Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 8

< March 7	March 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's dirty briefs[edit]

Not notable. Siobhan Harrell 18:10, 8 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 by Lupo as vandalism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keanu Reeves farting contest[edit]

Unverifiable incident, not notable probably. Nigel Maine11 13:31, 8 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 as vanity spam. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Johnston[edit]

Delete: non-notable vanity piece; see discussion page and creator's history; note that it should have been speedily deleted O'Donoghue 10:06, 8 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. --Core desat 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elriel[edit]

Non-notable fan-fiction by unnamed author. Agent 86 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails nearly every WP criteria, but I can't quite fit it to a CSD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable, other various criteria are failed. Hello32020 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable fictional character. NawlinWiki 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails multiple categories, specifically WP:NOTE, WP:NFT, and WP:NOT in general. --Haemo 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything they said. Philippe Beaudette 04:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this fan fiction character has not been discussed by multiple non-trivial third parties and fails WP:N. In fact, I don't know how any fan fiction character could be notable. And this is coming from a fan fiction reader and writer! --Charlene 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic character, the end. JuJube 06:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICTION to warrant its own article. Mkdw ^talk 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails everything miserably. WP:FICTION, WP:NOTE, WP:NFT, WP:NOT, to be precise. Sr13 (T|C) 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few interwikis, failing WP:FICTION and WP:NN.Regards - Tellyaddict 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for so many reasons.-- danntm ^T _C 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could someone please close this one... —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while elves/Elvis connection has (if there's any justice in the world) been discussed in multiple sources, I somehow doubt this particular instance has been. Tolkien Estate is a little bit protective about this sort of stuff, after all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:13, 11 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. --Core desat 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeB[edit]

Non-notable barely active Internet forum with no secondary sources. --- RockMFR 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. PeteShanosky 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete vanispamcrfutisement (or however you say it). —Ocatecir ^Talk 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Isnt note-worthy enough to have an article. It now looks like a blog about the site. Corpx 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not speediable, since it asserts notability, but fails to produce any sources to back up said assertion. Fails WP:WEB. --Haemo 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Balloonman 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not lack of notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Spawn Man 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO and WP:WEB. Mkdw ^talk 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:CSD#A7.Regards - Tellyaddict 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unfortunately), it does not fall under A7 as it does assert its importance. --- RockMFR 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with deletion. It is a notable forum. We're working on making this more acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Please post suggestions to our talk page. And it is not "barely active" community, we got hundreds of active members. BobCatHKSS 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough. Would anybody outside the community ever have cause to find an encyclopedic article about it? Would having an article be worthy after you've fallen offline? Compare with an obscure language, which a Linguist might look up online. Autocracy 19:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB because it lacks necessary sources.-- danntm ^T _C 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per danntm ^T _C. --Charlene 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:WEB since it lacks certain sources. Darth griz⁹⁸ 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BARELY ACTIVE? C'mon, we got thousands of members! With hundreds of ACTIVE members! All I see are judgments, not one iota of CONSTRUCTIVE crticism. BobCatHKSS 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible you are misinterpreting the function of this discussion. Users come to a deletion discussion to make "judgments" on whether an article should be kept or not. If they see a way the article can be improved or salvaged, most users will be bold and simply improve it themselves, not just make suggestions for improvement. The way you can affect this discussion positively is not to make unsupported statements here on this discussion page that you have "thousands of members" and "hundreds of active members," but to add reliable secondary sources to the article that support the contentions in the article. —Carolfrog 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable spam article. WP:SNOW? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is only for judgments, then explain how do people fix it if people don't give constructive criticism? And yeah, we did back up the assertions of thousands of members and hundreds of active members: the forum comes with a site counter at the bottom of the main forum page. It is easy to judge, it is worthwhile to actually go to the talk page and give constructive criticism. The judgments basically don't contribute one iota to anything without the constructive criticism. Imagine getting a traffic ticket that says you violated a law, but the cop, the judge, the prosecutor, nobody will tell you how to avoid being convicted and losing your license. But all of them just say "yank the license!" BobCatHKSS 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the first paragraph of WP:N. Also, if something is notable, someone else other than people involved will write about it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:18, 12 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. Jersey Devil 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Moe (bodyguard)[edit]

Anna Nicole Smith's bodyguard. Not surprisingly, given the nature of his job, he was the one who found her. Also unsurprisingly, the media has wanted to speak to him. However, there is no press coverage of him that is not primarily about her death and so he is non-notable since he is not the subject of such coverage. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that he is not notable. Also, this nickname for whatever his real name is also non-notable. - Richardcavell 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and add the three lines of this article and sources to Death of Anna Nicole Smith Citicat 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If being quoted in press coverage met notability criteria, nearly all of us would have a Wikipedia article. Natalie 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Philippe Beaudette 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big No. Delete per nom. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big Delete - Maybe merge into the article about ANS's death, if there is such an article. Otherwise delete baby girl, please delete... ;) Spawn Man 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is: Death of Anna Nicole Smith.--TBCΦtalk? 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:ANHL 08:45, 8 March 2007
Merge/Redirect to Death of Anna Nicole Smith.--TBCΦtalk? 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since none of the sources are about this individual. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I don't think a merge would be suitable, it fails WP:BIO and the notability is low.Regards - Tellyaddict 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and do not merge or redirect. There is no independent notability for this person. -- Whpq 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge He is an integral part of the case. He is currently being investigated by the Seminole police force. They feel that his a notable component.JmpJckFlsh1968 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to death article and leave a redirect. He's getting plenty of mentions in all sorts of news media and may be (actually, probably will be) central to the investigation. Realkyhick 19:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not that I consider him notable myself, ~~nor Anna Nicole Smith all that notable either...~~ but Anna's publication warrants an article, and as noted he's central to investigation, but willl probablly not be looked up for his own accord, should be merged. Autocracy 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anna Nicole Smith (aka TWANS) is certainly very notable, being the subject of numerous (to put it very mildly) articles by reliable third parties even before her untimely death. Notability isn't what we approve of. But her bodyguard is not notable in and of himself. --Charlene 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He is not notable himself. TJ Spyke 00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Death of Anna Nicole Smith. Not notable enough for his own page.--Kevin23 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FireSpike 01:05, 9 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aolani van Clief[edit]

A daughter of a semi-known person is certainly not notable for Wikipedia. Searches on major search engines bring up little to no results and this child is yet to do anything that would make them otherwise notable. PeteShanosky 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and so tagged. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:47, 8 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 Latin nouns to Latin declension, and redirect the verb articles to Latin conjugation, since the history hasn't been recorded on the transwikied articles yet. --Core desat 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin nouns[edit]

This page is being nominated as for deletion to be considered per Wikipedia is not a dictionary I found it while working a clean up poject, I have no opinion, It appears to have been transwikied to Wiktionary. Of note check Latin irregular verbs - deletion logand consider if Latin verbs (A to K) and Latin verbs (L to Z) should be considered with with it. I leave it to the community to decide Jeepday 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is definitely inappropriate for wikipedia. It is appropriate for a Latin textbook. - Richardcavell 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete all three~~ Redirect - Latin nouns, Latin verbs (A to K) and Latin verbs (L to Z) have all already been moved to Wiktionary where they belong. We don't need them here any longer. J i m p 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) - The solution given by JulesH below seems better than deletion. One might search for Latin nouns (or Latin noun) Latin declension would be a good place to be redirected. J i m p 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly falls under Wikipedia is not a dictionary in any language. SkierRMH 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Mkdw ^talk 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD; no need for a transwiki. Sr13 (T|C) 08:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin declension which discusses grammatical aspects of the treatment of nouns in Latin. JulesH 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin declension; JulesH beat me to it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very long definition, I see no WP:NOT#DICTIONARY per WP:NN.Regards - Tellyaddict 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know, what it is. Al-Bargit 19:27, 8 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 all. --Core desat 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah House[edit]

Not notable under WP:BIO or WP:ORG. Doesn't seem to be headed anywhere Jemather 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also nominate:

As this article (about the founder of Hallelujah House) appears to be a hoax and completely contradicts the Hallelujah House article (makes it sound like a violent cult). Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both agree with Oliphant AFD Jemather 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both they fail WP:A and WP:N as they stand. Jeepday 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as well as Ranch Challenge Hallelujah People, part of this same walled garden. There are images associated that should be deleted as well. (Frankly, groups like this were a dime a dozen in the 70s.) -- Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Consider speedy deleting Jack M Oliphant, as the article does not indicate that he is deceased and the information in it clearly violates WP:BLP, as assertions of criminal acts and convictions are given without attribution. --Charlene 06:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPEEDY (Group). Mkdw ^talk 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:ORG. Added Ranch Challenge Hallelujah People, zero non-wiki ghits. Tagged Joe Kotvas for speedy deletion: unsourced page of negative tone, fails WP:BLP. MER-C 08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per failing the whole book of guidelines Alf^Photoman 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many orphanages and missions listed on Wikipedia and a well written brief article listing the basic fact about the Hallelujah House would probable qualify as much as any of them. Unfortunately this article only contains the recollections of a couple of people and lacks specific accurate information. I never would have started it if I knew then what I know now about Wikipedia and I would be happy to help anyone who wants to write a good entry for this or any other mission but my article as is should be removed.

By the way, the Ranch in Arizona was a violent cult, I was there. Prospecting books reference Oliphant 's group as dangerous and warn to stay away from them. The house in Tampa was a wonderful mission with a loving message that helped many. The Two should not be confused and they were separate corporations with different board of directors and the same name.Scottprovost 09:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for failing WP:ORG. blech. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:55, 9 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. --Core desat 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEPS[edit]

Prod removed by author without sources or verification. University English proficiency exam. Deiz talk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability. The only website I can find is the one given website in Korean. The other website given cannot be found and all other hits on Google for TEPS are unrelated. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Janviermichelle's link and advice. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep check this article and try googling "teps toeic". Janviermichelle 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you need to put the references on the article not the AFD. References on the AFD don't do help the article pass WP:A and WP:N Signed Jeepday 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep subject to references. Denni^talk 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, conditional keep subject to references, that's how notability is established. Right now there is a passing reference in one online news report which is not included in the article. Hopefully multiple, non-trivial sources treating TEPS as their subject can be found and we can move on, I just haven't seen them yet... Deiz talk 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles does require expansion but I think it's encyclopedic enough to be given a chance. Mkdw^talk 08:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been here since June 2006; how much of a chance does it need?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's referenced in the same context as TOEFL, and I know what that is. Many Korean college websites mention TEPS. Autocracy 19:44, 8 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 redirect to University of California, Riverside. --Core desat 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCR mascot Highlander[edit]

The key reason for the deletion is there's not much added here that isn't already covered at University of California, Riverside. The Highlander as a mascot is not particularly noteworthy, nor is it a specific "incarnation" of a mascot, e.g. Buzz (mascot) or Bevo (mascot). There is insufficient material for this to stand on its own as an article, and the awkward article title - which is not the proper form of name of the mascot - is not a likely search term, so it can be deleted outright. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to University of California, Riverside as the article List of U.S. college mascots links to this article the redirect would help inhibit reconstruction of an article that appears to be well addressed on the main page. Jeepday 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No issue with that link any more. :) Since there is no specific incarnation of the Highlander, it's outside the scope of that list, so I removed it from the list. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Jeepday. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above reasoning. LordHarris 00:14, 9 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 copyvio. Fram 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gary Klatt[edit]

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

Vanity entry. Created by subject and contains nothing but subject's own "poetry". Sean Martin 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete smart like the street. This one goes down, ugliest poetry in town. Denni ^talk 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Those are lyrics to the song "The Way I Live" by Baby Boy da Prince. So tagged. --Charlene 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as above. --Selket ^Talk 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD. Mkdw ^talk 08:11, 8 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. --Core desat 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game item clichés[edit]

Video game item clichés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deproded with a suggestion to send to AFD. Original concern: Unsourced, non-notable, and non-verifiable. See previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game clichés and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item clichés. No vote from me. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that, with this one, the article has been nominated 3 times for deletion based on original research. On September 2006 was the last nomination, where people expressed opinions that this article should be cleaned, and comparing with other cliché lists like List of animation clichés (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (second nomination)) and List of comic book clichés (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book clichés (2nd nomination)). Here are the differences from September (last time it was nominated) and today.-- ReyBrujo 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I accept that the article is somewhat cruftish, but its inclusion is valuable. The article is at least verifiable, sourced, and well-written. - Richardcavell 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete While this article is pretty well written and not a bad read it is not an encyclopedia article (it might be appropriate for a video game wiki). The information is almost entirely original research. It might be possible to source an article on this topic, but this isn't really a start. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for all the same reasons that the list of comic book clichés was deleted. Otto4711 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Noble attempts to keep and cleanup have failed miserably, original research is effectively inseparable from text. Deltabeignet 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I-had-no-idea-iron-bars-were-a-cliche delete - Puh-lease! Cruft & pointless. Do we really need an article telling us that pieces of string & iron bars are game cliches? I think not.... Yaknow maybe the author would like this cliche - Delete as per nom... ;) Spawn Man 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another "cliché" list. JuJube 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per my original reasonings in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item clichés: "Original research and unverified, thus failing both the WP:OR and WP:V criterias. Most of these so-called "cliches" would obviously appear in a video game depending on the game's setting. For example, one cliche is finding toilets in FPS video games involving humans, which is obvious in that many humans in our society use toilets. Also, some cliches don't apply only to video games, but to all forms of media, including books, films. etc". After six months, nothing seems to have changed since the previous AfD nomination, other than the addition of more unverified, uncited cruft.--TBCΦtalk? 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - People have already started adding references. This is our chance for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Let's jump on it. Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a time period of six months, two references were removed and only one reference was added, in addition to more cruft.--TBCΦtalk? 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a time limit one when a page must be finished. If there was, deleting this would only increase the amount of time, anyways. Also, the external links could provide the refs, if anyone takes the time to format them. - Peregrine Fisher 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article was to be cleaned up, many of the "cliches" listed in the article aren't actually considered cliches, as they:

Are due to technological restrictions in video games.

Are due to the game's setting, such as having toilets in games involving humans.

Apply to all forms of media, such as having potions and healing herbs (which appears commonly in all fantasy-related media).--TBCΦtalk? 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see how the root cause of the cliche excludes it, nor a cliche being in the real world, or being found in other media. Is there some reason a cliche has to be exclusive, completely original, and not have some other influence behind it? Not so far as I know. If you do, perhaps you should add that to Cliché so the rest of us can know about it. FrozenPurpleCube 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the cliches listed in the article are nearly identical in concept with cliches found in other forms of media, then why do we need a seperate page for video games? Would it not be redundant? Also, extending on my toilet cliche example: In contemporary times, humans have often used toilets to dispose of their bodily wastes, and as humans tend to do this often, there are a large number of toilets throughout the world. As such, how then is it a cliche that video games with humans or humanoids tend to have toilets? Are gun or sticks or cars cliches as well?--TBCΦtalk? 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your fixation on this toilet thing, I don't see it as a significant portion of the article (IOW, it could be removed without bothering me). Cliches themselves, though, often involve things that exist in the real world. Some people think say, being stuck in an elevator is a cliche. Does that mean nobody ever gets stuck in an elevator? Of course not, just the other day, somebody was on the news for being trapped 11 hours in an elevator here. But if there's a sitcom cliches page and it mentioned it, I'd not be surprised. Same goes for cliches in video games. Sure, some of them may be the same as in other genres (and depending on the content, it might be appropriate to locate the cliche elsewhere). For example, something could be a cliche in Greek and Japanese theatre, but not in say, Broadway theatre. Don't know of any specific examples, not off the top of my head, but I'm trying to illustrate why your objection doesn't work. At most, they're clean-up issues. Stick to other things if you want to convince me on deletion. Bad arguments can ruin a good one. OR is a much better route to go here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If none of the cliches are specific to video games (ie they happen often in real life or in other genres) then there's obviously no merit for a seperate article. It's as simple as that. Regardless though, the article still fails the criterias listed at WP:ATT and WP:OR.--TBCΦtalk? 08:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is if they don't always exist in the other genres, and that of video game settings is effectively unique in its components. But I said this already, you just didn't respond to it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, all original research. I don't see how this could possibly be sourced without becoming an unpublished synthesis of published material. Krimpet 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR cruft. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excellent article though. Very good original research. --Webkami 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- some OR, but I imagine it could be sourced and turned into an article. Astrotrain 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is an ever-expanding lump of cruft, as editors add their favourite appearances of toilets in games without ever bothering to whip the article into shape. Not that it can be whipped into shape; no consistent, systematic definition of a 'video game item cliche' is offered. If toilets and bits of string count as cliches, why not add magic wands, bullets, coins, scrolls, shoes, things made of wood or menu screens?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An amusing read but that doesn't fix the OR issue. Arkyan 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the problem here is that the references need to identify all these things as cliches. It isn't enough to cite a reference that confirms many video games have secret levels and ammo packs and so on. If you can't find references that actually engage with the subject of the article, it will remain a synthesis of other sources into a new interpretation.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SYN makes a good argument against, but I think it's hard to argue that Video_game_item_clichés#Exploding_barrels isn't correct when it references so many games with exploding barrels, or that we're really drawing a new and spectacular conclusion because it isn't in the Times newspaper, or even a blog. WP:OR is something I'm reluctant to apply to an article that is a useful compilation and doesn't exactly warrant using the scientific method (as cliche can always be debated). I'm sure somebody will force me to find a nice anology... Autocracy 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some utterly tenuous connections being made here, and with a title like "clichés" that's only likely to perpetuate. The title itself undermines the article's supposed informational value; something like Video game design trends or Video game item design trends might be a better premise. –Unint 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it a little bit more, the use of "clichés" completely demeans the subject of the article. These are elements of gameplay, game mechanics, or puzzle design. Sometimes they are indicators of technical limitations, or the conventions of a particularly popular genre. A useful article would discuss the rationales and reasons behind these game elements and illustrate how they have evolved over time, not just list them ad nauseum and taken completely at face value. –Unint 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well written and sourced. Analysis of items common in video games. Nardman1 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links ≠ sources.--TBCΦtalk? 08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't let the keep !voters fool you: this is not sourced. There are two sources, both of which are humorous and not serious, and don't really say much. WP:OR, and there has been enough time for this to improve already. Mango juice^talk 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct, the article is not, in spite of comments above, sourced. And, also in spite of comments above, it continues to fail WP:OR.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial information that lacks necessary sourcing, possible original research.-- danntm ^T _C 03:36, 9 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (band)[edit]

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

Prior speedy deletion, sent here from deletion review. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete At least one of the band members (Alistair Griffin) has some notability outside of the band. But the sources for the article are almost all from one local paper. Google hits are difficult to gauge because "Albion" was in the name of a different band ("Albion Band", a folk group) that disbanded in 2002. My gut feeling is that the band is too new for notability. With no recordings noted and apparently playing only local dates, I just don't think they pass WP:BAND. Pig^man_dialogue 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Between them, Griffin and Paul Banks (musician) have had a total of 16 top 40 singles in the UK so far - the formation of a new band in which they are both writing and performing is surely notable? Jud 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Alistair Griffin as non notable band. Fails the central notability criteria "subject of multiple, non trivial independent works". For some reason I can't access the Evening Gazette (website won't load) but the Whitby Gazette article appears to be a press release, and the only other reference provided is a MySpace page. I may reevaluate if the Evening Gazette's site comes back up. Natalie 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the Evening Gazette articles, titled "Bring it on Alistair ...with new band" is entirely about Albion. A second, titled "Tees star's web wise" has several paragraphs about Albion. The other two don't mention Albion at all. I hope this helps. -- Black Falcon 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The other articles do not mention the band by name as at the time they did not have one - this is explained in the main entry. The newspaper articles do verify the band's early history and original line-up. Jud 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like they still fail the "multiple sources" part of the criteria? Natalie 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as well, because one member is notable doesn't mean the band is....could meet criteria with proper sources. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 22:40, 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 speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities on stamps[edit]

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

Non-notable, not really useful list that has turned into an article with a big "PUT SPAM HERE" sign on it. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Even without being spammed into oblivion, how encyclopedic or maintainable was this page anyway? Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. This might be an interesting list, except that the majority of entries are noted as "customized U.S. stamp by Zazzle". In fact, all of the stamps listed are by Zazzle, which according to its Wikipedia article "is a customized products marketplace for consumers to create apparel, posters, cards, stamps, and other products." This list is a giant Zazzle ad, and has been from its second edit: [1]. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Akhilleus. --Metropolitan90 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Not sure this would be a useful list even if someone could add a bunch of regular stamps to it. Katr67 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Spamtastic! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 08:23, 8 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. --Core desat 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Clarke Cunningham[edit]

Elizabeth Clarke Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The name of some ashes in a box, not encyclopedic, delete. --Peta 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands the article fails WP:N Signed Jeepday 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This seems like a curiosity, not an encyclopedic subject. Notability seems limited to me. Pig^man_dialogue 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Mkdw ^talk 08:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a curious news story of only passing interest. -- Whpq 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability lacks seriously, and the article doesn't seem right either. Retiono Virginian 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been the subject of news stories. Wikipedia is not paper. I think this is adequately encyclopedic.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:03, 12 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Yosses[edit]

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

Mr. Yosses is the White House pastry chef. Does that meet WP:BIO? I don't think so. NawlinWiki 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't have thought he deserved an entry at first, but considering the nature of the position and the massive amount of major media coverage (most of it trivial, but not all [2]) I had to reconsider. He is also a coauthor of the book Dessert for Dummies. If there is anything else that is a greater accolade in the culinary field than being a head white house chef, I don't know what it is. IronGargoyle 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands it fails WP:BIO the subject may or not be notable but the article fails WP:A. If the article was improved and referenced and notability shown I would change my perspective. Jeepday 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On a side note, you have to laugh that the person who wrote "Dessert for Dummies" is serving dessert to George Bush. As for notability, would you care who the previous holders of this position were?Citicat 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people might indeed care who the previous chefs were, though some of it is more related to the person who was President than the actual person. However, I don't know that this individual is sufficiently notable on their own. Perhaps an article listing Chefs at the White House might be a worthy idea? This could include both main chefs and pastry ones and whoever else is there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the second-floor maid gets an article too. Denni ^talk 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not assert the notability of the subject. If he is notable and someone can make the necessary improvements, then great. But articles like this really aren't good enough. PC78 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some press coverage, and author of a book in the Dummy series in combination meets notability for me. -- Whpq 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Me too" Press coverage, published author, position taking some prominence in field. Autocracy 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's an author and being in the white house gives him some notability. The undertow 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of his book, not because he's the WH pastry chef. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of White House Chefs and add more chefs.—Carolfrog 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the subject was notable (and I don't see where he is) the article clearly does not meet WP:N or WP:A a single press release is not notable. The title of this debate is Articles for deletion/William Yosses not subject for deletion. The subject may or may not be notable but clearly the article does not meet Wikipedia expectations for inclusion. Jeepday 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A is a different issue that may not merit deletion (if the issue is simply verification rather than original research). However, notability is the characteristic of a subject, not an article, so it is fully appropriate to discuss the subject despite the state of the article. Adding the sources below as external links would take care of WP:N, although they really should be incorporated into the article as prose. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigh, but Keep. More sources than you can squeeze a pastry bag at. Yes, most are due to the White House appointment (Hint of Shift in White House Kitchen New York Times; [ New York Post New York Post ...) but not all: [3] [4] Citarella Macy's. They're not quite "unconnected with the subject", but they're not chicken feed either. Between that and the book, I think he's notable enough. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by AnonEMouse: sources + author = keep. Also see my response to User:Jeepday above. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per nom. Black-Velvet 08:13, 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. --Core desat 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Day Storm of 2006[edit]

Columbus Day Storm of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written as a news story. I lean toward it not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(news). If it does, it needs to be rewritten as an encyclopedic article. Citicat 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copy/pasted from Wikinews. Non-notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per z-manBalloonman 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Mkdw ^talk 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr.Z-man. T_im.bounc^ceback - TaLk 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but don't salt - Was a major storm that deserves an article, but this is currently a complete copy and paste job from withing this website. It needs to be completely re-written. --Oakshade 01:50, 10 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. --Core desat 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit School of Arts[edit]

Detroit School of Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has remained in a clean up status almost 4 mos. Questionable notability. Masterpedia 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I am from that area and have never heard of it. Seems non-notable.--Fahrenheit451 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Masterpedia 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it was my understanding that school pages, regardless of how obscure were to be kept? If that is wrong, then delete.Balloonman 04:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. School pages have to establish notability, just like everyone else. Denni ^talk 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, give this article another chance to be expanded to the general level of other high schools. If not then delete but maybe this AfD will encourage some expansion. Mkdw ^talk 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article asserts that the school has been awarded the Blue Ribbon Schools Program award, which seems to suggest notability to me. JulesH 12:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"has recognized more than 3,000 schools." (WP)DGG 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I was going to strongly argue delete, but before submitting I looked up other school deletions and the list of article for schools in Maine. It would seem that while I'll never care, I would definitely like to be able to look up an encyclopedic article of where I graduated from. Notability is provided by longetivity and accomplishments. If they can get some truthful statements about accomplishments besides the Blue Ribbon award (I don't consider that notable at all myself), then they should be kept. Insane college acceptance, sports titles, anything really... somebody should tag it as a stub. Perhaps they have enough high school students who break the norm that one might make the article contain something useful. Autocracy 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasoning of Autocracy. If the article can be improved a little, maybe a few more references ill change to strong keep. Needs improving not deleting.LordHarris 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the precedent has always been to keep articles about high schools. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Ab e g92contribs 14:43, 9 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 cleanup. Shimeru 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CustomerVision BizWiki[edit]

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

Advertisment. Reads like promotional copy, no assertiion of sufficient notability. There was a previous article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustomerVision on this company that was deleted, unsure if this is an improvement on that or not. ArglebargleIV 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very similar to entries for companies that are CustomerVision's peers such as Socialtext, Jot and Atlassian. Not including CustomerVision in articles such Corporate Wikis would be an omission. This is validated by third party sources such as the only comprehensive review of corporate wikis (conducted by Network World) in which CustomerVision was rated higher than Socialtext.
There are many links to independent resources for CustomerVision and awards. Recently within articles on leading enterprise wiki companies with such qualified researchers as Forrester, Gilbane and JupiterResearch. With customers that vary in size from Fortune 50 to non-profits, CustomerVision BizWiki is a leader in understanding the enterprise market space (look at the case studies, as evidence off their site).
The entry is not intended to be promotional but is designed to assert sufficient notability.
Links: Forrester [5] New Communications review [6] Tech News Radio [7] Jupiter Research [8] Intranet Journal [9] eWeek [10]
This discussion was started over five days ago. Is it considered closed at this point?

Bkeairns 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - only links are to sites affiliated with the company; no evidence of coverage in independent sources to show notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)...article was not properly tagged with an afd tag on first nom.Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I believe I originally tagged the article properly, but the tag was removed by a later editor. -- ArglebargleIV 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article reads like an advertisement, and a probable conflict of interest; the article creator's username seems to coincide with one of the founders of the company listed in the article (Brian Keairns vs. User:Bkeairns). In addition, it does not seem to meet the notability criteria for organizations or companies. Kyra_~(talk) 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for cleanup. Article may read like an advertisement, but it does contain links to 6 independent sources, of which at least the one I checked is reliable and non-trivial. JulesH 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The links are sufficient, and the article in its present state is objective, though it needs a copyedit.DGG 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources have been added. I have partially copyedited the article and will also incorporate the sources as in-text citations (tomorrow). -- Black Falcon 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CORP. Black-Velvet 08:17, 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 Gnan garra 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australians in film and television[edit]

List of Australians in film and television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Badly named, undefined, poorly maintained, and incomplete list that presumably should include any Australian who has something to do with film or tv. Categories do this much better, delete --Peta 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this is much better done with categories. - Richardcavell 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and further annotate list Categories and lists can live in harmony. Undefined? Maybe it is a List of Australians in film and television. Its just my guess. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lists can give further information than categories; this one gives job types, which can be useful for someone trying to look up a name they don't quite remember. The list should include people with Wikipedia articles or who could have them.Noroton 04:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Balloonman 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as an overly broad, vague, indiscriminate list. A list of Australians "involved" in television or film in some capacity could number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Even restricting the list to those notable enough for Wikipedia articles could take it into the thousands or even tens of thousands. Otto4711 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs clean-up, not deletion. Some clarification on the topic of the list, and perhaps a corresponding rename would also be useful. It's clear that it's not intended to include everyone who was an extra in Crocodile Dundee. But sometimes we have to spell these things out. --JayHenry 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Even assuming that this list is useful, all sorts of things are useful but still unencyclopedic. Otto4711 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the problems in the nomination can be easily addressed without deletion. That said, perhaps it should be moved to List of Australian actors and other sublists (television presenters, etc.) as most of the list members appear to be of that occupation. --Canley 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Ulysses Zagreb 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for lists. If a list is otherwise unacceptable, conformity with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto4711 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep per JRG below. - Peregrine Fisher 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - let's stop these random deletions just because they could be in a category. This has gone overboard. The list needs clean-up not deletion, and an AfD is not the right procedure to follow. JRG 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are not random deletions - they are focused on cleaning up Lists of Australians to have a set of useful, reliable, maintainable and maintained lists. See talk:Lists of Australians for more info. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Scott Davis asserting an agreement to reorganise lists. If so, then the information is really being merged and redirects must be left to comply with the WP:GFDL. SmokeyJoe 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this comment sooner - sorry. The process so far has been to delete the completely useless article that was called "List of Australians" as most of us weren't on it, create a new article Lists of Australians with as many lists of people as we could find, then start to sift through which ones are valuable to the project. A number were already accurate, complete and maintained, so are not treated further here. Some have been improved, either through initiative, discussion, or AFD (yes it does happen that articles are improved and kept after nomination). Some have been nominated for deletion and been deleted. These have been lists with overly broad definitions that to become "complete" would have thousands of entries, many not notable, or were lists of "notable people" without a reliable source for the list. These are better served by categories that are magically kept up to date as new articles are written. Redirects have been left in place for any lists that have been merged or renamed. See Talk:Lists of Australians to see how we're going and if you'd like to help. The underlying purpose is to remove lists that reflect poorly on the project as a whole or the Australian part of it, and avoid lists that attract vanity or attack entries. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder why it is that when people want to keep an article because "it needs cleanup" there are almost never 1) suggestions on how the article can be cleaned up, 2) actual attempts to clean up the article during the AFD, and 3) commitments on the part of the cleanup advocates to actually clean up the article. Otto4711 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is an inaccurate generalisation. Please see such cases as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is black and white and red all over?, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines, which show that in many cases actual improvements are made. In response to your points, however:

Not true. Suggestions are often given on how to cleanup. In this case, I can suggest converting this into a table to provide dates of birth/death, place of birth, and a "notes" column listing awards, major roles, etc.

