point of sourcing.
Now, that you admit Unholy Alliances exist, don't delete the article on it, but edit and enhance it.
I am not going to debate this issue with you any further in the interest of not disrupting the debate overall, particularly since it seems you are more concerned with the religious affiliations of the people who have debated here rather than the substance of the article and its fitness in terms of Wikipedia guidelines.
It's not their religious affiliations that bothers me, but that they would advertise them as part of their association with Wikipedia, then dare call for the deletion of an article that addresses an abuse of religion, one that results from a lack of religious oversight.
Good luck to you sir. Arkyan 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, BTY. --MBHiii 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google searches are not appropriate references, the bolding in the quotes is meant to prove a point without giving a context (as is the rest of the article, really); there's far too much OR (Pulp Fiction next to the Koran?), and there's really no way to do anything with this, since there's nothing to work with. I'm sure Wiktionary already has a perfectly usable dicdef for this. MSJapan 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches are a good start for a work in progress. The quote bolding was something another person used in the TR quote which seemed to help establish Unholy Alliance as a general concept (Pulp Fiction, Deuteronomy, Koran, etc. all spiritally inspired calls to violence can be used by thugs). I realize now the two should've been separated. Unholy Alliance, in general, and then again, specific to Southern US politics and religion. That one could be split as well into pre- and post-Nixon. BTW, Wiktionary has nothing. --Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Blatantly POV and blatantly original research. Even the arguments defending it here don't defend it as much as they attack those voting for deletion. Mwelch 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong; it's the vague and unsubstantiated argumentation to which I object. --Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's RfC? Someone also wants to delete Southern mafia to which I link, but that's also in progress. BTW, my comments about my personal experiences living in states with Unholy Alliances are just that and not to be included in a proper article. --Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Requests for Comment is a stage of the dispute resolution process. It will bring the article to the attention to the Wikipedia community. If the cause of the bias is that all or most interested editors tend to share a particular point of view, this will help by bringing in editors with other points of view, who will then have to compromise to find something the can all agree on (or almost all agree on), which would probably be much more neutral. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this; could you start the template? My concern is that there is entirely too much interest in deleting this article from people who advertise their own religion. A wider readership would be welcome. --Mbhiii 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfC should not be started during an AfD debate. If this is closed as keep (which seems unlikely), leave me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to start and RfC for you.
For some quick ideas on how to make the article more neutral, try attributing statements like "Such-and-such was an unholy alliance" to a source, saying "So-and-so said such-and-such was an unholy alliance" instead. You will, of course, need to find a source in order to do this. The better a source you find, the less likely you will have undue weight problems.
After that, you will want to tell the other side of the story: rebuttals and whatnot. Per WP:NPOV, you should discuss all major viewpoints. You could look at related articles for ideas. For example, Pope Pius XII#The_Holocaust details the controversy of the Catholic church's actions during World War II: the good and the bad.
Try to provide reasons for both sides, per WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.
Ideally, the article as a whole should not be particularly offensive to anyone, per WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tons of POV and OR. The Google searches used as "citations" are ridiculous. A basic, slimmed down definition of the term could have a place on Wiktionary, though. – Þ  02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing ridiculous about using Google searches to establish that a term has wide use, but my main intent is to use them as temporary hooks for better citations later, which seems acceptable to others (read discussion). Still, if all one wants to do is establish wide use of a term, Google searches would suffice as permanent citations, but for that purpose alone.--Mbhiii 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Search is a clear-cut example of original research. Advancing the notion that the Google Search proves the term is popular or indeed that the popularity is significant is your original contribution to the topic. It is not something any reliable source has said or supports. If you intend to use these searches as basis for continuing work on the article, you should place them on the talk page and label them as such. If others have told you they are acceptable, they are mistaken. I advise you and them to review Wikipedia's policy on original research. – Þ  11:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In order resolve the WP:OR issue, the article needs to identify sources which address the issue of "unholy alliance" as a general concept in the manner that the article does, rather than generating a concept by stringing together quotes calling this or that thing an "unholy alliance" in the course of an article on something else. It is the generality with which the concept is presented, combined with what seems to be a lack of sources on this subject as such, that represents the WP:OR problem. Imagine an article on "lunatic" which strung together a series of articles in which certain people were called lunatics and then using them to present a concept using language such as "A lunatic can be a kind of politician, such as [insert name of politician here] [cite article cslling this politician a lunatic here]." This article has similar problems with stringing together articles in which the term is used as an epithet in order to present what is essentially an WP:OR essay on a concept. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I agree it'd be nice to have more references, and I'm confident that more will be forth-coming, with time, but this looks like piling-on, to me, by the religiously affiliated. A better example than yours (lunatic) is megalomania - no references, just a simple definition and examples from books, movies, even people (Hitler). Megalomania and unholy alliance can be humorous and pergorative and their articles both need work, but unlike lunatic, they can also be serious descriptive terms that become more easily understood with examples. --Mbhiii 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shirahadasha, and it's not just the matter of a few more references. WP:SYNT requires that the cited sources explicitly identify the unions as "unholy alliances". Since this is a controversial matter strong attribution language is required as well. --Merzul 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Dwight Callahan clearly refers to the "POLITICS OF RADICAL RELIGION, OIL, AND BORROWED MONEY IN THE 21st CENTURY" as an "Unholy Alliance." David Horowitz clearly uses that term to to refer to a linkup of "Radical Islam and American Leftists." --74.227.121.222 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote -- however I respectfully request the closing admin to note how many of the above delete votes come from people who, self-evidently, are either fundamentally anatgonistic to the originating editor, or are themselves members of one of the alliances described in the article, and offer OR arguments to support their PoV -- Simon Cursitor

