Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge into Marilyn Manson (person). I'll do a rough attempt which interested editors are invited to refine. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebritarian Corporation[edit]

Delete as non-notable, dead-end article. Merge with Marilyn Manson (person)Yeago 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Marilyn Manson (person). As I've said over the article's talk page: I think it should be merged with Manson's own article, since this movement is not notorious enough on it's own. There's not even significant online activity regarding it (I've checked) [Besides, most of the article is needing a major overhaul). --Miguel1626 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Mergetarian too. Bearian 16:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death By Television[edit]

Not notable. Rocket000 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs offered on the article, and their self-claimed notability doesn't appear to be part of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass any WP:MUSIC criteria. faithless (^speak) 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no references given.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Carlosguitar 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rene "brewedsosweet" Reyes[edit]

Non-notable artist. Alksub 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to trace www.trueinternationalpoetssociety.com, which doesn't exist, the Ariana Huffington cite leads nowhere and the Grammys link can't be confirmed. I'm betting the rest, including the six university degrees, is equally impossible to document. Accounting4Taste 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same thing, the international poets society website is non-existent. Amazon.com returns nothing. iTunes does return 30+ hits, but since I don't have iTunes, I can't search any further. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. -Rocket000 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi-major record label? What is that? This seems like a hoax. Website talks a big game, but if any of it was true Google would show something. It doesn't, so delete. faithless (^speak) 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN. — Wen li ^(contribs) 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Accounting4Taste --NeilN 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly a hoax, who knows. Nothing within the article has been confirmed via reliable published sources. RFerreira 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Ward3001 03:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JIP | Talk 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyriot[edit]

Not notable Rocket000 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to trace the antecedent bands and got nowhere; the rest is self-publishing and self-promotion. Accounting4Taste 23:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Kww 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band completely fails WP:BAND. Note that The Unlabeled mentioned in the article aren't the metal band from Washington (not that they're notable either). faithless (^speak) 00:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN and WP:BAND. — Wen li ^(contribs) 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Distribution (business). Carlossuarez46 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authorized distribution[edit]

Previously deleted via PROD as unreferenced spam, recreated by an SPA. Although the term "Authorized distribution" may be an actual term, this article focuses solely on the activities of one company in one market sector. This obviously is nothing more than spam. /Blaxthos 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Distribution (business). If it's popped up multiple times, it may be worth protecting as well. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 01:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belabors what is obvious from the title. Gazpacho 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the redirect seems appropriate. -- Whpq 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Psi[edit]

Not listed on Shenandoah's website as an actual campus group, no coverage in greek org websites, and no actual content. Mbisanz 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to Shenandoah's organization list http://www.su.edu/studaffs/sa/contact.htm Mbisanz 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above link clearly shows that Phi Mu Alpha is indeed an organization at Shenandoah University.

This Phi Mu Alpha website is hosted on the Shenandoah University website:

http://www.su.edu/stu-org/PhiMuAlpha/index.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinfontastic (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ORG "Non-commercial organizations". It explains how indivdual chapters of an oganization are not notable, unless something notabl occured there. In any event, the title "Nu Psi" isn't appropriate for an individual chapter's article and would probably lead to a WP:NCON with other Greek org chapters. And the article includes an "Upcoming events" section, which is inappropriate for an encycolopedia, see WP:NOT#NEWS. Lastly, it appears from your user name that your associated with this organization, which is discouraged under WP:YFA. Hope that helps explain my rationale. Mbisanz 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Also, please see WP:COIN for writing about topics your involved with and promotion on Wikipedia. Mbisanz 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual chapter of a fraternity, with membership list of all 22 brothers and the house committees they are on. Possible speedy as nn club. DGG (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a chapter within a larger organisation without individual notability -- Whpq 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable chapter of a "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the correct guideline to apply here would be WP:ORG and this one fails it. Burntsauce 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Scholars, Inc.[edit]

No independent sources to show notability per WP:CORP. Alksub 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also the content is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and may qualify as WP:SPAM. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I see this program being notable for one area, but not for the whole country as compared to Gates Scholarship. M.^(er) 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inhouse weblinks are not independent sources required to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidism[edit]

Appears only on referenced artists website. Lacks notability in art community, and no real coverage on google Mbisanz 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - the artist has no article either where it could be merged and most google links rather seem to lead to the ancient medical concept Humorism--Tikiwont 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Welbeck[edit]

This player fails WP:BIO as he has never played a senior match for a fully professional side. The article is made up mostly of weasel words and NPOV statements, as well as a couple of uncited quotes. WP:BIO is quite clear on these matters, and the article should be deleted straight away. PeeJay 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree that the article isn't good enough, I would like to believe that playing for England counts as the highest level of competition at his age (although there are exceptions). I will abstain from any comment on whether that level is high enough to meet the notability requirements, but that criterion does seem to have been overlooked. --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a policy that states that people who represented their country in a junior age group are notable? WP:BIO only makes reference to sportspeople needing to have competed at a fully professional level, which this lad clearly hasn't. A boy I was at school with played hockey for England at (I think) U-16 level about 15 years ago but never pursued it as a career and now works in an office - would he really merit a Wikipedia article.....? ChrisTheDude 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't require sportspeople to compete at a professional level, although I suppose you would consider football to be a "professional sport", in which case, it normally does require professional competition. However, below the age of 17, a football player in the UK would not be eligable for a professional contract, so I don't see how U-17's football could be regarded as a professional game. Surely it counts as amateur, in which case, it still fails because it's not at the "highest level" of amateur competition? --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't yet fulfill the notability requirements. The article can be recreated if he does anything in the future to qualify. Qworty 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - junior footballer still someway short of passing the notability bar. - fchd 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too early for an article on this player with potential. England "name-dropping" is not enough to satisfy requirements of WP:BIO. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not yet played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. We can restore the article if he does break into the big-time. --Malcolmxl5 12:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Smith (The Blackout)[edit]

Google search [1] produces myspace, wikipedia and a BBC Wales "upload your band's details" showcase website for new talent along with other blogging type sites. No significant news or third party reliable coverage to justify a WP article. B1atv 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn per WP:BIO, WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rush[edit]

This article had a PROD placed on it, which was removed the next day by an IP with no improvement to the article. I'm vaguely familiar with this comic, so I tried to improve it, but can't find the sources to do so. Additionally, the article makes several unsubstantiated and controversial claims, such as Rush co-founding National Lampoon (he didn't, so far as I can tell) and being a drug addict and alcoholic (perhaps true, but unsourced and libelous). I don't believe he passes WP:BIO. faithless (^speak) 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no 3rd party WP:RSes for this guy, so fails WP:BIO and also WP:BLP. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its greek to me foods[edit]

spam page created by company "founder" and "president" which, despite attempts at cleaning up, still reads like a spam page of a non-notable company. B1atv 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, needs another WP:RS besides the St. Pete Times article. The Bay 9 article isn't specifically about the company. shoy 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very spammy article, not especially notable (I can't believe that someone in Greece isn't marketing this soup, even though I can't read the websites that seem to say so) and the sources are all local to Tampa. And, just my personal little idiosyncracy, I can't bear it when a company gets the apostrophe wrong in its own name. Maybe the "newphew" should look into it. Accounting4Taste 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and while presumably tasty, reeks of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 01:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support businesses having articles on Wikipedia, but this article is not sourced, the "specialty" soup is not notable and as such makes the restaurant non-notable.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hangon, should it be edited to a stub? Company is notable in the fact that ancient soup has not been canned before. User:mmh

COMMENT: There doesn't appear to be a user User:mmh but the history section notes that the above comment was added by User:Michael_Houllis, the "founder" and "president" of this company and the author and maintainer of the article in question (from which he has removed both "Speedy Deletion" tags and the "afd" tag. B1atv 07:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as article reads like spam.--Gavin Collins 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the first to can a single, obscure, soup recipe is a tenuous claim to notability at best. Seems to fail WP:CORP and especially WP:N guidelines, especially the Primary Notability Criterion, namely multiple independant and non-trivial references in reliable third-party sources. Any claims made seem to be by the company (or its founder itself) and thus are not indepenantly verifiable per WP:V.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sauna belt[edit]

Though I'm sure this infomercial product gets tons of Google hits, it does not as yet have any significant coverage in reliable, published sources. Notice that the ref to the Federal Trade Commission now present does not specifically deal with the sauna belt, but rather with a general principle of the trade commission's treatment of products. Without the ability to verify facts about this subject a credible article is impossible, and thus, one should not exist. A cursory news search provides no recent hits, while an archives search pulls up plenty of adverts from the 70's. VanTucky ^Talk 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hilarious product with a gut-busting infomercial (think 80's beach party theme with people wearing this thing all during the infomercial), but other than that, pretty non-notable beyond the whole 'FDA thinks its a quack' thing. Nate 02:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability to come. --Gavin Collins 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I think this product should be mentioned along with saunas and weight loss. JIP | Talk 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A product with no evidence of notability or source material should not be kept, to do otherwise would fundamentally violate the pillars of Wikipedia. VanTucky ^Talk 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Untitled Story[edit]

A non-notable game, that severely lacks verifiability / reliable sources. The two other games by the same design studio (Jumper and Hold Off Red), have both been AfD'd and deleted for similar reasons, so I think there's a pattern indicating some consensus here. (Also, as a preemptive warning, previous AfD's were spa-magnets). Bfigura ^(talk) 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, per the above. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason for it to be deleted. Does it harm Wikipedia by having articles? No. So why should this be deleted again?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-dreamcat (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — Wiki-dreamcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete An examination of the related website makes it clear that this game is the equivalent of a self-published novel, and that doesn't confer notability. Re the above unsigned comment, I think having articles about self-published items harms Wikipedia by lowering its standards for inclusion and wastes its bandwidth. What the heck is a spa-magnet? Accounting4Taste 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spa = single-purpose account. Deor 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much obliged, and I think I know where to find an example ;-) Accounting4Taste 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —[[Animum | talk]]

Canterbury Village[edit]

Non-notable retail complex, tagged for notability since July with no improvement. No notability even claimed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notability claimed? Sounds like a speedy delete, A7 to me. shoy 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Theo Vasiliou[edit]

A biographical article about a businessman who is (rather peripherally it seems) associated with football. Although the article appeared to be of someone who appeared to be notable, further examination of the claims in the article make a pretty strong case that he's not notable and little if any of the info we have about him can be verified. So I think we should delete this article.