Please see the 3 examples above. Moreover, when it seems likely that an article may be deleted, no one has particular incentive to even try to fix it. If the issue was raised in an environment other than "Du hast fünf Tage diesen Artikel zu verbessern oder es wirt getötet. Verstehst du? Arbeit, Arbeit, Arbeit!", that might be more conducive to improvement.

Wikipedia is a community effort, is it not? Articles tagged with cleanup will undoubtedly catch someone's attention. -- Black Falcon 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peta, Otto4711 and WP:LIST. Can never be complete in the sense used above by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and the lead sentence, so is not suitable for information, navigation or development. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can be a category, though Al-Bargit 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete an unmanageable, unmaintained list, with no clear criteria for listing, and as a result could be thousands of people. The articles listed are far better maintained as categories. Rest assured that all those above calling for keeping on the basis of it being cleaned up will never do any of that cleaning up! --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Needs to be replaced by List of cast members of Home and Away and similar lists which have clear inclusion criteria. Once there is more than one list, recreate as list of lists. I was on the news once - does that mean I should be on List of Australians in film and television (where does it say I shouldn't be?) Ga rr ie 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scott.--cj | talk 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Usedup 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per JRG. Mathmo ^Talk 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several categories that already covers this in different ways. The current definition (Australians who have been involved in film and television) makes the article impossible, it will just grow into an unmanageable pile of TV presenters, film actors, special effects guys, directors and more. Noone has any use for that. Pax:Vobiscum 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ScottDavis, Pax, Slf67 and others. Orderinchaos78 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by User:GarrieIrons, Otto4711 and others. I can't imagine this article ever being able to satisfy WP:LIST, even after cleanup, because it seems essentially unbounded. I'm all for categories, though. Subcategories if you want to preserve people's jobs and such. If someone comes up with a new reason to keep it that hasn't been discussed before my vote here, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and see if I'll change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needs cleaning up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.23.37.97 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2007

Keep. I have a dream, that one day ... lists and categories can exist side-by-side. I have a dream, that one day ... people will stop insisting on completeness when Wikipedia itself is an eternally incomplete project. I have a dream, that one day ... those who prefer using categories just do so and leave an alternate option available to others. -- Black Falcon 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was paid to be an extra in a movie once - does that mean I should be in this list? If these sorts of open ended lists of names have only blue links, they are already like a category. If they have red links, either an article should be written (so they appear in the category), the link added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do, or removed if it is just a vanity entry. It is also possible to create a new list with tighter membership criteria, but these open lists are not actually a useful starting point for that, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later-no-harm criterion[edit]

Later-no-harm criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable voting method criterion which, other than the wikipedia article, can only be found here: [11], which is the website of a voting methods discussion list, based on this article here: [12] on the internet. Fahrenheit451 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality criterion, resolvability criterion, and participation criterion all seem to be closely related with the nominated article. As I personally have no knowledge of the subject, should these articles be nominated for deletion too?--TBCΦtalk? 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. These appear to be articles that have to do with the mathematics of voting, which is the subject of a good deal of interest. I'd be inclined to refer this matter to an expert on these topics; there may be a better name for this, and it lacks context and is not clearly written. I am not convinced yet that these articles are original research and they pass my own "smell" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google search on this term shows it is in use, but most hits are from Electorama/ElectoWiki or from Wikipedia mirrors or from a personal website. I'll also note that two years ago, we had to clear out a lot of unsupported election-theory articles that were little more than original research. Later-no-harm appears to be in circulation among a small circle of, uh, election-theory hobbyists, but so far I'm not aware of it having had any influence on the real world, or even of being covered nontrivially in multiple reliable sources. This counts more under WP policy than anyone's smell test. I'll defer to anyone who can provide better-sourced information, but currently I'd favor a merge into an article on election systems and criteria used to evaluate them. Barno 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would support a merge as well. It is simply not notable enough for an article of its own.--Fahrenheit451 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~There seem to be a series of articles in this vein - Plurality criterion, Resolvability criterion, and possibly more.~~ (hey, beaten!) This seems highly similar to what's described in Voting paradox, and, moreso, Condorcet method. I still haven't compared enough to determine whether or not this article is notable on its own, or merely a rehashed retelling of prior, more notable methods (see this AfD for a similar occurance). --Action Jackson IV 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or just possibly Merge. We can't have articles on every concept that has ever appeared in a book. There is no evidence of notability and it's too thin for an article on its own. NBeale 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well known term in the field of mathematics/voting. Wikipedia should be attempting to be comprehensive, and it won’t do this by deleting articles like this. SmokeyJoe 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is Not a well-known term in the filed of mathematics/voting at all and cannot be verified as such. I think a merge makes more sense.--Fahrenheit451 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don’t really know how “well” known it is, it depends on how widely one reads, but it is certainly known. I learnt about it many years ago, as part of the many paradoxes of voting systems. It is related to monotonicity, is attributed to Douglas Woodall, Reader in Pure Mathematics at Nottingham University, UK (see [13]), and is described in many publications, including popular mathematical/voting books. It is reliably sourced, and is in frequent use. By what definition do you mean "non-notable"? SmokeyJoe 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which popular books is it sourced in? I know of none.--Fahrenheit451 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to find the book if you really want. By “popular”, I mean “aimed at the general reader”.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
O.K. Please name one such book.--Fahrenheit451 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, I ask you to explain why you think the criterion is “non-notable”, what you mean by “non-notable”, and why you believe that “non-notable” is a criterion for deletion.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
There is only one source of the criteria and there is no evidence of the reliability of that source. I suggest you read WP:N to answer your last question.--Fahrenheit451 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I google “Later no harm” I get multiple responses, excluding wikis. I see no basis for an argument that “Voting Matters” is not a reliable secondary source, or that it is not independent of Woodall? (perhaps there is one, but it hasn’t been made yet) The many other incidental references demonstrate that the subject is in widespread use.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)

You are getting responses from the three words. I think you know that.--Fahrenheit451 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: Wikipedia:Notability “Deletion A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.5 Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all.” I guess that you are relying on this. It looks already like a respectable article, it relates directly to a voting system in use, has potential to be expanded, and is clearly not a product of original research. SmokeyJoe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following interesting: “However, such protest votes have an unpredictable effect on an election outcome as IRV fails to comply with any established election method criteria.” [14]. “Later-no-harm” is an established election method criteria with which IRV complies. Your contribution was POV, original research and reveals a distaste for IRV or the “later-no-harm” criterion and I suggest that you have a conflict of interest in nominating this article for deletion. For what purpose, I have no idea. I believe that your reasoning is another example of an abuse of the ill-defined, non-policy WP:N. SmokeyJoe 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoey, I advise you to keep your discussion civil and not make presumptions about my motives. IRV satisfies the majority criterion and with a random ballot tie-breaking method, independence of clones, both established criteria. You seem to ignore the possibility that I could have been in error as I had only been editing wikipedia for three weeks when I wrote that edit. Instead you assume I was editing in bad faith. I believe you are violating the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith and advise you to follow it.--Fahrenheit451 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, I am boldly questioning your motive. I feel the need to be bold because this is not a place for a relaxed considered discussion – you are seeking to have (on March 13) the article obliterated from wikipedia, all content, history and discussions. I am curious about your motive because I cannot understand why you want to delete. “Non-notable” really doesn’t explain it. The subject has been noted in many places. As evidence for an ulterior motive, to justify the raising of the question, I offer your assertion (albeit long ago), found largely by chance, that the subject “later-no-harm” doesn’t exist. SmokeyJoe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are being uncivil. Save your boldness for editing. Again, I advise you to assume good faith. If you assume an ulterior motive and wish to be argumentative, then I am not taking the bait. We have a civil discussion where good faith is assumed, or this stuff from you ends right here.--Fahrenheit451 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, SmokeyJoe, what is the title of the "popular" book you stated mentioned Later-no-harm. If it really does not exist, please be honest and admit it.--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge; an article in a mathematics journal (Discrete Applied Mathematics #77) is plenty to satisfy WP:V and WP:N, so the remaining question is whether the organization of these concepts make more sense as individual articles or sections of an article like mathematical criteria for voting systems. This needn't be decided on AFD. — brighterorange (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge seems very useful to me, its part of the math of voting. WilliamKF 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then merge. I agree that merging the content would be optimal, but think it should be left to editors who are well-versed in election theory and voting mechanisms. So, I recommend keeping and tagging the article with "mergeto". -- Black Falcon 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with most voting system criteria, it ultimately comes down to personal opinion whether the criterion is useful; but commenters above have shown that it's attributable, and that is sufficient to keep the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this search. Addhoc 22:16, 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. --Core desat 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elidet Reyes[edit]

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

I don't believe this person meets the threshold for WP:BIO. Most sources are self-published. Article also has numerous violations of WP:CRYSTAL. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims to notablity or prominence in the article do not seem to be backed up by the sources. One of her main "claims to fame" seems to be Project Tsunami, but it is unclear how big this event was (the pictures don't make it seem like an especially big event). There is nothing at all to back up the "sex symbol" claim. And a lot of stuff in the article isn't sourced at all . . . the D.A.D. program, her forthcoming book, etc. Without more sources, fails WP:N as another myspace.com "celeb." janejellyroll 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many of her citations are minor. My wife has been published in numerous newspapers... but that doesn't make her notable. As was my sister when she played in HS soccer... again, not notable.Balloonman 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, several pretty trivial sources shown but those hardly meet WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC Alf^Photoman 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The first six Google hits (out of a grand total of 59) on her are, in order, this Wikipedia article, the Answers.com mirror, the References.com mirror, her Myspace page, and two discussion forums. Ding ding ding! RGTraynor 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources that are about her. -- Whpq 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NBeale 06:57, 9 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:BULLSHIT, article meets criteria for speedy deletion.--cj | talk 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connect-A-Pedia[edit]

Connect-A-Pedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per WP:NFT, zero ghits, no notability asserted. Even if Connect-A-Pedia was really issued a patent, this does not assert notability. War wizard90 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT there should probably be a speedy delete category for games using Wikipedia. Why does everyone think they are the first to come up with a wiki game? --Daniel J. Leivick 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Save:First of all, this game was invented by me in the year 2002. I searched the web high and low to see if anybody else had thought of this prior to me, I found no entries on this. Recently the game has been gaining much momentum as a result of myspace.com and other networking sites. A page on Wikipedia, the site that started it all, is what I think could give it the boost it needs to become successful internationally. Also, it was given a patent 2 days ago which I filed for in 2003. I just didn't put it on Wikipedia untill I had the (assumed) security of a US Patent. -- User:D'Brickashaw 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original creator confirms no notability. Fails WP:NOTE --Haemo 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Save: It does have notability, just not yet INTERNATIONAL notability, it is extremely popular and well known in the three Eastern states of Australia. D'Brickashaw 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will have to look up whether this game received a trademark or a patent (the article is ambiguous on this point), but my user page has a list of 18 other versions of this exact game which were created by other people. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dum dum da dumb er that should be speedy delete Balloonman

Delete as non notable. Also, as far as I understand patent law, one can only be granted a patent for a physical object, or at least the idea of one. A patent can't be granted for actions, which this would fall under. The creator may mean they received a trademark, which is a completely different thing, and would only cover the name, not necessarily the game itself. Natalie 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having done a little bit of research, this is not eligible for patent in the United States, as is claimed above. US patent law only covers "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof". Before you ask, this does not appear to count as a process as I understand it. Natalie 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love this game!

-This page is no less important than famous military brats Balloonman.D'Brickashaw 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS / WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS / whatever the redirect is currently being called. --Action Jackson IV 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the ambiguity and human error, I meant trademark.D'Brickashaw 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a piece of advice, rather than telling us that this game is notable in Australia, prove it to us. Cite your sources, where is the proof that it is notable? The reason people are voting to delete is because this looks like something that is made up. Show them proof of your claims and I'm sure they will vote to keep it. War wizard90 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Save-I would be more than happy to provide proof if you tell me what exact kind of proof you want.D'Brickashaw 05:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the guidelines under WP:NOTE, and specifically WP:WEB. If you can produce sources that meet those standards, I would be happy to change my argument. --Haemo 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the granted trademark at the United States Patent and Trademark Office would be great for verifiability. Also, newspapers, magazines or books which discuss the game to establish notability. -Canley 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you could get a copy of it, but Australian Schools Magazine ran an article on it in the November 2005 issue, mentioning my name as well as the game itself. It was also featured in the December 16th 2005 section of connect in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper which also credited me as the creator. D'Brickashaw 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as this, PC World ran an article in it's September 2006 issue about Wikipedia Random Article Games, that quoted. "A concept that was made popular in Australia in 2002 with the advent of Connect-A-Pedia has now turned into an internet meme with thousands of copycats all over the web." This did not mention my name, but it did mention the name of my particular game and the relative location. D'Brickashaw 06:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the link to the trademark page, the USPTO have told me that it shoul appear on the site sometime in the next 2 weeks, I will let people know when I can. D'Brickashaw 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Note also Wikipedia:Wiki Game and Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia - articles like this have been deleted numerous times. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, where exactly do I self-reference? If you are talking about where I say Wikipedia, it is very hard to avoid when explaining the game. D'Brickashaw 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only article from PC World in Sep. of 2006 that even mentions Wikipedia, is this one [15], and it doesn't mention anything about Connect-A-Pedia or any related game. War wizard90 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They must not archive all articles because i have a copy of that issue in front of me right now and the article is in there. It is on the left side of page 29, i would scan it if my printer weren't broken. D'Brickashaw 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oh boy, a wiki game that's surely notable, if only there weren't a string of unfortunate circumstances that mean that none of the many, many solid references to it can't be shared or found anywhere. WP:NFT applies. Lankiveil 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NFT, possibly WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:WEB, WP:ASR, WP:NOT#IINFO, as well as numerous other guidelines which I currently can't think off the top of my head.--TBCΦtalk? 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game, similar to countless others. No assertion of notability and no multiple sources in breach of WP:ATT. If this game really did make WP random article games popular in Australia in 2002 there will be lots of sources to confirm this, right?Jules 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - article is not notable whatsoever, and the editor responsible is lying to try and keep the content. I'd put a watch on this one so it doesn't get created again. JRG 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Connect-A-Pedia is a game that was invented by Australian High-School student Daniel Doyle. All the game requires is for the player to be browsing on the wikipedia website." This is a textbook example of something non-notable that shouldn't be included on wikipedia. Reference WP:NFT as per above - also the fact that the creator of the game is involved in this discussion is very fishy. THE KING 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT: "Your search - Connect-A-Pedia - did not match any documents." Krimpet 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:NFT and WP:COI. Despite creator's assertions of this game's popularity, there aren't even any hits on the Australian Google [16]. I don't suppose that Mr. D'Brickashaw could supply the Application or Tracking Number he would have been given by the USPTO if he really did submit this, as he alleges? (There are advantages to working for a law firm that handles intellectual property disputes!) Frankly, the evidence is piling up big time that this is utter BS, and the sooner the creator either puts up or ceases the malarkey the better. Ravenswing 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia namespace Al-Bargit 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia itself wasn't popular in 2002, how amazing that this game transcended the popularity of the site to become so well known in the eastern states of Australia! Even more amazing, it's an internet meme with no mention on the internet at all. The PC World "reference" is obviously bogus - the first 40 pages of the magazine consist of a review section called First Looks - they would not have an article on "Random Wiki Games" on page 29. Connect is published in the Daily Telegraph every Wednesday, yet your copy is dated 16 December 2005 which was a Friday! --Canley 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keeper I am reading the article the creator was talking about in the September 2006 PC World right now and it all checks out. Besides this, the article seems to be factual, well-written, and by the evidence in PC World alone it is notable. Bamkazam 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth-Saving - In my opinion articles like these are good to have, they help to make Wikipedia, more unique, user-friendly and universal. I don't understand why everytime an article that is a little alternative to the usual, people call for it to be deleted. There is room for everything on Wikipedia, people should just cut the nonsense. And if what Bamkazam said is true, it seems notable to me. Maximum andy 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not be hasty First of all, I am a deletionist, but I think this is notable as I know for a fact that one of the sources checks out. I work for the Sydney Daily Telegraph and decided to look in the archives that are not available to the public, these contain everything. To my surprise this was mentioned in the December 16th 2005 issue of connect. At first I wanted this deleted, but now I have totally changed my tune. PS Canley, throughout late 2005 and early 2006 we did run Connect on Friday and Wednesday. Jojodeletionist 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Connect-A-Pedia - Delete this fucking thing, it is pure bullshit. To the creator, you are a (Personal attack removed)! Goshuckurself 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm. Very convincing argument, is that the way you treat people who you slightly disagree with, you are quite the skilled linguist and debater. D'Brickashaw 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, isn't this charming ... the only three editors to agree with Mr. D'Brickashaw and a convenient punching bag, all four new accounts created within a twenty minute span of one another. Someone should explain to him what a "sockpuppet" is. Ravenswing 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. This is one of the greatest pieces of sockpuppetry I have ever seen. I think I will link to this from my userpage. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a nice idea but should have been speedy deleted - no evidence of notability at all. However the comments of Goshuckurself are quite inappropriate and volation of WP:NPA NBeale 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, as mentioned above, and while I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, it does seem a little fishy that a patent became a trademark, that this trademark/patent hybrid has not yet been included on a relevant site, that even if there was a trademark there'd still be no automatic notability, and that an article in PC World which would at least scrape the bottom of the notability barrel can only be found by two accounts with a very similar cadence. Meh. --Action Jackson IV 07:14, 9 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. WP:LIST is not rationale for keeping an article. --Core desat 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current OHL captains[edit]

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

Listcruft, can be covered adequately on team pages. BoojiBoy 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of concerns with maintaining the list. In general articles should be static and a list of current hockey team captains isn't. As noted, articles on the teams or the individual athletes can and should note the players' status as captain. Otto4711 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LIST - navigation and information. - Peregrine Fisher 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list may meet the guideline of WP:LIST, that does not automatically mean that all other considerations are mooted. Otto4711 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say lists should be static? - Peregrine Fisher 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - better handled by a Category, per most sports here. --Dweller 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews nor Wikisportsrosters. While lists are not required to be on topics whose contents never change, those which aren't both readily maintainable and of some long-term significance are usually deleted. This list has no sources shown. I have trouble supporting even the similar list of NHL captains, and that's the major league of hockey. For the OHL, when a team changes captains, it will typically be reported only in the local newspaper and on the team's website. That's not multiple independent reliable sources. (I come from a city with a team in the AHL, the most important minor professional league feeding to the NHL, and even the local paper gives nontrivial coverage only once a year to the captaincy.) This information belongs in the articles on the teams and on the notable players as "2006-2007 captain", not "current captain". If someone really wants to see a "current" list, they can use team and league websites, and WP does not need to contain less-up-to-date information. Barno 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List contains mostly non-notable players, in an amateur league. Flibirigit 04:40, 9 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 already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah House. --Core desat 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M Oliphant[edit]

Jack M Oliphant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable Not notable, see associated discussion on Hallelujah House Jemather 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I can't find enough attributable information to make an encyclopedic article. Sancho (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get reliable independent info about Jack M Oliphant and have been unable to confirm anything. I should not have created this article without learning more about Wikipedia first and getting some solid facts with references. I do not know the definition of notable. He was connected with Lee Harvey Oswald - Ty Hardin - Timothy McVeigh and was caught planning the bombing of the Hoover Dam and the FBI Headquarters. Please go ahead and remove it. If the FOI requests I made confirm his millitary record, working for OSS or anything else someone can always create a new article right? Scottprovost 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could always create a new article. By the way, I think many of us don't know the definition of "notable" :-) There's an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not this should even be a reason for acceptance/deletion of articles. Regardless, this article doesn't have attributable information (see WP:ATT), which is a policy. It seems that you understand this, though. Sancho (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are a bunch of wild claims but hardly an attributable source in the whole article. As is it fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:ATT and WP:V. Alf^Photoman 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There are a few hits referencing the name as a 70s/80s militia nut associated with the Christian Identity movement, but I just don't see this passing WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an idea of the difficulty I have met with. Apparently his military rank is still classified. Even prisoners of war are allowed to give their rank. How can it be sensitive and ineligible for FOI release 60 years later and after he is dead. US News and World Report has information but has been asked not to release it. They claim that it is nothing significant, mostly related to the Kennedy event. All those surveillance records are set to be released for FOI but not available yet. Is is notable that all the other operatives involved in the Kennedy investigation are considered notable. The fact that Jack is known for being on the side of the Government in 1962 and against the government with Timothy McVeigh with a religious cult to his credit in the meanwile shouldn't make him less notable should it? Scottprovost 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with you re-creating this article or put it on DRV once you have the sources. With the kind of evidence you presented thus far not even a tabloid would print it. Alf^Photoman 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's guiding principle is verification; if you cannot verify it, you cannot include it. If you have any such facts, you should be able to provide your sources. If you have no sources to provide, then no, this fellow isn't notable. RGTraynor 14:57, 9 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. --Core desat 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Northpole[edit]

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

Slight claim to notability (he is supposedly "best know (sic) for a diss track") is only backed by a myspace.com reference. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. No reliale sources either. TJ Spyke 04:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:V. When the lead Google hit (and there are only 132) is a Myspace page, that's the kiss of nonnotability death. All the hits seem to be from discussion forums; there are no significant third-party sources, nor any evidence backing up the assertion of a link with Ludacris. RGTraynor 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We asked you not to delete that notice.

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by BigHaz. MER-C 10:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter_Seeger[edit]

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

This page does not appear to be encyclopedic type information, as Seeger doesn't seem to be notable or famous enough to warrant an article, and the various articles and edits appear to be borderline spam or advertising. Johnb210 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete make no claims of notability. Total nonsense. --Selket ^Talk 07:47, 8 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 deleted by Rama's Arrow [17]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulcerate[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion tag. Original tagger says that this band is not notable; author claims that the band is signed and has three albums, and is therefore notable. What say you? Richardcavell 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Formed in 2006? I don't care how good you are. You have yet to receive real reviews. Denni ^talk 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Selket ^Talk 07:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criterion G12; the article is unquestionably a copyright infringement from [18], and no assertion of permission has been made. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 09:02, 8 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. --Core desat 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Douglas (journalist)[edit]

Nick Douglas (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable blogger - doesn't meet criteria for WP:BIO. Sources are mostly self-published. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, derez, whatever: per WP:BIO, NN. It isn't even that he writes a blog, he writes about blogs?? If I was that insignificant I'd shoot myself. RGTraynor 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to be at least a bit civil, shall we? -- Jonel | Speak 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please be sensitive to the feelings of these people. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... "sensitive to the feelings" of dead people? You greatly overestimate my connection with the afterlife. RGTraynor 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Back on topic. Not notable. 11:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:51, 9 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. --Core desat 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina State High School[edit]

Sarina State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing to suggest this school is notable beyond being a school. Note also the article explicitly states it is below the expectations of other schools. Contested prod. Denni ^talk 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN school. Article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to meet notability criterion, as well as failing to attribute the sources used to create the article. Kyra_~(talk) 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YET ANOTHER piece of blatant school advertizing. I am sure users and sysops are tired of deleting this junk (pardon the use of such language) from Wikipedia (I certainly are tired of contributing to discussions on it).— Preceding unsigned comment added by ANHL (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete All schools are notable but this is clearly just some copied text from a site. It needs expanding and some more sources, if so ill change to keep.LordHarris 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Actual school with available sources. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOT an advertisement, the article basically says "What a shit school don't go there". Delete it and let someone interested in the place write a NPOV article. Only contribution by User:Twigz o war who has no talk page and should have been warned for vandalism. Only other contributions have been similar vandalism by anon IP's, and deletion-related tagging.Ga rr ie 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there isn't an editor out there who will maintain it, then it will just attract vandals. I'm all for keeping high school articles, but I'm beginning to think one of the practical criteria needs to be that the article won't just be a spot where vandals hang out, blighting the neighborhood. So an editor needs to be there to police it. I see no evidence of that in this case, so bulldoze it. Maybe one day it will be rebuilt by someone who will give it the care it deserves. Noroton 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article has had rubbish removed and been referenced at this point

~~Keep~~ Delete - I've removed the weasel bits, and found at least one notability reference ( in the article now ). Will try to get more but on the face of it, seems a notable high school. 592 google hits and over 60 referring to awards ( many will be student awards but at least one is an award for the school ) - Peripitus (Talk)...After some searching I can find nothing else of note except the two added references. No news articles in the last few years, no books on the school and no mentioned notable students - Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything particularly notable about this school. Lankiveil 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Has potential to be expanded, or at the very least, merged. It actually has sources! Notability is a failed criterion that never had consensus. The article shows no indication of advertisement. SmokeyJoe 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was created less than a week ago and needs to be given a reasonable time to find editors and develop. Already being expanded and looks notable enough for an article. I have added an agricultural initiative. TerriersFan 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub with potential for development - clearly some people here don't understand the stub concept. School articles are important and high schools are notable. Constant vandalism is not a reason for deletion, otherwise there would be no Bush article. Ardfern 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike the other school article currently up for AfD, this one fails WP:N. This article seems more appropriate for the new MySchool wiki. (Please excuse the lack of content there, it just got off the ground.) --Butseriouslyfolks 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Nobody had to ask me to come here. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:27, 12 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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 10:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Maine[edit]

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

Looked like a straight case of {{nn-band}} to me but someone thinks that notability is asserted. -- RHaworth 05:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where in the article is notability asserted? This is borderline speedy A7, but someone (who?) claims notability, so let's give them a chance to demonstrate it. Selket ^Talk 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No notability asserted. Take a look at the edit history, the only thing that happened was that someone removed the speedy delete tag and said "notability asserted" (without doing anything). TJ Spyke 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under speedy deletion criterion A7; the article does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 08:55, 8 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 cosmic delete. --Core desat 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Intelligence[edit]

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

I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion, based on the fact that it was basically nonsensical, but have since gotten a second opinion and decided to go for a normal AFD. This articles was also PROD'd by another editor, but the notice was removed anonymously without comment.

This article is a barely coherent essay, does not cite any sources, and is by and large unintelligible. It also appears to consist of 100% original research, and fails to attribute any of its sources or claims. Furthermore, it is not clear that the topic discussed herein has any relationship to a "cosmic intelligence" and is entirely speculation. Fails WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:OR, and should be deleted.

