Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 21 November 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strabane Square[edit]

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

Non-notable strip mall in Pennsylvania. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Point[edit]

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

Non-notable power center in Pittsburgh, strip malls are usually proven to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music torture[edit]

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

This is original research. Or at least the title is original research (according to Google it should be redirected to Achy Breaky Heart, which seems reasonable); the sole source doesn't use this term. The event is well enough covered elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should anyone want to source-and-expand this (I don't have time) Jon Ronson's The Men Who Stare at Goats includes a chapter on the subject. — iridescent

Keep - I am certain that there are sources to be found, this is a stub, it can be expanded. There were also reports of music torture from Guatanamo Bay for example. The term can also be found to describe other situations as well. Sfacets 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What little can be said about this phenomenom seems containable in articles such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, say. Possibly, a note could be written in the main article on torture. But it's far from clear that "music torture" is in any way the default term for such (resists comment about Phil Collins). --The Brown Bottle 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The concept of using unlikeable music for its psychological effect is noteworthy, although I'm not sure that it's ever been described under any particular name. It's not new. In 1989, heavy metal music was played outside of the headquarters of General Noriega in Panama [1], and there have been businesses that played "elevator music", easy listening or even classical to drive away loiterers [2]. I would imagine that somebody has taken note of that in the world of psychology, and perhaps given it a name. I've seen it referred to as "acoustical weapons technology" [3] but I'm not sure that's a common term. Ideas? Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Technically, I would say that sonic weaponry is a technology, just as (say) a cattle prod is technology. It isn't the same thing as an interrogation technique. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This and other psychological techniques are becoming preferred by governments who prefer to leave no marks on their prisoners (unfortunately, that includes the U.S.). There are numerous sources including this award-winning Nation article and several books which devote significant sections to the topic. There does not seem to be a standard term of art; if anything torture music is found as often. It overlaps closely with torture using loud noises such as machinery and irregular air horn blasts, so could be treated alongside. This is not a joke, it is a serious human rights abuse, and we should not treat it as one. It is just as "valid" a technique -- that is, found in the field -- as waterboarding. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete.I nominated once before.Sambure (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you nominated it once before, how come this isn't reflected in the article name? How come there is no record of a previous {{afd}} in the talk page? Ah. Checking the history, you nominated it for speedy deletion.
    • Can we count on you explaining why you don't regard the existing BBC link a reliable source? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is unfortunately very notable, with many discussions in news sources worldwide. Its a straightforward descriptive term for it, and if someone has an alternative title, it can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't this related to how the US blasted music to get Manuel Noriega out of his asylum, or what they did in A Clockwork Orange ? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rescue per DGG. Well-known device. Good sources can be found easily. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep', BBC News report is one reliable source, and I guess there are others.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with possible rename, a more generic title would also allow for the audiotapes of rabbits being slaughtered played at the Waco siege, in addition to its already-necessary expansion to include Noriega. I swear I came across a Gitmo reference to using th eMeow-Meow-Meow cat food commercial ditty as well :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As DGG has noted, the correct venue for alternate names is the article's talk page.
    • I am afraid this nomination is an example of a phenomenon I find very frustrating in the deletion fora. The nomination states: "The event is well enough covered elsewhere." To my way of thinking this wording strongly suggests the nomination arises from a underlying philosophical judgment I have not subscribed to.
    • There are competing camps of underlying design philosophy here on the wikipedia. However, the wikipedia has no fora where the strengths and weaknesses of those underlying design philosophies can be explored in a collegial, civil manner.
    • I specifically except our nominator. I think we interacted a year or two ago and I think I found him then to be a fair, civil helpful person, who was quite generous with his time. But, in my experience, many regular patrolers of the deletion fora aren't civil, aren't willing to engage in meaningful civil dialogue, or offer meaningful civil explanations when they leave their "votes". Rather, they use the deletion fora as a means to shave the wikipedia into their preferred form, by shaving off articles that don't fit with their philosophy.
    • Concerning whether "music torture" is "well enough covered elsewhere" -- this is a design philosophy issue. To someone who favors merging smaller articles that cover only one single topic into a fewer number of larger, omnibus articles, that try to cover multiple related topics, it may seem obvious that this topic belongs in an omnibus article. But it isn't obvious to me. Deleting smaller articles, than can stand on their own, makes it harder for independently minded readers to navigate their own path through the multidimension universe of human knowledge.
    • It seems to me that the main place where this phenomenon should be discussed is here. Those other discussions, elsewhere, should mention as many details as necessary, and then say, {{see|music torture}} -- or whatever name we decide on for this article.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Various tags will be applied to encourage cleanup... — Scientizzle 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Fund Directors Forum[edit]

Mutual Fund Directors Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable organisation, already speedily deleted, but recreated. Mayalld (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree -- non-notable, spammy, already speedily deleted. --Dawn bard (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible speedy as nn-club. I would go and speedy it myself but the author has been threatening me with DRVs on my talk page, so better to get it hashed out here. Per nom and Dawn. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was this recreated again? I think I tagged this twice. Rudget.talk 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Come on guys, let's get real here. This isn't a "club" or "spam". It's a body which advises the SEC, and has loads of sources quoted for its notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well recognized (in the mutual fund industry) non-profit organization that publishes best practices for independent directors. The SEC caused the organization to be formed. Mr. Bridger is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.43.71 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The Mutual Fund Directors Forum is not a private club. It is a legitimate non-profit organization.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.43.71 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. As the author of the entry, I submit that those above voting for deletion simply may not be familiar with the U.S. securities industry, the regulation of the U.S. mutual fund industry, or even the SEC. Given this unfamiliarity, it's understandable that they may not have the proper frame of reference to make a knowledgeable determination of the notability of the Mutual Fund Directors Forum and the need for a Wikipedia entry about it. It is understandable that many of the new content patrollers are exercising a healthy skepticism because they are accustomed to dealing with spammers and other folks simply trying to slip past them advertisements and other inappropriate material no one would ever have a true desire to look up. But this is a legitimate nonprofit organization formed at the behest of the SEC; and one that is treated as an expert resource by the mutual fund industry, the press, and the SEC itself. The organization is notable on its face, and its notability is backed up in the article by citations to reliable and verifiable primary sources. Some may judge the article's tone somewhat tendentious, but any such bias, however minor, may be moderated if the article is left available to more and different editors.DJDeedle (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This clumsy conflict-of-interest article seems to have just enough sourcing to be notable, it should probably be kept and seriously cleaned up by a neutral party. Zedla (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Phil Bridger. The Forum is not a club and is certainly not spam. It's a valuable resource for the mutual fund industry and the financial press. — CLS1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Forum is a well-known organization within the mutual fund and broader securities industries, and provides fund directors with valuable support in their key role of protecting fund shareholders and negotiating the prices shareholders pay for their funds. — smithdb4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. This is clearly a case of an article that needs work, but on a worthy topic. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources on the topic, even if the current article may not be a good example of WP:NPOV, and isn't wikified. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ipod Touch Mods[edit]

Ipod Touch Mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly unneeded split, sensationalist, NPOV ViperSnake151 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete it? It helps people jailbreak their iPods without having to go to 100 different websites!

- Masky (Talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Masky gives absolutely no valid keep reason. JuJube (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a collection of how-to-guides. Mods can be mentioned in the iPod Touch article, but it really doesn't need a separate article at this point. - Koweja (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It should be left as a small blurb upon the main article. There are countless guides on the internet already on how to get this working. - XX55XX (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is something worthy of mention, but it does not need to be an article on its own. Merge it with the main iPod touch article, and maybe on iPhone article as well. Bentoman (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not to be used as a one-stop shop - as some people are trying to make it into. If you really want to get technical about such things, maybe a book should be written on the subject and placed in Wikibooks. It is identical to, for example, adding information on how to modify a 1968 Dodge Dart. Groink (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Paskal[edit]

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

Cricketer who does not meet WP:CRICKET guidelines for notability, having not played a first-class cricket or List A cricket match to date. Mattinbgn\talk 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Craig Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - withdrawn by nominator. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Cooper (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note that these articles were created to remove redlinks on this template {{NSW Blues Cricket Team}}. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry, but my impression is that some Wikipedians regard our rule on notability as pretty lax anyway, and if we don't enforce it they'd have a better case. Let's hope NSW Blues gives them a debut some time soon, then they can be revived. Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough if they havn't played First Class cricket. I only created their page so the NSW Blues template would link to every player.
However don't delete Craig Simmons - He's played plenty of first class cricket (I'll update when i have some time)

Thanks Danausi (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I withdraw the nomination of Craig Simmons as he has played first class cricket - see here. I need to research more thoroughly before listing. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added two substantial references on him. He is mentioned many more times in News Limited newspaper. Assize (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability guidelines at WP:BIO (section on Athletes). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficiently notable at this time. —Moondyne 04:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, redirect to Michael Layton, 2nd Baron Layton, and protect. Spellcast (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Layton[edit]

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

This is unsourced, almost certainly made up. Note the name of the first author is the page name. Someone tried to speedy, a few editors have tried to redirect. Time to sort out. I suggest in the end we may ned to WP:SALT based on the edit history. Obina (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Skoropadsky[edit]

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

Delete - no reliable sources establish that this child is in any way notable per WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable pretender to a throne that never existed (it was an elected position) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4th generation descendant of the monarch of an abolished monarchy and born in the year 2000? I fail to see even the assertion of notability. I can't think of many notable 7 year olds. And while pretenders to actual thrones are notable, how many generations does one inherit it? I imagine most of us have a royal or two somewhere in the distant past. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's 7 years old! But the biographical detail about him belongs in Skoropadskie. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 10:42, November 28, 2007

Stephanie Rosenthal[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Has never competed internationally[4], has never medaled nationally. totally non-notable. Kolindigo (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete --- an article about her, but 4 years back, a flawed assertion of notability in the article, and an implication that the subject will be less famous over the next few years, not more, as she's on leave from the sport. Can always be recreated when she actually achieves clearcut notability. --- tqbf 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I disagree that she is totally non-notable. I think in the past we've used competing in senior national championships as a sufficient indicator of notability, as competing at the "highest level" in the sport. It certainly does seem that Stephanie's 15 minutes of fame are up, though. Dr.frog (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Given that one must go through qualifying tournaments to reach the United States Figure Skating Championships, she would qualify as competing at the "highest level" in the sport, although I can see an agrument that this doesn't quite meet "highest level" if one takes the cut-off as international competition. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per snow & non-surprised coloured... Actually saw (did not compete!) the 2005 San Francisco "race"! SkierRMH (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotarod[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not something made up at school. Prod was removed by IP and was that IPs only edit. No sources independent of subject. DPCU (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. Songs[edit]

Celtic F.C. Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, tagged for improvement for a long time, unreferenced. I believe the topic is inherently unencyclopedic and this article certainly seems to be unimprovably so. John (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the problem is that the article fails WP:V which is policy. We shouldn't be keeping or merging material that cannot be verified. TerriersFan (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing but original research. Football fans have a purpose, and that is to support their chosen teams. That's more or less all that is notable about a fan or group of fans. Whether they can sing and what they then choose to sing is not notable. On the other hand, for example, what a professional singer or group chooses to sing is notable, for obvious reasons - that is their purpose in life, and the thing which makes them notable. So what I am implying is that the article is written as if Celtic F.C. fans are a professional singing group - which they aren't. The originator of the article has chosen to write about an off-centre viewpoint connected to a notable subject, but his or her "take" on things certainly isn't notable in itself. Ref (chew)(do) 01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern High School Hockey League[edit]

Eastern High School Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:Notability (people) a player is notable if they played professionally or at the highest level of amateur competition. And it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are numerous precidents for highschool leagues to be deleted. Djsasso (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania Ice Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Peniel[edit]

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

An unreferenced biography of an author with two books, both apparently self-published (though described as "published", the author's website indicates that publication of the four other books has been postponed indefinitely). The claim is also made that Peniel has worked with The Beatles, John Lennon, Elton John, the Moody Blues and Neil Young, however "there is no proof of this available to the public since no one knows Peniel's true identity." Fails WP:BIO. The product of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon my overly laconic rationale, I found nothing suggesting the subject meets WP:BIO from verifiable sources. SUch information may exist, and I will revisit my opinion if new information is presented. The lack of any mention in Google News Archives does not give me a sense of confidence that there will be. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Eyre[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This had been nominated for speedy deletion. The speedy delete tag was removed by the wife of the original author of the article. freshacconcispeaktome 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Art History Archive lists him as one of "Canada's Greatest artists." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first three links are valid, but the last link is more than a bit suspect, and has been connected to two deleted articles. I wouldn't give it too much credibility. The list of "Canada's greatest artists" includes the owner of that website! freshacconcispeaktome 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Dlohcierekim. --Crusio (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep For the moment. In addition to Dlohcierekim's observations, the artist is amply represented in the National Gallery of Canada, which suggests notability. However, the article needs solid references to remain, and currently has none, so much of it thus far reads like original research. Perhaps the Canadian Encyclopedia will provide proper citations. It will profit from a re-writing--too frequent use of 'frequent'. JNW (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JNW. Article needs plenty of work. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the artist has an entry in the Canadian encyclopedia, and his work in the the NG of Canada. Either of them is absolutely sufficient for notability. the presence of works in the permanent collection of major museums is a fully sufficient criterion for notability of an artist by itself (however, it was not present in the article when it was speedied). DGG (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yangon International Educare Centre[edit]

Yangon International Educare Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, reads as an advertisement, only major contributor has WP:COI issue, and has stated that the article was created to give the school a Wikipedia presence. Mayalld (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a multi-source copyvio from [5] and [6] (look for the first sentence of each section). MER-C 12:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitronic Fission[edit]

Complete and utter hoax. "Time Travel Sustainable Structures" my ass backside... ARendedWinter 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax, was about to tag it for AfD. There are actually two nominations for this page; do we need two? Pishogue (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Don't need two, but I don't know how to fix it. We both wrote them at the same time it seems. ARendedWinter 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:W.marsh.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sad Clown Bad Dub 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mr.whiskers (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hastings[edit]

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

Non-notable, no independent sources. Paxsimius (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid I was making it sound too resume-ish. I am writing on stuff I know of Chad from the previous radio show. I am happy to edit it to make it sound less like a resume. Please let me know if this would be acceptable. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I went in and deleted some of the more personal items. I now just have info about The Chad Hastings Show and also info about his work with KVET. Hopefully, this will make it look less like a resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiel (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I did not find anything supporting a claim of notability amongst the google hits. There are blog entries, but blogs are not verifiable sources. I saw no verifiable, reliable sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep and move to Lynn Hoffman (author). Spellcast (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hoffman, Author[edit]

Lynn Hoffman, Author (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author, article is advertisement like in tone, and likely autobiographical. CitiCat ♫ 23:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wimpy little weak keep, though the article needs fixed. He's got two novels out, one of them as a Harper audiobook and the other through a smaller but apparently well thought of press, as well as a book on wine through Prentice Hall. The article needs to be completely revamped, though, so the question is whether it's worth keeping and retooling or deleting and letting someone else do a better starting job. (Oh, and move it as suggested above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) though. CitiCat ♫ 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the wimpy weak keep there. Three books from notable presses nudges up against notability to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep since the author is likely at least somewhat notable with some reliable sources avaialble for reference. (The text claims a Booklist review, for example.) What this article really needs is a re-write and a strong dose of wikification. But that's a problem to be fixed, not a reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Island[edit]

Donkey Kong Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a stubby, in-universe and composed of random bits of information from the setting section of various Donkey Kong video games and television shows. It isn't notable, so it has no references, and is entirely duplicative of other articles contents. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the article itself this 'island' changed shape at least once, and the naming's inconsistent - hardly a glowing reference about this fictional location's importance to the series! No out-of-universe information, very unlikely there will be any. Someone another (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the point made above. Tavix (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mother locations[edit]

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

This "list" has all of one location from the game Mother, on top of its lack of notability which precludes any referencing, so its just an in-universe look at a minor location in the world of Mother, and doesn't need its own article. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyvern (Warcraft)[edit]

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

The article is just a plot repetition in an in-universe way of random details, and has no notability of its own as demonstrated by its total lack of referencing. It is totally duplicative of information from the plot/characters sections of the various Warcraft articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... It's a Wyvern which resembles a flying Manticore, it plays an extremely minor part as one half of a unit type in one game and is a transport option in WoW. A more robust version of that sentence split between the articles would pretty much cover all that's needed (it's probably already there). The characters themselves show no obvious sign of notability, there's no out-of-universe details or sources. Exactly the kind of excessive detail which just isn't needed.Someone another (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Someone another. (I'd vote for a separate WIKI for World of Warcraft into which everything but one main article could be hived off. Suggested title: World of WoWcruft.) JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I'm not in favor of deleting all subpages of this type for fictional universes, I don't see the Wyvern being significant enough within the Warcraft universe to merit it's own page. Cogswobbletalk 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon (Warcraft)[edit]