Comment - it is a fairly outrageous claim that you are making here in insinuating that the contributing editors to this discussion are fundamentally antagonistic toward the article's originator, and saying so is a POV attack. As far as trying to discredit them by claiming they have some kind of connection to the so-called unholy alliances is pretty pointless. Either their complaints about WP:OR issues are valid or not and have absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs of those expressing their opinions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Arkyan, you must slow down and contemplate the iceberg analogy (see above); it applies to us all. --MBHiii 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how many analogies, theories, metaphors or comparisons anyone throws at the issue. The black and white truth of the matter is that two possibilities exist - either the article passes or fails inclusion criteria. It wouldn't make a difference if the !voters were self-proclaimed fanatic members of any of the groups the article mentions. The motivations, affiliations, beliefs or attitudes of the people do not somehow exempt the article from having to meet the basic guidelines for inclusion! Since this is not a vote the closing admin does not count how many people say delete versus how many say keep. The admin will weigh the evidence presented both in favor of and opposing the deletion, measure the quality of the article against the standards, determine what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is on the issue and then close the discussion appropriately. If as you believe those !voting delete have no bias in policy then you have nothing to fear because the closing admin will take this into account. If however the concerns brought up by these !votes are valid policy related issues then it does not matter their motivation - either the article must be fixed to meet standards or it gets deleted. Bottom line : this is an "Articles for Deletion" debate, not an "Editors for Scrutiny" discussion. Stick to the topic of the merits of the article. Arkyan 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which -- with the deepest respect, is the argument that I was making :: asking the closing admin to take note of which "contributing editors" (your words not mine) were voting on the merits and which either on pre-existing agendas, or on the basis of antagonism (let us let fundamental slide, for now) to the originating editors, merits notwithstanding. And, I repeat, no vote. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete. Far too much synthesis / original research / unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article. The references cited don't even support the statements made. It would be OK as a short Wiktionary definition, but as an article it isn't acceptable in its current state. I recommend the author move it to a sub-page on his own userpage and work on it more before releasing it into the Wikipedia main space. It could be a decent article, properly sourced with appropriate neutral language. -Amatulic 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had a look at this when Blueboar raised it at the Village Pump, and my opinion, then and now, is that the non-OR, non-SOAP parts of the article don't amount to more than a dicdef. There's nothing here that doesn't fall into one or other of the sorts of things that Wikipedia is not, and no amount of remedial editing would change that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and I would be perfectly happy to join the consensus to delete. The subject of this article, if any, is the phrase "unholy alliance", with a lot of examples of usage strung on that thread. This may belong at Wiktionary; that's their decision. It certainly doesn't belong here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT because this is only several of the alliances that are detrimental to our world.— 12.76.209.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:21, March 15, 2007 (UTC). -- Avi 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT - all cited, referenced, attributed, or sourced - no Googles.— 74.227.121.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:49, March 15, 2007 (UTC). -- Avi 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the filing of this AfD, there has been some work done on sourcing statements. A lot more needs to be done, and some of the sources are questionable... but it is a step in the right direction. That said, the issues with POV, and especially the issues with unsourced syntheses and Original Reserach remain (in fact, I find that they have gotten worse, as individual problem paragraphs have now been combined into one huge unbroken paragraph). Unfortunately, none of the improvement is enough to change my opinion of the article. Blueboar 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this posting, work has been done to address these issues, hopefully to satisfaction. --MBHiii 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no... some of the citations added are to blogs (which are not considered reliable), some are to unattributed PDF pages (where do these pages come from, who compiled the data, and in what context?), and there are still many statements that are unsourced. Not to mention that the basic POV and original research/unsourced synthesis issues have not been addressed. Blueboar 19:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blog ref. deleted, maps and tables attributed, satisfactory? --MBHiii 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MBHiii - you keep missing the point. While I appreciate the work you are doing to improve the quality of citations, they are minor improvements that do not address the major issue, which is POV language and Original Research and Synthesis. Nothing you have done has address those points. You can cite each individual sentence all you want, but without a reliable source that ties them all together, the article is POV and OR. See the WP:SYNT section of WP:ATT for the applicable policy.Blueboar 14:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT - Very good article. Makes important points. Article is well documented and well written. Should not delete to satisfy certain political view.— 71.70.165.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:10, March 15, 2007 (UTC). Note: There have been No contributions from the imaginary Mfreskos. -- Avi 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Usually I would recommend RfC, as suggested by Armed Blowfish above, because the primary problems are OR and POV, which are usually fixable. (As, indeed, the citation issues have been somewhat addressed, although the effect is that now it's a very well-documented rant, as the sources seem to be cited to support the OR argument, rather than to document how the term is frequently used.) However, I don't see this article ending up as more than a dictionary definition once all the POV and OR are taken out. From the discussion it appears that this term is more of an expression (which doesn't justify having an article to archive its uses) than, say, a political science term of art (which might very well justify an article to explain a poli sci concept). So even if it's fixed, I doubt it will ever be an encyclopedia article. The way to save this article is to find better sources, not more sources—professional or academic sources using it in a political studies context. DCB4W 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG - the article is in no sense a rant. Such language, where it exists, is to be found on this page and the discussion page, but, most importantly, not in the article itself, which has become a comparatively dry listing of facts, descriptions, and instances of the subject, as it should be. I don't suppose any self-professed Republican, such as yourself, would be too happy with this article's existence, but I would expect a self-professed skeptic, such as yourself, would be quite happy with it. Anyway, calls are in to academics cited, Callahan, Yandle, and others. --216.77.231.87 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you caught us: half-page Wikipedia article, listing "instances of the subject," has all of us at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy very, very unhappy. (While we're on the subject of rants, that article has a pro-Republican one. Let me address that.)DCB4W 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AND MAKE A COPY (small joke). I agree it's a work in process. I find it a fascinating collection of concepts that feed my philosphical questioning about -- guess what? Yes! That's right! "Unholy alliances!" Perhaps if some insult doesn't get this article banned I can add something to it. I don't find any OR or POV certainly not over the top and nothing that can't be obliterated by the next editor. --Xgenei 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article premise (that "unholy alliance" has been used to describe religious groups working with political ones) is fine,
the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems come from the examples—so delete just the offending material! (ie, "Ralph Reed...bootlegging.[19]")
The article can still talk about the southern strategy (very mainstream), Ratlines (mainstream enough to have an article), and Eisenhower's and Roosevelt's quotes and the context. And surely it would be possible to talk about the corresponding section of Kevin Phillips' book neutrally, perhaps with some critical reactions? --gwc 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with your partial delete idea is that Reed's position as a Christian leader among conservative voters was understandably why he was picked to lobby against the Alabama lottery. He knew the money was coming from Indian casino gambling people who would benefit greatly (more gambling for them) if the lottery was killed, so he tried to deny it all, and was caught. (all documented in the links; that's why they're there) He's a Christian leader, they went to jail, so it's a "special" instance (religious/criminal) of an unholy alliance. Another "special" instance (religious/criminal) is the KY Baptist/Bootlegger thing which incidentally was explicitly called "the Unholy Alliance" in KY since the early 1900s.216.77.231.87 06:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote - 216.77.231.87, I'm a little confused by the non sequiturs, but I think what you're saying is that this article is not about "unholy alliances" but about "The Unholy Alliance" with some other examples (ie, Ratlines) as context. If this is the case, then I must retract my former opinion.
non sequiturs? What's your problem with having "the (so-called) Unholy Alliance in KY" used as an example of unholy alliances, in general (especially since it fits the "special" religious/criminal definition)?216.77.231.87 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have separated out the actual encyclopedic content related to the concept of an unholy alliance from the several questionable examples of such. (perm link) It should be easy enough to see that there's actually very little going on here worth keeping. – Þ  00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (South Park episode)[edit]