The notability claims in the article are very weak: he's a businessman (but there's no indication that the business is anything special), he was involved with a non-league football team (but not, it seems, to a huge degree). He tried to buy a small professional team, but didn't succeed. The claims (present in the article as initially submitted) that he played for two notable English football teams appear either to be false or gross exaggerations (cf Talk:Millwall F.C.#Peter Theo Vasiliou and Talk:Peter Theo Vasiliou) and in turn the weakness of these few verifiable claims weakens the sources (which, in that light, seems more like a press releases than a reliable sources) for much of the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, he didn't purchase a club, he didn't play, and I can't verify that he ever did anything notable. Accounting4Taste 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a rich guy whose ambition is to become a football hobbyist. Qworty 03:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 12:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. We don't post every successful businessman, just the notable ones (e.g. Richard Branson). Being associated with a footbal team does not make him notable per se. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played or managed in a fully professional league, and his business exploits do not appear to make him notable either. Number 5 7 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an important spokesman for Pukka Pies!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.2.218 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that 212.135.2.218 (talk · contribs) added a couple of links to a blog at http://jaffafundcake.blogspot.com (which I've removed per WP:EL - they're obviously a joke). A review of that blog shows that it seems devoted entirely to light-hearted mockery of the subject, and also references this AfD, although it's not a call-to-votestuff. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I Peter Theo, I not liar, I eat pie - Peter Theo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.2.218 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with redirect to Tsuki. Alabamaboy 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi zuki[edit]

This article, which is about a specific punching technique in karate/Japanese martial arts, consists of about 95% "howto" material, contains no references, and is possibly non-notable, or at least not notable enough to deserve its own article. It is also listed at List of shotokan techniques, and List of kyokushin techniques (there as "seiken oi tsuki"). I tagged the article with {{howto}}, which lasted all of 40 minutes before it was taken down, with the rationale that the article cannot be made less "howto", so it seems appropriate to "test" the article with an afd nomination. I believe notability is the primary concern; if notable, a two to five sentence stub (with a reference) would be an appropriate non-howto treatment of the subject. If kept, I also propose a move to Oi-zuki (same title but with a hyphen) to better indicate the compound nature of the word, rather than its current appearance as two words. Bradford44 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; previous work in de-howtoing random martial arts techniques stubs (including this one) has convinced me that they're rarely worthy of their own articles. Chris Cunningham 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge together with Choku-zuki and Gyaku-zuki back into Tsuki. I am not sure it is possible to explain the differences between various punches in any non-howto way. --Cubbi 14:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a stub can't be expanded, then it's not a good article. MarkBul 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to appropriate budo article as unredeemable. VanTucky ^Talk 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.B. Funkeys[edit]

Questionable notability, and other serious problems. I had a field day with Twinkle removing 11 images without license tags, for example Maxim_(talk) 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC) KEEP KEEP KEEP! This is a fun game, that I like to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessKirlia (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's well sourced, has external links, and just neeeds a cleanup job. Tagging for rescue. Bearian 00:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs rescue, not delete. Mentionned in the NY Times -- Kl4m ^{T C} 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia ottonello[edit]

Youtube and myspace star, but otherwise doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Looks like she's just under the WP:MUSIC notch. However, some of that might be the fact that the sources we'd need are in italian. I'd be happy to switch if someone can produce more sourcing (I quickly looked, but didn't see anything) Bfigura ^(talk) 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody can provide some links, I'll withdraw the nom, but I couldn't find anything reliable, even in Italian. Corvus cornix 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against a sourced, NPOV rewrite by somebody independent of the article subject. GRBerry 03:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander randall 5th[edit]

Weak Delete The subject does not seem to be particularly notable under WP:BIO, the article lacks citations, and it may have been written by the subject. If it can be improved, with notability shown, I would not be averse to inclusion. (note: I originally added a db-bio tag, which seemed appropriate, however, a google search showed that the subject was potentially notable, so I have changed it to this afd nom.) Grand Slam 7 | Talk 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a tough one, as it asserts WP:Notability. I don't know enough about his work to comment on the content, but the article violates the autobiography, professorial notability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view rules. Bearian 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- massive revamp needed though, marginally keepable.JJJ999 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article violates far too many policies to name. Burntsauce 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Habscast[edit]

Nonnotable podcast, no independent sources. Claims to be in iTunes "top 20", but no citations. NawlinWiki 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB / WP:MUSIC. No real sourcing. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was crush with hammer. DS 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobstrini[edit]

Procedural nom; I've just removed a {{db-nonsense}} from this as whatever it is, it's not unsalvageably incoherent & speedy's inappropriate for possible hoaxes. As there's probably no subject on which I know less than Uruguayan fishing boats, sending it here in the hope that someone who does know can determine whether this is a hoax or not. Procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with butter sauce. No sources, zero Google hits, looks like a hoax to me. NawlinWiki 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Shouldn't be any issue. Not a single google hit, nada, google says "No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found." and asks me if I meant another word Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
0 Google hits is a rare thing. Sauté in butter, serves 6. humblefool ® 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think its real... a duck shaped boat called a Ma - l - ardaquitus... :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.101.60 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boil it alive. Hoax. Corvus cornix 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a side of snow. See new comment below. --Darkwind (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC) No hits on dogpile or mamma metasearch either. --Darkwind (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Zero Google hits; possibly made up after one too many martinis in a lobster bar. But if we drop it into a boiling AfD discussion, will it scream? Accounting4Taste 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No martini was involved... just the rusty workings of my strange mind... it is indeed a hoax... if a very well thought out and written one, even if I do say so myself! It was intended for a friend of mine but sods law has struck and his mac has decided to pack up... dont suppose we could just leave it on here? (that was a joke). Apologies to anyone who feels there time has been wasted, and to wikipedia for breaking the rules. It was just meant as a bit of harmless fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.101.60 (talk • contribs)

While I'm sure it was intended as fun for you and your friend (and I personally find the concept amusing), we take the whole encylopedia thing rather seriously. I now recommend speedy deletion (perhaps the microwave will come in handy...) since the author has admitted the source of the article is a hoax. --Darkwind (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, the anon IP wasn't the creator, User:Sutok was — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me again why we had to delete BJAODN? Brush with a light, buttery sauce and present with garnish. Alba 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user is me, sutok... please feel free to ban me if thats my punishment... :)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Cunningham[edit]

Non-Notable contestant on reality show. The page was obviously made by an agency she is with trying to boost her career. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth :) 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Very non-notable, regardless of the self-promotion issue Bfigura ^(talk) 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet the WP:BIO guidelines for reality show contestants. Accounting4Taste 00:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nope, doesn't meet the WP:BIO guidelines for reality show contestants. Besides, lots of girls have a scar on the right side of their faces. Qworty 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Extremely non-notable. Self promotional only. Does not meet guidelines. -YeLLeY511 01:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this was a COI creation, but I also don't see the notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Crimson[edit]

Non notable new (from 2007) amatuer football club. Contested prod, because they play in the third division of the North American soccer league. No indication that they meet WP:NOTE in any way, though, simply playing in a certain (non-professional) league isn't enough. Fram 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 12:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the club has amateur status, they charge for admission, will participate in the US Open Cup, and there is coverage of the club in the media (e.g., Boulder Daily Camera). It's probably a close call whether this club meets the notability criteria, but it doesn't meet the "definitely not notable" criteria here: [2]. Jogurney 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the club can play in the US Open Cup, it is as notable as clubs down to Step 6 in England which can compete in the FA Cup. Number 57 20:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep in mind that any amateur clubs that are affiliated to the USSF can participate in the US Open Cup (so it's not as difficult to participate in as the English FA Cup). Regardless, I think the club is sufficiently notable per my comments above. Jogurney 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, one can not compare the cup in other countries to the FA cup, so competing in the US Open Cup does not indicate notability, and I haven't gotten a clue what else would indicate any notability for this club (charging for admission? Why is that relevant at all?) Fram 09:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clubs generally only charge for admission as far down as Step 6/7 in England, which is the level at which they become notable. Number 5 7 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Charging for admission is a sign of notability. If people are willing to pay to watch the club play, they are more likely notable than an amateur team that does not charge admission. I agree that it's not a guarantee of notability, but the media coverage appears to keep the club out of not-notable territory. Best regards. Jogurney 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that every club playing in the NPSL has an article.[3] --Malcolmxl5 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst not being an expert on the intricacies of the American League system, i do think that this meets the requirement of WP:NOTE. I note that all articles in the National Premier Soccer League do have articles but that does not make any claim of notability for those individual articles. Woodym555 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cannot be called outright non-notable, and attract considerable non-local media coverage, such as this and this (see also supported arguments per Jogurney). Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 00:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Simpson[edit]