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

The article is just a plot repetition in an in-universe way of random details, and has no notability of its own as demonstrated by its total lack of referencing. It is totally duplicative of information from the plot/characters sections of the various Warcraft articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram 15:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stics[edit]

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

Delete contested prod, this is a nn institute; 5 ghits including 1 from Wikipedia and 2 from the institute itself. Carlossuarez46 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't show notability. Seems like a small, private business-education company trying to make a name for itself. johnpseudo 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if deleted, this should redirect to stick as a plausible misspelling of a plural form. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article lacks any notable references, was written by a single new user over a 12 hour period over 12 days ago. There has been no attempt to improve the article since it was first written. A lack of interest and a lack of notability calls for a deletion. Dbiel (Talk) 04:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Gomelsky[edit]

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

Notability not clear from article, lack of independent sources. Google results include some articles she's written for newspapers, but nothing else about her. Snigbrook 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO; Personal web page indicates nothing worth noting - no awards from major entities, only niche-market Jewelry awards. Google turns up things she's written, but I see nothing that indicates there has been things written about her. WLU 15:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do I need to re-post? I stand by my earlier assertion, delete. WLU (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources provided, and unable to find third party sources. Her writing, and jewelry journalism awards, don't seem to have resulted in any independent coverage. Maralia (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, or interesting without more info. I know "interesting" isn't part of WP policy, but maybe it should be. Wishing Ms Gomelsky well, and happy holidays to all. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it will happen and is notable. Bearian 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next Danish parliamentary election[edit]

Next Danish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I recreated the page because it used to be the title of the Danish parliamentary election, 2007 article before the election was called and nobody thus knew when it would take place. After the election for 2007 was called, I then moved it to have the title of the 2007 article. Now the 2007 election is over, I thought it was standard on Wikipedia to have the "next election" article. As has been brought up on the article's talk page, however, this seems not to be the case, and this article will definitely not have any substance until the election is being called, or at least until heavy speculations arise that it is about to be called. This could be as much as four years from now, so until then, I recommend deleting this article, and then we recreate it once it is likely to contain anything interesting (opinion polls for an election four years out in the horizon are hardly encyclopedic). Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Articles like this should be named so as to be relevent forever i.e. instead of names like Next Danish parliamentary election which expire once the election takes place, use a title that includes the dates that it should take place. If the dates are not known as is the case here, the article is probably WP:CRYSTAL. In other words: don't create it under any name. Handschuh-talk to me 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with your reasoning -- "next ... election" *IS* a valid title, for instance if the election will be held in either late 2007 or early 2008, or if there is encyclopedic material available for an election with a variable date (as there is for the next United Kingdom general election or the next Palestinian general election). Regardless, in this specific case I've got no strong opinion -- might as well delete it. —Nightstallion 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking on it for a while, I'd say we should keep it. The election will happen, and there is notable material which we can put into that article. —Nightstallion 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable planned event which will with high certainty take place. There is some bits of information which can be added to the article as they become available, starting with the last possible date. The only thing missing is the exact final title, which I don't see as a problem. Thue | talk 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as future-casting. Pastordavid (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainview Christian Reformed Church[edit]

Mountainview Christian Reformed Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally nonnotable church, with no claim other than being the largest church in the area and the largest CRC congregation in Canada. I'd speedy delete this myself, but these seem like tiny claims of notability. Nyttend 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless this is rapidly expanded and shows notability. I say this with regret, as I suspect that the WP community is too ready to delete churches, some of which may be locally notable. It needs a statement about its size, and some internet accessible citation, even if this is only the church's own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as it claims to be the largest church in its denomination. Needs better cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just being the largest church in the denomination isn't enough; that can change easily. In my denomination, the largest church recently became smaller by sponsoring a new church to which many of its members went, and thus another church is larger now. Plus, we could consider the Reformed Presbytery in North America, with only six churches and apparently only three elders: would its largest congregation still be notable, even though it is likely very small? Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Also what is the article about? The building, the largest in town, or the chuch as it practices religion? Seems like it is mixing both and neither appears notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of enemies in Doom 3[edit]

List of enemies in Doom 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list made up of game guide material that does not assert notablity by having real world information from reliable sources. TTN (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a, albeit stalled, redirect discussion on the talk page. That venue should have been explored first. I still stand by my assessment there, that the article should be redirected and merged, but with List of enemies in Doom, not Doom itself Apparently that article is up for deletion as well. If that is deleted, then delete this one, as there is nothing to redirect to. If not, then redirect it. I (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real-world content. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless notability can be proven by finding out of universe referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webunicate[edit]

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

Unremarkable neologism, possibly a made-up one too. Couldn't find any definition for this term (not even a blog, I'm amazed!).

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

Webunication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Webunicating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Webunicated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ARendedWinter 19:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if this isn't a hoax, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Spellcast (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the talk page Hello - thank you for your comments, I am in the process of filling out the webunicate/tion/ted/ing pages to include the extra content and links that will fill out these areas... I've only just posted these less than five minutes ago. If you could just give me more time to fill it all out, it will all make sense. I'm a little confused here - we are a real organization with a new definition and presence behind us. We are just getting going here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katealicious (talk • contribs)
  • Delete It is just a definition for a word that looks made up. Tavix (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. The only thing that turns up on a search is confirmation that a UK company called "Webunicate.com Ltd" exists. There's no chance of establishing notability, or of writing a neutral article even if notability were to somehow be established. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 pressure of consensus. SkierRMH (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pressure[edit]

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

Seems to be a made up sport. Can't find a single reference linking "my pressure" to any form of game. ARendedWinter 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solace in the Shadows[edit]

Solace in the Shadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, most likely fan page/self promotion. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vuotare[edit]

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

Non-notable one man band, most likely fan page/self promotion. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. Does not meet any of the 12 or so criteria for notability. If this band meets notability guidelines but doesn't reflect it because the article is poorly written, please explain. I couldn't find evidence elsewhere off-wikipedia. Archtransit (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocausto Canibal[edit]

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

Non-notable band, most likely fan page/self promotion. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light This City[edit]

Light This City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. Wikipedia is not myspace. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus to overturn the prior deletion decision; they fail WP:BAND - the only sources provided are Youtube and other self-promotional, which even if believed and 100% correct still demonstrate no meeting of the criteria at WP:BAND, e.g., only 1 album issued on a label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See You Next Tuesday (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Was agreed for deletion but was recreated. Still fails notability. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See You Next Tuesday (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fixing malformed, nomination, I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep at this point. They've signed with a relatively notable indie label in Ferret Records and have an album out that's being reviewed at various places, including onemetal.com, about.com, Metal Temple.com, etc. They're touring internationally, from the looks of this, and Exclaim! covered one of their concerts in NYC here. I think they could use some more reliable sources about the band, but they're definitely just above the bar. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the "written like an ad" comments below - that's a rewrite issue, not a delete issue. If this is deemed notable, I can certainly take a shot at rewriting it to deal with that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --- still written like an advert, still in first person, only a marginal shift in fundamental notability (they got signed to an indie label, but no media coverage). Watch out, there's a "lollipop hip-hop with slick production" album with the same name covered in the Voice. --- tqbf 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - written like an ad.   jj137 (Talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; there's a modicum of notability here, and the article can be revised so that it doesn't read so much like an advert.Alcarillo (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Collapse[edit]

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

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com We cannot merit all of them an entry. Possibly fan page or self-promotion, wikipedia is not myspace. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guttural Secrete[edit]

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

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com We cannot merit all of them an entry. Possibly fan page or self-promotion as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Faceless[edit]

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

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Notable within the underground community. Evidence of commercial success. There are far less known bands who have pages on here. Deletion based on biased towards genre as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.97.104 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not make false accusations, I am familiar with the genre (grew up as a big metal fan (yes I admit it)) so I know what merits a notable band. As for the far less notable bands, please tag them for deletion as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. There is evidence of commercial success, as one can purchase their debut album at Best Buy stores across America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.244.99 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com", biased towards a genre. Claiming to have been a big fan when growing up doesn't make you an authority now. And no, i will not tag any other bands, that totally contradicts the ethics of the scene i am part of. And so what if they're 'non notable' in your opinion? That's not grounds for deleting the article is it? If that was the way all underground bands on here were treated there wouldn't be any pages on here documenting some amazing bands. It's narrow minded music nazis like you that make websites like this crap. You go and listen to 20,00 other bands in the genre. Then perhaps your opinions will be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.69.93 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am still quite knowledgeable about the current scene (or lack of it) and I am not biased, but aware of what constitutes a notable metal band. Please respect NPOV and refrain from insults or you will be banned. I don't care how "amazing" a said group is, this is an encyclopedia and only noteworthy articles shall be added. Otherwise wikipedia will lose even more respect as a research tool. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be consensus that a merge is a good idea; I'll leave the implementation up to whoever is most interested. Mangojuicetalk 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Weaver III[edit]

Ward Weaver III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

BLP violation. Article is only a coatrack for his criminal trial and conviction. The only sources cited are About.com, one book, and a an article calling the book cited unreliable. Does not satisfy WP:V in the least, but as it stands, the article is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation. - Kesh (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not a BLP1E or a COATRACK violation, blatant or otherwise. Ward Weaver was the subject of many months of extensive coverage in numerous local, regional, and possibly national media outlets, not for a single event but for a complex string of events. The sourcing definitely needs some work, and I will work on that. The Tribune article does not call the entire validity of the book into question, rather covers disagreement about some of the details. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just added nine citations to the article's talk page, to be worked into the article as inline citations. Publishers include CNN, FOX News, Associated Press. Years of coverage span 2001–2007. Notable aspects include Weaver's attempts to fake insanity plea, FBI's failure to identify Weaver as a suspect, Tribune's role in identifying him, pattern of behavior in Weaver's family, show about Weaver and the crimes on Oxygen network, Weaver's repeated firing of attorneys and attempts to defend himself, cost of the investigation and trial to taxpayers, tie-in with history of death penalty in Oregon, lawsuit filed against Oregon City Police, etc. Happy Thanksgiving all, I'm off to dinner! -Pete (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other words, they're all about the crime and his actions during the trial, not a biography of the man: the definition of a BLP1E violation. If you want to create a separate article about the crime, feel free. But if this article claims to be about the man, when it's really about the crime itself. That's a straight-up violation. -- Kesh (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article begins with Weaver's birth in 1963, and covers events in 1967, 1981, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1996, an 1997 before getting to the beginning of Weaver's criminal activity involving Gaddis and Pond. Following the crime, the article discusses his approach to talking with the press, his trial and sentencing, and an event occuring in prison. The article is about the man, not the crime. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reframe as comprehensive article about the case. I find these arguments about the true nature of an article about a criminal something of an angels on the head of a pin sidetrack. I also find it a bit bizarre that we're arguing about an attack article when the individual in question is convicted and serving a life sentence. But I agree that the criminal and victims should generally be in one single article. Thus, merge with the already-combined Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond article. In the absense of a sitewide guideline on the notability of criminals and/or victims of crime, this is probably the best we can do. Instead of pushing someone to "create a separate article", why not be constructive and attempt to fix this one? --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously merge with the article about the victims. The question is merely what title to use, and at the moment we have no consistent practice. In this instance, there is no one preferred way in the references. The interest seems to be as much in his remarkably brazen conduct after the crime as in the crime itself, so using his name for the article title seems reasonable. Articles about people are necessarily about the things they did. the fact of being born is almost never interesting per se, nor is the education and personal life of almost anyone, unless they should have done something for which their education and personal life is worth knowing about. If the reason people are interested in them is because they are heads of government, that's a reason; if the reason people are interested is because they are notorious criminals, that's a reason--but in either case the article is normally about them. BLP was not intended to prevent articles about convicted (& confessed) murderers. Dhartung has it exactly right. I do not understand the reasoning of the nom.DGG (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did not formally !vote before. I believe the substantial issue behind BLP1E is notability; the situations where BLP1E is required are events where a person receives lots of minor press coverage due to their involvement in an event, thus appearing to establish notability, but is not really notable. To the degree that BLP1E appears to apply here, I believe that's a mere technicality. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge per Dhartung et al. Notable enough for a single article, but not three. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as per Dhartung et al. Notable enough for a single article, but not three. If it were possible in this vote then I'd delete the othe two now Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have merged all content from the Pond/Gaddis article into the Weaver article. (I did not move the categories over, such as 2002 deaths, as I believe they would only serve to confuse.) At the conclusion of this AfD, it should be possible to simply delete redirect Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond without losing anything of significance. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge: Most murderers (and their victims) are non-notable; Ward Weaver is an exception due to the extensive coverage of the case. That said, the article should probably be about the case, and pages on the victims (and on Ward) should redirect there. --EngineerScotty (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Drill[edit]

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

Proposing the deletion of this page and its offshoot The Parasites EP. Band has only released one demo, Wikipedia is not myspace, there are ~20,000 bands as notable as "Brain Drill" on metal-archives.com, they can't all claim notability, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 03:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Works (The Corrs album)[edit]

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

Delete album article that's not much more than a track listing, see WP:MUSIC, no indication that this compilation album is notable, that it charted or otherwise meets the expected criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Neve[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tracy Neve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for AfD in 2005.[7] The page has not changed substantially since then, and remains a stub after removing all the unsourced material to comply with wP:BLP. Occasionally a target for vandals. I think all this suggests the subject is not notable enough for a WP article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Force Freestyle Karate[edit]

Total Force Freestyle Karate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability sub style non-evidence of multiple schools unsourced. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo Nate1481( t/c) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- A just formed fighting style by one guy? Needs time to catch on which it may not do. How many students are learning this as an exclusive style? Not buying it. Promotional.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional. It is merely information I requested from it's founder, and I put it on here. I know it is new, but every martial art was new at one time. I am learning it, and there are about 35 or so students of his that are learning it. I gave links to associations that recognize him and his art.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Sorry, but we need independent sources to establish notability here. Neither of the linked sites actually mentions Total Force Freestyle, and I was not able to turn up a single reference via Google search. When it gets some significant industry and/or press coverage, then an article may be appropriate. Maralia (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at ICMAUA.com, and go to members a-k, you will see it is listed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billycook3 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sounds like the founder might be notable, but the school is too recently created to be without further assertions of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


what will it hurt you to leave it here. It doesn't hurt you at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billycook3 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and delete. Spellcast (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalore/Nearby places[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mangalore/Nearby places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sub-page of an article in mainspace. This needs to be deleted and relevant info (if any) should be moved back to the main article -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K600i[edit]

Sony Ericsson K600i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Sony catalog. {{prod}} removed by User:Harmil with the comment "A quick search shows up many reviews like http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/n/6136.html ... I think a marge to a broader article would be fine". Problem is, only reviews are available and they're not substantial sources. Mikeblas 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Rawlings[edit]

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

Delete nn local tv sports reporter, no significant coverage in independent RSes establishing notability, WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No apparent notability. Alberon 09:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not quite notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google reveals 812 results for "Guy Rawlings," but I don't think that he is notable enough to justify an article. — Wenli (reply here) 03:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of any substantial coverage anywhere, let alone in independent reliable sources, so clearly fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High SEAS March[edit]

High SEAS March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete a musical piece without sources or claim of notability, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 06:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's hard for a local school band's commissioned music to meet WP:MUSIC. There isn't anything unusual here to hint at notability. I can find no sources that demonstrate otherwise. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, doesn't meet our standards. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Chassagne[edit]

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

Delete nn chef, fails WP:BIO - he has some notable relatives, been in the business for 20 years and manages (owns?) a restaurant -redlink - but that's way short of the significant coverage in WP:RSes that is required. Carlossuarez46 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO needs. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A "Zagat" rating of 21 is not really exceptional. --Crusio (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raíces Del Reggaeton[edit]

Raíces Del Reggaeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced and no indication that this compilation album is notable, charted or generated any RSes covering it, per WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doughski[edit]

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

Given lack of references and the lack of hits for any of the claims (EG [8][9][10]), seems to be either a hoax or wishful thinking, not something that meets WP:MUSIC. Google is not infallible, but certainly "Several Christian and Feminist organizations have criticized Doughski..." would show up if true. Ravenna1961 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable, and no reliable sources (3rd party). - Rjd0060 05:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 16:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. No sourced information to merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castaway (song)[edit]

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

Unnotable song from the Disney film In Search of the Castaways. Clarityfiend 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Enjoy It! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let's Climb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merci Beaucoups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete; I see no point in relisting this again— it clearly fails WP:BIO as it is and nobody appears interested in stepping up to fix it. — Coren (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brown (DJ/Radio Jock)[edit]

Greg Brown (DJ/Radio Jock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability and references since Apr 2007. A DJ at a radio station. No sources. Fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable (although if somebody feels the need, it can be added to WZZN). - Rjd0060 05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Someone has already merged the content, so redirect is appropriate to preserve the GFDL.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ryan Howard's major league records[edit]