TBA (South Park episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Textbook violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dylan 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1 (no context). Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what will the article contain come March 21? Why, a plot summary of course! Or perhaps the name of this article is intended as an indexical, forever referencing the earliest South Park episode whose title has not yet been announced. Delete. Pan Dan 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD A1, No Context. Just the fact that a new south park episode will come out. An encyclopedic page can be created when it comes out.Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Mr.Z-man JuJube 03:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:27Z

Paul Mcleod[edit]

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

smells like a hoax - Lars T. 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ezeu 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vessi[edit]

Vessi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:Notability? Dear admin, if the decision is to delete, don't forget the talk page too. I've seen too many orphaned talk pages of deleted articles or deleted categories. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete not notable. In fact, non-existent so far!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there's any speedy criteria for this. G11 at a stretch, possibly A7/organisation or A1? Anyway, it is content free and makes no claims of notability, it's also extremely confusing as it completely ignores WP:WAF. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ezeu 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trashcan Comedies[edit]

Trashcan Comedies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, written in a personal style by the creators of this production company. Xnuala 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This page seems like it could be OK if re-written and evidence is provided as to notability. See WP:SPAM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nenyedi (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Don't Delete: Seriously, do you think that there's anyone else clamoring for the "Trashcan Comedies page name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.40.78.152 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Please try WP:TFD as appropriate... AfD is just for articles. W.marsh 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template User:Blade Runner[edit]

Template User:Blade Runner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Proposed deletion contested by creator. Misnamed page; clearly unencyclopedic as it's a userbox. Identical, correctly-named version already exists at Template:User Blade Runner. A redirect would be cross-namespace and hence undesirable. – Qxz 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close as delete per WP:CSD#A7. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godporn[edit]

Godporn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this for deletion per Wikipedia:Notability and possible Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Was nominated for speedy deletion and then contested.Hondasaregood 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can see, the article makes no claim of notability and constitutes patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense AlfPhotoman 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Notability not asserted, bordering on nonesense. So tagged. WjBscribe 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Nihonjoe. Whispering 13:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Elvis Murphy[edit]

Billy Elvis Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person; article lacks references to give it any credibility Trenwith 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP and redirect to Antony Buck. Ezeu 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bienvenida Buck[edit]

Bienvenida Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page contains derogatory information and has been unsourced since creation in April 2006. Per WP:BLP it should be deleted unless references satisfying WP:ATT can be found and added. Blanked the content temporarily. Edison 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Anthony Buck (her husband) or Peter Harding (her lover). I would suggest the latter based on the fact that that's where (some) information about her is currently contained. She doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, but the content of the article is verifiable: [31] [32]. -- Black Falcon 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but redirect to Antony Buck as this is less likely to be recreated if not a red link. Of very marginal notability and better dealt with in the other articles for BLP reasons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor (talk to me) 22:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ready[edit]

Scott Ready (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pointless page; just someone's resume uploaded - not notable or anywhere near encyclopedic Cralar 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, should be speedy delete. Not encyclopedic, simply a resume. Nenyedi TalkContribs@ 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Hobit 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notabilty. So tagged. -- Whpq 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yuser31415 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chauntelle DuPree[edit]

Chauntelle DuPree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Person with barely a scrap of notability, all due to being in the band Eisley. Fails WP:BIO, so not deserving of an independent article. Valrith 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Being a member of Eisley, a major label band, alone makes her "notable." --Oakshade 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why does the source of her fame matter? Shall we delete Siouxsie Sioux because she's only famous due to membership in Siouxsie & the Banshees? Shall we delete Robert Smith because he's only famous thanks to being in The Cure? Chris Croy 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced biographical articles are OK for members of notable bands. Eisley are signed to Reprise, so they meet WP:MUSIC, notability inherited to band members. --Canley 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Is a member of the band Eisley which has gone on a national tour as reported in Paste Magazine online. Eisley has been featured on MTV as well as in Blender Magazine, Nylon Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and Filter Magazine. --Rmlawrence 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Also, it is my thought that Valrith has some sort of personal agenda in trying to eliminate Chauntelle's page.

Not only is she in a National touring band, the band has toured internationally several times. Chauntelle has won personal awards from music competitions held in Dallas, TX, USA, and is part of a whole that makes up this mostly sibling band. You can check my sources, but I am her mother. :-) Kimbrtones

  • Keep - Many individual band members have their own pages because being in a band signed to a major label makes them notable. Her fiance, Adam Lazzara from Taking Back Sunday is also only notable for his band, are you planning to delete his page too? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.63.123 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ezeu 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Boiler[edit]

Bunny Boiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a slang term and its etymology. It's already in Wiktionary so don't vote "transwiki". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunny boiler for old discussion. Boongoman 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a term and its etymology is not welcome as an article in Wikipedia, perhaps slang too should be moved to Wiktionary. Or? --Kaninkokaren 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dicdef. -- Whpq 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 'uses in popular' culture section takes it above a simple dicidef. It's continued use in popular culture supports its 'encyclopaedicity'. Compare with 'Going commando' -- whereas this latter article is obviously much more developed, it is in a similar ilk. "Bunny boiler" has notability established, is an established term (as evidenced) and its continued use in popular culture asserts its encyclopedic value as a distinct article. The article needs work (the Big Brother material needs writing up and developing properly), but this is not grounds for deletion. The JPStalk to me 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Thuresson 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a neologism in the sense of that guide. It was established through a mainstream film and has been used in many credible independent mainstream media. The JPStalk to me 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a Wikimedia project for slang where users can write about proper use and examples of use. Obsessively cooking rabbits is not a real-life medical disorder. Thuresson 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't confuse the etymology and semantics of the term with the disorder. I'm in no way an expert, but borderline, bi-polar and manic depression are all very much indeed real disorders. --Kaninkokaren 07:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is certainly not a part of medical discourse, but its repeated use within culture (both mediated and everyday) has rendered it a real term. [33] The JPStalk to me 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additionally, I see no difference between this and others in Category:Pejorative terms for people. The JPStalk to me 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictdef with one of those useless "Hey! I saw it on The Simpson's!"-type "Uses in popular culture" sections stapled onto the end. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The Simpsons is known for its popular-culture commentary. . . . The popular culture section is now (mostly) referenced, taking it beyond original research. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With 100,000 - 500,000 references on Google, this is hardly neologism nor something just used in popular culture. --Kaninkokaren 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why that invalidates my point though? I showed up because I'm the author of the Swedish article, and the AfD for that triggered this AfD. --Kaninkokaren 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removed the striking of Kaninkokaren's vote. However, it is fair comment to point out when those voting on AFD are from new accounts. It's unwise to strike out others' comments, though. The JPStalk to me 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when it gets into DSM-IV, this neologism should come back. This is a joke of an article and as such, put into the archive of foregetfullness. --Bunnycooking-girl 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ten documented usages in popular culture in 20 years since "Fatal Attraction" does not show it is a popular neologism, much less the basis for an encyclopedia article. Edison 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ghits are convincing. The JPStalk to me 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ghits are blown up like balloons[34]! Try 753 wich a fairly large amount are usernames from forums and such and so on. --Boongoman 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now passes WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just a dicdef given the "Uses in popular culture" section, so WP:WINAD is not applicable. A Google search provides around 200,000 unique hits, so I don't think WP:NEO applies. No other reason for deletion remains. Also, the article was improved during this AFD (see diff). -- Black Falcon 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ezeu 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perforce Jam[edit]