This person is known for only one incident. WP:BLP1E suggests that an article on the incident may be appropriate, but not a biography on the person. Wikipedia is not a news blotter. Dean Wormer 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Yeshivish 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jack Ruby is also known because of only one event. Should we delete him as well? Kinston eagle 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ruby's crime had far-reaching consequences, and has continued to be notable, and he himself carried notability through his lifetime. Not a good comparison. Dean Wormer 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hard to believe anyone would compare a minor conceptual artist to an important homicidal mobster and strip-joint operator like Mr. Ruby. Qworty 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the standard for WP was that they had to be as notable as Jack Ruby, WP would have very few biographical entries. Nbauman —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is a straw-man argument. I'm not saying Jack Ruby should define the height of the notability bar. I'm saying that the assertion that this particular conceptual artist is just as notable as Jack Ruby constitutes a false comparison. Even the women who took their clothes off in Ruby's clubs--who might be considered more or less "artistic" than Star Simpson--do not merit their own articles unless they are somehow notable in the investigation of the JFK assassination. Qworty 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument was not that Star Simpson is as notable as Jack Ruby, but that someone can be notable because of one notable incident alone.

I think that the incident itself is notable. Many technical people read WP. We now have a system in which (1) Airport guards are under instructions to stop (and sometimes shoot) people who are bearing electronic equipment that the guards are not familiar with. (2) Airport guards are not familiar with common electronic equipment that is used in every high school physics lab, and for sale in every Radio Shack store in the country. (3) This means that any geek in the country is liable to be shot by an airport guard for innocently carrying an object that he or she could not reasonably have known would be dangerous. There is nothing in the airport signs that tells you not to carry electronic equipment that ignorant guards won't recognize. So this is important information to WP readers, and it will still be important after it's not news any more. (4) It also illustrates the ignorance and stupidity of the Boston airport guards and police (again) who freak out at the sight of simple electronic equipment that has been used for decades in signs and jewelry. Haven't they seen an LED before?

People have posted links to WP policies on what is not notable. Can somebody post the links to WP policies on what is notable? Nbauman 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take any subjects that are both verifiable and notable and remove the subjects that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 17Drew 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's verifiable. It's notable. WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That's true.

In addition it's notable for the reasons I gave above. Many people believe that this is an example of an absurd over-reaction by airport security to a non-threat, which could have resulted in her death. That makes it notable.

The objections all seem to be WP:IDONTCARE. What objections do you have that don't fall into that category? Nbauman 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, nobody has commented on whether or not they care about reading the article. Obviously, individual users' preferences as to what kind of articles they like to read don't have an impact on what articles should be deleted. Maybe the link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not wasn't prominent enough. Here it is: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, articles that don't have "historical notability" don't belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address this to the admins who will make the final decision about deletion.

I've given several reasons why this event is noteable for an encyclopedia. I'm trying to figure out why people are so hostile to its inclusion. If you read the Delete comments, they basically say that we should delete the article because they personally dislike Star Simpson (and many of the comments are abusive). "I don't like her" is not a valid reason for deletion. Nbauman 06:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out one comment where WP:IDONTLIKEIT was the primary reason to delete? From what I can see, both Hardnfast and Resolute said that the article should be deleted because of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOT#NEWS. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments were asides to the actual reasons to delete. If you're still trying to figure out why people want the article deleted, I would recommend reading their comments. WP:BLP1E states that people known for involvement in one event should be covered in an article about the event, not the person. WP:NOT#NEWS says that events that don't have historical notability may belong at Wikinews, but not at Wikipedia. 17Drew 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask -- I was thinking of ad hominem comments like these, below:

"Is Wikipedia going to now create pages for every idiot who perpetrates a bomb threat hoax?"

"If we start adding articles for every random whacko who does something stupid, We'll be having a billionth article poll in no time."

I could accept the argument that it is the incident and not the person that is noteworthy, if you wanted to create a page about the incident instead, or merge it with Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident. However, you'd have to rename that page, because the claim that it's a "fake bomb" is only the POV of the police. Simpson's lawyer argues that it was never intended to look like a bomb, it doesn't look like a bomb, and it wasn't a fake bomb (and I haven't seen any evidence that it was a fake bomb). "Bomb scare" is more accurate. Nbauman 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated, both people who made those comments made them as an aside after giving a valid policy-based reason. Please stop pretending that people are drawing from WP:AADD for their primary reasons to delete, especially when you still have yet to address how Simpson has historical notability . I've mentioned WP:NOT#NEWS now ten times in the course of this discussion, and yet you still haven't provided a reason why an article about her doesn't fail it. 17Drew 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a story on Slashdot today about the Steve Kurtz case, and the comments repeatedly compare it to the Star Simpson case. They argue that both cases are part of a broader pattern of government agencies arresting artists and other innocent people for possessing ordinary high school science class equipment, and prosecuting them even after they establish that they were not terrorists and were engaged in harmless activities. You can agree with that or not, but it's a valid position that a lot of people believe in (WP:WEIGHT), including civil libertarian lawyers.

This is one more reason why the Star Simpson story is notable, together with the other reasons I've given, which are not refuted by the WP:NOT objections. Nbauman 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree entirely with the nominator. I've seen some very marginal 'person-in-the-news' articles come up for deletion recently, but this one beats them all. And just where is the evidence she's received 'international attention', anyway? Terraxos 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As WP:BPLP1E says, a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted in a case like this. bikeable (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ with no prejudice against recreating later should there be greater impact. Artw 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to either Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident or 2007 Boston Mooninite scare. Artw 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not been mentioned in the UK news as far as I know (just saying, she's not had much international attenion everywhere.) This will be forgotten tomorrow or soon, if it's not put on wiki. She should be allowed to get on with her life really.Merkinsmum 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her website seems to be gone (times out) so she clearly wants her privacy.Merkinsmum 01:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or the site is getting too much traffic from people trying to access it.Bupobm 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting international attention. I saw it in the Guardian, the Register, and a few more. Search Google News by country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbauman (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. The Jack Ruby comparison is frivolous. Gazpacho 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. --kine 03:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just came on the news today. That means that tomorrow it'll be yesterday's news, and even more trivial than it was today. Unfortunately, she'd probably have to show up with a real bomb to become notable. Qworty 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the weekend to pass. Maybe this will be a big news event (like the ATHF hoax), maybe not. But we should know within the next week. (Or we could move to wikinews until then). Remember 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as the subject either does something else notable or this one event proves to be such a significant event that an article not only about the event but about her would be appropriate. Even if this were a notable event, the first article to create would be the article about the event. We don't even need that right now. Erechtheus 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, since the event doesn't have long-term historical notability. 17Drew 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — I agree with Remember. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait See How Long News Stories About This Incident Last. --Christopher Kraus 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think this will be as big as the ATHF thing, but it does show that Boston is afraid of Blinkenlights. dcandeto 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-notable WP:COATRACK article. If it continues to receive media coverage 4-6 weeks from now, we can re-evaluate the topic on Deletion review. RFerreira 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Star Simpson is an artist, and artists are encyclopedic. The only question is whether she's notable enough. She's a young artist. She's at least a minor artist. Would an encyclopedia be better if it included minor artists? I think so. (We've got plenty of disk space.) She's an electronic artist, which I think makes her more notable. She's a woman engineer, which is noteworthy. When I went to college there were no women in engineering. Deserved or not, she gained attention. There will always be people who say, "Remember that girl at MIT who was arrested in the airport with a fake bomb?" We would be better serving our readers if we could give them a better account than they'd get with a random Google search. There are 28,000,000 Google hits on "Star Simpson", but most of them are written by people who don't know what a proto board is or have never seen electronic jewelry. It would be useful to provide links to a half dozen good stories, and a summary of what they'd find there. Nbauman 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is good at stating WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, but Wikipedia isn't. Also, see WP:NOTE#NEWS: "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." 17Drew

I was not saying that WP should include everything. I was giving the reason why Star Simpson is notable and important. WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Can you address the question of whether Star Simpson is notable?