List of Ryan Howard's major league records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Shouldn't be its own page; merge content with Ryan Howard. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Hussain Ali Nasser[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view; subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Deudermont[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable fictional character. Too few substantial secondary sources exist to support an article about this character. {{prod}} was seconded by User:Gavin.collins, then removed by User:Trainunion with the commnet "is plenty notable", so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Item (Game). Spellcast (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set (video game)[edit]

Unnotable item from a video game (NOT A VIDEO GAME ITSELF), has a brief in universe description of its role in one of the Warcraft video games, and has no notability or referencing. It is probably already given its one to two sentences in the video game article that it came from. Judgesurreal777 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable enough for a separate article, consists of game guide information. Pagrashtak 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't terribly notable even within the game universe. Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Cogswobbletalk 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Item (Game) per Krator. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Item (Game)—which, incidentally, should be renamed to Item (game) at the very least, or even better to Item (game terminology). Maralia (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Krator and Maralia, a separate article isn't necessary but item sets have become more commonplace (they're quite noticeable in Diablo II). There will probably be some mention of them in a review about a specific game in terms of referencing.Someone another (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akavar[edit]

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

Unlike other diet pill entries, such as Relacore, Leptoprin, Cortislim and Trimspa - all of whom have received media coverage (abeit negative) for Federal Trade Commission rulings, this article does not establish notability other than being a brand of diet pill. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Much of the information currently in the article is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to the companies own (self-published) press release - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Of note, the user who created and primarily contributed to the article has not made any other Wikipedia edits other than to promote this brand. Quartet 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - spam, no reliable source, possible COI. JohnCD 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no reliables sources, not notable and no information found other than advertising for the brand.--Yankees76 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not significant enough third party reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant (or create) an encyclopedia entry (WP:NN). Spam. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus; the sport appears genuine, but the article could use some work. AfD, however, is not the place to discuss cleanup. — Coren (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goshin Jujitsu[edit]

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

No sources, no claim of notability, reads like an advert Nate1481( t/c) 15:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability. Bradford44 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Simply here to promote his 'new' fighting style. Nice format and a lot of work, he should edit some articles..---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems legit to me. too many arrogant people on here who want to discredit others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles contributed to by 66.191.218.80 have been put up for AfD by me and they have strongly opposed the nomination. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems legit to me, too, but until reliable secondary sources support its "legitness", rather than the generic impression of an editor, my vote remains delete. Bradford44 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the art itself is notable and merits a page, but delete all the content as it's just an ad for one school. Needs to be wholly reworked. JJL (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know nothing about the sport, but it appears to be real. It needs to be cut down, more cites found, and the cruft removed. Bearian 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solabeat Alliance[edit]

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

A delightful promotional piece about a band which, if we are to believe the lead, is going to re-form for a one off show at Salisbury Art Centre. Most of the claims to notability are either notability-by-association or redlinks. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. I think they're kind of edging up against WP:MUSIC, once you get through the promotional bits in there. They appear to have released one album and an EP on Moon Ska Records according to this BBC report - but something's funny, as our article says the company shut down before that. The various articles on not-quite-firmly-reliable sources I turned up in Google suggested they did tour the UK somewhat, but whether it was at notable venues, I can't track down. There's a contactmusic.com review of one of their dates here. Beyond that, I can't find a lot about them. Weak Delete unless somebody else can track down more sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has had 3 weeks to have references added. Without those, notability is not established. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goon of fortune[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Goon of fortune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article cites only two sources one of which is a broken link as far as I can tell and the other is to drinkinggamerules.com. The subject does not appear notable and despite surviving a previous AfD, it does not seem to satisfy inclusion criteria. Handschuh-talk to me 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The drinking games site is not a reliable source. No other reliable or verifiable sources back up the claims in this article. It is a drinking game but not verifiable one. spryde | talk 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its verifiable, just go google it and see the pages of results!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the references, one link is broken, the other timed out. Yes, Google finds some mentions, but is it notable? JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First reference is a 'submit your own drinking games' site; second reference is a broken link from a site that has no hits for the term. Google hits are blogs, message boards, and myspace videos - nothing approaching reliable source. Maralia (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark search[edit]

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

Original version was a blatant cut-and-paste copyvio of [11]. Author claims to have improved it enough that it wasn't a copyvio--but the current violation violates WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Blueboy96 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 09:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulus (band)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC, google search for band and album produces 59 hits, no independent coverage, all CDs have been self-produced; 12 years of history and no hits, singles or label = non-notable. WLU (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable band, comes pretty close to an A7 speedy. Blueboy96 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to it being speedied, my review of WP:SD apparently missed that one or I'd have speedied it instead. WLU (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Benko[edit]

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

If this person is notable enough for Wikipedia, it does not become clear from the article. AecisBrievenbus 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What search did you do? This search gives 121 unique hits, mostly in Dutch. She has lived and worked in the Netherlands since 1984, so you wouldn't expect much about her in Hungarian. I don't read Dutch very well, but these links do seem to indicate that her work has been widely exhibited. Maybe a Dutch speaker could check out those links. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All seem to be small galleries and web directories etc. The fact a small work in acrylic on paper is priced at €295 doesn't suggest deleters are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My search was this - making use of the fact that Hungarian has the eastern name order. It is indeed possible that she is notable in the Netherlands; if someone provides a proof, I am willing to change my recommendation. KissL 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the first four or five pages of Google hits, and I could only find minor, non-notable galleries, no notable museums and no non-passing coverage in reliable sources. AecisBrievenbus 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottetown Rural High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. We don't care what musicals they have done. Wikipedia isn't a collection of garbage. Delete J (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - jc37 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums[edit]

List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this list, all the album "articles" on the list a and the 200 or so album "articles" Special:What links here/List of Now... about albums in the non-notable series for deletion. This list and these albums do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Per the guideline "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines" Jeepday (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Yes all. They can never expand to have things like a wide range of reviews, production, themes, background info etc. None of the albums can ever reach GA status because all it can ever be is a track list. Spellcast (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Notability is far from met. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nominated article and only because the main article Now That's What I Call Music has the navigation aids already. I'm sorry, but if you think that you've nominated other stuff by adding a link to represent the 200 articles you don't like ("Special:What links here/List of Now..."), you're kidding yourself. What a laugh. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MUSIC and WP:N are only guidelines. But there may be a case here - the album series is notable (the original nominator's allegation that this is a "non-notable series" clearly hasn't read the parent article), but this is making me think about whether the individual albums are in and of themselves. WP:MUSIC doesn't seem to satisfactorily cover compilation albums (there's obviously no way to "merge it into the article for the original artist") - and attempting to have the articles deleted in this (frankly lazy) manner is not a way to address that. Kinitawowi (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A master list like this is fine, and deleting 200+ articles in one go is a bit extreme. I'd suggest breaking it down by different countries so that notability can be more easily assessed. I highly doubt the individual albums are notable, but there are too many here to tell. Also, when nominating multiple articles, you need to place each article in the AfD and place an AfD tag on every article. --Phirazo (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was once around 200 mixtapes in Category:Mixtape albums, now there's 30. The albums in the above article are no different. All they'll ever be is a track list with no info to develop into a comprehensive article. Spellcast (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but deleting 200 articles (without tagging them) in one go isn't the way to do this. I think this AfD should have been split among the countries. --Phirazo (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the most notable and arguably the highest selling compelation CD series in both the US and UK. Any compelation series that has TWO HUNDRED albums is awful notable Doc Strange (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now That's What I Call Music has been such a successful series in the UK that it has prompted the creation of a separate compilation albums chart because until then it dominated the regular album chart. Notable by all means. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a compilation chart exists, it doesn't mean each album is notable. Look at any article in Category:GA-Class Album articles. None of the Now That's What I Call Music! compilations can expand from a track list because there's no significant coverage. I doubt the 200+ pages can be deleted in this AfD, so they'll probably be taken in groups. Also, there was a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOW Hits. Spellcast (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since each of the albums can only be a perma-stub, they should probably be mentioned in this article with their chart positions, if any. The singles that make up the albums are obviously notable, but it doesn't mean the albums are. Anyway, this AfD is only about the list. So I favour keeping this list but definitely not the albums! Spellcast (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator said the series was non-notable and nominated all of the album articles, so I made my case for all of the albums being notable and verifiable. An album that reached #1 in the charts is notable on its own merits. In the UK the vast majority, if not all, of the albums charted. The sources can be used to add encyclopaedic information about sales figures, how long the albums were in the charts, reviews, etc. What's wrong with a well-presented, useful, short and sweet stub? Bláthnaid 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing worth mentioning is the chart positions and sales. And they can simply be mentioned in this list instead of its own article. Also, they don't have any reviews. It's much better to merge the most relevant info into one article instead of having 200 perma-stubs. Spellcast (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. "Every NOW volume has been certified platinum or better by the RIAA" [27]. I'll add some information to some of the articles, but unfortunately a lot of the articles are behind paywalls and I can't access them. Bláthnaid 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so there's reviews for a small handful of them. But I just can't support permanent stubs. It's so much better to merge the most relevant info (in this case, the sales and charts) into this list. Spellcast (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominated Article and Keep Individual Album Articles - In the terms of the nominated article it is quite unecessary because we have already have a template for this on the main page for NWTICM and each individual album page. As to the individual album pages each album is notable under WP:Music (major record label release, most have reviews, contains notable music, et cetera) and therefore an article with a track listing for each one is in order - this is an encyclopedia after all, people might want to know what's on each one. A1octopus (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snark (Half-Life)[edit]

Snark (Half-Life) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable element of a video game. Mostly game guide material. Pagrashtak 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established by reliable out of universe sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep somewhat notable. Knowitall (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide any secondary sources that establish notability? Pagrashtak 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I can't. All I find is 640,000 google results for "snark half life" :( Knowitall (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to me that Snark doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). While a Snark might be notable within the Half-Life game, it does not have real-world notability as far as I can tell. Pagrashtak 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there is a strong assertion of notability, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Grande Loja Regular de Portugal.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entre Colunas[edit]

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

This is an article on a Portuguese-language Masonic magazine. I prodded it because there was no indication or assertion of notability. User:Carlos Botelho, who created the article and has his own article on WP (Carlos Botelho) listing him as the PR director for said Grand Lodge, removed the prod, changed nothing that would assert notability, and then made threats on the article talk page. All this aside, there are thousands of Masonic jurisdictions, and most of them have some sort of magazine. This does not make the magazines themselves notable. MSJapan (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as i have noticed i am so envolved as you are with some kind of different masonic interest, which violates the conflict of interest policy. Moreover, of course some words must no be taken too much seriously, and the stop sending magazines its just to say that theres a notable Grand Lodge who cares about England, isnt it. Any way you can delete another article regarding GLRP as you have done before with our grand-master and be proud of it. Congratulations....you win. This is the true spirit of some wikipedia. Fraternaly Carlos Botelho (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - seems to be the general consensus. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davor Nikolic[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable, but certainly not a speedy deletion. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Claims of notability in article are borderline at best; gsearch isn't showing much in the way of notability. Delete if notability can't be shown.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How can the president of a national student council not be notable? Reliable sources for this are in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still looks pretty important to me. President of an officially recognised advisory body to a national minister of science education and sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep If the claims in the article are true, it's clear that he needs to be kept... but sources have to be tied to the claims. Right now, it is unsourced and reads like a fluff piece written by a HS student to make themselves look great. I know there are references at the end, but references do not equate to sources.Balloonman (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why preface your statement with "if the claims in the article are true"? The claims are verified in the article by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- reads like a fluff piece to me, as well. He's a footnote not an article.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Maisel[edit]

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Appears to be a memorial page. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notability established with mainstream news source now. Nationally-recognized businessman. johnpseudo 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of enemies in Doom[edit]

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

This is a list made up of game guide material that does not assert notablity by having real world information from reliable sources. TTN (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom. This is non-encyclopedic gameplay content that should be transwikied to the Doom wikia. No out-of-universe content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad that someone spent so much time on copying the most uninteresting parts of the game guides into an article. With no illustrations, it's kind of like a narrative description of the paintings in the Louvre. If you play DOOM, you don't need this description. If you want to know something worthwhile, iddqd and idkfa. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as most lists of enemies are not encyclopedic. Marlith T/C 19:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd like it to be cut down a bit, but this list is mildly acceptable for me. Are there other list of x characters in doom articles? I can't find them if there are. If there are, we should just merge all of them into one, with it much cut down. But my comment isn't a very strong support of keep. I (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless notability can be establish by out of universe referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nando's index[edit]

Nando's index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The information in the article is unverifiable. No references have been provided despite "cite" tags being in place for six weeks. Even if verified, it is of dubious noteworthiness EdwardLockhart (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. Very little info available from the web. This webpage does mention about it, but it looks like it is a newly created index. Its notability and usage must be known and verified before an article can be created for it. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article says "The index was produced by the Alex Baker from the London School of Economics." Googling "Alex Baker" + "London School of Economics" generates a bunch of hits for "DJ Alex Baker" a student at LSE myspace page, active at PuLSEfm, the LSE Student Union radio station website with hits on his name. Googling "Nando's Index" + "Alex Baker" generates zero Ghits, Googlging "Alex Baker" site:lse.ac.uk generates zero Ghits. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it appears to be made up in school one day. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil pachadi[edit]

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

There is no dish called as Tamil pachadi. The ghits numbering 100 are all mirrors of wikipedia. Nomed as per WP:HOAX -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless new sources can be found. The exising sources list many pachadi variations (OMG OMG strawberry raita!), but there's no mention of Tamil pachadi. It's believable - but without a source, it's not verifiable. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 16:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to pachadi. I wouldn't say that this is a hoax. From the way the article is written and its links it seems that the creator is just using Tamil pachadi as a synonym for pachadi. This doesn't add anything significant to the pachadi article so it can go. If Tamil pachadi is a term that someone might search for then it can be made a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references are about Pachadi, not anything called "Tamil Pachadi". Not a hoax, but the article is about just a variant of Pachadi from Tamil Nadu. There are no sources that indicate that there is anything called "Tamil Pachidi". The variants should go to the article on Pachadi utcursch | talk 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPeedy close. This nomination is clearly premature, parties are encouraged to edit the article and see if it can be made encyclopaedic, with due consideration to things Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions of Romania[edit]

Diplomatic missions of Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely useless, unnecessary and uncategorised pile of original research. It can't possibly get any better. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Not at all. See the other 100 articles ({{Europe_in_topic|Diplomatic missions of}}).--Sambure (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Off-topic discussion moved here.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: hold for now since the article was tagged 2 mins ater the creation, by thich the creator had made an edit =>the creator might have been thinking of expanding itNergaal (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with reliable sources. There are a lot of other diplomatic mission for other countries. And rewrite into textual article instead of listing like the current one, unless this is a list article. Dekisugi (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's one of the articles in a companion series to country articles, like "History of..." or "Politics of...". Zocky | picture popups 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but it needs reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per Dekisugi Tonywalton  | Talk 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Rearrange Ginbō was moved to Gionbō to preserve history, then deleted. Ginbou was deleted as redirect to deleted page. Gionbo/Gionbou were created as redirects as alternate spellings. SkierRMH (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ginbō[edit]

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

WP:NN (or a hoax). The prior discussion in WP:JA is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Does anyone know? Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —DAJF (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. If it isn't a hoax (where is this famous Ginboen garden in Kyoto??), then it must be a very obscure delicacy not to register on Google or elsewhere. --DAJF (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep and Move to Gionbō per new information provided by Oda Mari if it satisfies notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone adds a reliable source Fg2 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep Fg2 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Ghits; [28]. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Admittedly I only looked at the first 100 (out of 800+) hits for "Ginbo + Japan", but none appeared to refer to Japanese sweets. Lots of references to koi carp, and "ginbo" in languages other than Japanese, but no mention of "ginbō" Japanese sweets. If you could single out even one reliable reference, I would be interested. --DAJF (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I added conditions "Japanese sweets" to gcheck. It seems that most of hits are copies of the Wikipedia.[29][30] --Nightshadow28 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move Move to Gionbō/Gionbo/Gionbou and then delete Ginbou and Ginbō. The article title is a typo and not worth to keep. 祇園坊 seems like also popularly known as a type of seedless persimmon and the yokan as well as a type of gyuhi wagashi of Kyoto specialty.--Jjok 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn). WODUP 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Babayev[edit]