Perforce Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded by Fram. I'm moving it to AfD because I frankly don't know whether it should be stay or not. I think it might be a notable tool on the grounds that I think it, and its descendants, are used to build a suitable variety of projects (although not nearly as many as make), but I'm not sure how to best substantiate, or refute, that claim. But I'm going to vote Keep because I think it's more likely that it's a notable program (just not with a well-sourced article). - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original prodder. Furrykef, thanks for bringing it here and being open about the article. I have the impression that it is not a notable software tool, and the article, which is over two years old and has been tagged for notability for two months, has no external independent sources (per WP:ATT) to indicate such notability. However, it may of course be that amongst the 143 distinct online sources (per Google[35]) or in some offline source, good, verifiable claims to notability are made.Fram 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the google hits, I'll note that it's often just called "Jam". Also, a descendant like "KJam" will likely be referred to by that name, without mention of Perforce. Unfortunately, these names don't google very well... - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, I know that you are probably not going to take the vote of an anonymous user into consideration, but when I saw that the article is proposed for deletion, I felt that I need to share my opinion: I often find these kinds of articles very useful, even if the mentioned piece of software is not very widely used (This is not the first deletion proposal that I regret to see). They can spare quite some googling, because many little pieces of information are collected on Wikipedia, that are difficult to gather by searching the web. I looked up Jam on WP because I needed it to build some software on Windows, but I am not a professional programmer, so most of the time I need a little help with these kinds of things. The WP article told me immediately that there are many different versions of Jam and I could download a Windows binary of FP Jam within a minute. Now if the only thing that you know is that you need some software named "Jam" (I didn't even know that it's called Perforce Jam) and google for it, you only find the official perforce page, which doesn't help you much with getting it working. So this WP article saved me a lot of time. Of course I know that WP shouldn't be a collection of download links, but still: at least this page is useful, unlike many others that contain less information and are not proposed for deletion (just a random example that I stumbled upon by accident a day ago: Simon Baldwin). And maybe Jam is notable in some circles (among people who make their living by programming). Otherwise why would it be used in the build system of several projects? ... So if you don't think that this article is harmful in any way, please keep it ... -- a Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.46.38 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: Jam (and its variants) is one of several build tool trying to fix problems with make and being only moderate successful here (the area of make tools got fragmented and people often preferre to create custom ones). Short overview of Jams could be found at [36] & [37]. The original Jam is abandoned and under-documented, Boost.Build (both versions) is very complex, under-documented but under active development. The current article is not much above mere collection of links. I do not vote because while Jam is not completely unknown it is unlikely to get useful coverage on WP (speaking from my experience here). Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Granted, the sources may be primary rather than secondary, but the prodder's argument that the sources are not independent because they are part of a narrow interested community (presumably computer programmers) doesn't hold water for me. Most computer programming tools may not have extensive coverage in the press. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of a good independent secondary source about Perforce Jam that establishes notability? I don't think I said that the sources are not independent because they are "part of a narrow interested community", but I think it fails WP:ATT because there are no reliable secondary sources. Fram 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ezeu 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 World Cup Matches[edit]