Thanks for the links, though. I can now recognize that most of the arguments above are WP:IDONTCARE. Nbauman 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were saying that Wikipedia should include young minor artists because there's disk space and because she's a woman in engineering. That's not notability at all. Especially when she's not an artist as you state; the device was an elaborate nametag for a career fair, not some sort of art project. The news stories imply notability, but WP:NOT#NEWS is a policy unlike WP:NOTE and states that news stories that don't have historical notability belong at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. 17Drew 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who refers to it as a "nametag"? She calls herself an artist on her web site, and some of the articles refer to it as an art work. It's a simple art work, but I know big-name artists who created simple jewelry like that (in metal and semi-precious stones, not LEDs). How do you decide whether she's an artist? Nbauman 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources state that she had created the device in the shape of a star (her name) so that she could wear it to MIT's career fair and set herself apart. 17Drew 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is relevant to the Boston Mooninite scare. However article needs work, the wikinews version is a much better read. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Student_arrested_over_%22art%22_shirt_with_exposed_wiring_at_Boston_Airport, Plus this is clearly not a fan page of a garage band or an autobiography which are the usual suspects for bios that are not notable. --Dave1g 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any information that's relevant to the Mooninite scare should be in the 2007 Boston Mooninite scare article. But WP:NOT#NEWS, and there's nothing to show that this event has historical notability. 17Drew 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment looks like they may actually prosevcute, which probably changes things a bit. Artw 15:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a high-profile instance of an important modern conflict. It should be recorded and saved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobikey (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:COATRACK isn't policy, and isn't applicable anyway. From that essay: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." There's no bias here. As for WP:BLP1E, this is not an instance in which an article about the event would be superior. Virtually everyone seeking information about the event would enter "Star Simpson" in the search box. JamesMLane t c 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed WP:NOT#NEWS, which states that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." Nothing in this case has happened to suggest that this will have any historical notability. 17Drew 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph of the policy says that it may preclude a bio. I'd take "contextualize" here to mean that, in some instances, a person notable only because of one event can be best covered in an article about the event. For example, we had a Jennifer Wilbanks article, but now instead that title redirects to Runaway Bride case. In this instance, I don't see a more appropriate title. JamesMLane t c 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway Bride case involves a "disappearance", a major search effort, a false kidnapping allegation, two lawsuits, and a book deal, resulting in media coverage for several months. WP:NOT#NEWS says that in addition to often covering the case and not the individual, the case should have "historical notability" or else it belongs at Wikinews. This is already off of the Google News front page, and there's nothing about the case that implies it has historical notability. 17Drew 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that the two cases have received equal attention. I was answering the specific point you asked me to address, namely the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS. Specifically, I was giving you my interpretation of "contextualize" in that policy: If we decide to cover something, sometimes a bio article would be appropriate, but other times an incident article is better. JamesMLane t c 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of my comment referred to the part about WP:NOT#NEWS that states that articles should have "historical notability". Subjects with fleeting notability belong at Wikinews instead of Wikipedia. 17Drew 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, the event doesn't have long-term historical notability. Is Wikipedia going to now create pages for every idiot who perpetrates a bomb threat hoax? No need to encourage these people. Hardnfast 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Star Simpson did not perpetrate a bomb threat. She never intended to make anything that looks like a bomb, and it in fact does not look like a bomb. It was a breadboard, which every electronics student can recognize. The only bomb was in the overactive imagination of the Boston police.

That is your opinion, mine is that this was her attempt at a publicity stunt. Bottom line is neither of our opinions mean anything in this discussion. This event on its own, and this person do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. This event/person is not likely to cause a change in security procedures nor set any legal president. The story is likely to disappear shortly like other airport security incidents that make the Drudge report (think Monica Emmerson and the child’s sippy cup incident in June 2007). One could make an argument that this topic could be included in an article addressing airport security in the US post 9-11, but on its own it doesn't merit inclusion. Hardnfast 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the misinformation of people who continue to post messages on here referring to a "bomb threat" is further evidence that the incident is misunderstood and that it is important to have an entry giving the correct facts. Nbauman 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If people want to find about about myths and the like, they should use Snopes or a similar site. If they want news, then Wikinews serves that purpose. 17Drew 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident‎. 17Drew 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good God, Delete! per WP:BLP1E and per the fact that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. If we start adding articles for every random whacko who does something stupid, We'll be having a billionth article poll in no time. Reso lute 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, straightforward application of WP:BLP1E. --68.163.65.119 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs), 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because recent enough to not yet adequately ascertain her importance. Let us see what coverage she has in a few months, but people will likely come to Wikipedia looking for information on her for the time being. The incident received enough news coverage to indicate notability. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. IF she ever becomes notable, an article can be written from scratch. --Evb-wiki 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm tired of you people making Wikipedia a place where I can't find answers to questions anymore due to some paper idea of what is "encyclopedic." You guys have removed a lot of what made Wikipedia wonderful. She's plenty "notable." The wiki medium is not paper and will not run out just because "too many" articles are included. This used to be a guiding principle for Wikipedia, but seems to have been forgotten. It's time to overturn a lot of the destructive standards that have crept in for the past couple of years and start taking advantage of this medium again. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've adequately described WP:NOT#PAPER. Unfortunately, nobody here has stated or implied that Wikipedia is paper or that the article should be deleted to make room for others. Rather, the main issues are WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. You've stated neither why the event has "historical notability" nor why there should be an article on Star Simpson and not the event itself. 17Drew 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, famous for only one incident. Who would be as stupid as to bring a circuit board into an airport anyway? JIP | Talk 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident. This incident isn't likely to have lasting impact, and other than this incident, I don't see Star Simpson as being notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a noteworthy person. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- one event can be suitably notable, and she is a young, upcoming talent of note with footnotes to back it up.JJJ999 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zander 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is at least as notable as 2007 Boston Mooninite scare, and although a Google test is not binding, it shows 393 000 results for "Star Simpson". It could be notable in the future, especially as she has been charged with possession of a hoax device, and the case could set a very important legal precedent one way or another. Firestorm 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the device she was in possession of was not a hoax device, and she didn't violate Massachusets law because she had no intent. Nbauman 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Those who voted keep, please consider rewriting it to be an article about the incident or merging with a relevant article on such incidents in general. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

268 (bus)[edit]

This does not explain why one bus service is any more notable than anything else. Qu e ntin Smith 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep this article its really usefull!!! i would die withoout it, you dont want your death on your conscious do ya? - Sukraaj Brench
KEEP IT YOU FOOLS IT IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ ON WIKI, LONG LIVE THE 268 ARTICLE, MAY IT HELP ALL THOSE WHO THOUGHT OF CATCHING IT ON A FRIDAY WHEN ITS RAINING

Chris Kelly, Fond user of the 268 23/09/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.246.42 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted, nor can any probably be. Dean Wormer 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bus. Wikipedia is not a directory of bus stations. Useight 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Mike Vitale 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you miss the Heckmondwike Green bus at 1953 hrs, another one will be along in an hour. Mandsford 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability of the route, no indications that it is a major route.--JForget 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's so special about this bus route? — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete honestly, this article just seems a joke. There are thousands of "268 bus" around the world, are we going to list them all ? We have reached the "absolute zero" notability SyG 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny, but no. RFerreira 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obviously. Ridiculously silly. Some bus routes are notable - e.g. Outer Circle - but this is clearly not one of them. DWaterson 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and misleading title, what about other 268s with much higher ridership? 132.205.44.5 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is a bus. There are thousands of them. Why is this one so important? What makes it better than 267 or 269?--65.169.203.196 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ above, it MUST be better than the 269, because that service route got taken off when thr 269 and the 269 were running virtually the same route, that a good enough reason? //Benja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.83.183 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a bus route, nothing special. JIP | Talk 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there's still the 270, the 271, the 272,...--Gp75motorsports 13:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this discussion should be closed now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin King (musician)[edit]

Notability is marginally asserted, but IMHO this still does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements. TexasAndroid 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all works are on small labels, doesn't seem to have much with regards to notability in the sources (unless being slugged by Courtney Love confers notability, which, all things considered, it probably doesn't). Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TrekNation[edit]