Speedy keep Arrg. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Don't agree with the consensus, but that probably just means I'm wrong. speedy keep. Nom withdrawn in the face of overwhelming keeps. Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here. Thanks y'all for showing me the error of my ways. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Google are you looking at? On Google News he is the main subject of stories by IHT [31] and Washington Post [32]. For this Google search [33] it turns up 172 entries. Most certainly a keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I get like 10 Unique googles on the web following link referenced by Fuzheado. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Russia, sources find you! [34] cab (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numbers of ghits don't matter - if there are a couple of good quality ones, which has been well demonstrated, that's enough to make him notable. And, as cab demonstrates, doing a search in the Latin alphabet for a Russian isn't going to give a true reflection of how much there is about him on the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously, a top member of a Russian opposition party is notable. the sources are quite sufficient. WP is not based upon google. DGG (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment Agree that Google is not the only thing. I was under the impression he was notable only for being shot. If that's not the case, will probably change to keep. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To comment further, number of google hits does not translate to notability. The ones I saw seem to attest to a lack of notability. See the difs already cited. <5% of the vote is notable? Head of a not notable party is notable? What part did he head and is it notable? Has he held an elected office?? Is it one regarded as automatically meeting notbility requirements? Are Russian language web hits Verifiable sources?? Will make a more thorough review of the information availble before this closes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, y'all. I just don't see it. If someone can show me verifiable, reliable sources that show he was more than a regional leader of a minor party, I would be glad to withdraw. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 08:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was asked to have another look., but it confirms my feeling that it should be kept, and I expanded the article somewhat, based on the information from Reuters, certainly a reliable source. Though in a minority party, he is apparently the head of their list. The leader of a party expected to win even 5% of the vote is significant, though an ordinary losing candidate would not be. If he is not in the main article for the party, he should be. DGG (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notable, well-sourced article, per WP:HEY. Bearian 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements (Spacecraft system)[edit]

System requirements (Spacecraft system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sub branch of System requirements. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article just started after some discussion at the system requirements article. Can we start an article like this and try to improve it. That spacecraft is a not-notable branch is a very questionable argument. - Mdd (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem at the system requirements is that that article is primairy about software systems engineering requirements and we want to have a more general systems engineering requirements article, where we can fit the text of the System requirements (Spacecraft system). I do agree something has to be done here. - Mdd (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation seems a bit more complicated. Lot's of websites about systems requirements are about computer systems or software systems. But if you look for "System requirements" & "space systems" you still find a 45.000 Google rate. This should be enough to create a notable article. But this will take some time. - Mdd (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we improved this article, and it still needs a lot of work. But the article is wikified and the notability is established. So I hope you could let us continue developing this article. - Mdd (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete; most of the keep arguments center around in-universe importance, not real-world notability. — Coren (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekeeper (Farscape)[edit]

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

Long plot summary that fails WP:NOT#PLOT because of its heavy in universe perspective. Article has no primary sources to verifiy its content, or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability outside of the Farscape canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep for now but prefer Merge into Races in Farscape (the other races should be merged there also). This is one of the three races in Farscape that has a major relevance for the story, and it deserves some mention somewhere. This move would give interested editors time to establish notability, and if they really cannot come up with anything, this can still be deleted. – sgeureka t•c 09:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent references to show real-world notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keap or Merge to Races in Farscape (or other appropriate article), per sgeureka. Mairi (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may not be an appropriate article since "Races in Farscape" doesn't have reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - major organization around which the series and the movie The Peacekeeper Wars revolve. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there is a strong demonstration of notability, delete. Judgesurreal777 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. east.718 at 10:39, November 28, 2007

Bitterne Park Baptist Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bitterne Park Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination Article was nominated for PROD-deletion after a trip to AFD. PROD nominator states: Since last AFD no progress has been made - consensus there was generally "Keep if improved". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was the user who reprodded this article. In the previous AFD, it was a general consensus to keep if improved and referenced, User:Waggers being the person who was assumed to tackle it (not that Im getting personal). This is a simple notability problem. The church has no claim of notability and no reliable references, because they haven't been added by anyone and I personally reckon it would be tough to find some. --Montchav (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability asserted.   jj137 (Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep too little time between nominalizations. Elmao (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable per WP:NOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regret delete - This article as it stands serves merely to host a link to the church's website. That is a variety of linkspam. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G12 - copyright violation of [35] SkierRMH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sgas uk[edit]

The organisation exists and is operational as from 2005. check the following link http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?regno=1111821&submit=Run+Search also the organisation is not about any faith group as discussed. It is all about the science of self-discovery. The organisation home page is http://www.sgasuk.co.uk also the Master of the organisation is Swami Paramananda. His information is available on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Paramananda Hopes this clarifies everything

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

Unsourced article about some kind of faith group, the notability of which is unclear, largely as a consequence of the nebulous and obfuscating terms in which the article is couched. Google produces few hits, which may or may not be indicative of notability. CIreland (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous personalities of Allahabad[edit]

Famous personalities of Allahabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The term "famous" is subjective and is a POV and hence this article is nomed for delete. There is already a Category:People from Allahabad which contains essentially the same info. This article is not needed -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Qst 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Six Feet Under deaths[edit]

I am withdrawing this nomination to redo as a solo nomination instead of a multi-article one. (non-admin closure) Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Six Feet Under deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft that is basically the same as the List of Six Feet Under episodes article, with some original research tacked on at the end that analyzes the show's death counts and provides some uncited statistics. Collectonian (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep all There's not as much OR as implied, it is extremely noteworthy, as death effects everyone - even in a fictional sense. Although the EastEnders and Brookside should have a lot more detail as they're just lazy lists with no detail of circumstances leading to the death like the Oz one, and the Sopranos one, which someone deleted because it was "Too boring" (I disagree) I say we keep them because it is a well divulged subject among many cultures. MJN SEIFER (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all All are important as they are generally discussed even today. Especialy the Oz one because I deeply owe that article. Will give more sometime tomorrow so please don't decide until then MJN SEIFER (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that rationale, any show that has any kind of death should have an article that lists them all. Actual notable deaths should either be covered in the episode list (which is already done for Six Feet Under since, as someone else noted, that's the point of the show) or in the character sections. None of them have any WP:Reliable Sources, no third party discussion of the deaths, etc. Being "noteworthy" doesn't make something notable. And the Sopranos list was not deleted because it was "boring" but because consensus agreed that it "is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics" and it also failed WP:FICT. The same reasons apply to these. Collectonian (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles are pointless and not needed. (Buts that my opinion) RuneWiki777 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
coment How are they pointless? MJN SEIFER (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Death is the central theme of Six Feet Under and so this list is especially significant for the coverage of this notable show. It has been presented as a sub-article for reasons of style and convenience. Deletion is not a helpful way of improving this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Col. Warden. Death is a central theme to SFU, Kenny, and to a lesser extent to Oz. The others need cleaning up, but that's not a reason to nominate them for AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Kenny's deaths articles. What rationale is there for having a list of something already covered in prose? Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above, and that was sort of the point of the television show. • Lawrence Cohen 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, pointless and crufty lists. It could be argued that Kenny's deaths might be notable only if it could be sourced. These would be very hard to source, if not impossible, so kill all these lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since death is the central theme of the show. Also the list of Kenny's deaths is the only other notable list in the six proposed AFDs. The other four are deletable Doc Strange (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some the 6" under list and the Kenny list, as they are central elements to their shows. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kenny and Six feet under lists per above argument, delete the rest. RMHED (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as death is a major plot element of notability for Six Feet Under (what the show's title implies) and Oz (controversial because of its violence). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep alll without prejudice to renominating the other ones separately for adequate individual discussions--notability seems to be sufficiently shown for this one. DGG (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that not all article deserve to exist. Some info may find a new home, but I'm not familiar with all of these shows to find a reasonable merge target (if one even exists). If these articles are renominated separately, I'd be more comfortable to !vote. – sgeureka t•c 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems to be an issue with the votes, so I'm going to relist the rest separately. Collectonian (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should withdraw this nom and start out completely new (considering that enough people commented on the Kenny death article)? – sgeureka t•c 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. The instructions say you can, but not how. Collectonian (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkonan[edit]

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

Unclear whether this place actually exists. Maybe has a different spelling Montchav (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can find any sources to show it's existence, I am unable to do so. Davewild (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Davewild.   jj137 (Talk) 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it exists it is notable. However, a fairly thorough search did not find it. --Stormbay (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep argument appears to be the most valid. CitiCat ♫ 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Award[edit]

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

Previously prodded and de-prodded a couple of times. Notability issues Montchav (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. although most of the ghits are from organizations announcing their own receipt of the award, but it is apparently important to major non-commercial bodies as well [36]; additionally, 3rd party news sources seem to find it significant enough to report: [37], [38]; DGG (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough here for an article. The award may become notable and then it could have an article. --Stormbay (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The absence of dialogue on this article may speak to a lack of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources have been shown that discuss the award itself, its history, its origins, its importance, et cetera. Without any, we must presume the award itself isn't notable. Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merged, AfD is not for cleanup. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Tree Hill cast members[edit]

List of One Tree Hill cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suggest this might be better of merged into One Tree Hill, but by itself it is worthless Montchav (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You probably mean more specifically One Tree Hill (TV series). The list was created from a former category (Category:One Tree Hill cast members) as the result of a CFD. The main article is already getting rather long but my interest is not TV series so do with the list what you feel best. RedWolf (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Christian Academy[edit]

Orange Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

on-notable school stub. Suggested merge. Unreferenced, unverified too. Montchav (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is nothing notable about the subject of this article. It is a closed high school.Garrie 04:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 02:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To paraphrase other comments; this is a closed high school that was non notable when it was open. --Stormbay (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The quality of the references supporting the article is a subjective judgement, and all parties involved in the discussion appear to have used reasonable discretion in arriving at their (disparate) viewpoints. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE GARAGE[edit]

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

The main concern is the notability of this place. The original author has admitted a potential conflict of interest (see talk page), and referenced the article well. However, the references seem to all be local newspapers or from the youth centre itself, which doesn't qualify it as having reliable references according to Wikipedia's standards. Montchav (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "window dressing" on this article seems to indicate some importance but, if you check the sources, you will find it non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The citations supplied do appear to support notability at least technically by supplying enough coverage under third party sources, with the combination of some of the more detailed coverage by citypages and this week online. The articles I am looking are the Scholtes and Gessner articles. The various Pioneer Press and Star Tribune may assert this, but without links it is tough to tell, and the good faith is helping it. I would recommend formatting those more consistently using citation templates and magnus' citation tool. I am concerned by the lack of edits by persons who aren't involved in the organization (See article history). When conflict of interest (COI) is involved I tend to ask, if this article wasn't created by someone involved in the organization would someone write it? I'm not entirely convinced that anyone would. Also as the one who tagged it for multiple issues I should explain.[39] Most of the issues probably stem from the COI. Stating "THE GARAGE" over and over again is quite grating to read. I would recommend using terms like "the center", "the venue", or just not using all caps in every situation as the citypages articles do. Also this article reads as overly positive. It emphasizes bands which appeared at the venue, all of which are either redlinks or of questionable notability. I'm not sure how much more detail to go into this, but I suspected there was a COI from reading the article, before I saw that the initial author's comments on the talk page.- Optigan13 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has some problems, but I don't think lack of notability is one of them. The Saint Paul Pioneer Press and the City Pages are fine references.--Appraiser (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well of course you know I want to keep it as the original author. I would suggest notability should be the lesser judge as our highest local paper the Pioneer Press and Strib are on par with most national papers and have cited our center in the past as linked in the article. This article was written a really long time ago before I became part of WP, I just haven't updated it, I guess I should indeed. Some of the current edits though reflect other participants of the center, which I'm not sure is a COI because it would be stating anyone who attended say the Republican National Convention shouldn't be allowed to edit the article. Btw for some refs: First Avenue The Garage (night club). I could pare down the article to bare bones of what I know now is necessary and redo the citations. .:DavuMaya:. 12:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: What was going on with prod in the edit history? A user from Australia had removed AfD and then AfD was returned with a warning stamp not to remove the AfD but it was not established in the first place, please check.
  1. (cur) (last) 22:06, November 21, 2007 Montchav (Talk | contribs) (8,019 bytes) (AFD) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 07:33, November 15, 2007 Maelgwn (Talk | contribs) (7,810 bytes) (this article clearly does not have all these problems and has numerous references to assert its notability) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 02:26, November 13, 2007 Stormbay (Talk | contribs) (8,515 bytes) (prod2) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 15:15, November 12, 2007 Montchav (Talk | contribs) (8,454 bytes) (prod) (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 23:29, November 3, 2007 Optigan13 (Talk | contribs) (8,151 bytes) (Tagged for multiple problems) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davumaya (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first notice was a PROD notice, which can just be removed if you do not support the deletion. Then it was brought here to Articles for Deletion, a more formal process where the topic is discussed and consensus is reached over whether it should be deleted or kept. :: maelgwn - talk 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is a lot of history up to 2003, but little about subsequent years. No doubt, this music venue is locally notable, but is it notable enough to warrant inclusion in a worldwide encyclopaedia. We regularly delete churches as NN, even though they may play an important role locally, so why should we keep a music venue that is merely locally notable? If kept, the article should be renamed "The Garage, Burnsville" or "The Garage (music venue)". Most towns have a night club, so why is that in Burnsville more notable than all the rest? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There appears to be enough coverage by reliable secondary sources on this venue. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuziyah al-Ouni[edit]

Fuziyah al-Ouni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination by 216.173.192.26 (talk · contribs). S/he states on the talk page: "not notable". Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: she has come to the attention of the Western media as a result of speaking up about a single, recent, newsworthy event. Just how notable she is in an Arab context I wouldn't be able to say: find someone who would be before deleting. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the case has come to further attention--since the sentence was actually increased to 300 lashes. She will undoubtedly be cited in further sources. DGG (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 15:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous sites in Delhi[edit]

Famous sites in Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nomed for deletion as per WP:OR. Most of the details are already present in Tourism in Delhi. There is no need of another article for "famous" sites. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous cricketers from Mumbai[edit]

Famous cricketers from Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nomed for deletion as per WP:OR. There is an article already called Mumbai cricket team which can contain this info. There is no need of a separate article for "famous" cricketers. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete. There is also a Category:Mumbai cricketers in addition to the Mumbai cricket team for this sort of thing. Tintin 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no particular opinion on whether to keep this, but I would like to point out that this is not redundant with respect to Mumbai cricket team. Not all players from Mumbai play or played for that team, and not all players for that team are from Mumbai. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should avoid loose ended articles like this, which are open to interpretation. Firstly, definition of the term famous itself is a POV, secondly from Mumbai can be interpreted in the way any one wants, does that mean born in Mumbai or residing in Mumbai or stayed for 10 years in Mumbai but played elsewhere or born elsewhere but played for Mumbai in Ranji trophy. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 14:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it seems that I have to repeat myself. Cricketers from Mumbai and the Mumbai Cricket Team are two completely unrelated things, just as Footballers from Madrid and Real Madrid Football Club are completely unrelated. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Mumbai cricketers already exists and is sufficient to categorise all crickets from Mumbai, or who have played for Mumbai. (You could have 2 different cats for the two different types). A list of "famous" anything if not well defined, is always subject to a person's POV. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Mumbai cricketers is a better way of organizing this inofrmation. utcursch | talk 11:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lists of this kind are on no value unless there are red links for article that are needed, but check they are all in the category first. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore bakeries[edit]

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

The article looks like Yellow pages and fails WP:DIRECTORY. The article needs to be deleted and any relevant info can be merged into Culture_of_Bangalore#Cuisine -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Useless listing. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages.--thunderboltz(TALK) 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what local phone books are for. • Lawrence Cohen 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as it remains a list like Yellow Pages. An interesting article could be made on the bakery business of bangalore if bakeries are an important part of Bangalore culture. But a list like the current one does not belong to wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and merge the image. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to List of schools in Victoria based, which has now been done. Non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Victorian Schools[edit]

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

The article offers nothing that the List of schools in Victoria doesnt, it is completely unencyclopedic, and appears to be a clear violation of WP:POINT. Twenty Years 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just thought I'd add in my 2 cents: I don't think the article is complete crap; a few schools were claiming to be the largest or the third largest with no refrences, so I decided to investigate further. Then decided to include my findings in a table so everyone could see it, and I thought people may find it interesting. People like including that sort of stuff in their school articles, eg. "The 6th largest school" etc... People do find it interesting to see. If you guys think it should be deleted, that's absolutely fine, no hard feelings at all. :) Sorry and thanks :) Jobers (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The list may or may not be encyclopaedic, but it is a reach to say it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be worth looking at the link provided, it suggests that a user was attempting to make a point, dont want to ABF, but it just appears that way. Twenty Years 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you guys think it needs to be deleted, that's fine. Also I wasn't making this article to prove a point, as I mentioned above, there were a few schools claiming to be the largest or the 2nd largest, so I thought I'd investigate. I also did one for south Australia. I don't even care which school is the largest, the more annoying thing was the fact that the information was wrong, and one of friends who goes to Haileybury pointed it out to me. Then I thought a list like this may be resourceful while investigating and fixing up the enrolment and establishment info on schools. But now I'm thinking it's not. Anyway, sorry guys. Jobers (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:POINT refers to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Creating this list, at least to my mind, isn't disruptive. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list does add something over List of schools in Victoria, namely enrollment information. It is referenced, although that could be better. Whether or not the list is correct is a content dispute. Maybe the list should be updated or improved, but the topic is encyclopedic, like List of urban areas by population etc. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems more of a merge vote than anything? Twenty Years 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? Merging means keeping the original article, merging the content and redirecting. It never involves deleting anything. If you wanna merge, by all means do so if you can think of a proper target article, but that still means we keep this one (although possible redirected). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as argument above. Merge/redirect. Thank author for added content too. Afd unrequired. Oh and review title - Eton was a large victorian school just over 100 years ago. Victuallers (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to follow pattern 'List of x in y by z', as List of schools in Victoria by enrollment. Maralia (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Maralia. I'd much sooner see List of largest Victorian Schools deleted than this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into List of schools in Victoria. Lankiveil (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and re-direct to List of schools in Victoria - Seems like a non-controversial merge to me. Name "List of schools in Victoria" is preferable as use of the word "Victorian" will confuse people from the UK that read the article; Victorian means a time period in British history. Camaron1 | Chris 11:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep per the above reasoning. The list is itself notable but a merge of the information as mentioned above is as appropriate as keeping. LordHarris (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 10:38, November 28, 2007

Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo[edit]

Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's an offshoot of an offshoot notability is highly questionable, 1 dead link one primary otherwise unsourced. Nate1481( t/c) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • what other sources do you want? I put all the ones I know of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are not related to the club and meet Wikipedia:Verifiability --Nate1481( t/c)
What club? Mr. Vaughn is not affiliated with either Kosho ryu or Kara Ho. He formed this art and it is a recognized Martial Art. If you want to be ignorant, then go ahead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article dose not make clear where the art is taught and if it is just one or multiple clubs --Nate1481( t/c) 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the benefit of the participants who might be less-familiar with Wikipedia's inner workings, I'll reiterate some basic points: "The free encyclopedia" does not mean a free-for-all in content, or a free advertising service. Just because it exists does not mean it merits coverage in an encyclopedia, and there are standards of notability that must be met for a topic. This is not just a matter of principle, it is practical. Since this martial arts school hasn't received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, then there is no way for writers to verify that content is factually accurate (notice I did not say true). On Wikipedia, if there is no possibility of verification, then there can be no article. Plain and simple. VanTucky Talk 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is plain and simple is that I will never donate to wikipedia. YOu are arrogant, and dont know anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is taught at Elite Martial Arts Academy in Union, SC and is recognized by the Universal Martial Arts Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billycook3 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No secondary sources to support notability. Also, sigh. Bradford44 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what harm is there if you leave it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the article does no harm is based on your personal point of view on the article, which isn't related to Wikipedia deletion policy. Basing decisions on personal feelings rather than standing policy is an argument we try and avoid during deletion debates. VanTucky talk 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandre Lourdes[edit]

Suspected hoax - I can find no reference to this person playing or ever having played for Manchester United Stephenb (Talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Manchester United are one of the biggest clubs in one of the top football leagues in the world. If this person was signed to them he would have some sort of web presence. Tried searching under just Lourdes and nothing relevant showed up. Almost certainly a hoax. Alberon (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assuming this person does exist then he would be 37 years old, therefore his active football career would most likely be over. No player of this name has ever played for Man Utd, therefore it can only be presumed to be a hoax (either that or he never made it to the first team, in which case he isn't notable anyway) ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obbvious hoax. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Works of Modern Jewish Literature[edit]

100 Greatest Works of Modern Jewish Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list was subject to a recent prod [40] by User:Fang Aili who asked: "where did this come from?" and that it was unsourced. She is not wrong as it would be impossible to create a truly WP:NPOV list for such a notion. Any such effort would violate WP:NOR and would vary from community to community, country to country and century to century. Would an Orthodox Jew agree with a secular Jew? Would non-Jews agree with Jews or with each other on a "top 100" such as this? This is pure pie in the sky, that would invarioubly verge on WP:NONSENSE depending on who was looking at it. It should be deleted ASAP. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The compiler(s) of this list seems to favor American (and to a lesser extent Israeli) novelists… What about Julien Benda’s magnificent short stories “La Croix de roses” (1923)? Or Lillian Hellman’s classical plays e.g. The Children's Hour (1934) or The Little Foxes (1939)? My verdict: keep the article, but come up with a new list! Moorehaus

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this kind of list only makes sense when there is already a notable "top 100" list somewhere else. And even then the article should talk about the list, not just relist what they already did. Jon513 (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything indicates that this is something that was compiled by an online bookseller. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting list, but whose top 100? Mine? His? Yours. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is "greatest?" Seems to elude definition. --Eliyak T·C 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without sources, we have no reason to believe this list represents anything other than an editor's WP:OR opinion. And if there is a source for this list, reproducing it here is quite possibly a copyright violation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete→041744 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Rename to List of modern Jewish literary works. This list would include all notable works (not just the greatest) and rank them by date, alphabetical order, or some other neutral order.Vice regent 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain a little further. The reference on the list is not that of an online book seller, but the National Yiddish Book Center, [41] an internationally-known non-profit resource for preserving Yiddish books,--the publisher of an important periodical on the subject of Jewish literature,Pakn Treger, and an organization that is probably qualified for compiling such a list on its own authority. DGG (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page appears to be the result of copy and paste from the website cited. If so, it is potentially a COPY-VIO, unless the information has been released into the public domain. If that problem can be overcome, The article could be renamed as a list List of modern Jewish literary works (as suggested by Vice. However the works should be listed alphabetically by author, with the titles being linked to any articles on them. Alternatively they might be grouped by language of the original publication (which I assume is not in every case Yiddish). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename per Vice. Normally I opt for a category rather than a list, but I see many worthy notable selections that belong on this list but will likely never have an article written about them to attach to a category. --MPerel 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (and if not, then Strong delete) IZAK's reasons are valid arguments against having a list purporting to be objective. That's not what we have here, though. Instead this is an unambiguous copyright violation of the National Yiddish Book Center's intellectual property. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service clarified that any list that involves some creativity in what is included and excluded, as well as the order of arrangement, is definitely copyrightable. Our policy specifically says that "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts" may not be used. Articles consisting only of copyrighted text may be speedied. nadav (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 10:38, November 28, 2007

Inside (film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable film, article written as an advertisement by an editor who seems to have WP:COI issues. Mayalld (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, only seems to have been properly released in France, Germany and Turkey. [42] •97198 talk 10:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Muktananda Ashram[edit]

Shree Muktananda Ashram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable retreat center Sfacets 07:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - mentioning it is not the same as having an article on. Sfacets 20:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The only criterion for notability is whether reliable sources can be found about the article in question, which have been found per my previous message above. Material from those sources can be used to expand the article. I see absolutely no reason to delete it -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP or Merge with Siddha Yoga: If reliable sources mention the ashram, as stated above, then it meets the criteria and should be kept. It contains useful info which would be valuable to anyone seeking more info about Siddha Yoga. It can also be expanded at any time and, in fact, I was just thinking of doing it myself. There's no reason to delete it when it can easily be merged with Siddha Yoga, if it is not considered notable enough on its own. Sardaka (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Ashram has made the news in New York State. I read the NY Times article when it appeared, and again just now. Arguably, it is about this ashram and other similar ones. However, there has been lots of media attention, you just need to find it. Bearian 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Gafni[edit]

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

There has been a recent tendency to post articles on Wikipedia about disgraced and defrocked rabbis (similarly, see the Rabbi Mordecai Tendler and Aron Tendler articles.) Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism. This is an entirely WP:NN individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of alleged sex scandals. This may be WP:LIBEL and even WP:NOR because not everything has been proven in a court of law and the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person online, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of WP:NOT#ANARCHY (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of WP:NPOV as well. Note that Category:Sex crimes only has a sub-category of Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does not have a sub-category Category:People accused of sex crimes or Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is thoroughly documented, using ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. While the category issue may require clarification, all of the claims are supported with appropriate sources. If there are NPOV concerns, the issues should be addressed by editing or tagging the article, not by deletion. WP:NOT#ANARCHY is a new one one me, but this article hardly seems to be an example of that. Alansohn (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the point of using Wikipedia's rules if he is truly not notable as a rabbi? Just because he came on to a few women and it got into the papers, via salacious journalism, that makes him notable? What is "notable" about him? Is he a porn star? They are at least notable for that, but it is an inversion of logic to claim retroactive notability for someone who had he not been fired for his sexual failings would never have merited any mention in an important encyclopedia. Nowhere does it say that one must suspend good judgment and our brains in the name of Wikipedia rules. Perhaps that is why they also have WP:Ignore all rules sometimes. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE-Tabloid fodder masquerading as a bio.---Iconoclast.Horizon ([[User talk:Iconoclast.horizon|talk]]) 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to WEAK KEEP: I feel I let my bias about the article's overall tone get in the way of being objective on this one. He does have meritable work but I feel the article gives too much weight to the muckraking aspects. This bio is valid but seriously lacks the balance it needs to make it credible.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was a powerful rabbi almost as a cult leader and this new age techniques are still used by others to attract Jews. this well sourced by independent reliable newspapers article should not be deleted through Jewish censorship because he had a sexual control issue.--יודל (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Yidisheryid: So then write about that (and bring sources as you would say) but it is a disgrace and shame that this "article" about him is written like an attack piece straight out a text book of how to smear someone you don't like. That is not the way to do business for anyone, least of all an encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue is about whether the subject has been shown to be notable according to Wikipedia policies, not about the article creator's motivations. There are ample references to get this past WP:V and WP:RS. There is also plenty of non-negative information in the article so it can't be called an attack page. If there are any POV or BLP issues they can be dealt with by editing. (and yes, this is a copy/paste from my comment on Aron Tendler but I couldn't think of anything different to say) Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a dozen highly significant sources. The motiviation for the creation is pure I asure you, I am no antisemite as you imply. On the contrary. I wouldn't attack your motivation for wanting this article deleted, which would be easy (dirty laundry, under the carpet, etc.) because I think you mean well. Lobojo (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I don't think Philip was trying to imply you are anti-semitic. Looks to me like pro-muckraking but not an anti-semite. The article has some other fluff info but other than that it is top-notch tabloid press. And I thank you for soliciting my discussion page for a vote change but unless that piece gets a major overhaul it needs to go.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, sadly he has made it quite clear now that he feels I am an antisemite, comparable to Der Stummer to quote him. I still dont follow your tabloid point though, this was a very serious scandal that divided the modern orthodox and jewish renewal movements and led to the collapse of Edah. I just asumed you hadnt understood these points. Lobojo (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lobojo, don't twist my words. At no point did I say that you or anyone was an antisemite. Read my words carefully: "Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism." I was expressing a hope that it is not motivated by antisemitism. You know, you cannot have your cake and eat it by writing multiple attack articles against disgraced Orthodox rabbis and when you are called on it by people who want to understand why, and hope that there is not anything more sinister at work motivating such negative attack journalism, you can't claim innocence. You know, you could take away all the worries by writing an equal amount of articles about notable rabbis who were never involved in scandals. There is after all a huge difference between a muckraker and a serious writer. Or don't you agree? Please act responsibly and do not assume that everyone can tolerate a stream of offensive articles that appear to be aimed as attacks againt Orthodox Judaism and not much else. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, our duty is to assume good faith. It is inappropriate to keep bringing up antisemitism here. If you have a serious concern that makes it hard to AGF, raise your concern elsewhere as a matter of user conduct. Whether we find the article offensive is not a criterion for deletion. As someone who has written on both virtuous and controversial rabbis, I am disturbed by your repeated and unabashed questioning of the motives of those of us involved in this "trend." Yes, Gafni has been attacked in the media and in the Jewish community, but an article on Gafni need not be an "attack article" but simply a description. If the article needs to be balanced with more info about his various work, fine. But please stop rubbing salt into the wounds caused by your previous remarks. HG | Talk 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HG: My remarks are directly addressed to User Lobojo (talk · contribs) only at this time, kindly do not adduce from my remarks any connection to yourself or to anyone else. It is Lobojo who at this time has created articles that reek of prejudice. While he is free to hold any personal views he so desires, Wikipedia is not obligated to tolerate articles that do not follow WP:NPOV. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you may know, I created the Mordecai Tendler article, hesitantly to be sure, because I thought it was needed to complete the picture. Since I'm voting to keep the Gafni article, my vote arguably implies that I would be willing to create it as well. So I feel that your remarks effect me. Besides, broadbrush inferences of prejudice aimed at one editor should concern all of us. HG | Talk 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this line of debate stinks, and it is a pity you are using it. Your protected speech though, so you choose. Lobojo (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. • Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was becoming a moderately known New Age rabbi prior to the scandal, with writing columns for The Jerusalem Post in the mid-1990s, leading Bayit Chadash, writing books from a (sadly ironic) feminist perspective. Unfortunately, he is quite notable now and exemplifies a problem in seemingly unexpected places. HG | Talk 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is my interpretation of how the leniencies for religious sourcing of religious views intersect with the strictures required by WP:LIBEL in a case like this: I believe that per WP:LIBEL allegations themselves of this nature need to be sourced to independent mainstream media. Unlike religious matters (positions on Jewish law and practice, notability within the field of religion, and similar), allegations implicating WP:LIBEL can't be sourced to religious sources. Once the allegations are independently sourced, reactions and comments from figures within the religious world can then be sourced to religious sources. However, I believe that any potentially defamatory claims or statements (statements of fact) about what he did made in religious sources cannot be included if they go beyond what the statements sourced to independent mainstream media say. In its current state, the article sources some allegations to religious and tabloid rather than mainstream media sources, and I believe this needs to be corrected. Will attempt to sort it out after shabbos and see if what's left is still sufficiently sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translation please I'm not sure I follow your distincition. But if you are arguing that the Jewish Week is a poor source because it religious you would be wrong on both those points! All the sources are from major publications. Lobojo (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm equally baffled. None of the sources provided are "religious", other than the fact that they are Jewish-oriented or Hebrew language publications. One would be hard pressed to label Haaretz or Yediot Aharonot as "religious" publications, or to impugn the veracity of material from these sources as being somehow less reliable in addressing potential libel issues. These are all independent reliable and verifiable sources. The bottom line is that there is no basis for the claim that "allegations implicating WP:LIBEL can't be sourced to religious sources." Alansohn (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In this case I agree New York's The Jewish Week won an award for its coverage of the Baruch Lanner affair, has a large circulation and professional staff, and can stand as a general journalism source. I am not sure that I would accept every local Jewish community newsletter as a reliable source for a claim implicating WP:LIBEL. As to what I mean by religious sources, Moshe Feinstein's igrot Moshe is undoubtedly a reliable sources on Halakha, but if he decided a Jewish-law question implicating defamatory matters we could use him to descibe the halakhic issues but WP:LIBEL would prevent us from even naming the parties unless the issue was also covered by journalists or similar. This is the distinction I was trying to make. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are sufficient, probably for notability prior to the criminal events--but most certainly for international notability afterwards. I do not se the distinctions above: published reports in reliable sources are published reports, whether the sources are religious or secular. DGG (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete As its stands this is unsourced original research unless someone can come up with some sources to verify the information and demonstrate notability. If you can, drop me a note on my talk page and we can revisit this. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Superstore[edit]

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

Evidently non-notable electronics retailer. Page has been a one-sentence stub since March with no imrpovement whatsoever. A search for reliable sources found none at all. (In the past, I have found reliable sources for other chains that died in the same era...) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister chain is being listed:

Highland Appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Highland Appliance--jonrev (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Delete for Both I've also attempted to find those references and any to Highland Electronics, but I've come up short, and unless someone can provide those references I think the article for HA is better deleted than saved for now. Nate · (chatter) 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, indeed, no "local sources don't count" clause in the notability guidelines. There is, however, the requirement that sources provide significant coverage which has not been demonstrated. Ample time for sourcing has been provided since the last AfD. — Coren (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wausau Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wausau Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin. I placed this page up for deletion back in August (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wausau Center) with a result of "no consensus". User:Edison cited a few sources in that previous discussion, but a.) they weren't added to the page, and b.) they were "man bites dog" type reports anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It may not be notable to you but it may be notable to those in the Wausau area.--jonrev (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Cites added. Local notability is still notability. I can see a lot of Hungarian town Articles that are kept only out of local notability, so it must count for something. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument. Pages on small Hungarian towns exist because Wikipedia consensus dictates that all towns, cities, villages, etc. are notable. Malls, on the other hand, are not always notable. None of the references provided establish any sort of notability beyond "it's a mall serving the community" -- pretty much all malls serve the community unless they're boarded up. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say Other stuff exists, what I said was "Local notability is still notability" it cannot be discounted simply for its location. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedents. It is simply too small without notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "precedents" ? where ? AfD is about taking a case by case look at Articles ... isnt it ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Local notability" is fine if that means we have multiple reliable independent local sources that can be used to give reasonable coverage of the topic. In this case, we have a couple of sources that mention the mall but don't say anywhere near enough about it to imply that we can cover the topic. Furthermore, this is the kind of coverage I would expect for a typical mall, so I doubt there is more out there. Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has been the subject of secondary sources. There's no "local sources don't count" clause in our notability guidelines. --Oakshade 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see anything notable about it. --Fang Aili talk 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 10:37, November 28, 2007

Youngblood Records[edit]