2007 World Cup Matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. We have space for the results of all the matches at 2007 Cricket World Cup. We really don't need a page with complete scorecards for 51 matches. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: since WP:NOT#PAPER is the only reason for deletion that I see mentioned thus far... Neier 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSince this are the full scorecards and can cover more--Thugchildz 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi! I am the person who created the page. True,a page on World Cup matches may seem cumbersome and unnecessary.However,it does make it much easier for contributing articles with statistical information.Ravichandar84 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this thing is kept, it really needs a renaming. It is not at all obvious from the title that we are dealing with cricket and not some other sport. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't contravene the stated policy (and I can't find any other policy it contravenes), but rename (as per last comment, insert "cricket" somewhere) and wikify. Personally I think it's pretty cumbersome and an external reference to something like cricinfo would be easier (as most other cricket articles seem to do) --Deon Steyn 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't contravene any of those policies since:
    • it is not a list of loosely associated topics (all the matches are closely associated with each other and don't just happen to be cricket matches)
    • it is not an article on genealogical or phonebook entries
    • it is not a directory, list of directory entries, tv/radio guide, or a resource for conducting business
    • it is not a list of frequently asked questions
    • it is not a travel guide
    • it is not a memorial
    • it is not an instruction manual
    • it is not an internet guide
    • it is not a reproduction of a textbook or annotated textbook
    • it is not a plot summary
    • it is not a lyrics database.
Thus far there are no real reasons for deletion other than that it is thought to take up space (which doesn't really matter since Wikipedia is not space-limited and not a paper encyclopaedia). I've voted keep and given another very obvious and good reason to keep this article below (though the article should be re-named).72.27.8.49 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to duplicate all the scorecards here. Tintin 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Ozzykhan 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this page: 2007 Cricket World Cup Statistics need to proded as well? - Ozzykhan 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The stats might eventually find a place in the overall report of the tournament as a whole. If someone wants to update them day by day and then put them across into the main World Cup report, then fine. But the article shouldn't in my view be regarded as a long-term survivor. Johnlp 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Do review the History statistics for the page for the time the changes were made.You will find that the statistics are being updated as the match progresses.RegardsRavichandar84 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. Link to cricinfo or CricketArchive where match is mentioned in text. I suspect some of the matches are going to be distinctly non-notable, too. ;-) Johnlp 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete - while this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, I do question the usefulness of this, particularly with very decent external links providing identical information and, as such, being reliable sources for such events. The Rambling Man 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has no usefulness, it will just be a recreation of a scorecard from a newspaper, or cricinfo or bbc.co.uk or any news/cricket site. Unless it contains prose on the happenings of each match, in my opinion it has no longevity here other than for the duration of the tournament. Therefore, I recommend deletion. –MDCollins (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article does not violate any Wikipedia policy (see list of what the article is not above in response to the stated policies that the article supposedly violated) and the usefulness of an article is a subjective decision and not a proper way for determining whether an article should be deleted or not (think of Pokemon and other such articles which are only useful to the people who care or even know about such things). If you do not find an article useful, it doesn't necessarily mean that the articles isn't useful to other people. Besides all that if this article is deleted then so should the following articles: 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group B, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group C, etc. (with articles all the way down to 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group H). Now if the FIFA World Cup can have main articles about its matches, even though there are numerous other websites on the internet to which persons could be referred to instead a la Cricinfo, then why shouldn't the Cricket World Cup? Any deletion of this article without a move to delete the corresponding football articles constitutes a double-standard.72.27.8.49 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - title is wrong; content is primary source material. An article that discusses the matches in prose would be great. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So if the title is wrong, why delete? why not rename? And what's the point of deleting the article when it could simply be re-written to discuss the matches in prose? And what is the problem with primary source material? This is an encyclopaedia and such material is also found in articles on Football World Cup matches?72.27.8.49 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic. As ALoan says, prose article linking to external scorecards at Cricinfo etc would be perfect. Even this monstrosity of an article doesn't (quite) go into the level of detail that this would. --Dweller 11:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 2006-07 Biathlon World Cup is not truly comparable to this article, since it deals with the tournament as a whole. The Biathlon article is more comparable to the 2007 Cricket World Cup article or the 2006 FIFA World Cup article, not to articles detail matches/events of either of those tournaments.72.27.8.49 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For all the reasons stated previously: It does not violate any of the WP:NOT policies (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY are not applicable - check the criteria properly), and in fact is exactly the kind of data that would be found in a traditional encyclopaedia (thus "not encyclopaedic" is not a valid argument against inclusion either). User 72.27.8.49's comment re: the FIFA World Cup entries being allowed to stand is valid - either all must stay or all must go. Proponents of deletion clearly can't even agree on whether producing a scorecard is primary source material, whether it is duplication of a source, or whether it requires attribution to, or validation from, a source! In view of their contradictory comments - obviously based purely on each person's personal interpretation of the WP guidelines - the scorecards pages for sports events should stay until and unless specific clarification is made 'officially' by WP. However I totally agree that this page must be renamed to include the word 'cricket', since there are world cup championships in several sports. I believe 2007 Cricket World Cup Matches would be the most sensible title. - 158.143.133.150 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I consider it is duplication of primary source information, and horribly formatted, not up-to-date and hard-to-read duplication at that. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY states: other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. As a cricket fan, a scorecard is useful, but only in the normally formatted way, which other sites do much better than wiki does. Maybe it belongs in Wikisource, if at all? The-Pope 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, if you read the discussion page for the article, you'll see why the page is not up-to-date. Having had the article listed as being considered for deletion, the author hasn't touched it since, so why complain about the article not being up-to-date when this very process is what basically drove the author away? I agree that the page could be re-done so as to make it more reader-friendly (rather like the FIFA pages), but that doesn't require deletion. As a true cricket fan you could contribute to correcting the page rather than just sitting back and deleting it. I doubt the FIFA fans out there who wrote the various world cup match pages would have even dreamed about letting such articles be deleted simply because they were badly written initially. It probably won't matter anyway as User 158.143.133.150 rightly points out that the proponents of deletion can't agree on what the page is, much less what policy it ever violated, but seeing as how so many people seem set against the page, for some reason or another (usually out of personal consideration) then the article will probably end up being deleted. It's a shame that the info couldn't at least be merged with the 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage and the author convinced to contribute to that page since this seems headed for deletion.72.27.85.98 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the summary information on 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage is much more appropriate than trying to replicate full scorecards, which are better represented on other sites. Isn't the fact that no-one can agree on what the page is trying to be justification for its deletion? What is the value of keeping this page? The-Pope 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think that page (2007 Cricket World Cup group stage) pretty much settles the debate... let's dump this one and keep that one which is in a more correct format (summary and comment that adds value, not just scorecard). --Deon Steyn 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "No-one can agree on what the page is trying to be.."? Actually all the people, including the author, who voted to keep the page know what the page is supposed to be. It's an article on the individual matches of the 2007 cricket world cup, since the information that would be needed for the article would make the main article on the 2007 tournament very long. If you read through the debate, you'll see, as User 158.143.133.150 says, that the only ones who don't agree on what the page is are the ones voting for deletion. They get bogged down in trying to decide whether or not the page violates any policy or whether it is "primary source material, duplication of a source, or whether it requires attribution to, or validation from, a source". Also is there anything in wikipedia's deletion policy that says that if nobody can agree on a page then it should be deleted? If so then many more pages have an even greater justification for deletion. The value of keeping the page was already outlined in the fact that the FIFA world cup 2006 tournaments have analagous pages i.e. it's a page that gives details that would detract from the main article's readability. If the page can be formatted properly, then do so. If the page can be reformatted, but a suitable alternative exists, then the procedure is to merge and redirect, not delete.72.27.85.98 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1ne 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian opposition to antisemitism[edit]