When one considers the tortured syntax necessary to establish how this trek site is different form all the others, one s prompted to wonder: do we actually care that Christian Höhne Sparborth founded this after leaving another network in a huff? Do we need the long list of links to member profiles? Do we, in fact, need a directory entry for this trekkers' fan site at all? I don't think we do. I don't think it's been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm indifferent, so I comment rather than go one way or the other. But at least two of the refs provided are reliable: Fox News and CNN. The rest of the refs are pointers back to itself, books written by members, and the like. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "books written by members" Actually it's the complete opposite, i.e. the authors happen to post on the board, thus making the board noteworthy. Tehr 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the CNN or Fox News stories are acutally about the site, they just use it (or its creator) as a reference, so there are no reliable sources that form a basis for the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the most well-known Star Trek site save possibly for Memory Alpha. It is often cited by recognized media or by official Star Trek publications, eg book reviews, LA Business Journal. --B 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably notable although somewhat marginal. Seems to have some recognition from external sources, as indicated by B and in the article. Everyking 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per B. — Brother Flounder 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted and sourced by the article, authors of various Star Trek books post on the board and often recognize the board in their books (both the board and its individual members). Tehr 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does seem to be somewhat notable. • Lawrence Cohen 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<removed !vote by banned editor... not that it will have any bearing on the outcome...>--Isotope23 ^talk 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant improvement over the original article. One of the most notable Trek websites. Well cited and documented. Alyeska 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please note that many if not all of the keep votes stem from this thread: [4] encouraging people to vote to keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.117.154 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would appear that most of the individuals opining here are fairly active editors with a history rather than fly-by SPA that were fed here by a forum post. I've seen lots of !votestacking in my time and it doesn't appear that is happening here (and I say this as someone who takes a fairly dim view of Trekkie fancruft). It simply doesn't look like meatpuppetry to me.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very nicely cited article; in fact, so well documented I venture to say it calls into question the motives and administrative skill-set of the nominator. Also, if we look back at 208.97.117.154's first edit to Wikipedia and a later edit, we see that his opinion of "Delete" above is not backed by much seriousness for the project. --Earthboat 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nicely cited"? This article is nearly wholly cited from such "reliable sources" such as "treknation" and "trekbbs". Sorry, but your argument wrapped around a snarky attack on the nominator and anon IP isn't really very well supported. I make no judgment either way on the inherent notability of the topic, but this article as it stands is a very pretty mess and I hope that at least some of the individuals opining keep will endeavor to clean it up when this AFD closes.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My computer is part of a network inside the appartment block where I live and consequently, several of the edits are done by seperate people. You should assuming good faith Earthboat and not berate those that do not vote the way you would wish. And if you want to speak of motives, I should note that the creation of this article stems from the denizens of the TrekBBS being miffed that there wasn't an article about them. I would say that the TrekNation may deserve mention within an article about Trek fandom at large but it does not merit its own article.--208.97.117.154 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the "nice cites" that I saw were from Pocket Books, CNN, and Fox News. Perhaps you haven't heard of these reliable sources? If I was snarky, no worries. I'll withdraw my opinion and simply let any of the other large majority Keep votes here speak for me. Isotope23, I see from your contributions that you are pretty much a "block and/or delete" machine on Wikipedia. That wouldn't surprise me, for someone who wants to go out of his way to delete an entity that Pocket Books, CNN, and Fox News have all found time to mention. Not only that, you're removing votes of other users! As for the anon IP, why don't you get yourself a User account and build some credibility? --Earthboat 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting assessment; where in the world did you get the idea I am going "out of [my] way to delete an entity that Pocket Books, CNN, and Fox News have all found time to mention"? Would it be when I didn't add a "delete" opinion to the article? Perhaps it was when I suggested this doesn't get snowed so a clear consensus can be reached. Maybe it was defending most of the "keep" !voters as not being single purpose accounts fed here by a forum. That must have been it.

Beyond that, any comments I removed were per our policy on banned editors contributing here. Perhaps you could spend more time getting your facts straight and less time attacking legitimate IP users... that would be nice. Credibility is based on contributions... not on having a username.--Isotope23 ^talk 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<removed comment by banned editor.>--Isotope23 ^talk 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Perhaps this discussion would be better on someone's talk page? — Brother Flounder 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawwwwwn... It would appear that other news sources mentioning or describing the subject of the article include: Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Winston-Salem Journal, and the Los Angeles Business Journal. One wishing to preserve the article would merely have to obtain these sources from archives, read them, and cite them, right? Or, you could just Delete the article. That's more fun, isn't it? --Earthboat 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs some work to make it more objective (it reads like an ad for the site) but otherwise it is a noteworthy subject. Hermiod 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we get this closed up per WP:SNOW? — Brother Flounder 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just letting it run course. The consensus looks to be a pretty clear keep and WP:SNOW seems to always just invite a deletion review. It should close tomorrow anyway.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit, we already went through one of those. Forget I said it. — Brother Flounder 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable cruft, just the kind of asrticle wikipedia neitherh wants nor needs as we atre writing an encyclopedia not a teenager magazine, SqueakBox 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How does it harm anything to cover Trekkie fan sites, as silly as some may think them? *Dan T.* 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, nonnotable amateur club. NawlinWiki 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stern rugby[edit]

AfD-ing rather than prodding as there could be a reason to keep this as a bona fide college sports team (which seem more notable in the US than the rest of the world). However, I don't see how this is salvageable; strip out the OR, vanispam & attempts at humour, and all that would be left would be a two-line stub. As I can't see a way it could be cleaned up, I'm breaking my own rule and bringing it to AfD early rather than tagging for cleanup. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they're looking for donations, then they're a private club and not associated with the school. Non-notable amateur rugby team. Corvus cornix 23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete.This is a legitimate page and deserves the right for members to clean it up so that it conforms with Wikipedia's guidelines. This page was just created two days ago so it needs time for it to be properly edited. Are all pages created after two pages tagged for deletion? Give these guys a chance to properly edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.194.196 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 69.118.194.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, vanity page about a non-notable sports team. JIP | Talk 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. 1. There are rugby club teams on Wikipedia. 2. It is uncommon for a rugby club to be formally associated with a school in most parts of the world. (In other words, affiliation with a school should not be a factor with this particular sport.) 4. Sometimes sports teams are noteworthy for reasons other than their category (e.g., Jersey Generals were noteworthy only for playing against the Globetrotters. XFL teams for their shennanigans, such as the "He Hate Me" jersey) 5. I see no mention of donations anywhere. 6. I agree that the article needs a lot of cleanup. Let's make that happen. Stephenwstanton 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)— Stephenwstanton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was (Somewhat delayed) Speedy delete a7, no assertion that this product is notable; no independent sources. NawlinWiki 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copycoder[edit]

This is not a cryptology device but a toy. It is also not an encryption device as anybody with one of these toys can deciphger anything created with them. A google search reveals only sales and marketing or blogs and no independent or verifable sources to assert notability. Further, this article has been created and maintained by steveostler - the official copycoder.com site states that copycoder was invented by Steve Ostler. B1atv 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Has already had two months. Can be recreated if reliable sources emerge. Eluchil404 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoonZu Online[edit]

Marked as unsourced in July, still unsourced. A free MMORG, of which there is no shortage. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- insufficient reason to scrub... propose giving it time.JJJ999 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Does not meet verifiability requirement. Chick Bowen 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chick Bowen. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning statistical research[edit]

This would a fairly sensible passage from a book on Planning Statistical Research, although it does not appear to be verbatim. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Transwiki to Wikibooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Statistician. Hiberniantears 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's silly. If this is to be merged into another article, it should be design of experiments. Michael Hardy 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The assumption that experiments are not typically designed with the statistical analyses in mind, and thus that this is in any way a separate topic from the design of experiments, is very wrong. The title is exceptionally poor, implying (IMO) that it has to do research into the subject of statics, when it is in fact something more like the "design of experiments with respect to the anticipated statistical analyses". The writing is very poor, and there's nothing in the way of references to suggest that this was originally based on a clear idea to begin with. Pete.Hurd 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into design of experiments. The objection that this is just a "how-to" is at best uninformed. This is a large area of scholarly research. Michael Hardy 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not merge - the person(s) who wrote this article can't even reflect the title in the body of the article. Any thing that needs to be said about experimental design can be said somewhere else - this is a mess. MarkBul 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also Delete Resentful demoralization that links to this one - there's nothing to it. MarkBul 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment resentful demoralization just needs clean-up, hint google "resentful demoralisation", the "s" spelling pays off. Pete.Hurd 23:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is too vague to be worth merging into design of experiments or sampling (statistics). -- Avenue 11:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge. Contents is useless practically and worthless theoretically. Despite its venerable pedigree[5] this feels like it was lifted from a student essay or course notes. --Lambiam 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to design of experiments. It seems like a reasonable search term but DoE is the most suitable encylopedic topic. --Salix alba (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to. Our article on Design of experiments is way more interesting and has a user-friendly beginning. Generally our articles should not give advice, but are allowed to give sourced information on what people have done previously. The article also lacks references. I wouldn't object if this title were redirected to Design of experiments. EdJohnston 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11). Article states that hydroxagen is not a substance, but rather the trade name for a plant extract used in dietary supplements, notably Hydroxycut. The scientific content is zero, it is pure spam. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxagen[edit]

Unsourced article about some chemical compound that was tagged speedy delete as spam, doesn't smell as spammy as all that but it also doesn't seem notable either without any sourcing Carlossuarez46 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Hydroxycut. Its one of the main (or the main) ingredient in Hydroxycut. Pretty spammy as written, but I think this could be cleaned up, and survive as a real article, or at least as a component of Hydroxycut. Hiberniantears 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hydroxagen is not a chemical compound. It is a made-up name given to a commercial product. The science described in the article has (at best!) a tenuous connection to the ingredients in this product. This article is nothing but a deceptive attempt to give legitimacy to the kind of "miracle weight loss" products that are little more than scams. Deli nk 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Hydroxycitric acid. According to this link, Hydroxagen is just a marketing word for Hydroxycitric Acid. Kevin 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammish fluff. Its presence interferes with the evolution of a real article, if one were to evolve.--Smokefoot 22:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Silveira[edit]

I really doubt that this person is notable. The sunder king 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The entire text of the article is one line, with not even a smidgen of a hint of an assertion of notability. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion A7. Article does not assert notability. Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A7 applies only to people, groups, bands, clubs, companies, and web content, not to books. So this is more of a deletion under WP:SNOW/WP:IAR than a deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Melsaran (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught In The Crossfire[edit]

I'm looking for a quick sanity check and a snowball close here. This is an unfinished novel by an unpublished, unknown author. The wikilink Bobby Graham in the article takes you to a very famous English, not Scottish, session musician, and there is also a retired Scottish footballer, Bobby Graham (footballer). Neither of these famous, and by now rather elderly, Bobby Grahams is a "young Scottish author". The book, we're told, will be "hopefully published upon completion", but no publisher is mentioned.