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

Evidently non notable label , almost all acts on it are redlinks, and only other act is up for AfD itself. No claims to ntability. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable label. Lugnuts (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete and protect from recreation. Sandstein (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Saltine[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no references or citations, of local interest only. The author, who is also the subject, objected to my having speedied it and insisted it come to AfD; since I don't seem to be impartial, I thought I'd oblige. I would ask the deleting admin to salt this article because of its author's insistence upon its recreation. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, if I had seen this it would've already been gone. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:MUSIC in every way possible. –– Lid(Talk) 05:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was already a speedy delete. Apparently, he had a problem with that. I second salting the page, and deletion.-Carados (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not notable. Actually I can't think of a policy ground that this doesn't violate. Xymmax (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Ravenna1961 (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why everyone wants to speedy-delete this. #1 you can't under A7 which is all that has been tried. #2 Why spend so much time on trying to get rid of an actual artist with fans from LA to Texas to North Carolina. Yes Big Saltine's fans are mostly local, but so are Kinfolks, and I see an entire article about them and their new album. Also Big Saltine was in the Daily Herald, a nationally recognized news paper. My last argument is that Bi Saltine is more popular than 1/8 of the people on wikipedia, why not delete everyone less popular than him first, and why does this one article about a real musician (unlike other Wikipedia posts that are completely false, see Shoeless Joe Jackson's profile, he was called a motherf*cking c***suck*r for at least three months. Shouldn't admins be more worried about that than a real artist with fans across the country?Big Saltine 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Saltine (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy delete - I deleted this and several other related articles on the first go-around. The only thing that remotely asserts notability is "recently voted the area's #1 rapper," which is still much too vague to be useful. Voted by who? Rolling Stone? His family? For that matter, what area? A cursory google search suggests that his songs are unreleased, except possibly on MySpace or YouTube. The record company he claims to run appears to be a non-entity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the local news paper. I am sorry I am not giving where we all live, I just don't trust people on the internet. Big Saltine hasn't released his first nationwide album yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Saltine (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ☎ 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Maltby[edit]

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

Prod contested without improvement from admin I am assuming checked the article for deletion. Near as I can tell the article still does not pass WP:BIO. It is about an actress whose only major contributions have been parts of a series of TV movies and playing an extra. –– Lid(Talk) 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep-Looks like she had a reoccurring named role in the Zenon series. I think she is more legit than a lot of posers that get articles.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think she just scrapes in. Alberon (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the recurring roles in the Zenon movies and Disney channel minishows push her over the edge. Maralia (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete I had a look round the google and the first few pages appear to be connected to ads or not about the subject. I don't think separate notability for this company has been established. If anyone does have any specific sources that discuss the company please drop me a note on my talk page and we can revisit this. Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Express[edit]

The notability of this article is contested. New York Dreams (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can somebody explain the history of this article? I'm no admin, so I can only guess from the logs. It looks like it was speedied twice and then this version was created with the AfD in place and here we are. Is this correct? CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could you please explain what about the notability is being contested. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this article yesterday but another editor (Jmlk13) deleted it. I restored the article with a {{hangon}} tag and someone posted a deletion notice but then the first user deleted it again. I restored it again with new details and opened this discussion to confirm whether this article needs improvement or if the article is suitable for instant deletion when the editor reviewing the article never heard of the company being described. New York Dreams (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's up, but i added a speedy. It's basically an advertisement and does not indicate any significance or importance. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The article states the company is notable for having its products given as prizes on a game show. It's well known that prizes on game shows are given away in exchange for promotional consideration (advertising). All that sentence tells us is that the company likes to advertise...just like this article on Wikipedia. Article should be Speedily Deleted and the user reprimanded for trying to post the article again after two prior speedies. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Assuming this doesn't get speedied (and probably salted), I'm for a strong delete. This is just a baseball distributor with a small web presence. Notabilty isn't really conferred by Price Is Right, either - from what I can see here [43] the prize was a "Easton" Baseball Package, presumably a number of Easton (company) products that were either acquired from Baseball Express or provided for promotional consideration. Providing a good or service to a popular game show is not notable. This is similar to a travel agency that books the "fabulous 7 day trip to Australia" - the destination is notable, the functionary behind the scenes is not. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, Cosmic. I am writing off this article and it looks like it will be deleted again. New York Dreams (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the original deleting admin, I endorse the deletion still. Jmlk17 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: previous deleted history restored (check edit summaries and log timestamps to see which versions were formerly deleted). No opinion on keepability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep--I found sources. They do appear to be very notable. The Baseball Express in question is a baseball equipment vendor in Texas, and look at these results. I think this might be a strong keep. • Lawrence Cohen 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While google does give a lot of hits, not all links refer to the vender. New York Dreams (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 10:36, November 28, 2007

Worn Thin (band)[edit]

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

This band doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Disputed prod. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Dchall1 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable: unsourced and lack of assertion. tomasz. 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 10:36, November 28, 2007

Sernpidalians[edit]

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

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability. Articles provides no citations to reliable sources and content is entirely in-universe plot summary. Also nominating for the same reason:

Myrkr strike team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--EEMIV (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Donnelly[edit]

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

Assistant professor, poet. Page created by a single user. Claims to notability appear weak to me. Snails Pace (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viqi Shesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Viqi Shesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of real-world notability. Single cited reference is primary source; article provides no reliable sources outside in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tomo (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources even to substantiate the in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teneniel Djo[edit]

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

No assertion of real-world notability. Article is entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganner Rhysode[edit]

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

No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources even to substantiate the in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay32183; this is an in-universe fan profile with no real world notability. Information like this would be better utilized and maintained in a Star Wars wiki that aims to act as a comprehensive directory to every aspect of Star Wars, rather than a general-purpose encyclopedia like wikipedia. --Lquilter (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (back) to List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters--Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Ors[edit]

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

No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources even to substantiate the in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Redirect: I agree the article is not notable enough on its own. However, as Jan Ors appears in several games in Jedi Knights series of game as well as various references in Star Wars novels, a merge per Rjd0060 is probably not the best course. I would suggest a merge to list of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. Showers (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Jan Ors is already listed in list of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. Perfect for a merge Showers (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 10:35, November 28, 2007

Cage of Death[edit]

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

Functionally no references, questionable notability especially considering better-written articles of individual events from an easily more notable company were deleted without a second thought . This is not a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or strawmanning or anything like that. More notable, better articles were deleted without anyone batting an eye, which is why I'd expect this one would be too. I have no prejudice; I merely seek consistency.Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable event. At an absolute best, merge, but really think it should just be deleted as it seems as if there is already enough info about this in the main article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be notable to me. Notability might be able to be proven by adding some third party reliable sources, but I don't know if those exist. Nikki311 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 would take more rogueness than I have to kill this one. east.718 at 10:47, November 28, 2007