Note, however, that I am not contending that an article about "Cosmic Intelligence" is inherently non-notable, or impossible to produce. I am nominating this particular article because it is incoherent - presumably in the future, one could produce a reasonable, encyclopedic article about this topic. This is not it. Haemo 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the more bizzare articles I've seen on AfD. Normally I think bad articles should not be deleted because they are bad, but this one is so bad that I can't evaluate it for any of the normal standards. Could this be speedied for context (A1)? --Selket ^Talk 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, but my previous speedy attempt was also contested, right before I pulled it, so I don't think it would help in any case. --Haemo 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN...that is, delete this wackiness. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:A, take your pick. -- Scientizzle 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete nonsense. It sure is original but I don't know whether I could describe it as "research". J i m p 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsensical: "Credit goes to the NASA for spotting all these formations in the sky and naming them." Uhh.... Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It hurts my head to read this. Natalie 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete nonsense Chrislintott 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm still struggling with the concept of a bird's eye view of the universe... EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a really gigantic bird, I guess. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense and as essay--I am reluctant to call it "research"-- Article claims that the term is "popular in the new age community" without documenting it. DGG 19:27, 8 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. --Core desat 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Wacker[edit]

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

Headteacher and editor of a published book; I don't think this is enough to meet WP:BIO. PC78 08:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Educator and editor who does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Moreover, his employment and religion are not attributed. --Charlene 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Editor of a book by an author we don't even have an article for. Horse first, cart later. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and the whole book of guidelines Alf^Photoman 15:09, 8 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. --Core desat 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glemo[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a neologism for an art form created by "James & Fabian" in 2005. No sources or claim of notability. Dave6 ^talk 08:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. By the way, you know it's bad when the first Google hit it Urban Dictionary. Punkmorten 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people might think it worse when it's wikipedia which is first. Cloveoil 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability for this "movement". --Selket ^Talk 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. In addition, the article does not attribute the sources used to compile the information within the article. Kyra_~(talk) 09:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Kyra. Does not even have a definition in Urban Dictionary Jules 12:54, 8 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. --Core desat 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Burley[edit]

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

There are thousands of national record holders in athletics around the world. WP:BIO, on the other hand, demands that an athlete has competed on the highest level of the sport. Nothing indicates that Sam Burley has. And since holding a national record is not enough to pass WP:BIO, this should go. Punkmorten 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of anything that would make this pass WP:BIO --Selket ^Talk 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'm rather astonished at the blythe assertion that the national record holder in a sport wouldn't likely be competing at that sport's highest level in this country. As it happens, Burley placed second at his distance just this past month in the US Indoor Track National Championships, won the outdoor national championship in 2003, and has competed at the Olympic Trials. All this took me about four minutes to verify. Now I've added my findings to the article, but AfDs shouldn't be filed in cases where the most cursory of searches uncovers ample verification. This is one of them. RGTraynor 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and I agree with you and go one further - nobody seems to read Before Nominating an AfD either. This article proves it. Davidicke 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Being a National record holder is notable, and additonally, he is currently ranked 36 in the IAAF world rankings which certainly indicates he is competing at the highest level in his sport. -- Whpq 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am glad we can establish the reasonable guideline that national record holders in each sport are notable. It is a very straight-forward standard to establish DGG 00:56, 9 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. Shimeru 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterini[edit]

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

The idea of disambiguation pages is to provide guidance between several likely outcomes of a given search. From WP:DAB: Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?)
People won't search for Ekaterini, or most first names for that matter, to reach any of the targets included in this disambiguation - in reality it is an unencyclopedic list of everyone named Ekaterini disguised as a disambiguation page.
Exceptions from this do exist, namely when people are known primarily by their first name - see for instance Harald, Haakon. This does not, of course, apply in this case. Punkmorten 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of people by name: Ek.--TBCΦtalk? 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful disambiguation page. The nom states that people will not search for Ekaterini, but we do not know this. Bradycardia 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is hardly a list of everyone named "Ekaterini" (just 3 who have WP articles). A merge into List of people by name: Ek is not appropriate as the "List of people by name" is maintained alphabetically by last name, whereas this disambig page is for a first name. I'm tempted to suggest redirecting to Catherine II of Russia, but her Russian name is "Yekaterina" or "Ekaterina", not "Ekaterini", which is a Greek name. -- Black Falcon 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is, as Falconage above pointed out, not an 'encyclopedic' list. Rather, it serves it's purpose well - I have, at many times, searched for people by first name. Possibly, you might want to consider making it a redirect to the most 'well-known' of these people, and have disambiguation at the top of that page. Black-Velvet 08:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Rühm[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Musical group claiming notability, but unclear whether they meet WP:MUSIC. Delete unless claims of notability are verified. Kusma (t) 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and wonder if acceptable proof of notability should only be english-language. There's already et.wikipedia.org for Estonians. Davidicke 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. We should accept sources in other languages (otherwise we'll have problems covering smaller cities and villages in remote countries etc., see WP:BIAS) But I checked the Estonian entry et:A-Rühm, which is almost orphaned, so it probably isn't as notable as it claims even in Estonia. Kusma (t) 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Davidicke 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete mainly because the article is unsourced. If someone who speaks better Estonian than I, or with access to a translation service, could provide the core content in English of [19] or [20] which appear to be reliable sources we may be able to come to a sound opinion. Nuttah68 20:59, 8 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Country Day School[edit]

Arlington Country Day School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD, original concern was "see WP:NOT, article seems very advertisment-like". Certainly in need of cleanup and sourcing. Delete unless secondary sources are found. Kusma (t) 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't imagine this being noteworthy to anyone not associated with the school. JBEvans

Delete unless some assertion of notability is included. JulesH 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A blatant advert of no use to Wikipedia. Organisations like this should take the time to form their own page, not exploit the open nature of Wikipedia. Also, this is the 3rd or 4th article on schools forwarded to AfD. This seems abnormal and looks like it might even be a wierd type of hoax.User:ANHL

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think this article needs improving, expanding and a few references. If someone rewrites it ill change to Keep. LordHarris 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has one team that won 2 state championships.And nothing else. There are always a number of school articles in AfD and there will be as long as we have no agreed-upon criteria for schools. N:Schools had not even been able to establish a consensus on whether it is right to say that nothing has been accomplished. DGG 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Based on what is there currently in the article. - Denny 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The school has been an athletic powerhouse that has been one of the few regularly covered on television at the high school level and has won multiple state championships in multiple sports, all of which has been covered by major media in reliable and verifiable sources, clearly establishing notability by any definition of the term. I invite those who have voted delete citing a failure to assert notability or to provide sources, to reread the article and reconsider their votes accordingly. Alansohn 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I am opposed to the willy-nilly inclusion of schools that some seem to favor, this one has a nationally recognized basketball program and is therefore notable from an athletic standpoint. The major edits which improved the article were just made, so I would ask that the AfD be left open for a few more days so that others have an opportunity to review the improved version. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable sports results. TerriersFan 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn school; chuffed up sports results are a canard as noted by DGG. Eusebeus 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DGG actually did not say that. He said "It has one team that won 2 state championships. And nothing else." This comment was entirely valid at the time that he made it and I agree that by itself it is not sufficient for notability. However, the sports section has now been expanded and referenced up and now indicates notability when coupled with the significant place this school has in the community. TerriersFan 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's comments by delete voters like these that amply demonstrate that some people just won't bother to read an article before voting. All of this on top of the fact that Eusebeus seems to play little part in participating in Wikipedia other than as a critic, only further undermines the validity of this vote. Alansohn 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh Alan, thanks so much for the love. Let me expand my comment (AfD is not a vote btw). The article is about a school. The school is unnotable. Pointless attempts (the teams' sponsor is Nike, eg) have been made to try to provide some grounds for notability in the ongoing and misguided belief that Wikipedia is a glorified Yellow Pages masquerading as an encyclopaedia on weekends. But the school remains unnotable. Why? It is a school & schools are generally unnotable. Their sports teams are unnotable. Their mascots are unnotable as are their school colours, their motto, and the principal's name. How can I be clearer? I am serene that you disagree with me on this issue, but let's keep the commentary on the specific message and not impugn the opinions of those who don't happen to live in your sunshine-filled happy valley of server-wasting schoolcruft. Eusebeus 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to deal with fellow editors, those of us who are working together to build an encyclopedia, not critics with an axe to grind. Above and beyond your clear deletionist bias and near-complete lack of contributions, you persist in pushing your agenda, rather than addressing the article in question. I still don't have the impression that you have bothered to read it. As such, your knee-jerk vote does not address the issues of notability for this article. The fact that you will not address this article makes yours a vote. That's not how we Wikipedia editors participate. Alansohn 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the air in New Jersey weren't so filthy, you'd probably have a pretty nice view up on top of that horse. Eusebeus 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice that you're reading my comments, but the school is located in Florida, where the air is clear and the schools are notable. Have you actually read the article yet? Will you reference anything that pertains to Wikipedia policy regarding notability or will this remain the usual knee-jerk delete vote? Alansohn 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the two of you could continue this elsewhere? Pistols at dawn? --Butseriouslyfolks 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem like much of an advert to me. School articles are important and schools are notable. Hence the hundreds of articles on schools. Don't complain about the content - make it better - that's the Wiki way Ardfern 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has notable sports achievements supported by references. The content needs to be improved, but not AfD. Cocoma 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for a small school those sporting achievements look pretty notable to me. The Academics section needs work but the article should be given time to acquire editors and grow. Bridgeplayer 01:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all school articles are notable. This one, however, seems to be (following the addition of multiple sources to the article). One could argue that the basketball team is more notable than the school, but if for nothing else than proper organisation, content about school teams should be in a main school article (except for major college/university teams, of course). -- Black Falcon 08:45, 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, attack page. Kusma (t) 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr seago[edit]

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

Non-notable, seems just a sandbox test, uncyclopedic etc Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 10:32, 8 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. Jersey Devil 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love, hope and fear[edit]

Love, hope and fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion tag removed in February, but no indication that this band could meet WP:N since then. Tikiwont 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC), updated by Tikiwont 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the serial comma must be upheld, even in minor band names. This is about somebody's band. Note to nominator: for a title like this, it helps people reading AfD to point this out. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how the band meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the wise words of the folks above me.Sarcasticidealist 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The serial comma is not used in the band's name, this is the band's chosen spelling. Love, Hope and Fear is representative of the San Francisco music scene and has had a number of articles and reviews in magazines, most notably, AMP (American Music Press). don't delete the page. Comment by 24.5.132.71 on Talk:Love, hope and fear, reported here by Tikiwont 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you get some references in there? I could be persuaded to change my vote if some evidence of the band's notability was included in the article.Sarcasticidealist 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they have received significant critical attention, I'd be happy to change my stance also. (And, FWIW, my comment about the serial comma was a joke. I do what I can to lighten the mood here. Obviously, if this is kept, it should stay at their chosen punctuation.) - Smerdis of Tlön 21:02, 12 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 Childcare. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Program For Infant and Toddler Caregiving[edit]

Program For Infant and Toddler Caregiving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. Likely advertisement, IMHO. TexasAndroid 21:23, 5 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, Quarl ^(talk) 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it does not really claim notability and the article does not explain in any significant detail the key questions "Who, what, why, where and when". (I don't know what "WestEd" is, for instance). Sam Blacketer 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Childcare. The first external reference claims "PITC is the most widely used training system for infant and toddler caregivers in the United States." This claim may well be true. The problem seems to be that PITC has no material in an independent secondary source. Until such sources are found, PITC shouldn't have its own article, but does warrant a mention at Childcare. Don't delete as there is potential value in the history. SmokeyJoe 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per above, until sources are found. Black-Velvet 08:25, 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 already deleted by TexasAndroid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Simpson[edit]

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

Previous prod removed. Non notable contestant on a reality show. Fails WP:BIO. The sourced articles are all about the show, not about the contestants, and only mention them in passing, to highlight the level of the show. No problem with an article for the show, but articles for the contestants are overkill for now. Fram 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to merge the names of the contestants into the show's page then? Of course, then the question comes as to how much of the article to keep I'd guess. oh yeah I did want to mention that in retrospect my reasoning for removing the prod was flawed since it followed the 'if this article is here, then this should be too' kind of circular logic. Anyway apologies to Angr for that one.Andrew831 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The multiple articles cited, like those from The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle are much more than "passing mentions." --Oakshade 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per WP:NN ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot say anything that isn't, perhaps, self promotion or just irrelevant information. Not every single journalist that gets an article put in the New York Times should get an article; some, or most, of these people's articles wouldn't even say anything notable. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge with show article After looking at how pages for other reality TV shows are layed out this seems the best course of action in my opinion. The subject's notability is based on the show so if it fails WP:BIO then I think per WP:AfD we should consider merging it with the show's page instead of out and out deleting it. Also in the interests of disclosure I AM a friend of the subject so if that invalidates my vote well then you should probably know that before taking my comments into consideration. --Andrew831 17:14, 11 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 without redirecting. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor a discussion forum, nor a publisher of original thought. --Core desat 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki fraud[edit]

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

An essay on factual inaccuracy and lack of citation on Wikipedia. Prod (which pointed out that the article itself has a lack of citation) removed with the comment: WIkipedia has no policy requiring that everyone cite their sources. Thus, this author, who has written an article critisizing wikipedia will also not cite sources to make a point. Suggest move to users space? Marasmusine 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Wiki-fraud" or "Wiki fraud" (the article uses these terms interchangably) is a non-notable neologism, made up by the author of the article as far as I can see. The article also (regardless of what the authour says) breaches WP:ATT by not citing sources. Also appears not to be written from a NPOV (i.e. suggesting 99% of articles subject to wiki-fraud, reference to people referring to Wikipedia as "slack-jawed yokels").Jules 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy, per WP:ASR - furthermore, phrases like "slack-jawed yokle" [sic] have no place in article space. (Also, the "driving force behind the American Scholastic Board's barring of using Wikipedia as a source in any student's Ph.D thesis paper" isn't "wiki fraud", but a desire for primary and secondary sources in such writing - citing an encyclopedia in a thesis paper would get you laughed at; although Wikipedia is a nice encyclopedia, it remains an encyclopedia. Just sayin'.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and comments like "Wikipedia is ... Joseph Stalin's Communist propganda machine" on the talk page don't help either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, or possible userfy or turn into an essay. But get it out of articlespace unless it can be proven to be an notabale neologism (complete with sources off course). WegianWarrior 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to preserve the authority of Wiki Cabal. Original research and neologism, thus delete or possibly userfy.--TBCΦtalk? 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems more like (scathing) criticism than encyclopedia article. Opinion Dureo 11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above, just blatant (and intentional) criticism of Wikipedia. Articles like this are a direct attempt ot atack the integrity of Wikipedia and th creators should be treated in the same way of vandals (policy states that an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia is vandalism). Also, i'm certain that the 99% statistic is innaccurate in the extreme.

User:ANHL

if I may dissent, we don't need witch hunts and stake burning exercises on Wikipedia. Alf^Photoman 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic, NPOV and since sufficient sources aren't given, original research. 82.135.86.58 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog or a discussion forum. RGTraynor 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because I want to say that there is nothing relevant in that article. All those cases should be addressed. But WE DON'T HAVE ARTICLES WITHOUT SOURCES. If the editor wants to know the pertinent rules he might want to look at WP:V, WP:N, WP:ATT .... Alf^Photoman 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent nonsense Al-Bargit 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author admits to violating WP:POINT. JuJube 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essays of any sort neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Nice satire, but it doesn't belong in article space. Just as a proper analysis of the % error in WP doesnt belong in article space --until it has been published elsewhere. DGG 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wiki-Fraud. Delete per WP:NOT a soapbox. Unsourced, POV, unattributable, WP:POINT, and in fact disprovable on multiple points. The underlying valid points would be far better addressed by starting a legitimate essay from scratch (without childish whining and sniping) and posting it in Wikipedia: space, not article-space. Barno 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a real gem "Political pundit Stephen Colbert editing a wikipedia article on Elephants, claiming that the population of Elephants has tripled in the last 6 months, that was latter used by pro-poacher groups in Africa to successfully lobby for the unbridled slaughter of thousands of Elephants in western Africa". — MichaelLinnear 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one of the articles concerning criticism of wikipedia or such like. Cloveoil 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE

First of all, Wikipedia's rule on Reliable sources is:

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Keyword - whenever possible. So if it is not possible (for any reason at all, as there are no stated guidelines as to what defines impossibility) an author does not have to specify the sources of his facts, or even have any sources for his facts, period. AND since the author did not specify a source, one has no way of knowing whether this fact has come from a primary reference or secondary reference - thus, every uncited fact is arguably taken from a secondary source, which do to SOME factor, whatever that factor may be, citing that source is impossible. Hence, the unreferenced fact is fully in compliance with wikipeida's rules on reliable sources.
Thus, an unreferenced fact is a reliable source! (Wikipeida's rules, not mine)
Hence, the argument that this article should be deleted because not citing sources is against wikipedia policy is spurious at best.

Second, this article has been proposed for deletion because of wikipedia's policy on neologisms. However, wikipedia has plenty of article's on neologisms already - wikipedia's page on deletion says email is a neologism, but wikipedia has an entry on e-mail. Thus if you delete the page on wiki fraud, to be consistent, you have to go delete EVERY article on neologisms; now what kind of so called "Encyclopeida" would wikipedia be if it did not have an article on e-mail.

Thirdly, as to the claims that this article is inaccurate: Where are your sources? (Show me your sources and I will show you mine.) By Proposing that this article should because deleted because the facts contained in the article are inaccurate, without providing evidence in support of your own claims, is a little hypocritical at best.

Finally, in response to "thought police officer's" comment: "Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. -- - (Elkspeak)"

Well, we see the real reason why this article is being deleted. It is being deleted, not because it is against any of wikipedia's policies, but because it points out the major flaws in wikipedia - it rubs salt in wikipedia's wounds. Hence, Jimmy Wales' Thought police, have been sent out to squash all opposition, as always.
That's why the article is being deleted; not because there is anything wrong with the article, but because its against your own beliefs'. Thus, wikipedia's ugly secrets make make their presence known again. This is not an encylopedia; its a mere forum where one party's beliefs are presented as fact, and any questioning/critism of these facts is immediately eradicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimdawg (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 09:27:04

Yup, I agree. Cloveoil 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you caught us out. And here I was going to spend a pleasant morning in my Jimbo's Stormtroopers uniform (complete with riding crop and razor wire) deleting articles about puppies and kittens and inserting lurid pictures of goat pedophilia on unsuspecting user pages. While you're at it telling Wikipedia off, could you ask Jimbo to raise our pay, please? We haven't had any checks for our Thought Police gig in quite some time. RGTraynor 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does that mean we have to cancel the Thought Police parade for May the 22nd? Bummer, I was practicing marching along with It's a long way to Tipperary . Alf^Photoman 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget all that: the page is an attack page, existing for no other reason than to disparage its subject. Accordingly speedy delete -- 62.25.109.196 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Where does it say that "email" is a neologism? Catchphrases passed through chain emails may be neologisms, but email itself is not. Your argument on "wherever possible" is missing something: If it is not possible, that probably means the article shouldn't exist. Google can serve as the "source" you seek: there are no results there that pertain to the subject of this article. I don't care whether there is another article criticizing Wikipedia; it's just that this one isn't it. Feel free work on Criticism of Wikipedia, WP:FAIL, Wikipedia:Problems with Wikipedia, Daniel Brandt, and all those other articles on Wikipedia. –Pomte 09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia's entry on the word Neologism

" neologism (from Greek νεολογισμός "νέος" [neos] = new; "λόγος" [logos] = word) is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism)

Thats where it says that e-mail is an neolgism.
See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for the specific criteria of what is meant here. –Pomte 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or redirect to Essjay controversy because it repeat information, and we shouldn't be feeding the trolls on this site. — Moe 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect without merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Basically, right now, this article amounts to defining a new term for something that's already discussed a whole lot in Wikipedia (Criticism of Wikipedia and the bazillion subarticles). We don't need yet another one. However, since this term is kind of obvious, it's a plausible redirect. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:24, 11 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 keep, notable, multiple indep. sources. NawlinWiki 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Cancer Trust[edit]

Teenage Cancer Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Expired ProD, contested and re-ProD'd. No opinion here. Bubba hotep

Strong keep highly notable charity, with a very high profile in the UK. Particularly notable for its annual rock concerts, sometimes fronted by Roger Daltrey. --Dweller 11:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As above. An important charity. I am sure that with a bit of encouragement this page could form a good article.User:ANHL

Strong Keep a charity that people are aware of. Notable for Roger Daltrey. He has appeared on Sky News raising the profile of this campaign. Brylcreem2 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep One of highest profile charities in the UK. This year's concert at the Royal Albert Hall, incidentally, features The Who, Kaiser Chiefs, Kasabian and Noel Gallagher. Non-notable charities don't pull artists like that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:13, 8 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. --Core desat 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game settings[edit]

Video game settings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been nominated for deletion twice before, both discussions resulting in no consensus. Although over eight months have past since the original AfD nomination, the article has yet to improve; still unverified, unsourced, and original research. Similar articles have also been deleted before, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book clichés (2nd nomination). Also, as I've stated in the previous nomination:
I doubt that the article can be cleaned up, since many of the listed "clichés" are either:

Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.

Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.

Appear commonly in real life, so they can't technically be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests. TBCΦtalk? 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research Jules 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, none of your objections to these settings being considered cliche actually convince me. Something being a cliche for Video games and for other Science Fiction media? So what? Cliches are not limited to one media. Having fewer buildings? Makes sense to me that technological restrictions might determine why a cliche happens. I don't see how that possible excludes them from being a cliche. And appearing in real life doesn't make things not a cliche either. But even if I did agree with you, those are content-disputes, not deletion arguments. You'd be better of just sticking to the WP:V and OR concerns, though I do think those can be resolved. Beyond that, I do think the title of the article is poor, and it should be renamed if kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
See my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game item clichés. If none of the cliches are specific to video games (ie they happen often in real life or in other genres) then there's obviously no merit for a seperate article. It's as simple as that. --TBCΦtalk? 08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No place for an article of this size in Wikipedia. Possibility of continuing VASTLY cut down, but the present page should certainly go without delay; I am amazed it has survived for so long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANHL (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete due to lack of sourcing and OR concerns. Arkyan 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. I'd be curious what ground for keeping it there'd be beyond WP:ILIKEIT. RGTraynor 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and per being indiscriminate OR. Otto4711 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. More videogame-related fancruft is not good. JuJube 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-written and someone put a lot of time into it. Nardman1 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure of WP:ATT. Nuttah68 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the arguments put forward for deletion are simply bamboozling, it seems to me to have the basis of a rather well written article in there. Cloveoil 05:39, 9 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 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Infinite Matrix[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Contested ProD, re-ProD'd. No opinion here. Bubba hotep

Delete, seems non-notable. Off course, if sources showing notability (and no, a link to a blog lamenting it's demice don't really do it) can be offered, as well as significant expantion from a single sentence, it should be kept. WegianWarrior 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article makes no attempt to establish notability and is unsourced. Nuttah68 21:21, 8 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 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Timberlake[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music criteria, 49 gh, was speedied before by but has re-appeared Cricket02 12:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) "[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Cricket02 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Delete, and I would say speedy if the article did not claim notability. Total absentia of reliable non-trivial second party references Alf^Photoman 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a faint claim to notability but no real claims to meeting WP:MUSIC and no reliable sources. Nuttah68 21:25, 8 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. As an aside, I see that User:24.191.63.180 removed the AfD template from the article on March 11; however, given that the consensus here appears pretty clear-cut I have no hesitation in closing. If an admin feels otherwise, please feel free to relist. Agent 86 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dominican Republic[edit]

Miss Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advert for the 2007 Miss Dominican Republic pageant. OK, not strictly an advert, perhaps a press release would be more accurate. Combines the blindingly obvious (Miss Dominican Republic is the pageant which selectes - you guessed it - Miss Dominican Republic) and a directory of contestants, all without the benefit of a single secondary source. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. I see no reason why this pageant should be singled out for deletion but, to borrow one of the cross-references in the article, no one complains about Miss Spain. If the pageant is a hoax, then delete, otherwise this article has as much right to exist as Miss Canada. In fact, Miss Canada (even with sources) has far less information, it seems, and one could argue it's a more notable pageant. 23skidoo 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and most importantly, add some sources to the article but the contest does not appear to be a hoax, and it look like the national qualifier to the Miss Universe contest. In fact Amelia Vega who won Miss Universe qualified by winning the Dominican contest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if references can be provided, otherwise Delete Agree with the Miss Spain and Canada comparisons. But we need to have some sort of source for the info, otherwise delete. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have dug around a bit and found external references to the pageant, plus WP pages for some winners. Therefore, voting Keep, but suggest we make it more encyclopedic and less like an advert. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert or blindingly obvioua, per JzG. As for Miss Canada, WP:INN (or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) applies. --Calton | Talk 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep add references and improve per 23skidoo. TheQuandry 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs cleaning up, but AfD is not the route to achieve that. Nuttah68 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Miss Dominican Republic is a notable beauty pageant. --Carioca 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo. --Lmblackjack21 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its very well written and as per 23skidoo...--Cometstyles 16:59, 11 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. Shimeru 09:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Harris[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC by himself and his band barely meets the criteria. Nv8200p talk

delete his band meets WP:N but there are no sources proving he has any notability independent of his band. Davidicke 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and while we're at it the page for The Matches needs to be trimmed - it's a press release right now. Davidicke 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet notability criteria, and the mention about his mother being an art teacher sounds like a weird combination of unencylopedic personalisation and advertising. Black-Velvet 08:33, 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.

Shawn Harris is more than a wiki page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.98.55 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, after expansion and sourcing of article. Merge is possible, but it looks good enough to stand on its own. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Fedko[edit]

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

Fails notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia Burghboy80 13:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 15:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep,m references show at least borderline notability Alf^Photoman 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Extremely Weak Keep~~ - Slightly notable. FireSpike 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local figure. Vassyana 10:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically passes notability threshold, as noted below. Good job on sourcing Quarl. I cannot endorse the retention of purely local figures, but I will not oppose inclusion. Vassyana 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Gillyweed 11:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "second-most recognizable personality in Pittsburgh", most notable sportscaster in Pittsburgh. I have expanded the article 20-fold [21] using the following references.
"Fedko Fone Zone". Pittsburgh Cable News Channel. Retrieved 2007-03-08.

"John Fedko - WPXI-TV". WPXI. Retrieved 2007-03-08.

Finder, Chuck (1995-10-12). "When it comes to friday night football in Western Pennsylvania, this is a market that has become ... Fedko's own". Retrieved 2007-03-08.

Bianco, Robert (1994-10-25). "On WTAE, A lead story that goes to the dogs". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2007-03-08.

Brogley, Bill (1996-12-28). "Sports mailbag: Fedko fans as childish as Channel 11 reaction". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2007-03-08.

Burgess, Kelly (1997-11-09). "Fedko boosts teens' talents, says keep trying". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2007-03-08.

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 12:47Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable enough for inclusion. Jvbishop 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the rewrite is great!. FireSpike 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep though I don't see what is so great about the rewrite. There is a good lead paragraph on his notable accomplishments, but the majority of the article is about his education, politics, and religion.DGG 01:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may not be the most well written article, however I think it is worth keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.105.38 (talk • contribs)

Merge - Having an entire page with not a lot of information seems pointless, even if Fedko is a recognizable sports personality in Pgh. Why can't this information be merged onto the WPXI page somehow? It seems important enough to report on but not important enough to warrant its own article.--Write On 1983 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, to answer your question WO83, he is shown on more then WPXI. Also you can't leave out the discussion that this is a perennial NCAA Tournament town (8 in the last 6 seasons), AFC Championship/SuperBowl city, and has one of the hottest and youngest hockey teams around all seen through the prism of the local "Howard Cosells". Just look at the range and depth of Steeler nation, all pulling up Fedko online from Asia, Europe and throughout North and Central America. Hholt01 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expansion by Quarl. Notability is demonstrated by the multiple references. -- Black Falcon 01:20, 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. --Core desat 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Wife Syndrome[edit]

Toxic Wife Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP -- Slightly notable as it is on the news/reuters, you can easily search this in google/yahoo.. this is quite a universal phenomenon in the society but just no one term it yet 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.49.1 (talk • contribs)

This is a well known set social phenomenon,and the terming of them is a unique work and this page should be preserved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.160.231 (talk • contribs)

Weak keep, there seems to have been some sort of controversy about the coining of the phrase. But the article desperately needs sources and more information about the phrase, as opposed to just a dicdef. Natalie 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So a British journalist has invented a pseudo-medical label for a phenomenon that's been going on since "'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre." This phrase needs to be shown to have longer legs before becoming notable enough to deserve an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this one still appears to be a one-off neologism. There's potential for an article if the term gets taken up more widely, but that day isn't here yet. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- spam promotion Astrotrain 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. What, I get some smarmy BS in print just the once and suddenly it's article-eligible? RGTraynor 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable enough Lurker ^oi! 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism spamming for a book. (Also, does he think there are no toxic husbands?) --Charlene 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 11:48, 11 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.