I tried adding a proposed deletion tag to this article over a week ago, in fact the day after the article was first created, but the original editor removed the tag, which is the only reason the article still exists. Tony Sidaway 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, no sources. The article consists of a huge plot section and a lead section saying "it is a currently unfinished book that will hopefully be published upon completion". WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BK. Melsaran (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the basic minimums is that the book should have an ISBN, Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Threshold standards. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable (WP:CSD A7), by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neris and India's Idiot-Proof Diet[edit]

nn book, fails WP:BK, possible WP:COI as it is among a number of articles by same editor for books and authors published by Fig Tree. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. It should be noted that this editor said on the Wikipedia help page that she works for Penguin, of which Fig Tree is a part. --Orange Mike 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I'd speedy as non-notable, but it's a book, so A7 doesn't apply. (Maybe the WP:SNOW shovel instead?). Bfigura ^(talk) 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete But G11 does apply. Alba 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Mass Media. Maxim_(talk) 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media industry[edit]

An unsourced buzzword romp, makes little sense, cannot see that it rises to the level of an encyclopedia entry. Has been tagged for sources and expansion since Feb 2007. The last sentence is atrocious. SolidPlaid 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "media industry" is a very widely used term, and it refers to a very large slice of the services industry. The article in it's present form is not very well written, but that's not a good enough reason to delete it. There seem to be hundreds of potential references out there talking about the history of the media industry, so I see no good reason why a good article on the subject couldn't be written. —gorgan_almighty 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the term different from "the media"? Steel industry redirects to Steel, Mining industry redirects to Mining. Automotive industry is a for real article, can Media industry be brought up to that standard? SolidPlaid 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media redirects to Mass media. I originally considered this same redirect for this article, but I think the terms "media industry" and "mass media" are different. "Mass media" is only a part of the "media industry". —gorgan_almighty 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem: I don't think this term is clearly deliminated or defined. It overlaps with Mass media, and in its present state is worse than a redirect. SolidPlaid 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author's point is apparently that publishing, broadcasting and the internet are interacting as if they were one industry, rather then competing, maybe like AOL Time Warner. If it's that important, hasn't anyone written a book or an article about it (plus done a TV and radio spot and a blog)? "The growth of the media industry walks hand in hand with new forms of communicative based technology." That is kind of atrocious. I had a growth on my hand once... Mandsford 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems more like bad editing than a bad topic Mbisanz 01:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mass media. Nothing here that isn't, or couldn't be, treated in that article. As SolidPlaid indicates above, there's no point in having an "X industry" article when we already have an article on X. Deor 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research - "my opinion of what's really going on" in the world of media. MarkBul 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the redirect to Mass media - they're basically the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass media unless (or until) it gets expanded. --Yeshivish 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mass media. Clear cut case of redundancy.--Victor falk 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jewish outreach[edit]

No sources given and article is poorly written. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJOP. gidonb 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this nomination, if external resources cannot be added it should be deleted--יודל 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Delete~~ Yossiea ^(talk) 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You created the page. FYI. You can do a CSD as the page author. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i did create it but if u think its not according to wikipedia policy i want it deleted. Although i am rushing to add more external links but if in the end of the day i cannot appease you i wont want to be in contempt of breaking wiki policy, so it should be deleted by all means--יודל 18:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; see WP:IGNORE (yes, a rule on ignoring rules). If you think you can find more sources then we won't delete untill we see what you find. In the meantime, I'll !vote Hold on to see if it can be source--Phoenix 15 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what are all those links at the botton?--Phoenix 15 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. An editor creates a page and five minutes later votes to delete it.--Yeshivish 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it so hilarious i created that article in the belief that a category should have its own article an other user has noted that its not proper to have it, and i agreed, but i now urge that user to hold on maybe i still can appease his concerns. have u ever thought that this place is a community. i will not fight if u vote to delete i will look if i can appease u if not consensus will win. and if hilarity ensues in this process take a good laugh it is healthy.--יודל 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold On since i am working heavely on the article i beleave all users should not vote delete yet, because I major Jewish holiday is coming up and i will not be able to add more external links for the next day.--יודל 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This year, Yom Kippur is only one day.--Yeshivish 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes u r right i stay corrected.--יודל 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general subject of Orthodox Jewish outreach, called Kiruv in Hebrew, is a very notable topic that easily passes Wikipedia's notability requirements and could readily be expanded into a lengthy and informative article. Just do a Google search on Kiruv. Chabad-Lubavitch, a highly notable Orthodox religious movement, is famous for its kiruv practices but there are many other Orthodox organizations involved as well. There is some reference to this in the Baal Teshuva article. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Shirahadasha says, kiruv (the topic of this article) easily passes WP notability requirements. --MPerel 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Yom Kippur is about to start, I won't be able to add sources right away, but they are readily available. The Orthodox Jewish congregation where I will be attending services over the next 24 hours will be conducting an introductory service as part of the outreach efforts of one of the programs described in this article. The subject is notable, the article is reasonably-well constructed, but it needs some of the plethora of sources available to be added to the article. Alansohn 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Conditional Keep important issue, but must be sourced.--Truest blue 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep sources exist - it is irrelevant to the AFD whether they are added now or later. Don't use AFD as a threat to clean up articles. Jon513 20:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you guys have all repented by now, so gofixit. Next time, don't play games with AfD to make a POINT, but use the {{underconstruction}} tag. DGG (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've repented for the past year, which lives plenty of room for this year's list. I still don't understand the circumstances of the article's creation or of this AfD, but I agree that sources should be added, and i look forward to your joining in on the fun. Alansohn 03:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This article is just a complete cut and paste of material from the Baal teshuva article. It was not written or created by user:Yidisheryid, he merely created a new name because until now it was part of the Baal teshuva article and because he first "creates" it, and then "agrees" to have it "deleted" it needs to be questioned if this is WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. I fully agree with User:Jon513: Don't use AFD as a threat to clean up articles. Or just a back-door way to get rid of material from articles that one is against. Naughty-naughty, but don't try such games here! IZAK 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a notable topic and it has the making/s of a key lead article especially since there is an entire Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach. IZAK 08:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my vote. I never realized that this page was a target of user YY. This page should remain, and I withdraw my support for the deletion. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite notable. gidonb 14:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, or merge back into ba'al teshuva. Avi 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is important and notable. Culturalrevival 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to kiruv rechokim. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Whaley[edit]

Minor voice actress. No sign of significant third-party coverage. No material seems available to grow the article past the current sub-stub. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mike Vitale 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and I don't see any potential for expansion. --PAK Man ^Talk 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly, she doesn't seem to be notable. At least she's not another COI egomaniac; here[6], she herself declares, "I am a typical New York City actress. I am the statistic." --Groggy Dice T | C 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may just need some expansion and may need to be wikified.Kitty53 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 03:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William & Lydia Bean[edit]

No sources, no concrete assertion of notability, and quite confusing. There's not really much to say about it, but I do not feel like this is a suitable article. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. Important figures in the history of the Cherokee people, as referenced in the Nancy Ward article. Corvus cornix 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It might squeak by notability standards if it had a few sources. I disagree with "keep and source". The article can be recreated if more sources are located after deletion. Ward3001 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ward3001. Vegaswikian 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Times New Roman, Times Roman and MgOpen Canonica fonts[edit]

WP:OR, personal observation, and a rather arbitrary choice of encyclopedia topics. No speedy criterion fits, and the author placed a {{hangon}} tag so PROD was unlikely to work. Mango juice^talk 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't get much more WP:POV and WP:OR than "the MgOpen & the Times Roman are more nice-looking than Times New Roman." shoy 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rob T Firefly 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete per A1 and A7 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion--Phoenix 15 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Granted, it's original research, so it's not really A7 material, but I think we can ignore all rules here. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious OR.--JForget 22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snowball in Courier New becoming avalanche in Arial. Mandsford 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fontcruft and WP:NPOV violations with the statement about looks of font (Who can tell the difference, I can't). Nate 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom OZ OO (What?) 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'll keep my assumption-of-bad-faith comments to myself here. RFerreira 04:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific topic, original research, possible POV. JIP | Talk 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedurally closed. A spelling or naming-conventions dispute about the title of an article is not a basis for deletion. This closure is without prejudice to an AfD based on more appropriate grounds, although I note that the article has already been AfD'd once before with a Keep result. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voßstraße[edit]

Contested prod. The notability of this street in Berlin has always been marginal; it consists largely of the fact that Hitler's Chancellery used to stand there. However, the chief function of the article in Wikipedia has been, for some time, the ongoing spelling dispute: is it Vossstrasse, Voßstraße, or Voss Strasse? I propose to cut the Gordian knot.