Gil Student[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gil Student (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article is not notable (he has a blog, and that's about it). The page is a vanity piece. It has already been nominated, and the result was deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gil_Student Meshulam (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be pointed out that this fellow has 30,000 Ghits + at 18 notable references in the Google News archive. [46]Lobojo (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: As the consensus for this article has already been made known, via 2 deletions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page was recreated with better content, since its deletion the number of ghits has sextupled, and its deletion was by no means a consensus deletion. It does not meet criteria for speedy deletion based on these three points. JFW | T@lk 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The prior AfD was two years ago, and as far as I can tell this is the second request. (please let me know if I'm wrong on that score). This gentleman has virtually no Google hits, but in blogspace he seems to be quite well known. Here's an example. The thing that makes me think that he's notable is that many, perhaps the majority, of those hits seem to be people responding to him or his ideas, rather than his own ranting. Xymmax (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted twice on the same day. Probably deleted per the discussion, then immediately recreated, but re-deleted. Yes, two years ago, but reading through the previous AfD, it appears that the same issues exist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and then re-created by consensus as found at Talk:Gil_Student#New_article. Please also note that the first nomination was by someone with strong ideological objections to the subject of the article, and that may very well also be the case for the present nomination, despite the official declaration of the nominator.Dovi (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dovi, say it like it is, don't be vague, Gil Student is fearless in his opposition to Chabad messianism and has written widely about the subject on his blog and website, and his material is widely used and relied on. Therefore this has made him a hated figure to Chabad people, and naturally pro-Chabad POV editors (as User Meshulam (talk · contribs) appears to be) will always try to "bump him off Wikipedia" and they would do it in real life to if they could. It's part of a very vicious vendetta against this outspoken and fearless man. Gil Student is as notable as any local Chabad rabbi who has his own article on Wikipedia and we should check those out first to be consistent. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attribution of notability to independent or credible sources. Blogs responding to his ideas fail WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has been published in newspapers such as The Jewish Press. His Hirhurim blog was ranked "Best Jewish Religion Blog" for 2005 by The Jerusalem Post "2005 Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards", Jerusalem Post and has been cited in The Wall Street Journal for declining to run an ad for "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. This is easily sufficient notability to satisfy WP:BIO. An AfD discussion assesses whether the topic is a notable and verifiable topic. Jewish and religious sources are considered reliable sources for Jewish and religious matters, including whether a Jewish and religious figure is considered notable in the field of religion. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous AfD's, no notability asserted. Only hits fail WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Seems to be doing some okay things but nothing world-shaking or even worth posting outside of a personal blog.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • His blog is not merely "personal" you obviously do not have insight into how the Jewish community communicates. Official insititutions like YU and other yeshivas do not issue "press releases" on issues, it is individuals who often do and must fill the gaps and they have credibility. He is notable in the world of Judaism, why would you expect anything "world shaking" from that? Wikipedia does not require "world-shaking" articles as long as they are important to the field they relate to. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These second nominations are so tiresome. The previous nomination made it perfectly clear that his notability is huge based on the banned-books/creationism debate in the Natan Slifkin affair, and for his book on the continuing polemical debate in Chabad. The talk page would have been a much better place to deal with this. See Talk:Gil_Student#New_article. Dovi (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yes, they are tiresome, because he shouldn't be here to nominate. A hyped opinionated blogger is just that and this article is simply trying to promote him as an awesome "mind-shaper" of the Jewish People. And before you throw in the 'he must be an anti-semite', I am Jewish. Everyone has their excuses for wanting to be listed. List him on Bloggers-R-US under 'people with opinions'.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Icono: He is as good as anyone in Category:Bloggers as far as the Orthodox Jewish world is concerned. Who cares if you are Jewish? that is is not part of this or any discussion so keep details about your personal life private or post it on your user page if you like, but not here. Thanks for not mixing your ps and qs. IZAK (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, apparently you care because in the comments further up you stated that I obviously don't know how my own people communicate so in order to keep that from going into and anti-semitic comments as it does with others who state opinions about these topics, I made sure to state my position. Don't make it personal and people won't have to get personal.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the only Halacha Jewish blogger he is famous in transforming the Jewish blog sphere into series discussions rather than tabloid innuendo, and the Jerusalem Post even recognized him as the best Jewish Bloger, he is active daily in shaping Jewish thought also has a publishing house which is noted in other newspapers by all means he is enough notable for wikipedia.--יודל (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.--יודל (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although he's mostly a blogger, blogs can be reliable sources for notable (I know, that word again) academics writing in their field, which I would argue is how the subject should be considered. He even has had an essay published in Oxford Journal's Modern Judaism (a peer reveiw pub) back in 2004 , no free link available but you can view the synopsis here. Xymmax (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point; however, were he evaluated on academic criteria, he would certainly fail on notability. More charitable to view him within a blogosphere context. HG | Talk 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If his notability is so huge then where are all the press articles about him? The reviews of his book? The biographies? One mention in a newspaper for winning one of seventeen categories for his blog doesn't constitute notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, on second look: Delete. I was mistaken. • Lawrence Cohen 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the issues have long been discussed. He is not just another "blogger" -- he is a publisher, involved in the Rabbi Natan Slifkin controversy of "evolation and Judaism" and is a publisher of books. He is a pivotal spokesman for Modern Orthodox Judaism online and his writings and views are used in countering Chabad messianism, and his well-researched articles relating to Modern Orthodoxy are masterpieces. This is a bad-faith nomination by someone opposed to Gil Student's position. IZAK (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentStudent is a blogger. The fact that he blogs about controversial issues does not make him a "spokesman" of Modern Orthodox Judaism (at least, most Modern Orthodox Jews, including rabbonim, are unaware of the existence of this spokesman, whose impact outside of his own blog has been minimal). I agree that he researches his articles well (though we could debate the usage of the word "masterpiece"). That isn't enough to be notable. What gets me most about the above is that you assume my nomintion was in bad faith. Thats offensive, frankly. There are plenty of figures who have articles dedicated to them on Wikipedia who I disagree with on various issues. I think this is my first nomination for deletion ever (To say nothing for the fact that you're supposed to assume good faith). The reason I nominated Student is that he isn't notable, plain and simple. --Meshulam (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Meshulam: Thank you for your response. I could not disagree with you more and I stand by my assertions. Firstly, a blogger can be notable, and Student is probably one of the most respected bloggers about matters relating to Modern Orthodox Judaism. Who among those Orthodox Judaic scholars on the world wide web has not heard of Gil Student on the relatively new medium of the Internet driven Information Age? Sure people who don't own computers or never use them may be out of the loop on this one, but for anyone involved with Jewish issues online, especially as they relate to some of the most controversial hot button controversies, Gill Student is smack-dab part of it. It is hard to believe that you dispute this as it all WP:SOURCED and meets WP:BLP. Do not shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. IZAK (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable, serious rabbi, passes WP:N very well. Lobojo (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He is a serious rabbi, informative and smart, and well known in certain (esp blogging and internet) circles. He's fairly significant among Jewish bloggers, but not big in blogging overall. So far, his non-blogging work is respectable but not very notable (hence lack of biogr sources). I anticipate that he will become notable (unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball). In sum, I agree with Izak's description of his situation, except are there any sources that substantiate the status of a "spokesman" yet? Leaning toward delete. HG | Talk 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HG; that sums up my feelings very well. TomTheHand (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot has happened in the last two years, so I would take this AfD on its own merits. It seems to me that his opinions have generated enough attention that they might have been picked up in WP:reliable sources, so I wouldn't speedy-delete or WP:SNOW this one. I think this will come down to a straightforward decision of whether there are enough sources and whether they are reliable enough. He's mentioned in plenty of blogs, but blogs generally aren't regarded as reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm Shira, with all due respect, you make no sense. The discussion here is not about sources from blogs, but his notability as a blogger and more (and there is no other way to measure the notability of a blogger than to see how widespread he is accepted in the blogosphere -- aptly a sub-category of Category:Digital Revolution -- and we are in the early launch of this revolution in Jewish circles, so it cannot be ignored or brushed off), and if he is notable as a blogger, then he is notable. If not, then delete the entire Category:Bloggers to be consistent! In just one of its many sub-categories, Category:American bloggers there are close to a thousand bloggers, do you honestly think that each and every one of them merited an article in Wikipedia based on the kind of "criteria" you mention? Surely not! To repeat, while a blog may not always be a reliable source as such, it is faulty logic to say that therefore by extension a blogger cannot be notable unless there are non-blogging "sources" to prove it. This is part of a an evolving, yet new internet culture, and there is no reason to subject Gil Student to requirements that almost no other serious bloggers face as they get theire own Wikipedia biographies. Indeed, Judaic editors are behind in this area since Category:Jewish bloggers does not even exist, the closest thing is Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism. Jews need not be more punctilious about this than anyone else when it should really have been around a while already and Gil Student should be one of the first to go into such a category. IZAK (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plus I remind both of you and a number of the commentators above that you are dealing with the wrong issue. His notability is not just as a blogger, but as the person who published banned books after Feldheim publishers bowed to the cherem, and led the campaign for their legitimacy. This is the first time such a thing has happened in Orthodox Judaism in modern times. Dovi (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dovi: Agreed. I was only addressing the issue that Shira mentioned, but I have stressed his importance in the Natan Slifkin controversy. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are numerous blogs that have had a profound effect on American life (or, to a lesser extent, the world). Redstate, Dailykos, etc. These political blogs have shaped political campaigns, and leveled the playing field for people who want to make a point politically. That's why bloggers could potentially be notable. Gil Student is not notable, however, inasmuch as his only effect has been felt within the daled amos of his own blog. That doesn't make someone notable. It might make someone prolific. But that doesn't make anyone notable. I have now asked you twice to stop accusing me of editing with an agenda. You have yet to point to any pattern of edits that define an agenda. I have edited very fairly over a wide number of articles. This is my only AfD nomination. I have not made AfD nominations against people like David Burger (who I have plenty of issues with, but who is undoubtedly notable) or other opponents of Chabad. Yet rather than debate the issues completely, you fall back on insults. I find it sad that you must be so petty when it would be better for all of us if you could assume good faith, as you are required to, and make this a semi-intelligent conversation.--Meshulam (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meshulam, sometimes we learn from our experiences. Last time around the article was deleted twice in the same day, not because of any wrongdoing, but simply because people were editing in it while it was deleted and when they pressed "save" they never even realized they had recreated it! Some of those very edits were clear proofs that the deletion nomination was for ideological purposes, but then of course the edits themselves were deleted such that the injustice is no longer shown in the article's history... I apologize if I misjudge you, but I also think that given the past, davka a chabadnik should make an effort to coordinate an AFD with others if it involves a subject highly critical of Chabad. Finally, to the actual issue, a Jewish blog should be rated by its notability in its field, not compared to a world-news blog or a Star Trek blog. Dovi (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Put into the article reliable sources that report his accomplishment -- "the first time such a thing has happened in Orthodox Judaism in modern times." I followed the Slifkin controversy very closely and I personally deem it important and admire him, but was R. Student's role truly notable in WP terms? If you find the sources, and honestly I hope you can, you get (bli neder) my Keep vote. HG | Talk 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the first time such a thing has happened in Orthodox Judaism in modern times." -- This was exactly the topic of the 1995 Moment Magazine article, but I can't seem to find it online anymore. There was another article published elsewhere about the explosive and sudden impact of the internet (and blogging) on this particular internet debate, which was like no other before. But it's been a while since then. The article could use these things, but that should have been on the talk page, not an AFD. Dovi (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like you're making a point than a reasoned argument. HG | Talk 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being (primarily) a blogger can certainly be notable, which is evidenced in the size of the Category:Bloggers population. And there is no question that goings-on in the haredi world are covered in mainstream press only when something highly unusual happens. I'd like to see more citations, but there is no question Student is notable. --Leifern (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For me he is a hero; the only person who has produced a comprehensive refutation to anti-Semitic accusations. Very notable in my mind. I was pleased to be able to read more about him after finding this article on wiki a few months ago after seeing what he wrote on the internet to defend the Talmud. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think this is clearly a vanity page. Yes, he's a notable Jewish blogger, but that doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry. There are many bloggers, there are many publishers, there are many rabbis. None of those things alone or together merit an encyclopedia entry. There are 100,000 Jewish communal workers who are better known than Gil Student and do not have (and will never have) Wikipedia entries. I can assure everyone here that 99.999999% of Jews in the world have never heard of anyone named Gil Student. There's just a small cadre of internet addicts who think he's the best thing since sliced bread. That's fine, I like the guy too, I think he's intelligent, I applaud him for supporting Slifkin and the interests of Jewish rationality (such as it is), but he's not yet worthy of encyclopedia fame. —Dfass (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly have heard of him, so your argument is internally inconsistent. Tomertalk 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am among the small cadre, so my statistics are fine, thank you very much. —Dfass (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Figuring 13M Jews, with your statistics, 1/10 of 1 Jew has heard of him. Tomertalk 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was a key player in the Slifkin affair, and he now has his own publishing company, publishing books others won't touch. In addition, he is considered by many to be one of the preeminent Jewish bloggers on the net. He is certainly noteworthy of a Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm personally aware of his role in the Slifkin affair among other issues, and I also personally think his role important and notable for these things. The difficulty is how to establish that this isn't simply my personal opinion. It's one thing to say that, for example, decisions by notable rabbinical courts are acceptable reliable sources on Jewish law) because the rabbinical court system ensures that such opinions are peer-reviewed and don't simply represent the views of individuals. But there are limits. One question I have is whether there are any sources (we can discuss their reliability later) indicating that major figures in Modern Orthodox Judaism have commented on Gil Student. Has the head of the RCA or YU or other clearly notable figures claimed that what Gil Student has said or done is important? Is there any basis so that we can say his importance is based on what someone notable says rather than our own opinion? We do have the Jerusalem Post's best Jewish blog award. Do we have anything else? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think he's very notable, and I think that it is a chutzpah for him to publish books that were condemned by Gedolei Yisroel, but I also don't think people should have to be particularly notable to be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezra Wax (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3/5 Keep => Keep. After great consideration, my judgment is that if Shaul Shimon Deutsch fulfills the requirements for notability, Student does as well. Tomertalk 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, our guidelines specifically deprecrate this kind of AfD reasoning. The key questions are: How is he notable and do reliable sources establish this notability? It is proposed that he is notable as a blogger and for his role with Slifkin. Supporting sources? HG | Talk 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is a rabbi, a writer and a publisher. I don't read blogs (in fact I detest them), and yet I know who he is, or at least 1/10 of me does if Dfass's statistics are to be believed. Tomertalk 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know of him, too. (I know of many rabbis, many Jewish bloggers, and some publishers.) But our familiarity with him does not establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. We need reliable sources that pay some significant attention to him. Where are they? HG | Talk 22:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dfass. --Shuki (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. A recipient of an award hence notable. He is also clearly pain in the ass to some to generate enough buzz in some circles. `'Míkka>t 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here's a start, a clearly reliable source (a New York Times article) mentioning Gil Student's role in the Slifkin affair: [47]. Perhaps there is other press out there as well. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The Jerusalem Post and New York Times sources fulfill the minimum requirement of two independent clearly reliable sources. although they don't have much in the way of biographical information they do clearly support the key notability claims, (a) as an important blogger on Jewish affairs and (b) because of his role in the Slifkin controversy. Given that reliable (if somewhat scanty) sources exist on the key notability claims, although I think this is a borderline case I'm inclined to give the wide awareness of him in the community who edits Wikipedia Judaism articles a little bit of weight to help push him over the border. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Getting closer. Our guidelines state: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (bold added) However, here's the sum total of the New York Times info on R. Student: "And Rabbi Gil Student, whose company, Yashar Books, has taken over the distribution of the other two books, said he had done a year's business in a month selling them." This is what the guidelines call a "trivial" mention. The NYT might establish R. Slifkin as notable, but certainly not R. Student. HG | Talk 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article support the claims of notability contained therein and satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per HG. Nobody has heard of him outside the confined circles of the Jewish religious blogosphere. That's not notable enough for an encyclopedia IMHO. Just because he happens to voice controversial and unusual opinions in Orthodox Judaism doesn't make him notable enough for an entry of his own. His opinions, their impact etc. can and should, of course, be mentioned in any articles they are relevant to. -- Nahum (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nahum: The blogosphere is displacing almost all the conventional media today. More people read, spend time on, and learn from the blogs that relate to their own interests than from all other sources combined, for the simple fact that people own computers (Jews have one of the highest percentages of computer ownership and online access) and blogs are interactive and anyone can start one. The fact that Gil Student's blog http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/ has risen to the "top ten" Judaism blogs/bloggers is an astounding success that cannot be ignored because that is the "voice of the (Jewish) people" speaking online. That is why the other media, like the NY Times and Jerusalem Post have noted him. But the NY Times and JPost represent old media whereas blogs and bloggers are part of the new media revolution that is only in its first stages as it will sweep away the entire old order, and Gil Student's blogging on (Orthodox) Jewish matters certainly stands at the head of the new (Jewish) blogging revolution, as proven by the huge amount of Google hits and mentions he gets in so many places on so many blogs, see GHits for "Gil Student" and for "Hirhurim" - Gil Student's blog. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see above, the trivial NYT sentence is merely because he published the book, not about his blogging at all. Maybe blogs will sweep away the old order, but in the meantime Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. HG | Talk 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm HG: Who's talking about crystal balls, "the future is now" and all the issues are inter-connected (with a minor mention here and a big mention there... here a mention, there a mention, everywhere mention, mention, sung to the tune of "Old McDonald Had a Farm") so that his blog, his publication of books, his views, have made him a standard-bearer of Modern Orthodoxy on the web, and boy, the Lubavitchers hate him big time for his online anti-Chabad messianism exposes! He has been published in newspapers such as The Jewish Press Web Choices 2007 Medical Ethics And Jewish Politics by Rabbi Gil Student; Stories of Yeshiva College By: Gil Student; Media Monitor, 2006; and more) . His Hirhurim blog was ranked "Best Jewish Religion Blog" for 2005 by The Jerusalem Post "2005 Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards", and has been cited in The Wall Street Journal. He more than qualifies as notable based on multiple citations, or would he need to be involved in a sex-scandal to qualify? as that has seemed to become a criterian lately around here. IZAK (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tend to be deletionist about bloggers and blogs, because information from blogosphere is very hard to verify. However, I cannot ignore 30,000 Ghits. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, is this really a question about what you cannot ignore or about what reliable sources and media cannot ignore? The mainstream press, scholars and other reliables sources do provide information on bloggers. As a result, many bloggers are notable and have sufficiently referenced info under Wikipedia guidelines. Does Rabbi Student? HG | Talk 16:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable rabbi, author, and publisher. --Ortho (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned above. Student has a noted impact to the cultural debates in the modern (lowercase and uppercase) orthodox jewish world in the US, Europe, and Israel. He is an emerging (and already emerged) thought-leader and pundit. Perhaps the length of this vote is proof that he is a force to deal with, and that alone justifies the article. This is not a vote of popularity or agreement with his views, rather an acknowledgement that he is relevant enough to be in the wikipedia by virtue of his "reach" and impact. (Note, I'm a different person also named "Gil".) Gil (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep clearly a notable figure. Gzuckier (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Author as well as blogger. Abe Froman (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We've been through this before - yes he has a famous blog, but he's also an author, publisher, and somewhat controversial figure in the rabbinic community. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: For all the reasons outlined above, and most notably it being non-notable per Wikipedia guidelines. NOTE: The subject of the article is rallying his forces, with vague language nonetheless, on his blog to come defend this article in force; this is insufficient basis to keep this. Joseph (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please assume good faith. If "his forces" can provide reliable sources, then they will have established that he is notable and given sources that can be used to improve the article. If they can't, they will have no effect on this AfD and it will tend towards a delete. Confrontational language is detrimental to the goal of this discussion. Nihiltres{t.l} 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse self as I commented (to explain the concept of notability) on the subject's blog post about this AfD. Nihiltres{t.l} 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does no one find it astonishing that as we debate, WP has entries on hundreds or thousands of fictional characters from Star Trek, Harry Potter etc with full biographies as if they were real? R Student's is influential because his blog is widely read by orthodox thinkers and because he publishes important books. His bio could probably stand to be edited down a bit but not deleted--Mrogovin (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Student is an up-and-coming opinion maker in the Orthodox Jewish Community whose blog, book and publishing company have had and promise to have significant impact on policy discussions within the American Orthodox Jewish community. Agree or disagree with him, but it would be foolish to delete his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.204.166 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I refuse to vote, as I'm biased by friendship to the subject. However, I think we need clarification on how notability is defined. R' Gil Student is often quoted by people who spend much time on line. He is a rabbi with no physical congregation and does not meet with a student body (aside from Mrs Student and his little Students). Arguing for his inclusion on the grounds of his heading Yashar Press seems faulty, as the founders and the owners far more successful (so far, give Yashar more time ;-) ) Feldheim Press have no such entry. (The press does, not the owner.) Similarly, his debates against the Messianic movement within Lubavitch have made no ripples outside the internet community.

Part of it is a philosophical question: Is wikipedia an encyclopedia that is on line, or an encyclopedia for the online community? Just as one would expect more coverage of topics of interest to US citizens in the Encyclopedia Americana than in the Britannica, perhaps the parallel should be true of wikipedia.

Given that there is a blogger category, it would seem to me that wikipedia is the latter -- acknowledging the demographics who its user base. People notable only as on line figures do seem to qualify for wikipedia inclusion on those grounds alone. I think those voting against would have to explain the existence of the entire category. --micha (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Micha. It would help to see other examples of on-line figures who, though lacking sufficient reliable sources on paper to be notable, are notable nonetheless. (Even among bloggers, he isn't an exceptionally awarded or powerful presence. His great strength is the quality of his work.) Personally, I can imagine making an IAR exception here, but wouldn't we then be relying unduly on the subjective judgments of whoever shows up for the Afd? HG | Talk 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment hmmm the blog appears to have responded.Geni 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia meets the Jewish blogosphere. While Wikipedia has the right to discuss and publish everything, so do blogs and bloggers. IZAK (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The subjects blog entry appears to be a call to arms by his henchmen (sorry for that loaded word ;-) to fight to keep this article, without so much as saying so. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's one of the most important and influential orthodox Jewish voices on the Internet and his influence precedes the blogging era. Ron Coleman (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, publisher, author, notable voice on the web confronting modern issues and controversies relevant to Orthodox Judaism (e.g. Slifkin, Chabad, Talmud, Feminism, Halacha). In addition to his various award-winning and/or popular websites and book, he's published in journals [48]. Besides the Jerusalem Post and New York Times sources given above for his role in the Slifkin controversy, here are a few more in Haaretz, Jewish Press, American Jewish Life Magazine --MPerel 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep, He is a great internet personality and that counts more than non-internet personality. And besides, if he is talking about his wikipedia entry on his blog and really wants to stay on wikipedia, that should be reason enough!
    • And also I see all the voters he sent here to vote for him outweigh all the naysayers. 69.112.200.98 (talk)
      • Actually, I agree that posting about this was a rather silly move on his part. But to keep things in perspective, only a couple of the most recent comments/votes seem to be a result of that. All of the rest are from long-term, serious Wikipedia contributors. In any case the sources by MPerel above, added to the Moment magazine article, more than do it for notability. Dovi (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Dovi that Gil Student needn't have posted anything about this AfD on his blog at this time, but it in no way detracts from the merits of the biography on Wikipedia, which, now that so many additional sources and links to media and articles have been cited in this discussion, should become part of, and incoroprated into, the article. IZAK (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged with Law of Bangladesh.Non-admin closure NAHID 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Lawyers[edit]

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

Nonsourced essay about ambiguous group Mhking (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep stripped of the names, this article is primarily about the legal system of Bangladesh. An overview of law as practiced in any country is definitely encyclopedic and significant. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bangladesh: I don't see why this short, separate article is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information here as it stands is not relevant enough to the Bangladesh article, which is a featured article and would only be cluttered by a merge, making the article unnecessarily ugly.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an article about the legal system in Bangladesh. The sum of a collecton of obscure anecdotes does not equal an article. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. —Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless of anything, this should be at Bangladeshi law per WP:MOS (compare Indian law).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Bangladeshi law. The article, as it stands now, is relevant (in the same manner as Indian law). --Ragib (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Yep, looks like a perfect beginning for a Bangladeshi law article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Bangladeshi law. WP:BND will gradually improve the article. Arman (Talk) 02:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - when I came to this article it had already been moved to "Law of Bangladesh". It is a two-paragraph stub. The first paragraph describes the basis of national law; the second its legal system. The related category has a few articles on the national law. This is clearly a defect in WP that needs to be addressed. In due course, when the article is expanded, a separate article on the national legal profession might be useful. However the solution to a short article on an important subject not coverd elsewhere is to expand it not delete it! WP is supposed to be international, not the preserve of the Western nations from which most contributors probably come. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty strange. The article has already been moved. So why isn't anyone closing this debate? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machur[edit]

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

Non-notable location --Icarus (Hi!) 03:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not appear to be notable, however I guess it could be added to one of the lists in Sindh. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been established to quote this that villages and towns are notable regardless of size (or it used to say that - consensus may have changed?). Despite this, I don't see any sources online that could verify this. No vote Weak keep.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't seen any evidence that consensus has changed. The place does exist and has a health centre, schools, shopping centre etc. [49] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no such thing as a non-notable town/village, regardless of its size. --Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I enjoy debating the notability of places, and I believe that not everyone shares the view that every place is notable regardless of size. There has been debate about it, but never a formal proposal (WP:LOCAL was more about places of local interest rather than the actual notability of settlements). Issues such as the temporary existence of villages in the third-world, those which do not have any sources on them, and places which have been reduced to a single building like Allanaquoich or Nothing, Arizona have been discussed.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied per CSD A7, No indication of importance/significance. --Stormie (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastregion[edit]

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

This band seems to not meet the standards for WP:BAND. From what the article shows, it seems to be nothing more than any old garage band formed by a group of friends. Icestorm815 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails both WP:BAND and WP:VERI. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability, importance, significance not asserted, unreferenced. Could not find anything on allmusic.com, yahoo music or google. Does not meet WP:BAND.--Sandahl 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BAND.   jj137 (Talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont delete please give me a chance to expand this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydier mot (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. I am going to relist The Secret EP separately as it seems to lack the attention of the band and single. CitiCat ♫ 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vib Gyor[edit]

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

Band has released two singles and still on the debut album as of October 2007. However, there are some quotes about Fallen (Single) (their first single) but no ranking I see and a review at Gojangle (external link) but I don't that's enough to pass WP:MUSIC standards. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Keep nn per Chappy84 because of airplay and limited notability [50]. JJL (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Actually, I believe this band meets #5 here, doesn't it? Article itself needs better sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the below comments, does not appear to be notable, and does not sufficiently meet WP:MUSIC. -Rjd0060 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment is T.N.R. a notable label? JJL (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, is it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment are demo albums the same as actual albums? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't think so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also listing their singles:
Fallen (Single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Secret EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I know, the original creator would say that, but I feel it passes number 11. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." The Fallen article and main article state that the band have recieved airplay on both sides of the atlantic as well as being placed on both XFM and Radio 6's (BBC) playlist for a while along with recieving airplay on occasion by Zane Lowe on Radio 1. This was retrieved as far as I remember from one of the three bottom external links (I'm at work so can't access them). I know thay are in the process of recording their debut album from their email mailing list. Obviously just my opinion though. ChappyTC 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chappy. Needs sources, but better to build on what we have than delete it. Mangojuicetalk 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to List of Time Crisis characters. The list is too long as it is to just merge to Time Crisis (series) (and it could likely be immediately resplit due to Wikipedia:Summary style). - jc37 07:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Time Crisis characters[edit]