Leo Sun[edit]

The result was Delete. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most likely a fake/hoax (possibly from some obscure fiction), submitted by an IP a long time ago. Mongols/Mongolians didn't exist yet at the time, let alone in the "lower Himalayas". No references found to any of the names and places outside of WP clones. Latebird 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources given, no sources found, fails WP:ATT. Tikiwont 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:COMPLETEANDUTTERBULLSHIT if any such criteria existed. I know a good bit about Tibetan/Central Asian history, and not a single element of this rather lame hoax ever existed. RGTraynor 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was around for over two years and got even wikified until the late bird catched the worm;) --Tikiwont 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ... something tells me this was one of those nominations stemming from a Random Article hit and a subsequent "What in the hell?" RGTraynor 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was browsing through the Mongolian category tree searching for articles to move to subcategories... But I do have to live up to my nick, don't you think? ;) --Latebird 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a story book. Questions on is it real as noted above, it has no sources to back it up --PrincessBrat 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX or WP:NOONECANMAKESENSEOFTHIS. This really does seem like something from a fictional work. In addition to the points raised above, there was no such thing as a "Himalayan Highlander War". Moreover, people who are stabbed through the heart and left in the snow to die usually do die. Really, it's the decent thing to do. -- Black Falcon 01:31, 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. Though the numbers are even, the arguments for deletion are much stronger and have firm grounding in the notability guidelines like WP:N and WP:ORG, not to mention the lack of sources.--Chaser - T 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The car party[edit]

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

Unsure if this group is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Article as-is seems like a spam article. Delete or merge into a more appropriate article (perhaps Transport in the United Kingdom?) Kesac 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As it stands it cites no sources apart from the party's own website, however a quick Google search reveals it noted in other places. Requires a cleanup and citations, other than that, seems notable enough. Maybe also a move to The Car Party. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep First such party in the world Al-Bargit 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the first 100 Google hits seem to be either first party press releases, or blog/comment entries. Only thing I could find on a quick search is this. [22] Looking further, perhaps merging with Road pricing might be a good idea? Kesac 04:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bargit, that is not a robust argument. If I form the AlBargit Party, the first such party, would that party merit an article? No. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:19Z

Keep but cleanup as this article currently reads like a political soapobox and an advertisment. A1octopus 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've only stated problems with the article but no reason to keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:20Z

Delete The article as it stands fails WP:N by it's own admission Membership is currently 3600+ It fails Wikipedia:Attribution and has no Reliable_sourcesit also has issues with WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Signed Jeepday 16:03, 3 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, Quarl ^(talk) 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has not improved since nominated, my delete rational from March 3 remains accurate. Jeepday 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a registered political party (see here), I think it should be kept Lurker ^oi! 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is being a registered party in the UK sufficient grounds for keeping? I do not know the method involved but if all it takes is to simply file some registration paperwork then being registered is hardly a measure of notability. A quick scan of the list in the provided link yields some ~380 registered parties in the UK, which would lead me to believe that simply being a registered party itself does not warrant inclusion. All the party's leadership appear to be from the same family, has by its own admission a very limited membership, the article lacks any credible sources and seems to have been created by a single use account. Unless some verifiable and independent information establishing some shred of notability is found this article does not belong here. Arkyan 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Initally I would have said keep but the party is not notable at all. As it has not stood in any election yet, only filed papers to set it up as a party 3 months ago, I think it should be deleted as there is nothing much in the article and if it becomes notable for what it does during a future election then I would find reason for it to be listed as an article as it would have something other to put than their manifesto. --PrincessBrat 17:39, 8 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. --Core desat 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Pawlik[edit]

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

Not an article.

Delete --nagytibi ^{! ?} 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A4: no context. Natalie 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per above Alf^Photoman 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-context. JuJube 20:13, 8 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. FeloniousMonk 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote mining[edit]

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

Briefly: recently-coined neologism that seems to have limited use, in Internet forums, and only in the context of the evolution/creation debate.
This useful and evocative phrase deserves wide use. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but my strong impression is that it is a neologism and that it is used in a very limited context: it is used primarily in certain forums and Wikis, and it almost exclusively used in the context of discussions of the theory of evolution. It has not gained enough traction to appear in published sources that meet reliable source guidelines.
Perhaps the strongest evidence I have for this is that a Google Books search on "quote mining returns only five hits, of which three are irrelevant, one is a 2004 book entitled "Creationism's Trojan Horse," and one is a 2007 book entitled "The Counter-Creationism Handbook." A similar search on "quote mine" yields similar results: 48 hits, all but one of which are irrelevant ("And again I quote : Mine inspections and enforcement of State and Federal law and working codes in themselves are not enough"). The single relevant hit is again "The Counter-Creationism Handbook." 35,000 Google Web hits are harder to analyze but seem to follow the same pattern.
The online American Heritage Dictionary does not define "quote mining," "quote mine," "quote-mining" or "quote-mine."
Online search of The New York Times from 2000 to the present shows no occurrences of the exact phrases "quote mine" or "quote mining."
Note that my objection is not that it is confined to evolution/creation debate, although if I'm correct about this the article should explain this—but that it is not in widespread use and cannot be described or defined by references to reliable published sources. (P. S. I'm not a creationist, and I believe creationists are one (among many!) groups that is fond of the tactic of making collections of misleadingly out-of-context quotations.) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Earliest USENET hit in Google Groups search is a 1997 posting Creation VS Evolution in alt.religion.christian, and it seems to be very widely used in talk.origins. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P. P. S. If the article doesn't explain that the term is used almost exclusively in the context of the evolution/creationist debate, then the article isn't accurate. But if the article does explain this, it needs to support the statement by citing a reliable published source—and I don't think one can be found.

It is no longer used exclusively in that debate. it also appears with respect to global warming : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229, http://www.arunn.net/scienceblog/2006/06/06/greenhouse-defect-in-new-zealand/feed/

and antisemitism: http://reddit.com/info/137ak/comments/c137dj

and politics: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-151147.html, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009300.php DGG 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per phenomenally well researched nomination. This is a useful phrase that certainly describes a common phenomenon, but it just doesn't have the notability yet. Natalie 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lurker ^oi! 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep We document the real world, which includes such publications. It is not OR to describe what is in front of our eyes. — Preceding comment was added by DGG along with the links above. -- Jonel | Speak 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, it looks like the American Heritage Dictionary is copyright 2000, so lacks some important recent items, e.g. Taliban Second, just because the term is used primarily online doesn't mean that its not notable. Third, its linked from the articles Contextomy and Misquotation and even has a small section in Creation-evolution_controversy. The National Center for Science Education has used the term in its news section. [23] As an aside, this request for deletion was precipitated by me adding Quote mining into Conservapedia [24] -- Limulus 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced by the rationale in the now, per Limulus. Coverage is books is not a criterion for something not being an unestablished neologism. In addition, changing the search term to "quote mine" increases the hits in google books to 48 - many of which are Francis Bacon quotes. Anyway, I think the term is well established enough and notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so keep. Guettarda 13:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the term is "notable." The issue is whether there is enough material to document its usage, based on published sources meeting reliable source guidelines. I think the biggest issue is the one mentioned in my P. P. S.

The present article is inaccurate, because it implies that the term is used generally to refer to quotations out of context. For example, in presidential campaigns it is not uncommon for party A to distribute collections of out-of-context quotations, attacking party B's candidate, that were made by that candidate's primary rivals. ("Look! Even his own party thinks he's despicable!") But they've been doing that for decades, and it is never called "quote mining."

The phrase is not used generally. It is used specifically by... let me narrow it even more... non-creationists, with reference to argument tactics used by creationists. (And perhaps, I'm told, in some blog postings about global warming).

If the article doesn't properly explain how, where, and by whom the term is used, its inaccurate. But if it does include these details, it needs to have a published source meeting reliable source guidelines, and I haven't found one. It's such an evocative term that I think there will be one eventually, and when there is we can have an article. Basically, you don't write articles about neologisms when they're still neologisms, even if you can see the shape of things to come. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, the presence of inaccuracy in an article isn't grounds for deletion. As for it being a neologism - there are reliable sources about the term - the Quote Mine Project includes a section about the term, as does an NCSE document[25]. Berkeley science review reports on the meaning of the term [26]. So I'd say that there are quite a few reliable sources about the term. Guettarda 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incredibly common term. Tag for sourcing or cleanup if desired, but "not sufficiently sourced at this time" is not grounds for deletion, especially when the nominator concedes The issue is not whether the term is "notable." then states the article is not well sourced enough and is possibly inaccurate. That's cleanup, Dpbsmith, not grounds for deletion, you know that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this article can be well-sourced enough at this time. If it clearly can be, it's a candidate for cleanup. If it can't be it's a candidate for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think finding suitable sources is real issue anylonger: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] 151.151.73.169 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources that use the phrase "quote mining," usually without explanation. I've never denied that it's used. My issue is that there are no sources that discuss the phrase itself and there's no way to write about the phrase except to look directly at how it's used and draw conclusions; that's original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - extremely well-discussed creationist strategy. TalkOrigins is widel agreed to be an RS, so we can use that. And five minutes' searching will find many more, for instance, page 7 of Barbara Forrest's Creationism's Trojan Horse. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
???? What? talk.origins is widely agreed to be a reliable source? How do you get that? It is a USENET newsgroup; the guidelines say newsgroups are considered a self-published source and "self-published material is largely not acceptable." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Very commonly used term. Even if it isn't used much in books yet, it's so very common in online discussions that I think it deserves a page. --Robert Stevens 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments to delete this page are simply unimpressive ... and wrong. Jim62sch 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phenomenon is discussed in secondary sources as nominator states, Creationism's Trojan Horse for one does have meta discussion on it, its VERY notable, widely used, and an important term. Its really valuable information and even if it doesn't reach the letter of the policy it fits the spirit of the policy WP:IAR Tmtoulouse 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to close this now as a "keep," I have no objection. I've made my point; but the community disagrees. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:31, 10 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 - patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 14:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of McDonald's[edit]

The Church of McDonald's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. No ghits for it, no references, and appears to be someone's in-joke being posted on Wikipedia. sunstar net^talk 13:24, 8 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. Steve _(Slf67)^talk 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great yarmouth high school[edit]

Great yarmouth high school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inappropriate content at this point in time and there is nothing to justify that the school is notable enough for inclusion Mark S (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a variety of reasons. Could be db-tagged under G10 as an attack page - "Great Yarmouth High School was established in 1886 as a Slave Labour Camp" - but probably better to let the AfD run its course. Only external link is to the school's own site, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:N. Also semi-nonsensical in places, and uses wrong infobox (I realise these aren't reasons for deletion per se, but they do detract from the article's credibility). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I think this is someone from that school having a mess around with Wikipedia. --PrincessBrat 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tag it with {{db-attack}} if you want. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over. There's nothing to redeem about this page. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and let some responsible editor start over later. Noroton 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete vandalism from the start.--Philbarker 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, agree with Noroton and Philbarker. LordHarris 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack/nonsense and I should know as it's my old school! The grammar school which became the high school was founded in 1550 something or other ;P Vandals today can't even get their facts right. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack and tagged as such. TerriersFan 00:50, 9 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, author has consented, WP:CSD#G7. Kusma (t) 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blurg[edit]

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

Neologism coined by the author of the article. From his blog entry for today, "And to prove my point, I have added the word to wikipedia. Let's see what happens, you read it here first." Prod removed by author. --Onorem 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is another term apparently coined today on the same author's blog:

Retriblog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Onorem 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non notable neologisms or maybe the first one for WP:POINT.--Tikiwont 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-admitted neologisms. Kusma (t) 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both I agree with the previous two arguments. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leave as experiment If tumbleblog, an equally coined phrase can stay, why not these. Obviously tumbleblog was and is not a word either and therefor falls under the same neologism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.69.245.109 (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete both Neologisms, made up by author of article. Lurker ^oi! 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please leave These were both experiments in social behaviour and the phenomenon of word usage and spread. I have now removed all references for my own blog to show that it is experimental. Wikipedia has references for edublog, moblog, phlog to name but a few. These were obviously neologisms when they were first coined but because they have been given a thorough description they are allowed to remain. Whilst I will defer to the majority decision, with the influx of new technology and comms methods new words will be appearing regulary. And should it really be left in the hands of self confessed experts to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willco5 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Wikipedia does not exist for people to experiment on. These other neologisms were coined and covered by reliable sources before they were included here. You made these words up today. They are not notable at this time. If they catch on, there will be space here for them later. --Onorem 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Agreed. Please delete both. My sincere apologies. Consider this an experiment gone bad. It has proved one point though, that social networking is both speedy and consent must be given by all in the community. excellent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willco5 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAMP[edit]

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

Again, another page marked for speedy deletion that has plenty of assertion of notability but no sources backing it up so far. This band is notable if there are sources to back up the stuff in the article; are there such sources? Again I have no opinion. Grand master ka 07:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AllMusic pretty much confirms artist's notability. The article just needs to be sourced. ObtuseAngle 19:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, so something confirms notability, but I see no reference of it in the article Alf^Photoman 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lack of referencing means it should be tagged for addiitonal referencing and not deletion. Based on the allmusic entry, this is likely to be notable, and sourceable. -- Whpq 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quick look round the Internet confirms notablity under WP:Band but the artcile needs to be properly sourced. A1octopus 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look finds no references for anything in this article. As per policy WP:A, If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Alan.ca 06:20, 7 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, Quarl ^(talk) 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or (less ideally) Merge into Roy Ayers. Added a Yahoo link.--Hobit 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but someone really needs to show this article what thumbnails are. Black-Velvet 08:35, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newnet[edit]

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

This just to add the standard header for below IP nomination. No opinion Tikiwont 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for my listing: Newnet fails WP:CORP, WP isn't a directory for ISP providers in the UK. 208.252.22.251 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with IP user 208 this company is very small and I have never heard of them at all. Seems more like an oppertunity for a bit of free advertising --PrincessBrat 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless that total lack of indication of notability and sources is fixed. Nuttah68 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When unknown companies start talking about being Internet pioneers you know it's an advert.

Delete per WP:CORP unless notability is established through sources. Simple verification through the company web site won't be enough. -- Black Falcon 01:39, 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 deleted (for 3rd time) at 23:09, March 8, 2007 by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). Salted. Deiz talk 14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godbandits[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of a local neologism. Unreferenced as well. It was prodded, but was contested by the author. Leebo ^T/C 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE It has since been speedily deleted. Leebo ^T/C 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is an obvious neologism, and has no references or reliable sources to confirm its existence, and nothing verifiable as well. --sunstar net^talk 14:08, 8 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 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John bloggs[edit]

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

I can't find any sources online that show the existence of this individual. As far as I can tell from Google searching, "John Bloggs" is is variant of "John Doe". I found a few "real" John Bloggses but they couldn't have written a diary during WWI. Delete due to lack of verification. (And anyway, even if it were real, it would belong on Wikisource.) ... discospinster _talk 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified by addition of reliable sources per WP:ATT by the end of this AfD. Current version reads like a typical high-school homework assignment - "invent a diary for a WWII soldier" - which would mean that WP:NFT may also apply. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Alf^Photoman 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely hoax. What a first day that would have been... Crossing the English Channel in "open top boats", immediately being posted to the front lines, subjected to gas and artillery attacks and getting sentry duty makes for an interesting 24 hours. Now, considering that "lads were laughing back home ‘bout how it would be all over soon", but the first use of mustard gas dates to 1917, and noting the absence of mention of the soldier's rank and unit and where he was deployed would lead me to agree with Walton_monarchist89. Caknuck 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all those suggesting it's either a hoax or homework. Am I the only one thinking that "Bloggs" as a surname sounds suspiciously similar to "blog"? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but the name "Bloggs" was used as a generic last name (similar to John Doe) prior to the coining of the word blog. So the two are unlikely to be connected. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. I was just thinking that it might have been the thought process which the author of the article had gone through (particularly if it turns out to have been school homework). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in the army in Canada, we'd use the name "Private Bloggins" to refer to a generic, "Joe Blow" soldier. I'm not sure how widespread the phenomenon was/is, or if it ties into what Walton_monarchist89 said. Caknuck 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AH! It *is* related! Caknuck 17:27, 9 March 2007 (

This diary belongs to a small family museum so there will not be any record of this man on wiki source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggydoggy1 (talk • contribs)

What's the name of the museum then? Caknuck 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty obviously made up by article author. NawlinWiki 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#BLOG. A diary is really no different from a blog. Individual diaries and blogs may be notable (this one makes no such assertion), but their text belongs on Wikisource, not here. No need to transwiki as we have no idea who wrote this (sure, John Bloggs, but who's he?) and also, again, because notability is not claimed. -- Black Falcon 01:44, 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 Redirect to Paradise Hotel. Doesn't appear there's anything substantial to merge. Shimeru 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charla Pihlstrom[edit]

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

Subject was winner of a reality TV show. There is no evidence this individual meets WP:BIO. I suggest deletion, though a redirect to the show she was featured on (Paradise Hotel) would work too.Isotope23 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - borderline for notability per WP:BIO; most of the external links are related to the show, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete. Zero notability away from the show. Ravenswing 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete borderline notable, but currently uses self-published sources. We can delete this unless new non-selfpublished sources come to light. --sunstar net^talk 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough information/notability to justify a separate article. This information should be merged into the page about the show. GhostPirate 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paradise Hotel - I see no encyclopedic value in the rest of this rubbish. Black-Velvet 08:37, 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Cleanup during the course of the debate appears to have brought it at least roughly in line with WP:FICT and WP:LIST. Further cleanup or merging may be warranted; these editorial decisions can be worked out on the talk page. Shimeru 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon items[edit]

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

A listcruft of items from the Pokemon video games. Much better suited for a gaming and/or Pokemon wiki. On a side note (if this is kept), I hope it doesn't get changed into something like this: Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. A massive list that has been cleaned somewhat I suppose, but now suggested splits might happen, adding more cruft/game guide (item guides) to Wikipedia. RobJ1981 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - When listcruft gets stupid. WP:NOT a dump for indiscriminate information, and a list of items from a game is about as indiscriminate as you can get. The Kinslayer 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a gaming guide. RGTraynor 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per RGTraynor Astrotrain 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or cleanup/broaden - The article as is delves a bit too far into the specifics of the items—seven paragraphs about flutes is a bit more than I can handle. It would probably be less "crufty" (as you call it) if instead the article gave a broader overview. I've noticed that members at the Pokémon Collaborative Project have recently started a trend of generally removing cruft and merging the more minor topics together (for instance, see List of Kanto locations—each of those used to have its own article). --Brandon Dilbeck 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mind boggles. Then I remember that this is the internet. This page definitely falls under "an indiscriminate collection of information" in Wikipedia:NOT. GhostPirate 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish to point out that what one person thinks is important isn't what's important to other people and you might think it's indiscriminate but it's not. --69.91.144.164 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as indiscriminate collection of information and game guide. Otto4711 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed much of the game guide and indiscriminate info problems with some recent edits. —M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I don't see anything wrong with this article since M_C_Y_1008's trimming. Calling it "indiscriminate" or "cruft" is a non-argument akin to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The material is certainly verifiable and for a game series as important as Pokémon, notable. The scope of the list is narrow and objective. So why is it indiscriminate? On the other hand, the comments above probably reflect the pre-trimmed state so maybe we are evaluating different articles. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiscriminate collection of information" is certainly nothing like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid in AFDs. WP:NOT#IINFO is a non-negotiable policy. Otto4711 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that IINFO does not actually apply here. Whether this list is an "indiscriminate collection of information", whatever that means, has nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since this list does not directly fall under any of the classes of articles in WP:NOT#IINFO, you cannot cite it blindly. –Pomte 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does apply here, just as the policy applies to every article on wikipedia. Its not a selective policy. In fact, the first sentence of Indiscriminate Information even says 'collections of items of information' and what we have here is a collection of item information. The Kinslayer 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And mroe to the point, you say 'whatever that is' in relation to an indiscriminate information, so you admit to not knowing what it even means, but the proceed to try and argue that this article isn't one. And I think the fact that this article is indiscriminate information has EVERYTHING to do with wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information. If you don;t even know what you are refuting, why are you refuting it? The Kinslayer 10:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy applies to every article on Wikipedia, but the statement "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection" can apply here positively or negatively. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. "Collection" here applies to Wikipedia. This article is an item of information. Whether this article makes Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection is what is up to debate. –Pomte 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a linguistic issue. In the sentence "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", "collection" applies to Wikipedia. Nowhere does "collection" apply to any specific article. It should be clear what this sentence means, yet many editors shift its meaning to apply to specific articles. They probably mean "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of indiscriminate collections of information", which is not what the policy states, though it could be argued that is what it implies. I said that this article does not clearly fall under WP:NOT#IINFO because it falls under none of those 8 types of articles listed there. Please take care to note that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not the same as "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information". –Pomte 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I diasgree because the only way the policy can be applied is to individual articles. 'Wikipedia should not be made up of articles containing indiscriminate information such as this.' is the only way the policy can be enforceably applied. The Kinslayer 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is about Wikipedia, and applies to individual articles that belong to its list. What exactly does "indiscriminate" information mean in terms of article content? Trivial? Loosely connected? Poorly defined scope? Isolated facts grouped in lists? –Pomte 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above AFAIC. Not to mention 'List of items that are only being listed because they are featured in a game and providee no useful information to anyone outside of the games community.' And please don't edit other peoples posts, even to correct spelling. I'm perfectly capable of editing my posts for spelling and clarity without assistance. The Kinslayer 11:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit your post. Where did you get that quote from? I can't find it. Note that the items are featured in not only games, but also anime and manga. This list could be of interest to anyone who likes any other game/anime/manga, to compare and contrast the item types and functions. If someone mentions "Pokétch" anywhere, anyone else could think, "that is the stupidest name I have ever read, let me look on Wikipedia to find out what it is". Articles get forked per WP:SUMMARY, and some are bound to be so subject-specific that they are of no interest to anyone else. This article is fairly useless to me as I am outside the community, but I have no problem with it being here. –Pomte 11:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and some are bound to be so subject-specific that they are of no interest to anyone else. And that right there is what this article is, and why this artcle should be deleted. The Kinslayer 11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well then kinslayer perhaps you should start slaying any article that disusses strategy of games, any article that disucusses advanced mathematics or physics... the point i'm trying to make is that just because you don't see a use for this article isn't enough of a reason to delete it. Pomte's example is exactly why we have articles here on wikipedia about subjects like this. Many lay people out there rely on wikipedia to give them accurate information on a wide variety of topics. We like to say that these things belong elsewhere, but that's not true. A person outside the pokemon community wouldn't have the faintest idea of where else to look, and even after doing a google search might get stuck with a fansite, that not only tells them what a poketch is but then proceeds to tell them certain things like when you get each feature - strategies on how to best utilize your poketch and a wealth of other sutff they don't need to know about. For example, "The poketch's step counter ability will help with breeding, just remember to place the egg next to someone with Flame Body so it'll go faster." Now this poor person is more confused then ever. And that's if use a fansite, if they go check gamefaqs, they'll need to sift through LOADS of irrelevant info to find what they want. Wikipedia's purpose is to serve this layperson by giving them the most concise relevant information and then provide helpful external links if they wish to delve into the nitty gritty. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ironically, i actually prefer the version prior to MCY's trimming. I feel that there is significant information missing, but perhaps it is better to build from this more compact article and discuss specific changes on the talk page so we can avoid cruft-aholics from nominating it again. besides - this is not an indiscriminate list, the introduction properly defines the scope of the list according to WP:LIST and extraneous info has been removed throughout the article's history. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a junkyard for some especially bad articles about each item of this list. I merged them when I couldn't form a consensus to delete them. The Pokémon Wikiproject has come a long way since then, and hopefully we can agree that this isn't the business of an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respectfully disagree, however at the risk of repeating myself, please refer to the above example regarding the poketch. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, most of it should be part of the gameplay description of the pokemon games and be put on the same page.....actually, reading it, I think Pokemon has too many pages to describe its gameplay anyway.DreamingLady 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for so many pages to describe gameplay is because it is a highly complex subject and has implications in three other medium - an anime, manga, and trading card game. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I understand that there are some people trying to convert Wikipedia into the greatest authority on Pokemon but this dingy takes it just that tat to far. If you need a guideline take WP:LIST or WP:NOT Alf^Photoman 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment How about every page listed at List of glossaries? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Useless list. Maybe start a wiki called Wiklistia and transwiki it there? Just kidding. Anyways, we don't need a plain old list wasting Wikipedia's server space. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This lists the classes of items in Pokemon that are significant in I don't know how many notable games, shows, manga, whatever. This doesn't list every single variation of every item that appears in every one of those works, and their specific stats, thanks to the cleanup by User:M_C_Y_1008. I really doubt that anyone would use this article as a gaming guide, when detailed gaming guides should exist with specifics for each game. It has a reasonable size for a list, not unmaintable. There's probably a bunch of Pokemon articles that mention these items and attempt to describe them, so a full description here serves as the central place for those other mentions to link to. Nothing in WP:LIST or WP:NOT directly applies to this sort of article, so those !votes citing them only have incomplete arguments. –Pomte 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A) they aren't votes, they are opinions, and B) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information is still a valid concern about the article, regardless of whether you consider it a complete argument or not. Maybe you should try explaining WHY exactly the policy of WP:NOT doesn't apply to this article in particular when it's a policy that covers every article on wikipedia. In fact, the first sentence of Indiscriminate Information even says 'collections of items of information' and what we have here is a collection of item information. The Kinslayer 10:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take "!votes" to mean "not votes (but this is the most convenient way of referring to them)", and "opinions" isn't too hot a term to describe them either. I agree that WP:NOT is a valid concern as long as rationale is given. By WP:NOT not applying to this article directly, I meant WP:NOT doesn't mention any class of articles that definitely contains this specific article. Sorry for any confusion. –Pomte 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinslayer, do you really believe that "collection of items of information" means the same thing as "collection of information about items?" I thought you were joking above (and it is an amusing twist of wording) but having repeated it now it sounds like you are serious. Is it because they both use the word "item" (in different senses) or because it is "information"? Obviously encyclopedia articles can have information. Anyway, to reiterate: calling an article "indiscriminate" is too vague, and in this case I simply don't understand what you mean. Why is it indiscriminate? — brighterorange (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is listed with no apparnt thought to why it should be here beyond 'it's in Pokemon and should be listed on Wikipedia', look at the references too. All of them are magazine guides, instruction manuals and strategy guides. Pokemon may well be notable (or IS in fact), but do we honestly need to know Pokemon contains potions, vitamins etc etc? What would be next, 'List of Flora and Funghi in Pokemon'or 'List of terrain types in Pokemon'? The Kinslayer 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is very good reason for this article beyond "b/c it's in Pokemon" The most apt description for this would be a glossary rather than list because it's a grouping of items that are oft referenced throughout the 500+ articles on pokemon in general (e.g. the article on Feebas really shouldn't delve into the detail on Pokéblock that this article already has - i.e. it shouldn't talk about what generation it was introduced in, or it's relation to Pofin). The items themselves feature not only in the video games, but also the anime and manga... so would a condensed version (that would still prolly need to be split off per WP:SS) be put in at Pokémon, Pokémon (anime), or Pokémon (manga) (ok... so manga prolly wouldn't have such a prob fitting in relevant parts)? Some items (e.g. Poké ball and Pokédex) are notable enough to have their own articles and would definitely then deserve some sort of page to be grouped on as per the guidlines at WP:LIST. Some items, like TMs and HMs, require too much explanation to be easily mentioned within the VAST amount of articles that wikilink to the applicable section. Your criticism of the references is ill-deserved because they are perfectly suited to articles of a non-scholarly nature (i was going to give a link to WP:RS but it appears the page has undergone a massive overhaul). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the cultural significance of Pokémon and the importance of collecting items within the hugely successful video games, card games, movies, television series(es), manga, etc., I am arguing that yes, we can afford an article on some of its most salient items. The article is not perfect, but that should be addressed via cleanup, not by deletion. Do you think that scholars fifty years from now will never be interested in this stuff? People already write thousands of scholarly articles about it. Are you saying that published strategy guides and magazines are not reliable sources? They seem to me to fit the criteria. — brighterorange (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm quite tired of hearing "Because a few anime editors agreed with me at this xyz project there is a consensus." - It's a moot argument. The list is sourced and meets WP:LIST, not to mention it is of a notable television series and finally WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 23:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SUMMARY, WP:LIST, WP:POKEMON, WP:NOT#PAPER. Actually, keep because there is no reason to delete it. Listcruft is the reason given, I guess they mean WP:NOT#Wikipedia is_not_an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not indiscriminate, and it's not a game guide. I wish a real reason had been given so that I could address it. Hopefully I guessed what you meant by listcruft. - Peregrine Fisher 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. indiscriminate means only one point of view. If you can find one bias line in writing on the page i'll be amazed. As it said in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT we shouldn't be deleting pages just because we don't like the subject. There are people who still like this page. It is not a list because it doesn't have bullets or numbers. Also it displays true fact, so what is wrong with it being in an encylopedia. I strongly support people who want to keep this page running and edit out mistakes. - User:mroberholt 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what indiscriminate means at all. Indiscriminate means "without consideration for the value or merit."