This dispute seem to me beyond reason, and against practice; WP:MOS says, The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Edvard Beneš and Göttingen, but Nuremburg, naive (not naïf), and Florence). But, above all, it is interminable.

Is this article worth the perpetual conflict? Anything which needs to be salvaged can be added to the article on the Chancellery, if it hasn't been moved to Kanzlerei. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

‎

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 discussion below. A REDIRECT in place of the article seems like a good idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Stringfellow[edit]

Delete self-published author written by a WP:COI account, no evidence of notability and if this author is notable, why don't we know the date, year, and place of birth - red flags of non-notability. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Date of birth: 11/22/1961 Oklhoma City, Oklahoma. HOW DARE YOU SAY that self published authors aren't notable! Some of us have sold many more books than the authors in regular houses. I've been featured on Oprah, Montel, in more than 100 magazines around the world, and on more than 100 tv shows, newspapers, newsletters, and radio shows around the world. I know I'm not suppose to say anything because I'm the person in mention, but how dare anyone of you JUDGE as to who is notable. It's the internet - not your private party. What arrogance! I'm a member of the National Speakers Association as well, does that count or am I at your mercy - some group of guys who think they have more rights than others. Wow, I hope I never have to be called upon to JUDGE your success. I'll just pray for you instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstringfellow (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be immensely more helpful if you could find it in your heart to be civil and provide us with references to some of these 100 magazines around the world. Spitting vitriol won't help your position here. In any event, please review Wikpedia's (not "the internet") guidelines for notability of people and Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiabilty. I personally believe you're almost there, you just need to give verifiable secondary sources. Into The Fray ^T/C 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I realize that it is impossible to truly verify usernames when they claim to be a specific person, I do believe it is worth noting that I have actually seen the Oprah show that this person was on (the dog is so cute!) and I went to the person's blog, [7] and from that entry, it really does not remotely "sound" like the person using that username here on Wikipedia is Jude Stringfellow. The blog is without question, written by the author of the book, and she does not use all caps, or type in the same manner as this username has done. Nor does she really have any problem with the deletion of this article, as stated on that blog: "We have enjoyed her stay on Wikipedia, but to be honest it doesn't make or break her abilities to be presented in public, or to be beneficial to anyone." Further, she flat out states that this username is not her at the top of the blog entry. Again, fully realizing there's no way to verify it, the comparison of the writing styles of this username with the real person's blog, are sufficiently different that I personally do not believe that the username claiming to be the author, actually is. Aside from all of that, I believe that the article on the dog is notable enough, and perhaps the information regarding Jude Stringfellow should simply be merged into that article. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just read the blog entitled 'Wikipedia Queens'. The writing may be a little more considered in tone, but the spirit is not so different. The subject's involvement in the article seems implicit, at least. The offense which they seem to have taken, even on the blog, is surprising for someone who is a writer and teacher--one would expect an understanding of an editorial process which strives, imperfectly, to uphold impartiality through the use of reliable sources and the discouragement of autobiography. This is proper for an encyclopedic venture. JNW 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt we'll ever be able to say conclusively, nor is it really germane to the conversation here whether or not Jstringfellow is indeed Jude Stringfellow. It's clear that Ms. Stringfellow is saying it's not her and that there were multiple edits where JStringfellow said they were her and, as such, I've listed Jstringfellow on an admin noticeboard with some useful links. The mean-spiritedness of both the persona and the person are vexing to me but, other than that, whether one = other is immaterial. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, I did my level best. Based on this: [8] and this [9], I'd even go speedy now. Into The Fray ^T/C 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, WP:COI. Vanity article. JNW 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable only for her dog Faith, whose article I have just argued should be retained. SolidPlaid 05:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While self published people can be notable, it's not typical (after all, if you were notable, wouldn't you have signed a deal with a publisher?). That said, it requires reliable sources to establish that notability, and this article has none. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 06:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not independently notable, and apparently itching to get onto BADSITES. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or, optionally, redirect to the Faith (dog) article. RFerreira 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, it's the dog that has the notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 21:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memoriez Of A Younginz Legacy[edit]

This is an article about an album which is not due to be released until 2009 by an artist who appears to be not notable. A google search produced no results for the album title and no sites for the artist other than Youtube and WP.

Ordinarily I'd nominate as a CSD but the article is written as if it is notable and so AFD is probably the best route. B1atv 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article reads like it should belong in a magazine, not an encyclopedia. Even then, there are no reliable sources for this album at all, looks like blatant advertisement. TheLetterM 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forever & Eternity[edit]

This is an article about an album which is not yet released by an artist who appears to be not notable. A google search only produced WP as a source. Ordinarily I'd nominate as a CSD but the article is written as if it is notable and so AFD is probably the best route. B1atv 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The artist doesn't even have an article yet, and his "websites" are MySpace and Tripod (pages which anyone can make for free). I would say it's non-notable, and if it isn't, my side-project is probably notable for Wikipedia. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyvio. Natalie 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tgmath.h[edit]

Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE — madman bum and angel 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12. Marking as such. Leuko 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)s[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyvio. Natalie 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stddef.h[edit]

Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE — madman bum and angel 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12. Marking as such. Leuko 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 discussion below. Our policy that articles must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources has a strong consensus, and no argument for keeping attempts to demonstrate such verifiability. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Blates[edit]

Contested prod. My original reason for prodding was: "Non-notable DJ with one independently released EP and a music video "rumoured to be released" in late 2007. 19 Google hits, all for Wikipedia or MySpace. There isn't even a real name in the article, which reads like a hoax, even if it isn't, and it's totally unsourced." The creator has added "real name undisclosed" and 2 references and feels that this satisfies the prod concerns. However, the artist doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and the references are to his MySpace site and to his freewebs-hosted blog, which now includes the news item: "WIKIPEDIA IS TRYING TO SHUT DJ BLATES ARTICLE DOWN!!...I GOTTA GET ALL YOU HOT FUCKING SKETS SUPPORTIG THIZ SHIZ!!!" One EP and a record deal with a company that has 1 non-Wiki, non-Myspace, non-own site result does not a notable musician make. Kateshort forbob 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no reliable sources, so fails WP:MUSIC miserably. shoy 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reliable third party source. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bmg916^Speak 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any sources other than myspace. Non-notable artist, with a non-notable label (and any hits for that specific label also turns up no mention of the artist) Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't feature sources. Sorry, its got to go. Icestorm815 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable, whatever he puts on his website. Hut 8.5 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we haven't been flooded with sockpuppet keep votes speaks very poorly of this article, indeed. Delete. humblefool ® 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I be so bold as to suggest this be called snowballed and be done with? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN and WP:MUSIC. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the articles author, i understand it is largely unsourced, but DJ BLATES is a notable DJ in the Stevenage area, and his underground fanbase means he has little exposure. Perhaps you should all listen to his music? user:moore.jonathan 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is gained by exposure, though. Heck, I live in the same county and don't know anyone who's ever heard of him. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention, notability also doesn't include whether or not his music is good. Whether or not a music artist is any good has no bearing on whether or not they meet the criteria to warrant their own article. Bmg916^Speak 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources - let alone reliable ones - to demonstrate notability. Author himself states he has little exposure, so any claims of notability are going to be impossible to verify. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Only citations are a freewebs and a myspace account? No thanks. RFerreira 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live in Stevenage where this DJ is popular and i feel you are being prejudiced against underground artists, he IS notable, if you ask anyone involved in the local music scene they will tell you that. What makes an artist noteable is if there is if they exist and they have a loyal following, which he does!!! The information in this article is true and is providing useful to those interested, it isnt hurting anyone else so KEEP! - user:walton4 23 September 2007 (UTC)— walton4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nope, what makes an artist notable is that they pass Wikipedia:Notability (music). He doesn't. The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and WP:NOHARM is not a vaild argument. Hut 8.5 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to above because WP:NOHARM is in place to stop articles being kept on, where unverifyable information is stored which, (although the author means well), could potentially harm the subject. This article however seems to have full backing from DJ BLATES himself as his website seems to endorse this wikipedia article. Although he is not totally notable 'by wikipedia standards' the information i have written appears to be 100% truth, appears to cause no harm whatsoever, and the sources are verifyed by DJ BLATES himself, who shows no opposition for this article.
What more could it possibly take to save this artice? user:moore.jonathan 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment to closer: this user has also !voted above. Hut 8.5 17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i have, i am simply arguing against the response to walton4's argument. user:moore.jonathan 23rd septomber 2007. (UTC)

In that case, start your comment with "comment", "reply" or something similar, instead of "keep", which implies you are a different user. Hut 8.5 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have changed comment, and will keep in mind for future reference user:moore.jonathan 23 September 2007, (UTC)