Christian opposition to antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear POV fork. Besides the complete lack of sources after over a year, this is a clear enherently POV pushing article. Anything of any value should be moved to Christianity and antisemitism. This article could not possibly be anything but POV. This article is a soapbox and clearly propaganda. Sefringle 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, uniqueness and news coverage make it notable. Rlevse 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Bite[edit]

Terra Bite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable cafe/soup kitchen type deal. Originally speedied as a7 corp and a slight g11, this has been disputed because of "worldwide news coverage." Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Need some cleanup but meets WP:N "it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I agree that it reads like advertisement and needs contribs, the multiple radio and newspaper media coverage clearly meet the notability bar of secondary sources. -- Brianhe 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, it needs some cleanup, but there's plenty of notability. It meets the standards for a good article and should NOT be deleted.Zeebowbop 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 06:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Wing (translations)[edit]

Zero Wing (translations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has had a previous AfD, the results of the copyvio report mentioned in this AfD can be found here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been unsourced for over a year now, attempts to request attribution to a reliable source go unanswered. It seems riddled with original research. I would like this article to be sourced or deleted. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary fork. Translations can go in the main article, especially now that the cultural references has also been forked off to its own article. Hbdragon88 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the game itself (a primary source) can serve as a reference for the english text and japanese text. But this is an awkward place for the material, and the size of the excerpt might be pushing fair use... — brighterorange (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using a primary source is fine, but not as the only source. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I diagree; a direct quote from a primary source needs no further attribution. — brighterorange (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article that has no independent source is not attributable. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A translation is not primary material. But if you disagree, then at least the ending sequence should be saved because it's a transcription, and not a translation. And it's a less well known piece of Engrish from the AYB phenomenon. --71.105.21.125 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of the translation? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - I don't think that relisting this will result in a clear 'delete' consensus. The article is unsatisfactory, and I hope that it is improved, but there is no consensus to delete. - Richard Cavell 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Emerson Theater[edit]

The Emerson Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theater with three lines of description and a list of all the bands who have played there. Phileas 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or preferably merge to applicable Indianapolis, Indiana neighborhood/district article... or a specialized article on Indianapolis theaters eventually. I think the theaters of a city are worth mentioning somewhere, but generally as parts of a broader article. Probably the easiest solution is to mention in the neighborhood article now, once someone can find it. --W.marsh 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep how is it a non-notable theater? over 500 bands played there most of which are extremely nottible. now honestly if you are into music and live in Indiana you're sure to have heard of this theater.Scubster 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Prodego talk 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Brandt[edit]