Now, I love me some Pokémon. I wouldn't spend so much time working on these articles if I didn't. But this is an unsourced list of random factoids gleaned from all different parts of the Pokémon franchise, and that isn't what this project is about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think gleaning "from all different parts of the Pokémon franchise" is exactly what this project is about, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Exceptions's second example which starts "Gogosaurus's first appearance." - Peregrine Fisher 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read WP:WAF again, though. We have these descriptions of a fictional world in order to support discussion of that fictional world as an artefact in the real one. It's not necessary to understand what a Technical Machine or a Pokéflute does; this isn't useful context, just indiscriminate info on the fictional world just because we can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary? That depends on how thoroughly you want to understand Pokemon. I guess the keeps want to help people understand it all the way down to Pokéflutes, and the deletes don't. If we ever want to help people understand Pokéflutes, though, this is our chance. It's written in out-of-universe style. - Peregrine Fisher 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but where are the reliable sources independent of the subject written about either Pokéflutes individually or items in the Pokémon series collectively? All you're going to be able to find are fansites (far below the bar of reliability) or passing mentions as part of a larger whole in gme guides. Why not, then, give these only passing mention as part of a larger whole where relevant, since this is a minor aspect of a major subject? We should mirror the sources, not seek to distill them into new, original forms. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that why this is a list of items, instead of a seperate page on each item? I think this information didn't fit in the original Pokemon page, and the items didn't deserve to have 10 seperate pages, so here we are. - Peregrine Fisher 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine has hit the nail on the head. Those voting keep feel that for the topic to be comprehensive, a list like this is neccessary, while those voting to delete see it as a bunch of trivia thrown on a page b/c "I LOVE EVERYTHING POKEMON". Personally, I'd argue the same points for a page discussing the the different mushrooms/shells/bombs in the mario franchise or some other RPG. The only one to actually say why they feel the list is indiscriminate has failed to provide a counter argument to points presented against them. If AMIB has more, i'd like to here them. as an extension of description for the purposes of aiding and understanding sources independent of the subject are not required as per WP:RS - primary sources. This is allowed to remain an independent article as per WP:SS and the precendent of glossaries on wikipedia. As Peregrine poined out, we are only giving them passing mention, not adding anything more than what can be easily confirmed. It mentions the flutes, states that they are typically a MacGuffin that gets Snorlax out of your way, gives a brief overview of when they were introduced, and notes that it was used in Pokemon Snap. This is relevant interesting information - what anyone would expect to find if they were to be curious on the topic. You (those who wish to delete the article) are making it sound like it talks about the importance of Leftovers in NetBattle. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually according to www dot dictionary dot com indiscriminate means not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity. When you select something arn't you taking "only one point of view." I actually did get the right meaning then of indiscrimate then and this list of pokemon items doesn't take only one point of view. Right. user:mroberholt 7:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — mroberholt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

at wikipedia when we refer to an indiscriminate collection of info, we are referring to the idea that that not every last bit of information (my hair color) needs to be included. This becomes extended to topics in fiction-based media by only including information that is essential to understanding the concepts introduced, and information relevant to the notability of the subjects. For example, if I were to say that, "Gardevoir has a special attack of 125 which is higher than that of the recent legendary Arseus at 120, but it is still outclassed by Alakazam who's base special attack is 135..." then proceed to tell you how it would still be possible to obtain a higher sp. att stat than some Alakazam due to EV training and that most beneficial nature is something that lowers attack... see where this is going? It would have been enough to say that, "Gardevoir have among the highest Special Attacks in the Pokemon universe." We need to be disciminating in the kind of info we include, we should be selective in what gets included because most information (like all of Ronald Reagan's past phone numbers) is not relevant enough to the topics at hand. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We exclude the specific stats of Pokémon because they are of interest only as guides for users with specialist interest. How is a bulleted list detailing the exact numbers of Hidden Machines, the different versions of fictional Pokémon PDA, or each variety of flute in the Pokémon series any different? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss the number of HMs because it changed througout the history of the game and to answer the question of "Well what changed?" we divulge that info, it's also important that we give the names because some were removed and then readded later on. This is information of interest to anyone who wants to know how things changed throughout the series. While it would be reasonable to include this info under "Changes" on each generation's main page, this offers a concise overview that allows the reader to take it all in without having to load the five different articles. The same argument could essentially be made for the Pokegear/PDA/Poketch stuff, and I've already explained the reasoning behind the Pokeflute. Specialist interest is a term that could be used to AFD massive amounts of articles on Politcs, Mathematics, and Physics. We exclude numbers for all pokemon because they'd add no value to the article. A lay person can't take anything away from that number other than "Oh, that's high" or "Oh, that's low" and additionally we'd have to tell them it's high or low, so there's no reason having the number anyways - we can leave the # out and they still learn just as much. But you leave out description of an item that is oft mentioned - Pokeflute is used to wake up Snorlax, Pokeflute's function was duplicated in the anime in Snorlax's first appearance, Pokeflute has an incarnation in the Pokémon Trading Card Game and Pokémon Snap, Pokeflute was replaced with Pokeflute radio station in GSC, utilizing the Pokegear's (oh wait, what's that?) radio, Pokeflute was later replaced by Blue flute in RSE - leave it out and the reader's understanding of the item is drastically affected. Indiscriminate info would include how many steps of ash you need to get the Blue flute, what route the guy is located on. For a lay reader it wouldn't matter if we said 100 or 200 steps, Rt. 10 or Rt. 15 - their understanding of Pokeflute isn't affected so it's extraneous, irrelevant info. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Brighterorange and User:mroberholt etc... Mathmo ^Talk 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this seems like a dump for information on various items in the Pokemon universe. I makes no difference to me whether this article is deleted or kept. 0-172 ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, notable. Everyking 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable article Ixistant 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Would "Delete, non-notable" be convincing to you? Merely asserting the conclusion that it's notable does nothing to move forward the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at the risk of alienating those who agree with my position, AMIB is right, it would be more constructive to say what makes the topic notable. However to be fair, many articles get deleted with nothing more than "NN" or "Foo-cruft" as arguments (Pokémon spoofs), especially when the article is only at a stub stage 4 days after its creation and it is reasonable to assume it could be expanded or improved based on cursory searches (i've seen admins speedy things like Diphallic terata as "patent nonsense"... wiki is not censored, but that link leads to an article some might find "offensive"), it's understandable why some might think that favorable "votes" are acceptable in place of discussion. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim a little bit further. "Listcruft" is certainly not a good reason for deletion, especially standing on its own. Granted, parts of the article are still a little too in-depth (look at the PokéFlute's section), but it's been much improved from before, and all the items currently on the list are arranged in fairly large groups that are at least moderately notable within the games (and/or anime) themselves.~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only possible sources are game guides/manuals, thus the result article is a game guide/manual. Its notability is not in question imo, but this is not encyclopedic material. Wickethewok 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if the only possible source for an article is a newspaper, then the article must be a newspaper? I fail to see the logic in your statement. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the only possible sources for an article are newspaper articles, then the article will be descriptive, fairly neutral, and will lack in long-term historical impact.
The qualities of the sources will be reflected in the article, and game guides will focus on information required for playing the game, not information required for a general, broad understanding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FICT, which suggests that content on minor characters, places, and concepts should be included in a list that is separate from the article if it becomes too long. Regarding WP:NOT a game guide, statements in this article should describe the objects in question; they should not give tips as to how to use them. The use of game guides as references does not automatically make this article a game guide itself, just as the use of news sources does not make an article news, and the use of government reports does not make an article such a report. This is how I see it from a WP-policy standpoint. I have never directly dealt with anything Pokemon-related (except on WP), so I can't comment as to how "major" or "minor" these objects/concepts are. Please correct me if I'm making some erroneous assumption regarding what these objects in fact are. However, even if minor, I believe the content qualifies for inclusion. -- Black Falcon 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it does; the only part that goes beyond simple description is the flute section, which has already been mentioned, and can be easily fixed. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 08:39, 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. --Core desat 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references in The Sims 2[edit]

List of cultural references in The Sims 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, original research and way too much trivia. Wikipedia shouldn't have these trivia/culture reference guides. RobJ1981 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that all these "pop culture reference" list pages should go. They are really trivial, hard to back up (How do you cite a videogame?) and generally not worth keeping. GhostPirate 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Moreso than not being able to cite the video game, how do you set the threshold for what is or is not a valid reference? I'm a contributor to Kingdom of Loathing's KOLwiki and I run into that problem all the time. Many times references are either wrong, utterly obscure to he point of being dubious, or refer to a reference in another work that is actually a reference to some other original (the citing of The Simpsons' parody of The Shining as the source of the "Heeeeere's Johnny!" quote comes to mind, a reference to a parody of a reference to The Carson Show!). In addition, I would venture if you look hard enough anything could be a reference to anything. Notable homages between noteworthy and 'important' works are one thing (to bring it back to The Simpsons again, The fact in one of the Treehouse of Horror episodes they had Bart dressed as Alex from A Clockwork Orange is somewhat meaningful, given his character), but crufty minutae are another entirely; let alone entire pages of them. If anything this sort of thing belongs on a pop-culture Wiki, not Wikipedia. Wintermut3 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - indiscriminate, original research, somewhat a game guide but not egregiously so. Otto4711 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALTON .ıl 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only do these independent lists need to go, they need to go from inside articles as well. They really don't convey much, if anything, about the subject that couldn't be summed up with a short paragraph say that the subject does often make cultural references.--Crossmr 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As has been said elsewhere... calling it "indiscriminate" or "cruft" is a non-argument akin to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The material is certainly verifiable and for a game series as important as Sims, notable. The scope of the list is narrow and objective. So why is it indiscriminate? Mathmo ^Talk 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that cruft is a word I don't like to use, but indiscriminate lists are actually mentioned by name in Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, Wikipedia is Not a source for publishing original thought If someone wrote an excellent book on cultural references in the sims, or did a published thesis something like "Cultural references in The Sims: a meta-analysis of modern culture" then we could include it, but as it is this sort of this is unsourcable by it's very nature. Unless you have a quote from Will Wright saying that a reference was intended, it could be mere coincidence, see my comments above for examples of how deciding what is and isn't a reference gets tricky. Wintermut3

Delete 99% of the contents of the article is impossible to source. Pax:Vobiscum 14:03, 11 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. IrishGuy ^talk 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 888[edit]

List of highways numbered 888 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Badly named for a disambig, but even then, we have no need for a disambig to three red links. Useless page, IMHO. TexasAndroid 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary disambig page Lurker ^oi! 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and sow the earth with salt. Man, if I had so much time on my hands that I created a "List of highways numbered X" article, I'd go volunteer at a soup kitchen or something. RGTraynor 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See below, seems like there's been a lot of soup kitchens missing volunteers in the last few years... Caknuck 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly so. RGTraynor 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary dab page. Otto4711 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to Google, there are at least 284 pages of this type in WP. Considering that numbered state highways are considered to be inherently notable, these redlinks will eventually be filled in. I'd suggest referring this to U.S. Highway WikiProject. Caknuck 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there are multiple articles about highways numbered 888, then it will be appropriate to have a dismabig page. Not before. Lurker ^oi! 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen mixed sentiments about how to handle lists/dab pages with redlinks. Some say leave them be if there's a reasonable expectation that the articles are forthcoming. Others say delete and recreate the list/dab page when necessary. Personally, I support the compromise of creating stub articles for the redlinks in question and leaving the list/page in place. Caknuck 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The assertion that all highways or any other group of things or people are "inherently notable" is disputed. There is no such policy. Edison 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in this context. Please see WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation and geography, which asserts that consensus has shown that numbered state highways are notable enough for inclusion. While it isn't policy, it is established precedent. And no, it doesn't cover link/dab pages for these highways, but it does leave it open for inclusion once those articles are submitted. Caknuck 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consensus is changing. It has on other things. The way it will be seen to change in in the shifting balance of opinions here. We are not bound by that precedent, if enough voices start saying otherwise. Not with any expectation that it has yet changed, I also say Delete in the hope that this will eventually become the general opinion.DGG 02:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contend or contest the consensus that numbered highways are (or can be, anyway) notable. But lists of them? That's a level of meaningless cruftiness akin to making a list of everything colored blue, for instance. RGTraynor 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will say first that state highways ARE notable. However, a list of three highways sharing the same number is pointless listcruft. Regardless of whether or not those articles exist or will exist, this list should not. --Sable232 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft is not valid reasoning. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Although the pages haven't been created, they will, and this page will stay, as there could be more highways with the number 888 that we haven't found yet. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is supposed to be a disambiguation page for ambiguous names like "Highway 888" or "Route 888". The title is just the way it is as a catch all for any road (whatever its specific label) with the number 888. The fact that linked articles do not currently exist is not a strong reason to delete a disambiguation page. --Polaron | Talk 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Polaron. Links like Route 888, Highway 888, State Route 888, etc., need somewhere to redirect to. A disambiguation page is the only option. -- NORTH ^talk 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per V60, Polaron and Northenglish • master_son^{Lets talk} 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "...When a single term can be associated with more than one topic" (WP:DAB), disambiguation is necessary. This is not a list of routes as some have said above - this is a page that distinguishes one road numbered 888 from another. One article has been created; another has been redirected to a proper location. The third of the original links, that for State Road 888 in Florida, is a bit sketchy, as I've yet to see anything proving SR 888's existence other than pages on Wikipedia. I also disagree with the nominator's comment that the disambiguation page is "badly named", as there's really no other way to name this page that will please all that are involved in road editing. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this is a disambiguation page, not "listcruft". Route 888, Highway 888, etc. all redirect here. --NE2 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this article has improved in just 1 day, so there is certainly interest in keeping it. The list is longer, and 2 of the listings have their own articles. 24.247.128.161 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.128.161 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This name has been supported by consensus, and furthermore, this is a needed disambiguation page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/clarification. The reason for the listy title rather than a simple disambiguation title is to not show preference of Route X vs. Highway X. Similarly, separate pages for Route 888 and Highway 888 would not work because there's so much overlap between the two names. It's entirely possible that someone would search for "Highway 51" when they're actually looking for New Jersey Route 51. -- NORTH ^talk 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with reservations; I definitely understand the need for the dab page as such, hence my vote to keep. However, my reservation is why should it be a list instead of an honest dab page? "Preferencial treatment"? Why not just alpha the dab and there's be no special treatment given? Definitely see a need, but maybe this should just be reworded to sound more like a dab than unintentionally like a space-waster. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it follows the disambiguation guidelines; see PRR and Fifth Avenue Line for similar ones. --NE2 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the naming more than anything that's drawing all the attention. While I know it was said by Rschen the name was agreed upon via consenus, and I see where TMF said that there was no better way, I disagree. In calling it a "list", this quite possibly might be the only thing bringing this to AfD anyway; I honestly believe by naming this page any of the redirects, Route 888, Highway 888, or even Roads designated 888 without the "list" moniker will end all this unnecessary discussion and allow this obviously necessary dab stay in tact, as this is the only dab I know of called a "list" in its title. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep contigent on renaming according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. And yes, the naming for these dab pages probably needs to be discussed. Vegaswikian 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was discussed previously, see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_15#.22List_of_highways_numbered_X.22. --Holderca1 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move all of them to Highway X. I understand the not wanting to show preferential treatment to one name over the other, but at the current title, they are still being called highways, just with a lot of wordiness thrown in. Move them all to Highway X and add the obligatory Route X, State Road X, etc... redirects here at the top. --Holderca1 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are all "highways" (lower-case h, common noun), but they are not all "Highways" (capital h, proper noun). -- NORTH ^talk 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested "Roads designated 888" or less wordy-sounding, "Roads numbered 888". The point's still the same. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Highways numbered X," highway is only capitalized due to being the first letter of the article, not because it is a proper noun. Just get rid of "List of" from the beginning. --Holderca1 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a naming convention in place for these types of articles (List of highways numbered 1, List of highways numbered 2, etc...), so this article is no exception. If an NC has already been established, just like after the conclusion of SRNC, then we shouldn't change it without a suttle discussion. And yes, NORTH is correct about the difference about common and proper nouns. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the naming convention, just not sure it is the best naming convention. I said to move all of them, not just this one. I believe we are discussing it right now, nothing has been changed yet and nothing will be changed until a consensus is arrived at. Since the naming of the articles has been brought into question, it needs to be revisited, if consensus says to leave them where they are, so be it. As a side note, I have never seen a dab page titled "list of ..." I never intended for highway to be a proper to be a proper noun, just like every other word at the start of a sentence or article title, it is capitalized, which doesn't make it a proper noun. Let us also remember that this is a dab page, we are not saying that State Road A1A in Florida is Highway A1A, it is just a guide for those that aren't familiar with every state's naming convention for it's highway. --Holderca1 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roads numbered X or Highways numbered X would be okay in my book. I'm just not sure mere removal of the words "List of" will eliminate the problem (to the extent that such a problem exists). It is something I'd be willing to try if there's consensus to do so, though.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, Holderca. I was just pointing out the distinction. A title like "Highways numbered X" or "List of highways numbered X" does not give that impression, but "Highway X" does. -- NORTH ^talk 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) "Roads numbered X" is probably the best option (as it avoids the Highway-highway usage completely). I'd be willing to support "Highways numbered X" though. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "highways" is fine, as they're all state highways, members of the Interstate Highway System, or one of the United States Numbered Highways (save the few international ones). "Roads" would open up a whole new can of worms – imagine every road named "First Street" on the page Roads numbered 1. -- NORTH ^talk 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the current NC would even set a notability criteria for these highways. Just look at all of the other dab pages...the criteria for inclusion is already defined. Even more so, these dab pages are extremely popular pages—if one were to move all of these dab pages, there would be a whole lot of double redirects from existing redirects not being fixed yet! V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, how does "List of highways numbered X" set a notability criteria that "Highways numbered X" does not? Double redirects is not a valid argument for keeping the status quo. It also didn't stop people from moving thousands of articles in relation to WP:SRNC. --Holderca1 09:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Highways numbered X" name has nothing to do with a notability criteria. As NORTH has mentioned above, it is simply a matter of grammar. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still a bit a lost, "List of Highways numbered X" name has nothing to do with notability criteria either. North makes no mention of "Highways numbered X" being grammatically incorrect, he is actually okay with it. [35] --Holderca1 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also lost. -- NORTH ^talk 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per practicality. This is a disambiguation page, even if it does not have the best name. Disambig pages are judged by two criteria only: NPOV and usefulness. I find it hard to see how this article could be POV (the highway numbered 888 I live next to is better than yours!?), so only the issue of usefulness is left. I find it to be useful. Three of the 5 links are redlinks, but that aids the development of new articles. It's not like this is a list of personal driveways; these are major regional or local transportation routes. I am tempted to suggest that the article be renamed, but I'm having difficulty thinking of a good alternative. Maybe "888 (roads)", or "888 (highways)"? -- Black Falcon 02:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and the same goes for every other page like it, even those with only one route number. ---- DanTD 18:52, 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 Deleted -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Houston[edit]

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

created by an editor whose only other edits are vandalism, no G-hits, no refs, does not appear to be real, but due to "claim" of notability, doesn't fit CSD criteria Akradecki 16:26, 8 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 redirected to Asterisk (PBX). — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreePBX[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient notability and creator added link to his own website. Calltech 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Asterisk PBX. Not good enough to stand on it's own but perhaps adding to the Asterisk page would suffice. Christopher Jost 23:08, 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 delete. --Core desat 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore bros[edit]

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

Very specific, possible joke article, no citation at all Willow177 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if it werent a joke, I don't think it garners enough notability to have an article of its own. --soum^সৌমোyasch 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, written like a hoax.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please also see related article Hardcore jock (which I've prodded). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. This is a real phenomenon, and is in no way a hoax or joke. 65.97.19.14

Comment The above user has recently tried to remove the articles talk page- an attempt to remove the deletion template??? Willow177 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that really matters. WP:AGF anyways. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no reason for this to article to exist. I don't understand how people can sit there and say having this article doesn't hurt. It hurts plenty because its contributing to the flood of useless information on wikipedia. This isn't even trivia, it's just someone trying to classify human beings based on musical tastes and clothing style. So what if people in your scene are dressing the same? That doesn't warrant the necessity of making a Wikipedia article about it. StabmasterArson 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is complete bull. There is no such thing as "hardcore bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.187.21 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete all. There's nothing to merge. --Core desat 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Veronica Mars cast members: A[edit]

List of Veronica Mars cast members: A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the rest of the alphabet, and several are completely empty:

List of Veronica Mars cast members: B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Veronica Mars cast members: Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Strong Delete Dear god, do we need a seperate page for every letter? There is even a complete list page, which makes these doubly redundant. I will be adding B-Z to this as well. Improbcat 16:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If for no other reason, delete these to set a precedent for overzealous listspam. Caknuck 17:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Holy crap. If a full list exists, what is the point of having all these separate pages? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, IMDb does this much better. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneeded. Sets a bad precedent, too. 23skidoo 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On top of everything else, many if not the vast majority of these names are guest stars, not cast members. Propaniac 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What, no List of Veronica Mars cast members: #? --Action Jackson IV 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as fancruft. MastCell 21:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as redundant to cast lists in the various VM articles. Otto4711 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- I hate lists that don't do anything but waste server space. Delete. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lits are what Wikipedia is for! In fact we can sub-list these to get even more lists. How about List of non-multi-racial Veronica Mars cast members - Z or List of Veronina Mars cast members who were born on a Tuesday - U? Bring em on!! Er, sorry, Delete all of these, completely unnecessary totally over the top list madness Jules 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all Personally, I don't think a full cast list is necessary - seperate pages for each letter of the alphabet is definitely overdoing it. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite informative. The major ones can be included to the main article instead. - Microtony 12:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this is looking like a delete, but I think that's because of the stupid way these articles were named and created. Put in the right place, there's no way this info could be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 12:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, there is a 'full list' page linked off of each of these, with duplicates of all the names on the individual pages. So the info wouldn't even need to be merged, it already exists pre-merged. Also from what I could tell, neither these individual pages, or the full list are linked of the main veronica mars page. Making me wonder why these were created in the first place. Improbcat 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The full list was created because a recent CFD discussion resulted in the decision to listify and delete all of the categories for actors by television series. The individual letter lists were created because someone had way too much time on their hands. Otto4711 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided between deletion and merging to List of Veronica Mars cast members (which doesn't need to be merged anyway because all the would-be merged info is already there). This is confusing to sort out all the twists and turns of this! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per Peregrine Fisher. Matthew 10:04, 12 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 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game events and occurrences[edit]

Video game events and occurrences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is an amusing and interesting read but nevertheless fails WP:ATT and WP:OR. Related to a series of other gaming articles also up for deletion, I'm listing this one as being essentially the same problem under another name. The other four AfD's related to this are Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Video game plot and universe clichés, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Video game item clichés, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Video game settings and Role-playing game clichés. It would have been prefereable, I believe, to list these as a group due to the same concerns about citation and being original research but as the other debates are underway, I'm nominating this one now. Arkyan 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I enjoyed reading it, but I agree that it fails WP:ATT and WP:OR. I just don't see how it fits in here.Chunky Rice 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Chunky Rice. o_O JuJube 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but Transwiki well-written by the cesspool standards of video game literature, deserves a home somewhere - but not here. --Action Jackson IV 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research essay that fails WP:ATT. Nuttah68 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clear delete, but hopefully a home for it can be found somewhere else - a video game forum, or something?Sarcasticidealist 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as original research with hardly any sources or references to verify the claims made in the article.--TBCΦtalk? 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not that it matters at this point, but there are two references at the bottom of the article (they were hidden because no one had added <references/> to the "References" section. -- Black Falcon 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY. This article is basically an essay. An encyclopedic article on video game clichés can be written given available sources (there are plenty more besides the two at the bottom of the article, but this article doesn't even stay within the two sources provided. The original research can be removed, but as this article also fails WP:NOT#ESSAY, I see no point in trying to salvage it. -- Black Falcon 02:25, 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, after the article was expanded with new sources. It could certainly use a cleanup, though. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-prom[edit]

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

Neologism that is insufficiently important to warrant an article, and there's no real mergeable material. Delete then redirect to Prom. --Nlu (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per recent changes Dunne409 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty common event. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these happen at many schools, therefore they are important enough to warrant an article. savethemidgets7 01:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the Slate and Free Republic sources. Without the Slate source I would suggest deletion, but in its presence (and the presence of the two external links), the concept is no longer a "nn neologism". -- Black Falcon 02:29, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many sins[edit]

So many sins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band with no reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band is non-notable, there are no reliable sources, the article appears to be original research. Additionally, the main contributors to the article appear to be members of the band so this smells of self promotion. --DSRH | talk 17:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Improbcat 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: This should also be Salted as apparently this is the third re-creation after speedy deletion, and the author removed the speedy tags fro this version once already. Improbcat 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable DancingMan 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above and for the fact that whoever is editing the page is removing the AfD box. Phileas 02:45, 11 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. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnernet[edit]

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

Non-notable event. All contributors are brand new users. woggly 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD page is now the subject of headline screed at Freerepublic: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1797584/posts] Ethan Mitchell 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That Freerepublic article by Joel Leyden seems to be a little harsh on the nominator for nominating a page that looks like a spammy advertisement. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured something like that would happen. Joel Leyden is banned user:Israelbeach and I "strongly suspected" all the contributors to the Kinnernet article were his sockpuppets, as well he knows. He likes spreading nasty comments about me and Wikipedia for the Google search engines to find, heaven knows he's done it before. But if the Wikipedia community deems the article notable, that's good enough for me. --woggly 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems real enough and of some notability, but the article as it stands at the moment is decidedly spammy, and as such it's no surprise that anyone should think it was a puff-piece for a non-notable event. This needs a massive cleanup to reach the style which Wikipedia articles are meant to aspire to - we are not an "infotainment" site or bulletin board, we are an encyclopedia. I'll attempt a start to the cleanup, but more work is welcome. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now, Grutness. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They may not often be right, but they are about this one: notice in that same posting the quote from The Times (London). DGG 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above comments Kinnernetgal 12:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an event. But the tactics here are worrisome. In particular, posting a vanity article at FR rather than engaging with the Wikipedia AfD process seems like bad faith. Especially given that the article is phrased in terms of attacking wikipedia, not defending the article. And...Kinnernetgal, is this your very first post? Ethan Mitchell 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above - apparently the user is banned so cannot participate. Would some kind admin please unblock him so that he can comment here - seems only fair.--Osidge 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no block on Kinnernetgal, nor was there ever. Check the block log. --woggly 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that Osidge means Joel Leyden, as he is the person being accused of posting elsewhere rather than here, not Kinnernetgal!--R613vlu 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine for a stub, if the event continues it can only grow in time - Denny 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this is a notable event. Kolindigo 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable conference and deserves an article.--Newport 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the risk of being accused of original research, I know that this is an important event. Deleting the article would make Wikipedia ridiculous.--Osidge 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per comments above Mhltv 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the evidence, it's clearly notable. What if the authors are relatively new? WP:BITE.--R613vlu 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{spa}} is actually the applicable policy. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - SPA isn't a policy. Anyway, let's judge the article on its own merits.--R613vlu 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It looks more like badly referenced spam than an actual article. One (1) Times article isn't going to cut it as references (note the plural). Actual references from reliable sources and actual descriptions of it being notable, of course, will sway my decision. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a second one. It's often easier to fix an article than debate why it should be kept or deleted. Grutness...wha? 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not at all a reliable source. I've explained why on your talk page. --woggly 09:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is probably the World's most respected newspaper. Can anyone seriously maintain that its testimony should be dismissed as spam?--R613vlu 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I was referring to the "Israel News Agency", not to the Times.--woggly 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy, no evidence of notability. Where are the multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the event and its promoters? The world is absolutely full of events like this, and almost none of them are of any independently provable importance. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From both Wikipedia and a simple Google search, tt is evident that both you and Woggly are in deep dispute with anything that is associated with Israelbeach. Therefore your judgement is highly subjective. As said above, statements are made about Israelbeach and he does not even have an opportunity to comment and defend his ations. The three of you should disqualify yourselves from any votes of articles that have any association with one another. Also, to discredit the Israel News Agency is to discredit the Israeli government as they are the ones who screen and issue press credentials. You both also discredit Google and Google News which are used as a measures of reference here at Wikipedia. Let's focus on the 200 + global Internet gurus attending Kinnernet, the majority of "keep" votes above and not on personalities and politics. Thanks. Mhltv 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kinnernet is a vital conference that allows industry leaders from internet related fields such as site building, blogs, forums, social networks, chat rooms, instant messages, P2P and search engines to meet and develope ideas and stratagies. It is an important meeting discussing the future of the internet,and needs to be covered. There are industry leaders coming, and to say the conferance is unimportant is to say the participants are unimportant. Co-founder Yossi Vardi does not invite the press so as not to distrub the particpants, but the conferance's importance is evident from the Times article and the hundreds of blogs. I hope this is not evident of Wikipedia's recent anti-Israel shift.Greendesk 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nom. received the coverage it deserved. Haven't we learned anything from some recent AfDs on matters or people showing WP in a bad light? DGG 00:58, 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. Shimeru 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fettesian Scandals[edit]

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

The page is unnecessary, as the pertintent information already exists at the article for Fettes College. Nothing else worth merging into this article, as it contains many statements which are either POV, false or unverified. Lurker ^oi! 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Verges on POV fork, BLP violations. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 8 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 I'm sure that Max Barry would enjoy knowing that it's not just NationStates where his surname gets misspelled. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Government[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK. Lacking sources independent from Max Berry's website. Cman 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book. 68.158.202.162 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:

Was a Campbell Award finalist for Sci-Fi Novel of the Year in 2003.