List of Time Crisis characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of minor Time Crisis characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wild Dog (Time Crisis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:FICT: No third-party sources anywhere to speak of, lacks real-world notability. It is written entirely in a in-universe style and consists entirely of plot summary. No secondary sources to speak of, so unsalvagable. Prod "contested" by anonymous user. Precdedant includes [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guild Wars characters|List of Guild Wars characters]. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: into Time Crisis (series). Just the ones that are actually important to the game. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never played the console versions, so there might be some more back story to it, but what I literally get from the arcade games is that they're just two progressively prettier faces (due to technology) who have no personality whatsoever. You could call them Agent A and B and their role wouldn't change in the slightest. They barely speak, and when they do it's a smart remark or something. Each game has just two whiz-bang aces who are in a time crisis to save the world.
    • Wild Dog has slightly more personality, but again, not much, and nothing of his back story is ever revealed either. He's just the big bad guy who is a pain to take down and appears in every game. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per Rjd.   jj137 (Talk) 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This might be useful for us on StrategyWiki:. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of the game to be able to properly split them up. Any help would be appreciated (please leave a message on my talk page here or there if you're interested). -- Prod-You (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rjd.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandahl 03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual BTNH[edit]

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

Repeated hoax (was "Spiritual Bone" before) τßōиЄ2001 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul preissner[edit]

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

Unremarkable architect. Receiving an award is enough of a claim of notability not to make this a speedy, but it's a non-notable award, and there are really no other claims of notability here. Corvus cornixtalk 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that the AfD template link on the article links to this AfD from 2005, in which User:Preissner (apparently the subject of the article) requests deletion because he doesn't want a Wikipedia article on him. Green451 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was on the incorrectly done AfD page: SkierRMH (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Preissner
There should certainly not be a page for me. Preissner 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 From the looks of things, the nominator switched from delete to neutral, so I believe that can count as a withdrawal. Also, there seems to be no other opposition. Non-Admin closure. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majster Kat[edit]

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

I believe this band fails notability on several fronts, even though it is trying to assert one. Some of the arguments are e.g. listed on the German wikipedia. Notice also dates of creation in other languages articles (except the Slovak one) - this could be a (band)spam. If I would have the chance to vote, delete. MarkBA t/c/@ 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was ment not like spam, but like spreading new information cause of the current new release. The dates of creation have their meaning - unless the band doesn´t have the official release, it should not be here..The official release is only 2 weeks old. That are the reasons. I´m sorry if I have broken some wiki laws, that´s not my aim. Lossamo
That's good to see you don't have any intention to break wiki laws, however, I'm still pretty convinced that this should be out mainly per notability and possibly relevance. And yes, such practice can and is considered spam. But let the community decide. MarkBA t/c/@ 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm reducing my vote to weak delete, as notability is at least proven somehow. But I'm still not sure about reliability of sources (except the link #10 and maybe #11). MarkBA t/c/@ 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, any criterion is sufficient to proclaim a band notable. As to the sources, I think they are pretty reliable, given the genre. #1 refers to online charts, but virtually no metal music (including the most famous bands in the world) makes it to the charts of mainstream radio stations. #2 and #4 are major websites on concerts in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, proving the band's tours regardless of a less reliable #3. #5 is the personal website of the "member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (quoted from WP:MUSIC). I am not so familiar with the music style, so I cannot comment on the sources #6-9. You have accepted reliability of sources #10 and #11, so there is no need to discuss them. To sum up, this band seems to meet at least five (perhaps even six) criteria of notability in case, when one would be perfectly sufficient. Tankred 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm changing my vote to Neutral, with yet possible change of vote. But believe me, when I saw first the title, I thought it was talking about some historical figure ("Majster Kat"=Master Executioner) and those interwikis - I'd thought it was another case of cross-wiki spamming (even though I'm assured it wasn't - well, who knows). I'd like to let this AfD run to see what the others think. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The criteria of notability are listed at WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. I am not sure whether this article meets any of them. I would like to encourage Lossamo to read these criteria and state explicitly which one can be met by this band. I will be happy to vote "keep" if notability is proven. Tankred 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I´ll try to proof some of those notability criteria, although I think everything would be OK, if I didn´t write this article in 5 languages :-( I´m a fool.
So:
"Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." [[51]] - A Czech metal music chart, Majster Kat is there for 5 months
"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" [[52]], [[53]], [[54]]- Tour in Czech Republic
"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" [[55]] - Los plays with an ex-singer of a very popular Rockband Metalinda, wellknown in Slovakia and Czech Republic
"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" [[56]], [[57]], [[58]] [[59]],
"Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award." [[60]] - Majster Kat was a candidate in a category Music Group on the biggest Slovak Music Award
"Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Majster Kat is frequently played for example in this Czech and Slovak Rock Radio - [[61]]
Lossamo 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The evidence of notability provided above is convincing. Tankred 01:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) This is a Secret account 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Verifiability appears to be an issue and no concrete sources have been proffered to demonstrate notability. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MatheMagic[edit]

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

Someone removed my prod Moglex 12:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - That is not a valid reason to delete. --Evb-wiki 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with above. Moglex does not give a valid reason to delete the page. Doc Strange 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - marginally notable, but enough. JohnCD 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails to cite sources. Only links are to the organisation's own pages or to its daughter organisation's pages. Handschuh-talk to me 03:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few different groups devoted to mathematical popularisation, for example the Funmath roadshow based in Liverpool, Millennium Mathematics Project, Plus magazine and I'm sure there are quite a few more. While each individual group itself may only be borderline notable, taken as a whole they represent an important phenomena in mathematical culture. So merge into Mathematical popularisation (yes I know it does not exist yet). --Salix alba (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but I may be biased as I am involved in this movement) but I agree with Salix Alba & will write up an article on Mathematical popularisation and even Science popularisation ikf this is the decision (could also include Cafe sceitifique etc. etc Johnbibby (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) This is a Secret account 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it has no sources to back up WP:N, I relisted the debate because it's too early to see any consensus, the nominator as no reason for deleting the article, and the keep argruements for keeping the article. This is a Secret account 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominators prod argument was "Fails WP:N".[62] Presumably that is still the argument. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per 132 Google News Archive hits, and 58K+ general Ghits. There are sources to be found for this topic. Instead of deleting, and starting from scratch, perhaps this shell could serve as the template for a better-sourced article. Mr Which??? 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)--change toDelete, per the discussion below.Mr Which??? 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the Google News search. Plenty of reliable, third party sources to incorporate into the article. PROD's removed, and the articles itslef being unsourced, are not reasons to delete articles, ever. All it took was a simple Google search here to establish notability. Sheesh. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A brief look at the Google hits indicate few of them are about the organisation in MatheMagic. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on policy grounds as failing WP:V. The two keep !votes above are misdirecting themselves since the "132 Google News Archive" are about all sorts of different organisations and shows. We still need references to back up the content as well as multiple, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you looked at the archive hits, you would see that there was a news article (WaPost, I believe) about MatheMagic. They weren't all organizations and shows. Mr Which??? 03:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, this one from the WaP is about something different not about the UK organisation. Unless you can produce multiple reports from serious sources about this body the page will have to go on policy grounds. Nothing in the article has been verified from WP:RSs. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I should have looked deeper into the search results. I am changing my comments accordingly.Mr Which??? 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking a second look. TerriersFan (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we have these discussions, right? Sorry for not looking closer at the basic results hit. Mr Which??? 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for me Mbisanz (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't you just hate having the prod removed without explaination? This article has no primary or secondary sources, an the article itself suggests it fails WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Mr. Basketball Award[edit]

North Dakota Mr. Basketball Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor State award, no claims of notabilty, prod removed Delete This is a Secret account 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: And add sources, and a bunch can be found here. Obviously notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is there any of the notabilty outside the state, those are mainly local news stories, those sources help doesn't establsh notabilty and it's mainly about nn players trying to get the award, nothing about the award itself. This is a Secret account 03:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, per the USAToday article, below. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does need to be sourced, however, this the top boys basketball award for the entire state. Apparently picked up in national lists, such as here. Xymmax (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looked at first as though the nominator was saying that it was a "Minot State award", instead of a "Minor State award" which is kind of ironic. Lots of states have "Mr. Basketball" and "Mr. Football" and "Miss Basketball" awards that are picked by coaches or sportswriters, and bestowed by the state athletic association. Not sure if the idea is that these selections are minor awards, or whether North Dakota is a minor state, but this type of recognition by a state schools association is notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highest level of high school basketball notability within the state, recognized in national publications. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Creme brulee Nothing recipe-related to transwiki. SkierRMH (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artichoke Crepe[edit]

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

No indication as to the notability of this dish. It's just a dish, we don't have articles on every ... food dish... in the world (I hesitate to use the term "recipe" because it isn't even a recipe). Corvus cornixtalk 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds delicious, but the nom's right, and there's nothing notable about a particular variant on crepes. Recollections about an AFD for tacos al pastor some time ago. Perhaps move over to wikibooks? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks: YUK... This isn't notable and this article, as it stands, isn't appropriate for this Wiki. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:Notable, quite honestly if this gets to stay on I have a list of about 50 dishes I have featured on my menus over the years and I want an article for myself as well. (J/k, just meant to illustrate a point) This and another article (Sweet and Sour Calamari) were obviously written for self promotion, but the dishes outside of their own restaurants have no notability whatsoever.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I can find blogs and some other sources which may or may not be reliable - this article may or may not be original research. Sources should have been cited better.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would have to go with the WP:Notable reason and say this is not. Also, every variation of a food item does not need its own article. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as NN per nom et al. Seems to be a WP:COATRACK for Chris Albano. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Salt --JForget 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website Magazine[edit]

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

Speedied twice now. Was tagged for A1, which I think is overly steep, but 3 times recreation warrents an AfD in my oppinion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails to assert notability. Who runs this? What is it? This is a two-line blurb about some unknown magazine. If I want to read about websites, I go to Google, not order treeware. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per CSD G4: recreation of deleted material. After two speedies this still hasn't been fixed. Looks unlikely it will at this rate. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AS Dennis noted, G4 only applies to articles that were deleted in a previous XfD discussion. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to assert notability. Snigbrook (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable. No speedy, just AfD delete (then when it is recreated, it will qualify for speedy). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, although i guess it would meet speedy deletion criteria. As it was recreated a number of times already, speedy and salt per G4 if recreated after the deletion. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, you cannot speedy delete this article. First of all, it hasn't been the discussion of a deletion discussion. Secondly, if you read the G4 criteria, it states that it does not apply to speedy deletions, and also, it must be substantially identical to the deleted version, which I don't think anybody can prove anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my post? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It said that you would like it deleted because of notability. You also said that "although i guess it would meet speedy", which I was just reminding you, is incorrect. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But G4 is not the only criteria for speedy deletion, it is likely the article would have been deleted per A1 or A7.Snigbrook (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:SNOW SkierRMH (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Carr (activist)[edit]

Joe Carr (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete belatedly contested prod for a witness to an incident in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The prod comment was:

This does not meet criteria set by WP:BIO, he is merely a witness who is not independtly notable nor is he recognized by many if even a few. Of the two references listed on his Wiki article the Guardian Observer article merely quotes him as a witness and the other does not seem all that reliable, important, and does not substantiate his notability. He is also listed as being a child actor but the show's article makes no mention of him nor does IMDB. In the "See also" section of his page most of the articles that are linked do not even mention him. There is nothing to warrant Joe Carr a Wikipedia article.

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetumbia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sweetumbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks very hoaxy. No Ghits for Sweetumbia or Menawhuii, and very suspicious that a village founded 250 years ago would appear to have the same name as the person currently running it. No hits for the powerful Zulantie family, either. Unless verification can be found, this one should go. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete NPOV issues, and this even sounds like a copyvio! —Jonathan | Quality, not quantity. 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Google search turns up a random webpage that is not related and... guess what, the article! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. The article says the village is located "out side of the South African boarder". So what country is it in? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it may be nonsense, but it's not patent nonsense - in that it is coherent enough to make some sort of sense. As such, it isn't speediable (see WP:CSD). Grutness...wha? 05:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may be right, but I think this article possibly could be considered "completely and irredeemably confused" so as to be considered "patent nonsense" as described at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Note that the village is run by a "headmaster with a specialization in foreign relations" yet has "no modern influence". Well, this article is going to be deleted regardless, so if we have to wait five days, we can wait five days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced, probably is a hoax anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm fairly certain that this is a hoax. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete and speedy close, obvious hoax.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be consensus that a merge is a good idea; I'll leave the implementation up to whoever is most interested. Mangojuicetalk 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Weaver III[edit]

Ward Weaver III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

BLP violation. Article is only a coatrack for his criminal trial and conviction. The only sources cited are About.com, one book, and a an article calling the book cited unreliable. Does not satisfy WP:V in the least, but as it stands, the article is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation. - Kesh (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not a BLP1E or a COATRACK violation, blatant or otherwise. Ward Weaver was the subject of many months of extensive coverage in numerous local, regional, and possibly national media outlets, not for a single event but for a complex string of events. The sourcing definitely needs some work, and I will work on that. The Tribune article does not call the entire validity of the book into question, rather covers disagreement about some of the details. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just added nine citations to the article's talk page, to be worked into the article as inline citations. Publishers include CNN, FOX News, Associated Press. Years of coverage span 2001–2007. Notable aspects include Weaver's attempts to fake insanity plea, FBI's failure to identify Weaver as a suspect, Tribune's role in identifying him, pattern of behavior in Weaver's family, show about Weaver and the crimes on Oxygen network, Weaver's repeated firing of attorneys and attempts to defend himself, cost of the investigation and trial to taxpayers, tie-in with history of death penalty in Oregon, lawsuit filed against Oregon City Police, etc. Happy Thanksgiving all, I'm off to dinner! -Pete (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other words, they're all about the crime and his actions during the trial, not a biography of the man: the definition of a BLP1E violation. If you want to create a separate article about the crime, feel free. But if this article claims to be about the man, when it's really about the crime itself. That's a straight-up violation. -- Kesh (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article begins with Weaver's birth in 1963, and covers events in 1967, 1981, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1996, an 1997 before getting to the beginning of Weaver's criminal activity involving Gaddis and Pond. Following the crime, the article discusses his approach to talking with the press, his trial and sentencing, and an event occuring in prison. The article is about the man, not the crime. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reframe as comprehensive article about the case. I find these arguments about the true nature of an article about a criminal something of an angels on the head of a pin sidetrack. I also find it a bit bizarre that we're arguing about an attack article when the individual in question is convicted and serving a life sentence. But I agree that the criminal and victims should generally be in one single article. Thus, merge with the already-combined Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond article. In the absense of a sitewide guideline on the notability of criminals and/or victims of crime, this is probably the best we can do. Instead of pushing someone to "create a separate article", why not be constructive and attempt to fix this one? --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously merge with the article about the victims. The question is merely what title to use, and at the moment we have no consistent practice. In this instance, there is no one preferred way in the references. The interest seems to be as much in his remarkably brazen conduct after the crime as in the crime itself, so using his name for the article title seems reasonable. Articles about people are necessarily about the things they did. the fact of being born is almost never interesting per se, nor is the education and personal life of almost anyone, unless they should have done something for which their education and personal life is worth knowing about. If the reason people are interested in them is because they are heads of government, that's a reason; if the reason people are interested is because they are notorious criminals, that's a reason--but in either case the article is normally about them. BLP was not intended to prevent articles about convicted (& confessed) murderers. Dhartung has it exactly right. I do not understand the reasoning of the nom.DGG (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did not formally !vote before. I believe the substantial issue behind BLP1E is notability; the situations where BLP1E is required are events where a person receives lots of minor press coverage due to their involvement in an event, thus appearing to establish notability, but is not really notable. To the degree that BLP1E appears to apply here, I believe that's a mere technicality. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge per Dhartung et al. Notable enough for a single article, but not three. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as per Dhartung et al. Notable enough for a single article, but not three. If it were possible in this vote then I'd delete the othe two now Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have merged all content from the Pond/Gaddis article into the Weaver article. (I did not move the categories over, such as 2002 deaths, as I believe they would only serve to confuse.) At the conclusion of this AfD, it should be possible to simply delete redirect Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond without losing anything of significance. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge: Most murderers (and their victims) are non-notable; Ward Weaver is an exception due to the extensive coverage of the case. That said, the article should probably be about the case, and pages on the victims (and on Ward) should redirect there. --EngineerScotty (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_22&oldid=1081101171"