United States v. Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Had a no consensus AFD in December, 2005 here but most of the keep reasons wasn't valid, mainly keep and sig, because it's related Brandt. Non-notable court case, poorly sourced other then the official court docrument as well, see WP:RS, not worth merging to Daniel Brandt as it's unsourced Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did this decision set any sort of precedent? Or is it just here for muckraking against a well-known Wikipedia critic? Unless any further notability about this decision can be produced, delete it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this court case has been cited in at least one major decision by a high-level court. FrozenPurpleCube 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I believe legal cases a person have been involved in, especially if they reach trial, are inherently notable. The content in this article should be merged into the rest of his article, perhaps under the heading 'Legal Experience' or just borg it into the part about student activism. The talk page should also be rescued so that the content on it(The court case) may be referenced with ease. Perhaps put the talkpage onto WikiSource? Chris Croy 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a not-lawyer I could not assess the notability or not notability of this case, could it be wise to ask someone interested in laws (or professional) if this thing is relevant, and if is, to add something to the article so we understand it ? AlfPhotoman 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Neither article is excessively long, and any relevant information about the court case can be placed in Brandt's article under his name... which would be a far more likely search term for people seeking court case information anyway. Nom. states the information is "unsourced," but if it's a real court case, I can't imagine sourcing would be difficult for the editors interested in working on the merger. ◄Zahakiel► 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Brandt AlfPhotoman 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No secondary sources; the discussion is original research. Remove content and Redirect to Daniel Brandt. SmokeyJoe 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no wide significance, and not really significant to what Daniel Brandt is known for today. Dragomiloff 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Bastiq▼e demandez 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It wouldn't be a proper reason to either keep or delete this article on the grounds of either following or resisting Brandt's wishes / demands / rants regarding his wanting it deleted. The decision should be made solely based on the significance and notability of the case itself, and since I lack sufficient information to know this, I'll defer to others who might be better qualified to make this determination. If it's only of significance because Mr. Brandt is involved, then it's best off just being mentioned in his own article and not in a separate article, but if it's actually a significant precedent that affected subsequent cases, it might deserve an article of its own. Any lawyers out there who might wish to comment? *Dan T.* 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article makes no attempt to assert notability. --Folantin 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does assert any notability and lacks references. Majorly (o rly?) 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rlevse 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numo[edit]

Numo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, possibly an ad. – Zntrip 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (3rd nomination)[edit]

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic list of neologisms that is hardly notable. This article fails WP:NOT, WP:NEO and WP:N dposse 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past AfDs:

  • Delete per nom and as an indisriminate collection and directory seeking to capture every instance of a made up word on a particular TV show. Otto4711 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on The Colbert Report, 3 September 2006, no consensus.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (2), 11 February 2007, no consensus. –Pomte 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pomte. I've moved this AfD debate to '(3rd nomination)' - Richard Cavell 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, then salt, then bury uranium in it, pour concrete over that and forget you ever even knew this list existed. Noroton 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Correspondent, Wikiland[reply]
  • Delete. I love the show as much as the next guy (hell, I'm a retail customer, courtesy of iTMS), but this is just ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The show is funny, but this is an ill-conceived attempt to retell every term-related joke Colbert has told. Not encyclopedic. Mangojuicetalk 12:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, remember how Wikipedia used to resemble an encyclopedia? Just a little bit? Recury 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...just so we can see this mentioned on the show.  ;) --PatrickD 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content of the article does not seem to be notable. Most of it is just trivia about the show. Just because Stephen Colbert said a made up word once on his TV show, that doesn't make it a notable neologism. If anything has made it into common vocabulary, it can be mentioned in one of the several other existing Colbert-related articles. Deli nk 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The way I see it, this list is a good way to prevent people from creating new articles every time Colbert comes up with something, like the recent Wikilobbying fiasco, although perhaps it should be limited to perennial neologisms. --Hemlock Martinis 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is that an argument to keep this article? If people create spam on wikipedia due to Colbert, wikipedians will take care of it by protecting and banning. Keeping a article that goes against wikipedia guidelines just to save wikipedia a few headaches in the future is wrong. dposse 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Richard Cavell 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Devenney[edit]

Brooke Devenney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable child actress. According to her IMDB profile, she has had two roles. One was Craft booth worker in festival and the other was Amber birthday party friend & pinata hitter. When the only two roles played don't even have character names, this isn't notability. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a promotional piece for a non-notable child actor. -- Michael Johnson 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, how many un-notable child actresses are spokesperson for a large commercial entity ? -- Simon Cursitor
I don't know how large the company is. According to this, they only premiered the toy in October and they aspire to eventually expand to all 50 states...denoting that they aren't there currently. IrishGuy talk 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_13&oldid=1081100514"