Reviewed by CNN [36], which is rare for a scifi novel.

The movie rights have been optioned by Stephen Soderbergh and George Clooney (see CNN article).

Was one of the New York Times "100 Notable Books of the Year" for 2003. (December 7, 2003 edition, p. 64)

Was also reviewed by USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, the Boston Globe, The Times of London and many other published sources [37] which do not delve so often into sci-fi novels. Andrew Levine 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will withdraw the nomination if someone can re-write the article with that information. Since I didn't know about your mentions, I will not edit it because I am in the dark about that information. Cman 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is notable but needs references. Over 100 Google News Archive hits. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Not only is the book notable, but it also launched a game, NationStates, and Section Eight Productions has optioned it for a film. Definitely needs more references, but it's an appropriate topic. (UTC)--Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In WP:BK, there is no mention of a game making a book notable. As I said up in my other comment, I will withdraw this nomination if someone re-writes it to include new sources.

Keep per Andrew. (And heck, NationStates is fun, I'm a former player) RGTraynor 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep long live Max Berry! Nardman1 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources, and yes, NationStates is fun! (not that it's worth mentioning here, I just felt I had to say it¬) --sunstar net^talk 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is quite a famous book, though I'm not sure why the material can't be merged into the article on its author. We don't have an article on every famous book any more than we need an article on every CD. Often it is enough to discuss them in the article for the creator of the work. Still, this one is well enough known that I don't object to it being kept. Metamagician3000 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of books, famous is an even stronger qualification than notable. We certainly need articles on every one of the relatively small number of books that can be said to be famous, and on the larger number of the truly notable ones as well. The equation is not "famous book" = CD, but "famous book" = "famous CD" . Strong keep, of course. DGG 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shouid have said "famous in some circles", I suppose - it's not like War and Peace or something. :) Metamagician3000 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Andrew Levine. Hell, "Keep per very first bullet point by Andrew Levine", even. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Andrew Levine and recommend withdrawal of nom as mistaken. --MCB 18:43, 9 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan W. Clarke[edit]

Alan W. Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability? Faculty member at an obscure Utah school (a two-year college until recently) No especially noteworthy publications or books. Google search only references publications and advertisements for subject's law firm. Article reads like a CV. Wikipedia is not an obscure faculty directory. WP:PROFTEST Irene Ringworm 04:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Certainly being a faculty member at a small college is not enough by itself for notability. But it does not actually prevent a person from being notable, and the publications listed are probably sufficient to show his stature, though not all of them are major law reviews. There is also his legal work; although it is not adequately documented in the article, it might be notable in its own right. I added an outside ref. DGG 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does make a difference when your chosen profession is law and you are not teaching at a law school, nor does your program have a noteworthy pre-law program. Again, look as WP:BIGNUMBER. Apparently his work is cited as a footnote (along with a dozen other articles) in a Ninth Circuit Court Guidelines document. Irene Ringworm 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I can't tell how noteworthy his publications are, but they are numerous - Feeeshboy 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please avoid these sorts of arguments as per WP:BIGNUMBER. Lots of publications does not make one notable. It is not uncommon for academics to have hundreds of publications. Listing a publication in THE INTERNET JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY on your CV suggests few notable publications. Irene Ringworm 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither argument to keep demonstrates notability. Both run counter WP:BIGNUMBER and appear to misunderstand that even minor academics (such as yours truly) may have dozens or hundreds of publications. Whether these publications are notable is another story - mine certainly are not, though they have been referenced and cited by several other authors. Please review WP:PROFTEST and WP:AADD when commenting on this article. Irene Ringworm 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the expected number depends on the field. Every subject and every specialty is different. There is no numerical formula, but I find that numbers help guide the discussion. Faculty at law schools tend to publish a lot, but as mentioned he isn't at one. Some but not all of the articles are in good journals. On balance, I think he's N as a lawyer who also makes contributions to the journal literature in his special field. And I am not happy with the argument, hesnotasgoodasmeandimnotinWP. So this sort of sums up as a weak keep. DGG 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no real assertion of notability. Does not pass WP:PROFTEST. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A GoogleNews archive search shows he was an attorney in many notable high publicity death penalty cases. [38]. Writer for The Salt Lake Tribune also. [39] --Oakshade 01:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if we're reading the same google news search. Your link shows that Alan W. Clarke was part of a team of attorneys for a handful of medical malpractice lawsuits and one representing an appeal for a man who burned down a seafood restaurant - of the ten cases listed none appear to be relevant to the death penalty and none appear to be notable (as in argued before the Supreme Court). In the past two decades he has argued less than a dozen cases before appeals, circuit, and federal courts. And he wrote a single guest commentary for the Salt Lake Tribune in 2005 - he is not a staff writer. Are you willing to find more suitable notability criteria because your comments don't match your references? Irene Ringworm 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying and stand corrected. But the Willie Leroy Jones case he was an attourney with [40] was very notable (New York Times article here [41]). And The Salt Lake City Tribune article is really him. --Oakshade 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at some of the Willie LeRoy Jones stuff - interesting case. But the writeup in the NYT is 250 words on page 18 - not exactly a high profile article. If anything Alan W. Clarke should be a footnote to an article on the Jones case rather than a separate article. Irene Ringworm 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the New York Times article is 4,255 words [42] and, page 18, 1 or 118, that a Virginia story is in a prestigious New York based newspaper demonstrates heavy national interest in that case. --Oakshade 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. The article is in "Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18, Column 4, 255 words " not 4,255 words. From my search of the NYT database he doesn't even appear to be mentioned in the article. [43] Furthermore, the only other places I can find mention of this Willie LeRoy Jones fellow is in exhaustive lists of persons sentenced to death (especially at anti-capital punishment websites) and in a few law reviews owing to peculiarities in the proceedings (different treatments for co-conspirators). Irene Ringworm 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. The comma got me. The New York Times comment still stands,though. --Oakshade 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Doesn't seem like a 250 word article equates with "heavy national interest". Irene Ringworm 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The place to put the new material is in the article. DGG 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Here's a summary of the facts that have been discovered about Alan W. Clarke~~what we've agreed on so far~~:

He is a lawyer by profession who has a non-law faculty position at a non-selective four-year college

In the past two decades he has published about twenty papers, some in prestigious journals. None appear to be seminal works.

~~He has been involved in unknown capacity~~ Alan W. Clarke was one of three attorneys whose firms filed an unsuccessful stay of execution on behalf of Willie LeRoy Jones~~with a death penalty case for Willie LeRoy Jones~~. Mr. Jones' execution was covered with a 255 word article in the 1992 New York Times. Alan W. Clarke was not mentioned in the NYT article.

One of his papers was mentioned as "further reading" in a Ninth Circuit Court Handbook.

In 2005 he wrote an op-ed piece for the Salt Lake Tribune

As far as I can tell, no one other than Alan W. Clarke has written even a short summary of Alan W. Clarke's work. He has not been referenced as an "expert" in even local media articles (other than his op-ed piece) and he hasn't even yet published a book. In terms of WP:PROFTEST, WP:ATT this still appears to be a no-brainer for delete. Irene Ringworm 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that Utah Valley State College is "non-selective"? And please don't give the impression of voting outside the nomination's statements. --Oakshade 05:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply saying that UVSC is not a "prestigious" university on the order of Ivy League schools or CalTech. In other words, one cannot argue notability on the basis of institutional association alone.

And I am not trying to give the impression that we are "voting". I am trying to sum up what we know so far to keep discussion on track. Our last thread devolved into a discussion of Willie LeRoy Jones and some NYT article that doesn't even mention Alan W. Clarke. None of this proves notability. What I am looking for is someone to provide positive affirmation that this guy is notable. From the facts that folks have dredged up on the internet he clearly is not notable in terms of any wikipedia policy, guideline or criteria. I am not interested in opinion or voting. I am interested in someone digging up an independent fact or article that this guy is more than a junior faculty member at a "pretty good" college, of which there are thousands in this country, few of whom are notable by wikipedia criteria. If someone can prove me wrong I'm happy to let him stay. Irene Ringworm 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the part of WP:PROFTEST that states a professor must teach at an ivy league and a college like Utah Valley State College is of marginal academic value. --Oakshade 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it does. There are some discussions on the talk page that propose that any Harvard professor, for example, is automatically notable, an argument with which I personally do not agree). I am trying to dissuade any argument of this fashion by explaining that UVSC doesn't quite fit in this category. Have you uncovered any further evidence of his notability? Irene Ringworm 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About different universities': it is really simple: a full professor at a major research university (or any major law school) is presumed to be encyclopedia-worthy, because nobody gets to such a position without having publish a major body of work. Associate professors at such universities might or might not be notable, because they almost by definition have published a smaller amount of important work, and Assistant Professors there analogously a only sometimes notable for the amount of work they have yet done.

At other universities and colleges, the standards for a full professor are somewhat lower, and that is why they are not considered major research universities. Individual faculty there often do major work, and then they are notable; but since not everyone has done so, we must also check the notability of the work. (but remember that he is an Associate Professor. and an associate professor at Harvard Law School might still not yet be notable). We use the ranks and the nature of the schools in order to avoid having to do OR ourselves to determine what the academic world thinks of them.

So being from UVSC is not a negative factor. There are excellent reasons why absolutely first rate people might choose to teach there, or at smaller colleges as well. It's just that we have to see something distinctive in its own right. I am not saying he isn't. I said "keep" at the start, and I continue to do so, because I regard his specialized legal writing as notable, especially the reliance made of it in the handbook for his Circuit. He is, in my opinion, a notable figure in the struggle against the death penalty, a very honorable choice of career. If it should happen the consensus doesn't think he's important enough yet, still he will probably do much more in the next year or two, and there's no prejudice against an article at that time.DGG 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that a single reference in the Circuit manual constitutes notability I won't try to argue with you. I would prefer to wait until he does more to add him to Wikipedia. Thanks for the clarification on the university issue - I think you explained my argument exactly. Irene Ringworm 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state; as a professor/lawyer, Mr. Clarke does not seem notable enough. It's possible he's notable as an activist, but no non-self published evidence of that is presented yet. (Obviously, if that appears, then keep, or allow recreation.) SnowFire 22:46, 12 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 unverifiable hoaxes. IrishGuy ^talk 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet Valiza[edit]

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

Google shows no evidence of the existence of this vehicle. I am including in the AfD several other new car model articles begun today by the same creator:

Volkswagen Celios

Toyota Axina

Holden Veriza

Audi A9

Rover 250
FisherQueen (Talk) 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I'd speedy the lot of them as {{db-nonsense}}, but WP:HOAX isn't a valid WP:CSD criteria. However, you can {{db-repost}} Toyota Axina with impunity. Maybe request a checkuser against the previous author of Toyota Axina, so future hoaxes can be more easily identified? --DeLarge 14:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, speedy if possible. I think Rover 250 could have been speedied as {{db-nocontext}}. --Sable232 15:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, speedy if possible. as per "Sable232", is this guy whilst high on drugs tries to believe himself that he is Hans G. Lehman the car industry spy photographer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I don't know about the others, but the Audi A9 may be real, since it gets a few results, though none from highly reliable sources. The article itself is minimal though, so it could be blanked and started over. FrozenPurpleCube 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all as per nom. Buf7579 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These violate WP:V, WP:HOAX. However, the Audi A9 article should be retained, as there are sources verifying its existence, and it is not an MPV/minivan, but a sports car instead. --sunstar net^talk 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Hoax. However the Rover 25 is being recreated in China as the Roewe 250, so for the Rover 250 a redirect might be useful. --Boivie 16:09, 12 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child cannibalism[edit]

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

This article should be deleted.
1. No assertion of notability (which is extremely dubious). How is child cannibalism in any way distinct from ordinary cannibalism?
2. Insufficient citation of sources.
3. Original Research. Violates Wikipedia:Attribution
4. ~~POSSIBLY a prank article fabricated by a trolling organization.--[[~~User:Francisx|Francisx]] 05:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On edit, I'd like to retract the trolling claim; I was confused by frequent vandalism to the article by deliberate trolls.--Francisx 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a difference - and many cases reported of this phenomena occurring, where people eat either very young children or fetuses, believing them to contain nutrients not found in other sources. This has also been portrayed in fictional works. That some content is not sourced is not a criteria for deletion. I will try and find more sources in the meantime. Sfacets 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only instance cited in the article is Swift's satire, A Modest Proposal, which isn't about "child cannibalism" as an actual phenomenon. Swift uses cannibalism purely as a satirical device, in order to satirize 18th century Anglo-Irish economics and politics. "Child cannibalism" as a hypothetical literary phenomenon isn't even mentioned in WP's perfectly good article written about A Modest Proposal. There may well be a long tradition of writers using child cannibalism as a literary device but, if so, it (a) isn't indicated in the article and (b) needs to be written about by some third party to avoid being OR. --Francisx 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as sources go, the first two debunk the idea of child cannibalism, essentially discussing blood libel and the second two go to the same isolated incident. I don't see how this merits an article. Should probably be deleted or if there's anything worth salvaging, merged with Blood libel.Chunky Rice 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Chunky Rice pointed out, the first two sources argue against the article; Swift's mention is spurious, as it was used as a satirical device & not evidence thereof, don't really see anything worth merging, but possible redirect to Cannibalism. 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is badly written but it does make the argument that there is a concept of child cannibalism. This article needs work but has potential. --Richard 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & expand. Cannibals prefer children (given the choice) as their flesh is likely more tender and succulent. One of the latest, or fetal cannibalism in PRChina examples are two recent real world. Fictional representations (most recently in Hannibal Rising) and accusations of (eg. Aborted Babies Sold As Health Food for $10 ) could be a subsection. Tantalus, Zeus, european folklore, blood libel. Theres enough on child cannibalism to justify its own article. D Mac Con Uladh 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So expand it then. THis article is right on the brink. A little bit of expansion would make it more obviously a keeper. If it was any worse than it is now, it would be an obvious 'delete'. So, push it further into the 'keeper' category by adding to it. --Richard 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that incidents of child cannibalism have occurred. But unless someone can point me towards a source that isn't an isolated incident or simply blood libel, I don't see how it can support an article by itself. As is, I'd be inclined to delete the paragraph about the Chinese, since there's no source material supporting it. That's blood libel.Chunky Rice 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the paragraph about the Chinese because there's no source material supporting it is justifiable. However, I should comment that blood libel is an encyclopedic topic and so the claim should be kept if the source is notable EVEN IF the claim is really blood libel. We can report on blood libel if it is notable and sourced. (strange concept here but, if a major publication or notable scholar reports child cannibalism then child cannibalism is notable and should be included as encyclopedic EVEN IF it is generally considered to be untrue, ). The critical thing would be characterize it as blood libel and provide a source for the characterization.

You can be WP:BOLD and delete the offending passage if it is not sourced. However, it would be more courteous to tag it with a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tag for a few days before deleting it.

--Richard 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if the incident is untrue, shouldn't we put it in the blood libel article instead of one called Child Cannibalism? That's why I don't like this article. Everything that's in it has a better home somewhere else.Chunky Rice 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be in both articles. One question is whether it adds anything of value to this article. An even more important question is whether the value of this article hinges on the blood libel and whether the blood libel is noteworthy. I don't think the value of this article hinges on the blood libel (and thus the article can be kept on the basis of other points such as the mention in Hannibal Rising). I'm not sure whether the alleged incident is noteworthy. I'll leave that for others to debate. --Richard 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The article you listed about the Noida serial murders doesn't concern cannibalism in the slightest. One of the oddities is that (1) no source has yet been produced describing child cannibalism as a phenonemon (let alone using the term), and (2) no specific instance of child cannibalism has been documented in the article, talk page or AFD page. I'm sure somebody at some point has eaten a child, but given the content we have, it seems ridiculous to have a WP article. And what is this claptrap claiming "cannibals prefer children?" Is that a fact? Do you have a source documenting it? This whole affair seems silly and demonstrably un-encyclopedic.--Francisx 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment what does that book reference say about it? The news links aren't very useful, they are instances of it, where as this article seems to summarize what it is. --Quirex 19:43, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conculture[edit]

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

No claim of notability. A quick web search with conculture and Salvador produces only results for Wikipedia + mirrors. maybe a redirect to constructed culture would be better? Montchav 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If notable, no WP:RS have been provided to prove it. -- Pastordavid 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move - I believe its refering to CONCULTURA, which stands for Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (organizations by the same name exist eslewhere, but that particular acronym is for the one in El Salvador) [44]. I'm nowhere near smart enough to know whether this should be moved to the acronym, full name, English, or Spanish. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comes close to being speedy-able as WP:CSD#A3, 'no content'. The article's title, 'Conculture', also seems like a problem of neologism (WP:NEO) since that word isn't used in English. EdJohnston 02:42, 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.-- Chaser - T 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factory factory factory[edit]

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

This phrase seems non-notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstrader (talk • contribs) 2007/03/08 16:22:32

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable phrase. Wikipedia is not for things made up on discussion boards one day, even if they're software engineers. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cleanup, Dhartung (and DumbBOT...) -- Sstrader 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete? One statement in the article is particularly interesting: "The word "factory" does not appear to have a special meaning in the essay". WP:NEO. -- Black Falcon 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism--ZayZayEM 03:10, 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. Shimeru 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (Sorry) girl[edit]

Madonna (Sorry) girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be unreferenced, unsourced, and a possible hoax. Unverifiable too, and nothing that asserts notability. sunstar net^talk 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment didn't we delete an article on the same subject already? Tizio 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and my google search on the subject didn't bring up anything related to a "Sorry" mystery girl. Comment: "This music theory article is a stub." Music theory? A theory about music, maybe, but not quite music theory. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final paragraph of the article itself tells us outright that the article is unverifiable, stating pretty much directly that there is no knowledge to be had on this subject. Delete. Uncle G 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Benexha 10:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC) — Benexha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as unverified and possibly unverifiable. I also don't understand why the identity of this background performer is of any greater interest than the identity of thousands of other background performers in thousands of other videos.--Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LOL @ "music theory" cat--ZayZayEM 02:45, 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 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Razi Vick[edit]

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

not to standard, not notable, not wikiwifed Hu Gadarn 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as completely non-notable person, if this is a real person at all. Jules 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete 0 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence provided and/or found that the subject meets WP:BIO. Notability and lack of Google hits are (thankfully) not criteria for speedy deletion. I believe what was intended was: delete, speedy close. -- Black Falcon 03:02, 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 per WP:NOR, but moved to User:Sethnessatwikipedia/Dive sites of saipan to ease a possible transwiki. They seem to be the only substantial contributor, so I don't see many problems with transwikiing and relicencing the content there. Sandstein 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dive sites of saipan[edit]

Dive sites of saipan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very interesting article, with a lovely photo. Sadly, it's all original research. The comment from the author in the Edit Summary when he created the page confirms he has written it from his own experience of diving in this area. Jules 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Wiki Well written but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Move it to Wikitravel. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can't simply be moved to Wikitravel because their license (CC-BY-SA) is incompatible with Wikipedia's (GFDL). the wub "?!" 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trans Wiki by encouraging original contributer to move content himself. Then Delete. --Selket ^Talk 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and provide sources. Fg2 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to Wikitravel if possible. Wikipedia is not a Rough Guide. Nuttah68 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original author. Not sure how to recopy an article to Wikitravel. They have a Saipan page, but nothing like a "dive sites of Saipan" page. Will try to make one. Article is based on several years' pro experience on Saipan-- and a bit of tourist literature. Sorry for the breach of Wikipedia etiquette. Live and learn. Same defects may apply to my dive descriptions for Palau and Guam.Sethnessatwikipedia 09:17, 12 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. Author requested deletion here. Jesse Viviano 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Harrell[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Article creator removed speedy deletion tags, and later replaced them with a AFD tag GhostPirate 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Surely? Am I missing something here? The author has written her own bio page (such as it is) then removed the speedy delete tags, then nominated her own article for AfD. So we are supposed to discuss whether or not she is notable? I'm assuming the confusion is due to her being a new user.Jules 18:12, 8 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. It's been sourced to mainstream media, including Time and USA Today. The article could use a cleanup, though. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismukkah[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SPAM. Article seems to exist primarily to promote marketing for the term; I already deleted one spam link to that effect. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, but I disagree. The article doesn't seem to be promoting anything... it talks about Chrismukkah.com in an attempt to establish a point about the term Chrismukkah. Also, this goes beyond WP:NEO, because although the specific term Chrismukkah may be new and not in heavy usage, the practice of fusing Christmas and Hanukkah in interfaith households is a legit topic, and I'm not sure where else it should be covered (though if it's already discussed elsewhere, redirection may be an option). This does need cleaning up and sourcing, but in my view that's an achievable goal for this article. Mango juice^talk 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't you people watch The O.C.? And I'm from a mixed family and we totally call our Holidays Chrismukkah. Not that that's evidence, but you know... jengod 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A rather poor article, but on a appropriate topic DGG 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for things that are not notable yet but may be in the future. The assertion that this general topic of fusing holidays is inherently notable a) needs a source in and of itself and b) doesn't mean that this particular article is legit.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep. However much this article reads as a vehicle for the website and however much the very concept turns my stomach, there's been mainstream media play, and that much has been sourced. Ravenswing 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The assertion that this is a valid holiday is false and while there are references, the content of these is more to talk about interfaith households and December holidays, not to reinforce the use of the word "Chrismukkah." Let's not confuse the concept of households celebrating both Christmas and Chanukah with thinking that there is such a thing as "Chrismukkah" beyond a few pop culture references. I might be inclined to keep, only if the article were changed significantly to mention that the term exists specifically as a pop culture refence as per jengod's note. Crunch 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem is that "I don't agree with it" isn't a valid reason to delete an article; our job isn't to weigh in on the advocacy issue or whether this is a "valid holiday" (and how is that defined?) one way or another. The issue is whether the subject meets verification and notability standards. Unfortunately, it does. Ravenswing 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Understood. But the article as written, with the intro, "Chrismukkah is the modern-day merging of the holidays of Christianity's Christmas and Judaism's Hanukkah as celebrated in interfaith households where one parent may be of Christian heritage and another parent of Jewish heritage." is so far removed from an accurate description of what it should be that the entire intent of the article is missing. It should be: "Chrismukkah is a term coined in some early twentieth century popular culture references to describe the merging of the holidays of Christianity's Christmas and Judaism's Hanukkah as celebrated in interfaith households where one parent may be of Christian heritage and another parent of Jewish heritage." and take it from there. What I object to is the creation of an article as a statement of fact when in reality -- see comment from Shlomke below, we are really just taking a neologism and declaring it to be an actual entity. Crunch 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment You might look at Chrismahanukwanzakah which opens with the statement that it is "a fictional holiday" and references Chrismukkah as another fictional holiday. This article should be treated the same way. I'd be willing to change my vote to Keep and edit if we can agree on that. Crunch 01:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for better or worse the term is in use due to intermarriage. IZAK 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seems to violate WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be the place to coin new terms. Perhaps the subject can be covered by a different article name. Shlomke 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to echo Jengod: don't you guys watch The OC? I don't watch it myself, but I'm still very familiar with the Chrismukkah name and concept simply from surrounding media coverage. There are 90,300 Google hits for "chrismukkah -oc", most of which don't seem to be directly related to the show, and it's very easy to imagine that someone would look up the phrase here for more information. I also added two citations (both from 12/04) to the article yesterday. Propaniac 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ravenswing and IZAK. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an adequate reason to delete, the term appears enough in pop culture to be notable and reliably sourced. Agree, however, that article should be clearer to describe the origins of the term as arising in pop culture rather than religion, although agree that the term has sometimes been used in the context of issues of intermarriage. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You might be able to argue that the article could discuss the subject under a different title, but the term "Chrismukkah" is used widely enough that even then, it would still make sense to redirect "Chrismukkah" to that article. Mwelch 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ravenswing and IZAK. -- Olve 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh ... and it isn't that IZAK and I agree on a whole heck of a lot. Ravenswing 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepclearly notable and encyclopediac. --Sefringle 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article could use very good cleanup, but this is still a notable term that has become quite well known. -- Fuzheado | Talk 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Although I find the delete rationale fairly compelling, since this is the first nomination for deletion, and the article is fairly new, I'm giving weight to the argument that this article can be cleaned up, sourced, and become something encyclopedic. If that doesn't occur, the matter can be revisited. Shimeru 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions of God in popular culture[edit]

Depictions of God in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Loosely associated facts about God (monotheistic, at least) in popular culture. Don't be fooled by the title: this is just a list of trivia. It's unselective and random, and very very far from incomplete. This should be deleted per WP:AVTRIV as a trivia section with no article.. but beyond that, God is all over all aspects of culture, and about the only general things that can be said about how God is depicted are already said at God#Popular culture. Realistically, none of these facts will ever be incorporated into the text of this or any other article about God (although individual items can be found, better covered, elsewhere, for instance South Park#Religion.) Mango juice^talk 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article with "popular culture" in its title better convince me quickly that it's good enough to be an article, and this doesn't. JuJube 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a long version of stuff we don't need. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a thoroughly indiscriminate list seeking to capture every mention of "God" in any medium with no regard to the importance or unimportance of the reference. The list could theoretically encompass any time any character anywhere says "God" or "by God" or "goddamn." Otto4711 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, it can't include pop culture items on the basis of dialogue that has exclamations and swear words incorporating "God" or variations thereof, according to the article's own description of what to put in it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Not sure what article you're looking at but the one I see doesn't put any such restriction on its subject matter. What specifically in the article are you suggesting places such a restriction on the list? Otto4711 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, these quotes from the article make it pretty clear to me: "Monotheistic God as depicted in popular culture." (the first sentence), "People who have portrayed God:" (the second sentence) and the section title "God's appearance". It says nothing that implicitly includes weird things like swear words, and everything it says seems to imply excluding them. Plus, there is the article title. How can a swear word be a "depiction" of God? Read the dictionary entry for "depiction" if you don't understand this. Furthermore, if you think the article can be cleaned up by tightening the definitions, go ahead. Cleanup is not equivalent to needing to be deleted unless it is very serious indeed. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know what the word "depiction" means. I don't need a smarmy reminder of how to use a dictionary. Otto4711 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seemed smarmy, but with the particular argument that you were using, it really did seem as if you didn't understand the definition of "depiction". Otherwise, how could someone argue that a fictional character in a movie who exclaimed "God damn" was depicting God? I tend to assume that in most cases more explanation of my position is better than less, as it lessens misunderstandings and because statements like "it should be obvious that X is true" come off as rude. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it seems ill-defined to me: there's a world of difference between "Actors who have portrayed God," which is very specific and probably reasonable, and "Depictions of God" which seems to include just about any reference to God. Okay, I don't see how swearing would make it on the list, I don't think it's THAT ill-defined, but just about everything else would be okay: ads with a picture of God, any dialogue with God, religious visions, God-like figures that are like the monotheistic God but aren't necessarily exactly the same, poems about God. I'm not exaggerating here, and I believe that references much like all of these already exist in the article. There are discriminating topics one could write, but this isn't one, and it doesn't serve as the basis for one either. Mango juice^talk 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge or redirect with/to List of appearances of God in fiction. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely indiscriminate, God(s?) have been depicted countless times in "popular culture" over centuries. Krimpet 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did you read the article? It's the monotheistic god. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reasons given to delete it so far that are actually grounded in Wikipedia policy (at least, not in any way that I interpret it). Furthermore, the article needs organization, but it looks like the inclusion criteria as defined in the article itself is defined well enough that the article can't grow beyond bounds - God as a character seldom appears in media. After all, this isn't Religion in popular culture it is Depictions of God in popular culture, limited to the monotheistic God at that. Claiming that articles including the words "in popular culture" are inherently bad isn't arguing according to Wikipedia's deletion criteria, and neither is saying that the article needs improvement. Come up with new reasons that are actually grounded in policy rather than opinion, and I may change my vote. Drop a note on my talk page if you actually come up with something new. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite Clearly notable topic, but this particular article is horribly written.--Sefringle 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mermaid and Sefringle. The topic is encylopedic and many of the entries are worthwhile. The article needs more prose and restructuring but it has potential. --Richard 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond to this one point. Per WP:AVTRIV, of course, the lists of trivia should be integrated into text and not stand indefinitely as lists of trivia. However, the more I think about what that would be like, the more I think the resulting text would be original research: an attempt to draw broad conclusions based directly on primary sources. Mango juice^talk 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the temptation to indulge in OR is high. We would have to find some scholarly work in Literature, History of Art or History of Film that discussed the ways that God is depicted in literature, art and film. --Richard 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It could potentially be a decent article at some point, but this is not it nor is it a basis for one. This is just a list of trivia with no secondary sources. Wickethewok 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a more general article: Depictions of God. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda hard to "merge" one article into a new article. But ridding the title of "in popular culture" would help avoid more cruft contributions. Mango juice^talk 04:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good subject for an article, horrible subject for an indiscriminate list ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:32, 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. A notable topic that's very easily sourced, though this article isn't. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous computing[edit]

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

Yow! A humungous heap of original research and more weblinks than you can poke a stick at. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Ubiquitous computing emerged as a new topic in computer science. Challenges are in developing new kind of applications. The article gives a simple and global view of the area and given links are very useful. 82.238.123.210 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is here is not worth having. The subject might however be notable (I'm no expert on it). Sam Blacketer 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - ubiquitous computing is an area of research that has had a long history including research from the Xerox PARC, see [45]. None of this is original research, and there are many papers on ubiquitous computing as can be seen from the resources link in the article. The article could use some copyeditting (I've tagged it) but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a verifiable and notable concept and field of study. A Google Scholar search for "ubiquitous computing" turns up about about 24,500 results. There's a whole IEEE journal dedicated to it (already linked from the article). There are university centers and research projects studying ubiquitous computing, at for example, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University, and Carnegie Mellon University. It's taught at MIT, University of Toronto, and Georgia Tech. There are over 1700 hits for "ubiquitous computing" in a Google News search, including (behind paywalls) articles on the general topic from the NYT, Newsweek, Washington Post, etc. As Whpq says above, the article needs some cleanup and appropriate attribution, but that's not a reason for deletion. schi ^talk 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Legitimate article. Requires major sourcing, but should remain and be improved. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a well known, standard, and notable branch of computer science research, not WP:OR. Just to give some examples that I don't think are atypical, my university has a course and research lab devoted to the subject, and ten faculty members who include it in their interests. —David Eppstein 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I agree that this is an important area of research. The article could be more informative about the issues ubicomp raises but the links are useful––Gilliancs 11:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have said, this is an important and interesting area of research, and is notable enough to deserve an article. Unfortunately, it is also a very young area of research, and it will be next to impossible to write a good article about it for a few years yet. I say that having a poor article consisting mostly of links is better than no article at all on this topic. (OTOH, I have no intention of working on this article ...) CWC(talk) 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute keep. A quick google search reveals links like this published paper, an academic conference, and a project at Carnegie Mellon. --Ideogram 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article may be poorly written and referenced, but the field itself is a legitmate area of research, with (as other editors have already pointed out) journals and conferences dedicated to it. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:the IEEE has a journal devoted to ubiquitous computing: Pervasive Computing, which is "A catalyst for advancing research and practice in mobile and ubiquitous computing". The ACM lists the journal Personal and Ubiquitous Computing as one of its affiliates. The fact that the two major professional/academic societies for computing in the US consider "ubiquitous computing" a field worthy of a journal would seem to be a pretty good indication that the field in question is sufficiently notable to have an article in Wikipedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious keep. Over a million refs in Google. "Articles for deletion" and other banners just unhelpful and unsightly clutter. What's to stop vandals from submitting numerous articles for deletion and forcing everyone to view the notices for the long discussion periods?Anthony717 21:10, 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. --Core desat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates International School[edit]

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

Was put up for Speedy Delete (nonsense) but author contested and removed delete notice twice. Giving benefit of the doubt then and AfDing. Thanks Warteck 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, a7 Alf^Photoman 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but oppose Speedy Delete, I'd favor keeping it if the article is actually written. This seems lazy. Noroton 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think all schools are notable. However they must be more than the name of the school! If the author and others can add some text and a few references than ill change to keep. LordHarris 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:08, 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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daigacon[edit]

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

Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigacon and re-created apparently on the basis that it happened. WP:ITSREAL is not an inclusion criterion. I don't see any evidence of actual notability, either - it's a convention, it happened, that's what conventions do. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. I've been concom on several small to large SF conventions in my day, and a large multiyear con is significant. A first year college anime gathering isn't. Come back ten years from now. Ravenswing 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't make a comment about if it should be kept or deleted since I've been involved in tagging the recreated articles since the last AfD. But I do protest the restoration of the old version of the article and then overwriting it with a new one. I've not known of a case where an old article was restored after going through AfD only to have a completely new article replace it in the next edit. --Farix (Talk) 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They got some news coverage, which is something I'd like to see for more anime cons, but with just 200 people (and no reference cited for that), it doesn't appear as if there is anything all that notable about this convention for its first year. There are larger, more established anime conventions in the region, such as SugoiCon. In my experience, 200 is on the low side for convention attendance, although it's somewhat typical for a first year event of this type. --PatrickD 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article and am the one currently trying to make it better. This article is not the worst one on wikipedia and has more content than many. I tried to model the the entry after the other convention articles. Many of which have close to the same number of attendees and have been around a few months more. List of anime conventions. I am sorry if I caused any issues by trying to help. Thank you. --silentsam84 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From that list you cite: "The following is a list of articles of anime conventions from around the world that meet the following criteria: attendances of more than 2,000 people, have been in existence for at least 2 years and is at least actively planning its third year, and runs at least two days ..." If your convention qualifies, please let us know! Ravenswing 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article may have more content and be better written than many other articles on Wikipedia, that isn't a valid reason to keep it. I could write an article with a complete and detailed history of my mousepad collection...but that doesn't mean it's notable. Likewise, I could write up the entire biography of my grandmother in a well-written article, but there would be no reason for such an article to exist. --PatrickD 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss in a reasonable matter is understandable, however we all know why one's grandmother and mousepad collection aren't notable; yet, in judging this, and many other entries, I've noticed that people have forgot this clause on the notability page where notability is "not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"". In addition, "notability is generally permanent." However, the comments so far seem to forget these basic stalwarts of wiki. While I myself will not vote on this matter, I remind those that will and have thus far, to remember this and to forget your own individualized concepts of notability, as far too many articles have been discarded due to what I can only imagine are personal perceptions, and not wiki's standards, which of course all editors are supposed to abide by. Millermz 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that Daigacon has the appropriate independent sources to be considered notable; aside from the ones already cited, it's also listed in AnimeCons.com, which is known as a reliable source by several people here as per previous discussions. I'm confused as to why this is almost immediately being discounted in the first 'delete' comments. I admit that the lack of a cited source for its attendance number is hurting the article right now, but that can be fixed by either finding a source, or the con organizers reporting the number to an established reliable source. Presuming it's correct, Bowling Green, KY is not large town. By comparison, it's about the same size as Eau Claire, WI (the city were No Brand Con is held). One notable item of No Brand Con's existence in its first year is its relative geographic isolation from major urban centers and other large cons, which made it an attractive alternative for those with limited access to transporation, limited funds to attend such a massive event, or parents who don't feel comfortable lettig highschoo-aged kids travel without their direct supervision, or to an urban area at all. The existence of SugoiCon was mentioned, but its distance from Bowling Green is comparable to the distance from Eau Claire to Chicago (where Anime cons such as Anime Central are held). The fact that there's a viable alternative to the "big con" in the same state that's more geographically convenient for anime fans I believe IS notable. I also have interest in fan-run conventions, comparing them to ones run by corporate backers, even not-for-profits. A con run by a school (or University) might not be notable in and of itself, but the fact that it was a three-day event with industry guests (as opposed to a day-long club event with no industry guests), and that got this kind of news coverage should be. The local news sources certainly thought it was notable enough, which seems to me to be all WP:Notability requires. I'm worried that the critera for being added to List of anime conventions is somehow bleeding over as criteria for this article to exist at all. ~ SeanOrange 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's also listed in AnimeCons.com, which is known as a reliable source by several people here as per previous discussions. I'm confused as to why this is almost immediately being discounted in the first 'delete' comments. Because it is a directory site which attempts to list every known anime convention, AnimeCons.com is not counted towards establishing notability. --Farix (Talk) 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that doesn't diminish that there are three other independent sources which reported on it, which -- again -- is all WP:Notability requires. ~ SeanOrange 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, no one is contesting whether this con exists. What we're disputing is its notability. That there are fans who prefer small intimate conventions is evident, but that doesn't make those cons notable any more than the small towns in which I prefer to vacation over famous and giant resorts. Most cons run the weekend, most cons have some manner of VIP guests, and the local newspaper and TV station usually can be counted upon to give the costumed weirdos thirty seconds of air time or a photo on page 12. Ravenswing 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what the argument is, which is why I'm trying to drive home the point that the article's cited sources are the sole required basis of its notability as per WP:Notability. No one has yet argued against this point since I brought it up. The principal contention against notability seems to be that SugoiCon is a larger convention in the same state. What makes Daigacon notable in this regard is that, unlike SugoiCon, it is actually both planned AND held in Kentucky; the fact that Sugoicon is held within the Kentucky state boundaries is incidental to the layout of the Cincinatti metropolitan area (details on the talk:List of anime conventions#Kentucky_Question page). DaigaCon would then only be superseded in this regard by OMG!!Con. However, again as per WP:Notability, "Notability is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." I suspect the lack thereof does not exclude notability. I believe a "by fans, for fans" convention -- planned, funded, and successfully run outside the auspices of a sponsoring corporation or unrelated not-for-profit organization -- should always be considered notable. This is possibly, also an argument for an OMG!!Con article not to be deleted, should one ever be created, however I can find no information on the Tri-State Anime Promotion Society apart from what exists on the convention website. Given the name (and if supported by the proper sources), Daigacon might very well be the first anime con held in the state that was planned and held by Kentucky residents. That's pretty darn notable. ~ SeanOrange 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you're not paying attention to the arguments. SugiCon was noted as a larger convention, but none of the several editors suggesting Delete have done so using the fact that SugiCon is a larger con within the same state as any manner of argument, let alone a principal one. Our contention is that despite who runs it, where it is run, how many cons are held in the hosting state or any other factor irrelevant to our argument, a first year convention with only 200 attendees is prima facie non-notable, on that basis and that alone. Heck, I ran a SF university con with numerous pros as guests (David Drake, Jane Yolen, Steven Brust, Hal Clement, Chip Delany, Tanith Lee, Susan Shwartz, Walter Hunt among many others), attendance never less than 500 and which went on for over a decade, and I don't consider the 1990s NotJustAnotherCons notable. Ravenswing 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PatrickD very much explicitly cited SugoiCon's proximity and larger attendance as the basis for his vote. Attendance alone is not sufficent criteria for proving notability, as evidenced in the AfD nomination of No Brand Con. On the basis of WP:Notability, the multiple independent sources already available in the Daigacon article prove that it is notable. Despite the responses I've accrued, no one has attempted to refute this point. Also, I did as you suggested in your user page and took five minutes to follow up a few Google hits to realize the genuine notability of the subject. (results). The report by A Fan's View is fairly significant, given that they traveled to this first-year con over two more established cons (NohCon and Naka-Kon). By contrast, there is no report on file for No Brand, a larger and more established (and supposedly more notable) convention. I'm wondering how many more sources must be gathered before this convention's notability is acknowledged, but here are a few just to make sure: Digital Frontier Plus, Anime News Network, and yaplog.jp (I don't know how many U.S. Anime cons, regardless of size, make news in Japan, but I'm guessing not very many). ~ SeanOrange 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially, I thought this would be a fruitless argument, as you can probably tell by my caustic comments above; however, SeanOrange is able to make points much more fluid then I, and indeed since I'm not the only one who feels as such, I believe it's only proper to vote as I, one of many contributors to wiki (of course), sees fit too, and that's with saying as I did previously, that notability is not based on personal perception, as much as it is based on the wiki notability principle that, WP:Notability, "notability is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." (How many times must this be repeated?) In the end, permanency is one of the issues, and I've already seen evidence of planning for a 2nd convention (as mentioned with the Full Effect article, [46]), and also, after doing some light research, I've found that there will be a MSN.com Japan article about Daigacon as well, and as SeanOrange said having Japanese media focus on a convention is probably rare (plus another reference, right?). Aside from that, I believe that we should recognize a decently-written, and especially fairly well-referenced article when we see it since if the scrutiny against Daigacon were to continue, then we'd have legitmacy to take almost all of the convention pages down because when I clicked randomly through the List of anime conventions page I didn't come across one that didn't have a references problem (if not more), and I clicked on about 15 different convention's pages! Ultimately I guess, all I can say is to remember that deletion is the easy route, while constructing something better than before, that's where the editing talent comes in.... Millermz 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sean Orange makes convincing arguments for the retention of this article, and it already has numerous reliable sources. Burntsauce 23:28, 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 - creator's request. - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The African Hunter[edit]

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

Apparent hoax — there's no IMDb page for this "independent film" and I can find no references to it outside of Wikipedia. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: note also this diff by Asderoff (talk · contribs), the article's creator: [47]. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On top of everything else, there's no evidence of notability. The only place the actor's name appears on Google is in this article. It could be a real film in somebody's basement, but since there's no indication anybody else knows of it, it doens't belong here. Autocracy 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am Asderoff, "creator of the article" the creation of the article is a long story. Although, the article is in accordance with the deletion policy. I would have done it sooner, but I have no idea how to delete articles or anything like that. I am deeply sorry.

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:NFT. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 01:23Z

The Language of Og[edit]

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

Argued by original PROD poster that only one Google result showed up, and Language was not relevant outside of one school. Posted by me in the belief it's a relevant discussion, ~~despite my vote to keep~~. Autocracy 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though this language may be taught only at one school (and we could definitely use a reference for it), I argue that it's more widely distributed than Lojban, and will continue to grow in use as its taught. It also seems fairly well documented. Autocracy 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it's not worth existing, it's not worth redirecting to the school. Zetawoof's comment convinces me that it's just not noteworthy at all without seeing something that says otherwise. Autocracy 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Redirect to the school's page. I kind of feel like this should go because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. However, given that it makes the school somewhat unique, I'd be happy to see it moved into the existing article. →Bobby← 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Don't be fooled by the good-looking prose - most of it is copied from English language. Once you strip all of that away, the article basically just says that some students have a vocabulary of slang, which isn't really unusual or notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point you make. Davidicke 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe this is a valid article of a growing sub-culture around essex schools. whilst only documented around one or two schools, it in fact has a much wider range, relating to possibly ten-twenty essex and local schools, which with each school having an average of 1000 pupils, this means this article could relate to potentially 10,000-20,000 people, which makes this article very relavent to wikipedia, because with 10,000-20,000 people it could quite easily spread alot further.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.248.106.65 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Seems to indicate this isn't "made up in school one day," but we really need a reference to get me to flip back (again) to Keep. Autocracy 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so sure: this account has made only four previous contributions, a mixture of vandalism and references to "Young Halz" or "Halz" who "was a bit of an og, he even made up his own language, the language of ote". Young Halz is mentioned in this article as a speaker of Og, and that article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Halz Bencherlite 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or a place for things thought up in school one day. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an independent reference can establish notability. Note, the article itself says there are only 50 "Og" words. Davidicke 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources; possible hoax; WP:NFT. --Muchness 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this language reaches a large minority of people useing it, AND we can verify that with reliable sources then we should have article on it. For now... no. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:Crystal Alf^Photoman 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In all probability, a hoax. If not, delete per J.S., copying from English language as noted by Zetawoof and nothing to support the idea that 10,000+ children in Essex speak this. Bencherlite 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. A few words invented on a rainy afternoon does not constitute a language. Nuttah68 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep If google results are so critical in determining the future of an article, let's use google to get a definition of a language. Here's what it said: 'a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols; "he taught foreign languages"'. I think that Og therefore constitutes a language. Also, several people have justified their "Delete" by saying that is is very closely derived from English. If you wrote that you are either ignorant, stupid, or seem to have forgotten that the language we are speaking in, and indeed most other European languages are very closely linked to and is directly derived from Latin, which itself is very closely linked to and is directly derived from Ancient Greek. Paronomasia 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to read a few encyclopaedic articles to check those facts. You have summed up why Wikipedia articles MUST have reliable sources backing their statements so much more succinctly than WP:ATT. Nuttah68 19:12, 9 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. Dakota 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Cool Guy[edit]

One Cool Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability, no legitimate citibale sources, seems to be written by band members itself to honor them. Payneos 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know a band isn't notable when it's fans are listed in the article. Stebbins 00:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am I the only one who thinks its funny that this article includes the phrase "at the height of their popularity"?--Dmz5 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Laughable. WMMartin 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs some work, but One Cool Guy was important in the development of third-wave ska. Amphytrite 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G4 delete by User:Rama's Arrow. [procedural close by non-admin] (|-- UlTiMuS 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Cool Guy[edit]

One Cool Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Again, fails to meet policy standards in WP:MUSIC, no legitimate citable sources, and is not notable in any fashion. Continues to stand to simply honor the band. Payneos 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. ObtuseAngle 22:13, 8 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. --Core desat 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter IV[edit]

Tha Carter IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Actually, I am neutral about this. It was recently "proposed for deletion," but since I think that is unfair, I removed the template and replaced it with an AfD one. So, order in the court! Tom Danson 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - "an upcoming Studio album . . . there are no confimed tracks recorded yet.". Crystal Balling. --Action Jackson IV 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Speculation. See above. Autocracy 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't oppose the deletion, but neither of the reasons stated are valid speedy reasons. See WP:CSD.--Chaser T 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how about A1 (Very short articles providing little or no context)? --Action Jackson IV 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additionally, I'd imagine WP:SNOW applies --Action Jackson IV 06:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the user who nominated the article, I stick to my original claim: "This album's two predecessors, Tha Carter III and Dedication 3 have not even been released yet. There are absolutely no sources to support the claim that this album will even exist. This article is purely speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."--NPswimdude500 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said before, I am actually neutral about this. It's just that right before Tha Carter II was released, Wayne said there would be five "Tha Carter"s, plus I do not agree with the speedy deletion template. I think every article deserves a fair trial, which is why I put this in AfD. Tom Danson 08:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Wayne said that, but it doesn't mean that he'll actually release five Carter albums. De La Soul stated that there would be three Art Official Intelligence albums, yet they only released two. Album titles can change in the blink of an eye.--NPswimdude500 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nuttah68 15:51, 9 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 trivially redirected to Bob Starkey. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob starkey[edit]

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

Duplicate, Bob Starkey is already created Sgautreau 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and speedy close per the author, Sgautreau. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 20:15, 8 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 Form 10-K. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5% Ownership[edit]

5% Ownership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It really doesn't offer much info beyond what can be deduced from teh title. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Well, it's definitely "stubby." In the US, the SEC requires all owners of at least 5% of a publicly traded company to be named in the 10-K report. Should be put into the 10-K article. Probably not worth a redirect since I'm not sure who would look this up as 5% rule? Autocracy 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a common shorthand way of referring to this rule in such things as stock prospectuses. New investors will definitely be looking this up atr one time or another. Nardman1 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect then, I think. It's only significant because of the SEC 10-K requirements. I'll be happy to do the legwork myself is somebody puts it on my talk page after we get consensus. Autocracy 20:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Form 10-K -- Whpq 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Form 10-K per Autocracy. I'm not sure whether it's really a plausible search term, but in any case a merge under GFDL requires redirecting and tagging with {{R from merge}}. Of course, if information is added to 10-K without reliance on this article, then no redirect would be necessary. -- Black Falcon 03:15, 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. --Core desat 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Research Project[edit]

Iraq Research Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is completely original research. The article creator wants people to research aspects of the Iraq war and write about it in the article. POV, opionated, non-encyclopedic material Ozzykhan 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:NPOV and the rest of the book Alf^Photoman 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is simply not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic, and never will be. -- Selket ^Talk 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (although the author might want it put on their userspace first) Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page will no doubt be deleted (as it should) and I've taken the liberty of adding the article to a subpage I created for the article's original author. NeoFreak 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's awfully nice of you; however, I don't think it's a permanent solution. Wikipedia is not a personal wiki host. I think the creator should follow the instructions on that link to download the wiki software for his collaborative project, if he wants to keep it going. —Carolfrog 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's intended as a place holder for the information, sources and links that he has gathered, not a permanate solution to a "hosting" problem. NeoFreak 22:18, 11 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 redirect to Opportunity rover. --Core desat 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity rover timeline[edit]

Opportunity rover timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of the information in this article was in sublinked articles which have been deleted. I asked they be undeleted but this request was denied. As this article stands, it is out of date and most of the information linked off it is gone. Nardman1 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close and redirect to Opportunity rover which already has a timeline of significant events. Nuttah68 16:02, 9 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. No reliable sources provided; if they're found to exist, the article can be recreated. Shimeru 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Wars 2[edit]

Guild Wars 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article provides no sources, Google search turns up nothing relevant. From what I can tell, this is little more than a rumor, at least at this point in time. Originally a PROD, removed by User:Lydon16 without edit summary.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; rumored release with a dubious source. An article can be created if/when a publisher or developer officially announces a sequel. --Muchness 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars Utopia for AfD precedent on articles about rumoured new games in the Guild Wars sequence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no doctrine of precedent in Wikipedia. All that matters is the consensus in this debate. Cynical 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite mistaken, I'm afraid. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As with the fate of the Eye of the North article, merge any information here into the main Guild Wars article in the Chapters section and then close this one until such time ArenaNet posts substantial and official information on it. --Rambutaan 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE: per comments. Original reasoning before opinion change: per WP:CRYSTAL. Source article for this claims "NCsoft has announced", but no such announcement has been found to exist. This article is completely unrelated to the fate of "Eye of the North" - rumor started from same source, but covering two different supposed projects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify but the Guild Wars 2 mention *is* related to the "Eye of the North" article since the information for both of these articles that have been put up for deletion (Eye of the North and Guild Wars 2) came from the same source (which you do acknowledge Barek, but then say that there's no link between them, which confuses me). What I don't understand is how information on Eye of the North is considered factual and Guild Wars 2 isn't when they're both from the same source. Either information for both these topics get deleted (since I did vote the Eye of the North article to be deleted, but someone decided to merge instead, which is reasonable with the proviso that what is being said in the source is true) or they both get merged - seems simple to me :). Having one deleted and another accepted wouldn't make much sense at all (unless someone could find secondary sources to back up information) --Rambutaan 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my reasoning was based on secondary information. At the time of the initial vote, "Eyeofthenorth.org" was a registered domain of NCsoft, while there was no secondary confirmation for "Guild Wars 2" (that domain is held by a third party who uses it for purposes which ArenaNet actively discourages - ie: they're selling in-game currency for real money). As of this morning, new information has surfaced: per the USPTO, NCsoft has trademarked both the names "Guild Wars: Eye of the North" as well as "Guild Wars 2". So, given this new information I am changing my opinion to "merge" (was previously delete). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh I see you had secondary info on domain names. My apologies, didn't realise :). --Rambutaan 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete and utter figment of someones imagination. The Kinslayer 09:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Raystorm 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They've registered the name Guild Wars 2 at uspto now: http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3672/gwga9.jpg --PetteriH 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into main Guild Wars article. Later go back and expand this article if any new info comes out. Mathmo ^Talk 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tomorrow (march 15) new reputable sources will be available. --Twi light 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Guild Wars 2 is different from GW:EN. It's a new game and the information is coming out soon. Lightblade 10:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - correction, further information is speculated to be coming soon on GW2 - no official confirmation from ArenaNet has been made that it even exists, the most they have said is that information on Guild Wars is coming in the next PC Gamer magazine, but no confirmation if that news will be about GW:EotN, GW2, both, or something else entirely - see WP:CRYSTAL. --161.88.255.139 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Yes, there is verifiable information scheduled to appear in magazines in the next few days. But at the moment all we have is a pile of unverifiable nonsense (in fact, ArenaNet's PR person has said that most of the Inquirer article is 'misleading'). When the verifiable information is released, by all means we should have this article. Until then, no. Cynical 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend judgment for two more days. Normally I would say delete because of crystalballism, but the picture will become a lot clearer very soon and the name "Guild Wars 2" is supported by DNS and trademark registrations, as documented in Guild Wars#Guild Wars 2 already. This was the same way Guild Wars Nightfall was discovered weeks before any official announcement. Deletion absolutely this instant isn't worth the pain and anguish if it will just be recreated in two days. I would not object to reducing it to a stub until the official information surfaces, nor would I object to outright deletion unless by the end of the week there isn't significant improvement in the article's sources. Eric Sandholm 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that here we are on the 16th and the sources that were promised for the 15th have yet to materialize. The Kinslayer 11:50, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charterhouse of the Transfiguration[edit]

Charterhouse of the Transfiguration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is almost certainly a copyvio of the Carthusian publication cited at the end of the article. BPMullins | Talk 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, written like an ad. I would think copyvio as well but without seeing the publication, there is no way to tell. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:56, 8 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 deletion per CSD G12 by Irishguy --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rishloo[edit]

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

Band that doesn't meet WP:BAND standards. Also probably put on the wiki by a member of the band who's named Drew. Pig^man_dialogue 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; does not currently meet WP:MUSIC. Only one self-released album. --Muchness 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This band may be notable, but not enough information is supplied to decide. Are there any sources?? I'll check it out and see what there is to uncover. Also, if the second album comes out and they are signed with a notable label, then they fill the criterion completely. No vote for me yet, but maybe in the near future.--Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ok. To date, the entire article is copied from [48]. Not good. Also, I could find nothing about their label except that it is indie. The band does, however, seem to be pretty popular. But, unless I'm missing something, it's not quite notable. I also could find no sources. Fill me in on some sources, and then I might reconsider. --Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete pending possible sources. They appear to be just a local band though and the article is still written like an ad, most likely COI. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and so tagged. -- Whpq 23:07, 8 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.Carabinieri 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillyblog[edit]

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

Notability not met per WP:WEB - no evidence of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. (Which also means failure of WP:ATT). Contested prod. (Prod was contested by deleting the prod notice and asserting notability on talk page, but no evidence or sources provided.)RJASE1 ^Talk 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Phillyblog has an impact on Philadelphia (and beyond). I will go add in some more references if necessary. --evrik ^(talk) 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is used internatioanlly as a resource on Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. --evrik ^(talk) 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced that a site used only by residents of the Philadelphia area is notable.--Anthony.bradbury 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any community impact. I do not see any dirth of information that is important to future visitors or residents to the city. I see squabbling, holocaust deniers, and flat out unlikeable people that give the city a bad name. It is not relevant and thus should not be on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefsalsa (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Is Phillyblog historically significant? No. Is it a game or does it have some entertainment quality to it? No. Is it a website that has made a noticable impact on its area of expertise? No. Is it culturally importannt? No. Is it somehow definitive of its area of expertise? Hell No! Is Phillyblog famous in any way? No. If it never existed, would the world or the part of the world Phillyblog exists in be altered or changed in any significant way? No. This does not belong on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefsalsa (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose deletion. For users of new media, Phillyblog is a primary source of information. Its Alexa.com traffic rankings are comparable to the websites of the city's alternative weekly newspapers (City Paper and Philly Weekly), both of which regularly mention PhillyBlog. I have added links to two published articles about PhillyBlog to the entry. Wash West 191 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The site provides information about the city to new residents and to visitors from elsewhere around the county and the world. It may be "up-and-coming" but it's still a critical source of information. --Magic 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the addition of sources that are independent of the subject, reliable, and address the subject non-trivially (references 5 through 7 in this version), thus establishing notability per WP:WEB. In response to the two other arguments for deleting.

Anthony.bradbury: The site focuses on Philadelphia, PA, but is not used only by Philadelphians.

Chiefsalsa: The effects for which you seek evidence (entertainment quality, expertise, fame, world-altering significance) are irrelevant to the issue of "notability" as defined by WP:WEB. Regardless of the types of comments made on the site, the site itself has been the subject of non-trivial, independent coverage. -- Black Falcon 03:24, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vedder Middle School[edit]

Vedder Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school, prod tag removed by anon with no reason given. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nn ^Khukri 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 03:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Another bad-form nomination made a day or so after the article was created. Give the creator time. Noroton 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid speedy keep. --Iamunknown 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles should contain some indication of interest from the beginning. Why start an article otherwise? Out. Brianyoumans 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If notability can be established, the article can be created later. Too many unexpandable, unnotable articles waters down WP. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:57, 12 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 User:SlimVirgin ("created by the sockpuppet of a banned user") (|-- UlTiMuS 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights and antisemitism[edit]

This is totally a joke made after quote of a stupid Nazi, neologism and etc. --Pejman47 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to speedy delete this because it was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user as part of a campaign of harassment. If anyone objects and wants the AfD to go ahead, please say so and I'll undelete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 8 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Grammar School, Downpatrick[edit]

St. Patrick's Grammar School, Downpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The school doesn't seem notable enough to make it possible to find any verifiable sources. The article seems to have become a playground for some of the school's students, delete. Pax:Vobiscum 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~.DeleteNon-notable, mostly nonsense from students.~~ Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, I didn't realize that grammar schools were equivalent to high schools. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remembering that Grammar Schools are High School and seeing it is over 50 years old, it could quite well be notable, but currently it is a mess, so I'll see if someone from the UK or Ireland can improve it before giving any further opinion. --Bduke 00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep not a great article but looks salvageable. I removed some nonsense, vandalism and libelous statements. I think I got it all, but perhaps another pair of eyes could give it a look to be sure. Noroton 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I feel uneasy about this article, since it seems to have attracted quite a bit of vandalism, and I'm not sure there are responsible editors sticking around to monitor and maintain it. Without them, the article may well sink right back into vandalism, blighting the neighborhood. I have the same concern (although a bit stronger) with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarina State High School where I voted to delete. There does seem to be a bit more good information here, but, especially with school articles (which attract vandals), we don't need to be saving articles that won't be well maintained. Noroton 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has far more content than many other UK school articles (see for example Cleeve School and Derby Grammar. The article obviously needs a lot of work, but the sources will undoubtedly be there. Grammar schools are being phased out in Northern Ireland so the school will be of historic interest.Dahliarose 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is not relevant that it has more info then other school articles. The point is that there is no way to get the info sourced. Where would you find published info on some random high school? (unless of course there is something notable about it, but that doesn't seem to be the case) Pax:Vobiscum 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school is over 70 years old and has several notable alumni. It also makes a refreshing change from reading articles about obscure computer games and reality TV shows. ~ Scribble Monkey 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are few remaining grammar schools and the ones that are left are of interest. Article needs work but the school is sufficiently notable. TerriersFan 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. School articles should be retained. Just because its vandalised doesn't make it worthless. Schools are important both locally and nationally. Ardfern 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article asserts notability, so it's not appropriate for a speedy, but it still fails WP:Attribution. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definately notable, worthy of keeping SM BarnZy 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is little more than a stub, but we should hope that some one will improve it. Peterkingiron 22:48, 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 nomination withdrawn by User:Mr.Z-man. Note that I am not an admin. Iamunknown 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanier Middle School (Buford, Georgia)[edit]

Lanier Middle School (Buford, Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This nomination is bad form. A two-day-old article by a new user should not be deleted so soon. Wait a couple of months, I say, or at least ask the creator to improve the article. And by the way, the instructions for deletion call on editors to FIRST consider other options, such as tagging the article. This may even qualify as biting the newbies. I've left a message on the article creator's talk page, but I can't see how this nomination would do anything but depress and discourage someone who's probably new to Wikipedia.Noroton 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (made minor edits Noroton 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Again, not a valid speedy keep. --Iamunknown 07:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse Noroton's approach. The idea is to get articles improved if possible. DGG 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid speedy keep. --Iamunknown 07:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of months? This is the only subject this user has worked on and they haven't done anything since the day it was created. Based on the content of the article, a google search, and the accepted idea that middle schools generally are not notable, I see no reason why this should be kept. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Mr. Z-man's comment that the creator "haven't done anything since the day it was created" These are taken from the article's history log (admittedly AFTER Mr. Z-Man's comment):

(cur) (last) 23:47, March 10, 2007 MRaimondi (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 23:36, March 10, 2007 MRaimondi (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 23:34, March 10, 2007 MRaimondi (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 23:33, March 10, 2007 MRaimondi (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 23:27, March 10, 2007 MRaimondi (Talk | contribs)

The article is now about three times as long as it originally was, although still very short. Noroton 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, here's your notability, which ought to satisfy just about anyone (the new second paragraph of the article, where it's footnoted):

The Georgia state Department of Education awarded the school a "2006 Platinum Award for Greatest Gain in Percentage of Students Meeting and Exceeding Standards" after the school improved its percentage of students meeting and exceeding state testing standards. With 92.84 percent of students at or above state standards, a gain of 3.32 percent over the year before, the school improved more than 99.54 percent of middle schools in Georgia, according to the state's "report card" for the school.

Simply by looking at the school's Web page, Mr. Z-man could have seen that the school was given a platinum award, and a simple Web search led me to the school's "report card". Not rocket science. Noroton 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Noroton, I withdraw my nomination. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:00, 11 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. There is a lack of secondary sources to show notability per current guidelines, and the 'keep' !voters were not able to address the concern. The article can be recreated when more sources are found. Shimeru 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanier Middle School (Fairfax, Virginia)[edit]

Lanier Middle School (Fairfax, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was AfD by brianyoumans of Feb 12, along with a large number of other schools from the same district, grouped under the principal article, Rachel Carson Middle School, and was closed as "no consensus." The closure was taken to Deletion Review by the same ed. on Feb 18, and closure was endorsed on Feb. 23 as "closure endorsed with mild encouragement of individual relistings" by GRBerry. [49]

This renom. by another ed. appears to have been done separately, and not part of a project to examine them all individually. DGG 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I just noticed this. I had given up after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia) (second nomination) failed, assuming the rule was "Middle schools are generally not notable... unless they are in Northern Virginia, in which case they all are." But I'm willing to contribute here. Let's see... NO claim of notability at all, and it is a middle school - even in other areas of Virginia, middle school articles are generally considered non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kempsville Middle School, for instance). Out! Brianyoumans 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until there is a settled WP policy on notability of schools, each one must satisfy WP:N, and this one doesn't. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - schools with 1000+ students, larger than many small towns, are notable because of the significant role that they play in the community. There is additional notability in that Janet Reno chose this particular school to launch a new initiative. TerriersFan 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that the Reno visit is pivotal; anyone interested in Reno might well want to read up on the school that she visited. I also see no benefit in deleting; this article, unlike corporate spam or vanity pages this does no harm to the Project. Bridgeplayer 16:57, 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 Very speedy delete, g10 attack. NawlinWiki 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naddy fucked harriet's mum[edit]

Naddy fucked harriet's mum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is just juveniles hurling insults and is extremely inappropriate Sean Martin 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article clearly qualifies under {{db-attack}}. Why are we talking about it here?--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 8 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. - Bobet 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charr (Guild wars)[edit]

Charr (Guild wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic article on fictional species in a video game. Notability outside the game is nonexistent. Nothing is attributed to multiple, independent, reliable sources. Later sections of the article delve into game guide territory. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles for AfD precedents from the same game. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original research and game guide in place. The Kinslayer 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Fictional species with no notability outside of Guild Wars (computer game). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect basic content to Guild Wars; it looks like there's already a Guild Wars wiki, which would be the better location for in-depth content. --Alan Au 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is already sufficient treatment of this species in the article on the relevant Guild Wars installment, Guild Wars Prophecies#Story. Merging into Guild Wars would be inadvisable: that article does not summarise the plot of individual Guild Wars games. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Wickethewok 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Merge~~ to List of Guild Wars characters. As far as I can tell, this "fictional species" is a major group in the game. In no other article (not even Guild Wars Prophecies#Story) are the "Charr" described as a species (or any other description of them specifically). -- Black Falcon 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a list of characters discuss a species generally? Do you mean simply mentioning the notable boss charrs (which would be fine)? Are you suggesting that that list be expanded in scope to describe the species also? If so, you should note that that list is an increasingly potbellied mess of unattribut{ed,able} information. It would almost be better to create a new List of Guild Wars species to describe the major species in the game, such as dragons, dwarves, mantled knights, and so on. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "List of Guild Wars species" would quickly grow just as bloated - there are many major species; but at least as many minor ones. Personally, I would only support such a list if it were restricted in some way - such as limited to only those species known to be capable of speech or only those that meet some other criteria for inclusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with the Guild Wars game series, but no, I did not mean simply mentioning the major bosses. It is possible to organise a "List of characters" article by species, with brief descriptions of each given at the outset. In any case, I only intended to suggest the merger of the "Charr Description" section (although I failed to specify that initially) and not of the entire article. A List of Guild Wars species article may be appropriate, but perhaps unnecessary given the existence of the list of characters. Also, it would not at present be viable as there seem to be no articles for other species (incidentally, how many are there?). Maybe the best option is, in fact, to delete and simply add a one-sentence description in some relevant article. -- Black Falcon 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your query ... according to GuildWiki, there are 89 species. Although, they may have split some or merged some differently than how the game developers define species. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89?!? Holy ... alright, no need to go overboard. As there don't seem to be article on any other race/species in the Guild Wars universe, a merge to any other article is less plausible (issues of quality aside). I'm changing my recommendation to delete. -- Black Falcon 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable---or even known---to anyone outside the GW player community. At least 60% of the text is bollocks anyhow. Wikipedia is not the place to present a balanced view of the debate on whether the Charr worshipped the Titans or whatever minuscule trivium fans will argue about incessantly on the fansites. The arguments aren't even interesting: this ain't the great Balrog#Winged or Wingless debate. Merging this fancrud (yes, worse than fancruft) anywhere else is like trying to cure a swollen appendix instead of chopping the bloody thing off. Eric Sandholm 22:16, 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rebels[edit]

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

Since no one will ever agree on what constitutes a rebel, this article is bound to remain meaningless. I am usually rather tolerant of lists or categories with somewhat imprecise inclusion criteria, but a quick glance at this list makes it painfully obvious that this one is hopeless. Imagine asking someone: what is the title of the Wikipedia list that includes Gandhi, Martin Luther, John Lennon, Che Guevara, Leon Trotsky, Francis of Assisi and Benjamin Franklin? I'm guessing the best answer would be "famous dead people". Pascal.Tesson 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inherently POV. One man's rebel is another man's poodle and yet another's terrorist. The characterisation is also horribly prone to anachronistic restrospective attitudes and other biases that rob it of value. And, per nom, do we mean rebels as in fighters, or rebels as in without a cause? (And anyway, my favourite rebel is missing) --Dweller 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:LIST Alf^Photoman 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as poorly defined, inherently POV and impossible to maintain, as the potential candidates for inclusion would be incredibly long. Also, why is John Lennon listed under USA? Was the editor meaning to suggest he did not become a rebel until he moved to New York? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ObiterDicta. FireSpike 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too inherently POV and impossible to reliably reference. --Canley 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per incurable POV problems. Otto4711 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711 unless article can be totally re-done and split into things that can actually be defined with some degree of objectibility. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:29, 12 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggero Santilli[edit]

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

This article, as currently written, has serious problems with Wikipedia:Attribution. The sources are self-published material from his vanity press Institute for Basic Research (also nominated). His claim to notability is tenuous at best; perhaps "notoriety" would be a better term for his stature within the pseudoscience community. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for some of the notability criteria that he meets. Also see [50]. As for the quality of the article, Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a science textbook. Those people repeatedly nominating articles for deletion because they're about hoaxes or pseudoscience are seriously missing the point. — Omegatron 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I believe he's a notable crank/fringe scientist. I have attempted to improve the article and have added some non-self-published sources. Spacepotato 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not as much in the news as he used to be, but once N, always N. I agree with Omegatron's general attitude towards articles such as this. Our main responsibility is to make sure the status of the work --as given by RSs--is fairly indicated, and it is.DGG 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be criteria for deletion; that would be criteria for fixing the POV. — Omegatron 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and per Once Notable Always Notable. This man had more than 15 minutes of fame, which we cannot say for most "serious(sic.)" scientists we have articles about Alf^Photoman 16:08, 9 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.
This is truly a human tragedy !! I challenge anyone in this world to prove that I have stated a single lie as to Ruggero Maria Santilli !! all I have stated its true !! Instead of writing love letters, please let me have a single line on why the article should be removed !!! I challenge any one to enter into a universal discussion on any subjects of your discression you will no doubt find out that Italian RINASCIMENTO is not dead !! There is no one in this planet that could enter into a universal discussion with me aside from the great Santilli
francesco da cosenza 86.151.66.41 18:04, 9 September 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 weak keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Basic Research[edit]

Institute for Basic Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

At best, this institute is a vanity press for Ruggero Santilli (also nominated), at worst. The information presented has some serious problems with Wikipedia:Attribution; its information seems to come only from itself. Its notability is at best, "notoriety" due to its links to extreme fringe science and highly questionable research. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:ATT and probably WP:N Alf^Photoman 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATT is not a criteria for deletion. — Omegatron 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry meant WP:A... Alf^Photoman 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like a neutral article about this organization. — Omegatron 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The organization is noteworthy enough (though in my opinion as a source of confusion) that an article is warranted. So is a rewrite, to indicate that the work it sponsors is--speaking generally--fringe science. (I assume that is what the previous ed. also intends). I also suggest renaming to a less generic title. However, since it has had no stable location, I'm having a hard time thinking of one. I wishitwerenttrue that such fringe science exists, but it does. DGG 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, after seeing both opinions above I decided to check it out a little closer and concluded that both Omegatron and DGG assessed the situation right Alf^Photoman 16:30, 9 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 by Fvw --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solon Band[edit]

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

Delete. This is a school marching band. Having one person who later went on to join a notable band does not make this band notable. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was speedily deleted. I'll link it to the AfD page, though, because this page has already been created. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:42, 8 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; obviously non-notable. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemethon[edit]

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

Non-notable gaming tribe/clan. Cannot be sourced. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:46, 8 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 per CSD G7 by Irishguy. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perky prue[edit]

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

Is a perky alternate self who appeared in one episode sufficiently notable to require her own article? Obviously, I'm going with No. FisherQueen (Talk) 23:51, 8 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, author requested deletion. – riana_dzasta 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Association (Portugal)[edit]

World Wrestling Association (Portugal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable wrestling promotion, no independent reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article must not be deleted because it is about a promotion in Portugal, and Wrestling Promotions in Portugal are surely few, maybe one, two in the maximum, and the information about one more can only be good for all the people. The "independent reliable sources" don't exist, because, there are no "news" services that looks into the Wrestling, like in the States. Here in Portugal there are no PWMania.com, and others that do the same. What I mean is that there are no independent reliable sources, because no one do them.Cheat2win_(Talk) 00:34, 9 Março 2007 (GMT)

DeleteIf there are no independent reliable sources, then it does not meet Notability requirements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK do whatever you want. Only because you don't know anything about it, doesn't mean there are no other people that know it. You only wanna know about WWE and TNAs and other stuffs like that. "There are no independent reliable sources". There are so much things in Wikipedia that don't have "independent reliable sources", but, it is still in here, and no one say anything about it, because what?, because or you don't wanna know if it is true or not, or simply if it is from the United States or England (or simply because it is from a country that speaks English), it is "good", and what I see here is that all of you are with envy about what I do, and what WWA is: something that you are never, but never, be or work for.
Please delete it, because I can't stand to see my name and my company name in here, a place that I liked but now is filled with jerks and mama's boy that think, they know everything that there is to know when they know shit. I'm done whit this. Bye suckers, and if I see one of your kind in here, Portugal, the land of sand and endless beaches, I'll kick you in the balls.
PS: Don't forget to pay Portugal a little visit, and spent damn lot of money to stay here for a week, where I live, for free, like a king. And by the way, I'm sorry for you mom.
Cheat2win_(Talk) 2:31, 10 Março 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Grosz[edit]

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

Hoax. If this isn't clear after reading the article, be advised that "Augustus Grosz" yields no hits in Google Scholar or in other databases. Some of the references (like Energism) can't be found in Worldcat and presumably don't exist, while others (like Emile) exist but have nothing to do with Grosz. Spacepotato 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So, he was a proto-furry? His books were unpublished but influential? Plus, the two listed sources I looked for don't check out. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of this article, no mentions of him anywhere. The Energism book does not appear to exist [51], the Wittner book does not so much as mention the name "Grosz" in the index, and any references that purport to specifically mention this Grosz either cannot be located [52] or are forthcoming and cannot be referenced. --Dajagr 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a hoax In addition to User:Dajagr's comments, I'd like to point out that "Mount Carmel Press", the publishers of his "upcoming book", are located in Dubuque, not Accrington. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:50, 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, original research in an ad pamphlet form. No comment on whether another article could be written about the same subject, since many of the commenters feel like a rewritten article about it could be useful. - Bobet 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychodiagnostic Chirology[edit]

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

Quite a strange article, I find it almost incomprehensible, it's possibly vanity, of an uncertain copyright status, and it might be original research. Was changed to a redirect, but might be better just abandoned until some specific purpose to the article could be shown....... Petesmiles 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 2,940 Google hits, the practice isn't notable enough to merit inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The ideas in the article are true, as far as I can tell. Just because it isn't immensely popular on the internet doesn't mean it isn't verifiable or notable. Some rewriting may be in order to put the article in a more easy-to-read language, but the article should be improved rather than deleted. The fact that it is odd (which I agree with completely) doesn't solely mean it should be deleted. I say, just give it time. --Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Whether the ideas in the article are true has nothing to do with this discussion. To me, it seems like an excuse to give a scientific veneer to palm-reading. But 3000 ghits is enough for pseudoscience (or popular psychology, whatever), unless all of them are blogs--which seems possible . This is an essay, not an article, and needs to be rewritten, and also must have some third party sources to show notability outside the blogosphere. . Otherwise, delete. DGG 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep It seems pretty unscientific to me, but that doesn't really matter. It's the subject of enough discussion and published material to make it notable. Obviously this article needs to be rewritten and sourced, but not deleted. Feeeshboy 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to be verifiable - but it needs to be rewritten. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - along the lines of Petesmiles above. Vanity publishing and original research going on here, an academic essay with lots of refs. Also the talk page promises: "More articles under this topic will be published by the publisher of the Psychodiagnostic Chirology magazine Dr. Henryk Rostowicz and the editors Mr. Eran Marese and Mrs. Judith Rostowicz". The user is Henryk Rostowicz by the way. Is the pedia a publishing venue since I last looked? Perhaps just a note under Chirology or Chiromancy to indicate the contribution and scrap the article itself until it finds its specific purpose. Julia Rossi 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems to me that the basis of many of the keep voters is a quick look at google, followed by an argument along the lines of '..It's the subject of enough discussion and published material to make it notable. Obviously this article needs to be rewritten..' to quote Freshboy. I think we should try and discuss the article that's been written, not the subject itself. I would take the 'obviously needs to be rewritten' bit to mean that this article is not up to scratch at the mo. and given that it hasn't been rewritten, p'raps that's really a sensible reason to delete it? Just a thought.... Petesmiles 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm back just in time. :) I'm the one who changed the article into a redirect after finding this linkspam to the fingerprint article. From reading the above-linked site, it seems that what is being talked about is Chiromancy (handreading) to find and diagnose neurological and psychological disorders (e.g. ADHD and Schizophrenia)). Judging by the way this topic has been promoted throughout Wikipedia, this is almost definitely vanity. Also notice that there are no hits from Google Scholar, and 4 hits on a Google search restricted to the .edu domain, one of which is an open directory. This means that there are hardly any reliable peer-reviewed sources to base an article on. The concept is also mentioned in the "Science and skeptics" section of Chiromancy; mentions of the concept are the only contributions so far of 80.91.158.15 back in January 2006. Graham87 05:43, 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. Jersey Devil 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game 3.0[edit]

Game 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial jargon, possible viral marketing efforts Chicbicyclist 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very notable. and has nothing to do with marketing efforts - it is about game content design techniques/ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcdaniel3 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 00:31:14
Unless you can cite sources to demonstrate that people other than the person at Sony, who is giving presentations on this concept, have actually acknowledged it and that it has become accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, it is original research, which is forbidden here. Everything in Wikipedia must first have been through a process, outside of Wikipedia, of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge. That means, in this case, people other than, and independent of, its inventors documenting the idea, to demonstrate that it has been acknowledged by the rest of the world. (And that doesn't mean news reports that simply say that the inventors are going to speak about the idea.) Uncle G 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something like, "third generation game". I'm not video-game intelligible enough to exactly understand the drift here, but I think one of the video game generations might suffice. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is analogus to something like "Web 2.0" - Game 3.0 is not a generation of hardware, software or any particular technology stack. Game 3.0 is the new era of thought surrounding a collection of proven industry concepts that have become a percieved standard. All of the current console and game console software creators efforts have contributed to what the industry has come to expect from game 3.0. Jmcdaniel3 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a video game generation. It's made up marketing gobbledegook. Andre (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you may be confusing this with console manufacturer hardware generations (example: NES, SNES, N64, GCN or 286, 486, pentium class) this has nothing to do with traditional "video-game generations". Its mostly content designer methology revolving around standardized content management tool and integrated communication (text message, VoIP chat, video chat, etc..) API's. Jmcdaniel3 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Marketers' crap. Why can't we have marketing that's at least as good as Blast Processing anymore? :( Ed Ropple - Blacken - (Talk) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All - I would like to add to the discussion - the article states "Game 3.0, a phrase coined by Sony Computer Entertainment, refers to a perceived 3rd generation of console based video game experiences or design ethics." Which is exactly what it is "a phrase that refers to a percieved generation of..." The referenced links do prove that fact.

I would also like to point out that the users who marked this for delete while tagging it as marketing material are doing so based on a personal agenda, and not for the concern of Wikipedia article content quality. You can examine the users 'talk' pages and clearly see that the users calling this marketing and spam have their own strong opinions about the industry in question that this movement doesnt mesh with.
At the end of the day - wether they personally like this or not, it is a phrase coined by SCE and any press resource can validate that.
Please return this article to its normal category - thank you. Jmcdaniel3 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more press links to support the articles core claim of what Game 3.0 is at this time. It could change in the future - but when it does, no worries - Wikipedia technology will allow the community to update it. Jmcdaniel3 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Seriously. Andre (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you can prove that SCE did not coin this phrase? Who did then? Link? Jmcdaniel3 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter who has coined the phrase or why -- it's a non-notable, neologistic piece of original research. Andre (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an industry leader (Sony computer Entertainment) coining a phrase is very notable. As the article mentions all platform vendors have contributed to this Game 3.0 perception. The article itself is not orignal re-search, the article just needs to be flashed out more as the industry evolves more. There is work to be done here, but that work is not to delete this historic and important article and try to pretend it didnt happen or doesnt matter. Jmcdaniel3 07:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but will it make gaming on my modem like a LAN party? --Action Jackson IV 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to vote delete, please provide commentary to support your vote. I suggest this vote not be considered.

Delete as a non-notable neologism, with added original research. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a phrase coined by the market leader is historic and very notable.

Non notable would be some garage full of AV engineers commenting on the history of rock over the last 100 years.
SCE is currently the market leader - everything they do or say is notable as it shapes the industry. It is as notable as a speech by the President of the United states commenting on the state and advancements in foreign trade. If the president coined a phrase describing the modern state of foreign trade would you say it is non-notable? Jmcdaniel3 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Microsoft is the market leader of the current generation(360, Wii, PS3).--Chicbicyclist 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offence intended - but I think you need to go take some business classes and then come back and try to have this debate. Being a market leader is not defined by near-term sales. TD there are over 190,000,000 SCE platforms sold worldwide. No other console manufacturer in the history of the business has sold as much. This entire debate about this article being deleted really concerns me about Wikipedia's ability to maintain accurate content. When you recommended this article for deletion upon personal agenda (which can be proven in the article edit history where you edited the article text to reflect your personal bias the same time you recommended it for deletion) you did not take the time to understand basic concepts - for example, here you demonstrate that you have no idea what being the market leader means. If these kinds of antics carry on, and over long term people can delete and modify factualy content on Wikipedia to reflect their personal biases, the content on Wikipedia will become more and more worthless and only reflect the concensus of the users who remain and enjoy this kind of sophmoric information control (example: the act of you suggesting this article be deleted because of your personal biases) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmcdaniel3 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What biased edits? All I did was add the wrong deletion tag, removed it and put the correct article for deletion tag instead. I never touched the content of the article--Chicbicyclist 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what about changing the first line of the article to read "....a phrase coined by SCE 'when they thought the Playstation 3 wasnt a complete bomb'" or something to that effect. I had no idea Wikipedia was a venue for such nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.193.54.250 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Marketing speak. Maybe we should include Kutaragi's 4D while we're at it. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145588 <- proof of author's bias. 66.74.236.150 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that link prove a bias? - ALSO - the TOS for Wikipedia clearly state that sock puppets are not allowed. This delete vote should be ignored. Jmcdaniel3 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected to sign in. Locke13x 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok so now that you have signed-in - how does that page prove a bias? Game 3.0 is not about SCE digital entertainment content platforms. Where is the bias? and bias twoards what? I will agree that "4D" is total marketing speak. Again Game 3.0 is analogus to things like "Web 2.0". It isnt really a consumer level topic but rather a software design/project management centric topic. A term does not have to be a consumer friendly bit of info for it to be Wikipedia worthy. I can clearly understand the reaction by consumers. Game 3.0 has been present in the industry since Microsoft standardized the XBOX Live! service across its software library via developer/publisher design ethics discipline. Now that the market leader has coined the phrase - it can be considered notable, and not just casual speak used by developers/designers behind the scenes. Jmcdaniel3 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Locke can you explain this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Locke13x Neglected to log in? HAH more like Neglected to make sockpupet account just to vote this entry off. Jmcdaniel3 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, until now, I had recently edited Wiki under my IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.74.236.150 Two, looking at your past entries, it seems like your account has been solely dedicated to this farce of an article. Now please stop with the ad hominem attacks. My vote still stands. Locke13x 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than a marketing term used by one company. Koweja 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, just yet another arbitrarily-named term made up ~~in school one day~~ by Sony's marketing department. This is not a buzzword that has caught on like web 2.0; when and if (iff!) it does it can be recreated. At this rate we might as well have articles on 4D and real-time weapon change... Garrett^Talk 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must move towards delete as well. This is a marketing term made up by Sony to promote the PlayStation 3. The question that I must ask though, is "what the hell is game 2.0 then?" Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article explains it, albeit in a more down-to-earth way than Game 3.0. Garrett^Talk 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Game 3.0 was in use since about spring 2006 - and not even within SONY but at Microsoft when considering next gen Windows game experiences. I tried to research that for wikipedia to help the cause of this article, but there is nothing publically available. Oh well - I suspect the Wiki community will delete this and we will just re-create it when more uses become public. No matter when the article is re-created tho, SCE was the first to publically and in the eyes of the world media coin the phrase. (that fact seems to be what has caused such a retailiation against the article by SCE haters). I guess Wikipedia also doesnt have many members from the game development community voting here otherwise we would see far less deletes and more strong keeps. I still think that the article is based on the FACT that SCE coined the phrase - again SCE is the global market leader and I would think that what they do/say is notable. Especially when the phrase was born at the largest software company in the world (Microsoft). Jmcdaniel3 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have information on Wikipedia that can't be verified. Hearsay from game designers (or those claiming to be game designers) still counts as original research. Garrett^Talk 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is not hearsay. ITs states that SCE coined the term, and adds some background. It also lists other industry contributions that really nobody can deny. Discussion of who uses ther term and where is a different matter. Jmcdaniel3 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Whoever Jmcdaniel3 is he is completey dead on with the article and his statements on the origins of the term. Sony did beat Microsoft to the punch when it comes to using this term in the public eye. The term has been used within Microsoft and MS Game Studios since early Q1 2006. It is all over internal meeting minutes and discussion records that will never be released for public consumption. Since this page looks to be made up of Sony haters, I will poke fun and say that if Sony is going to say Game 3.0 when positioning their products, they need to actually release software that can be considered Game 3.0. 66.193.54.250 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I've seen secret records of it being used by Microsoft, but I can't show them to you." Come on, "secret sources" aren't gonna fly on Wiki. This is getting ridiculous.Kzer-za 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secret sources referenced in the article. Are there any facts in the article that you can dispute or disprove? Jmcdaniel3 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you convert your references to an inline format, per Wikipedia:Citing sources? It would help me figure out the specific problems that may be fixable, and whether or not to recommend a "keep and cleanup" or a deletion. I've only done a quick look-through, as my web connection is spotty at the moment. Dancter 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kzer-za has a point. If the primary sources (the Microsoft internal meeting minutes and discussion records) aren't accessible, and no reliable sources attest to the claim, there's no way for users to judge the veracity of such information. Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle those sorts of claims, which is why there is an attribution policy that discourages them. Dancter 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's nothing more than a Sony marketing buzzword right now. In the very unlikely event that it becomes a widely used industry term, then a Wiki article will make sense.Kzer-za 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you? Jmcdaniel3 23:23, 12 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.