Comment The information must be verified by reliable, neutral third party sources, not necessarily just the article's subject. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Bmg916^Speak 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! Me and at leat 20 other people i know love DJ BLATES he is the next DJ Luck Man!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstylancaster17 (talk • contribs) — Kirstylancaster17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Wikipedia policy states that the quality of his music (as wonderful as I'm sure it is) doesn't matter. At all. The threshold for inclusion is coverage by reliable secondary sources. 17Drew 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Rhodes[edit]

Declined Speedy Deletion. Limited notability. Further discussion required please. Pedro | Chat 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person is barely notable, and hasn't done anything since being cut from the NFL in August 2006, no reliable third party sources given either. Bmg916^Speak 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find anything on ESPN.com to indicate that he's ever played in an NFL game, so fails WP:SPORTS. shoy 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has never appeared in a pro game -- can be recreated if he ever does play in the pros. NawlinWiki 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that he ever played for the Texans, so fails WP:BIO.--JForget 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real assertion(s) of notability, no references, fails WP:BIO... — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You're correct in not speedying, Peds, but it still doesn't suffice our notability standards. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Articles must demonstrate notability through coverage in third party sources. Also see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Eluchil404 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Paint: Paintball 2[edit]

I've been struggling to find good independent references for this game, and I'm concerned that most of the exsiting references are from a forum. My searches have found some download sites and press releases on sites like Planet Quake and Mod DB, but nothing that would satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine 13:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable at all. Miremare 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't have any reliable, third party sources. Icestorm815 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is on SourceForge as "Digital Paint Paintball 2" with activity percentile 98.26 and a rank in the 3000s. Check out the download page with downloads/day nearing 1000. 69.234.20.127 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is widely played by a large community, and is notable in that it is one of the few Quake 2 Mods with a somewhat large fanbase. Steeb 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:N, no reliable sources. 86.137.238.48 11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has a solid following worldwide, receives over 1000 downloads daily from sourceforge.net alone, has aired on television, and is still being supported and worked on after almost 10 years. --71.75.7.87 06:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downloads, popularity and longevity are irrelevant (are any of the keepers looking at WP:N?), but the television apearance might be enough to support notability. Can you provide more details? Marasmusine 07:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's take a look at some of the other games listed on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_III_Arena - no references listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_II - Some engine modification, a quote from a developer on a gaming site, and a blog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake - no references listed. And those are popular, commercially published games. Add in some of the free/open-sourced games, and I think the Paintball2 article is in a lot better state than a large number of game articles that are not marked for deletion as far as references go. I'll see if I can find any more information on the television appearance, but that happened some time ago and may not have any readily available documentation/history. --24.199.129.138 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no sourced content merge is not viable. GRBerry 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wormhole (Farscape weapon)[edit]

This fictional topic consists entirely of in-universe information. There is no independent reliable sources to provide evidence of WP:Notability to justify keeping this plot summary.--Gavin Collins 13:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Merge anything useful into the article on Scorpius. This one doesn't need its own article. 23skidoo 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a pivitol aspect of the series. This subject doesn't just relate to Scorpius, so a merge wouldn't really be appropriate. PC78 22:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "pivitol aspect"-ness not established by outside sources. SolidPlaid 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The wormhole weapon could be mentioned in the Farscape main article, that's where it belongs.--Crusio 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers related to academics[edit]

Queried speedy delete & AfD delete. Author claims improvements since previous delete. Anthony Appleyard 12:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Improvements or not, the problem is the whole idea of such a page. Random intersection based on ill-defined and ultimately undefinable criteria. Snalwibma 13:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable intersection of topics (one of which, "being related to academics," is hardly encyclopedic material in itself). And what's with the cockamamie "See also" list? Deor 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear inclusion criteria (how related enough is "related"?), probably unmaintainable. shoy 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Yet another meaningless list. --Finngall ^talk 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an intersection between two unrelated topics. The fact that a specific individual in entertainment is related to an individual in academics is not notable, even if both individuals are notable in and of themselves. Useight 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless and very vague list. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entertainers related to academics...who cares? Cogswobble talk 17:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. This would seem to be an intersection of two unrelated fields yielding a non-notable result. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively a useless list as mentionned all above.--JForget 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. There are no improvements to this recreated article. It is just a shorter version that has the same failings, I don't remember anyone in the last afd saying "keep, but make it shorter". Crazysuit 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random list. Gazpacho 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, highly trivial list. RFerreira 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless list. Who cares if they're related to academics? JIP | Talk 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RESULT:Deleted already by Raymond arritt per A7. non-admin closure. SYSS Mouse 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Whiteford & the All Stars[edit]

Contested prod. Article claims that this band had a number 1 chart hit in Australia, yet there is nothing relevant on Google. Their site is on a free host and has nothing more than 'coming soon'. This is a pretty blatant hoax from what I can see Darksun 12:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the last sentence says it all: "Matthew Whiteford & the All Stars legacy lives on in their one and only recording of 'Satin Doll'". The talk page shows one comment regarding the contested prod: "he isnt very famous yet." When he gets famous, he can be listed. Until then, there are no refs, and the provided link appears to be a parked domain. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. Moreover, a quick google search shows up absolutely no hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson Aliens[edit]

This article is plot summary from the books. There is no assertion of real-world notability, and the lack of reliable third-party sources makes it impossible for the article to pass WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of articles that do pass WAF ? I.e. those that assert real-world notability and do not lack 3rd party sources. I just want to see what's expected of the fiction article in that department. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine, Jabba the Hutt, and Padme Amidala are featured articles. --EEMeltonIV 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples that are not StarWars, StarTrek or Tolkien ? Anything less mainstream/pop-culture, but still of a good (science) fiction quality ? I'd like to see you address the points that someone raised on article's talk page. Please take time to respond in detail, because we are looking at deleting quality content and merely quoting a policy does not suffice. Policies are designed to be somewhat ambiguous and flexible. Alex Pankratov 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. After all, more-obscure corners of sci-fi (or any genre) have difficulty meeting Wikipedia's general notability standards and the notability-in-fiction guidelines. --EEMeltonIV 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be because angry editors like yourself keep ripping their articles off, preventing them to grow and find some new public? These guidelines, interpreted your fundamentalist way, are bullshit, no more, no less. 78.113.82.16 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the AfD summary by EEMeltonIV this article lacks "reliable third-party sources" but in the examples shown above of featured articles the VAST majority of sources for those articles are actually first party sources, DVDs, novels, companion articles, blogs owned and administered by the copyright holder(s) and fans... that makes me wonder why those sources are more valid than in-universe sources for thsi article. Perhaps if someone could explain the double-standard on sourcing we could avoid more situations like this. I'm being very serious, if there is specific policy on why some things can be self-sourced and others can't I'd like to be directed to it so that I can better understand the debate.--Torchwood Who? 06:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability of these fictional characters per WP:FICTION. Extensive plot summary is not a substitute for verificable independent sources. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Strong Keep, this is getting repetitive. EEMeltonIV has already purged substantial amount of relevant content from another related article, again citing WP policies whose applicability was questionable. I did not raise an issue at that time, but this AfD requests starts to push it. If WP:WAF is followed to the letter, we'll end up with just Superman, Darth Vader and Pokemon. The series of books in question is quite new (2-3 ? years old), but given the reviews and previous Hamilton's history, there's little doubt that the subject is notable. Alex Pankratov 15:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is not inherited; the novel series deserve articles (although not just plot summary rehash and minutiae, which my deletions removed), but that doesn't mean the aliens, planets, characters, technologies, etc. that populate the series are themselves notable. --EEMeltonIV 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cite, because I consider your argument to be invalid here : "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."
And why not? How can you say that an extensive description of the aliens in that book is useless? It's obviously useful to me, and to other people as well, as it helps comprehend some part of the book that can seem partly obscure to the lambda reader. It may also bring people to get to know the novel itself. What would not be the case with an article that would consist only in : title/author/5 lines about the plot, which seem to be what you'd like it to become.

- - Having reviewed the edit history of the guy who made the page, but does not post anymore, and other factors like the apparent credibility, and lack of persuasive argument for delete, I recommend 'keep and ask for references.JJJ999 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if I tell you that I don't freakin' care about Superman or Dr Bashir or Darth Vader's personality analysis? Would I therefore destroy those pages I don't care about?

I don't freakin' know who did put those stupid rules about notability, but YOU seem to NOT be able to understand that just about every rule must have exceptions. This one being a notable one. Period.

Ah, and, as I told before, on fr:wp, you would have been spotted and banned, with an attitude like this. Shame we don't share this same policy here.

78.113.82.16 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is useful" is not a compelling argument to retain or write an article. Additionally, per the writing-about-fiction and notability-in-fiction guidelines, Wikipedia takes an out-of-universe perspective that relates fictional material's real-world impact and coverage -- critical reviews, commentary, development information, etc. If no such information exists for the Dyson aliens -- if all we know about them is what they do in the story -- then they don't warrant an article and any more than a sentence or two in the article on the (highly notable) Hamilton books in which they appear. If someone out there has written some scholarly or critical commentary on them, then I'd welcome an article about the aliens.

I welcome any and all material on Wikipedia that discusses Superman's, Bashir's, Vader's, and other notable fictional characters' development and critical reaction, as cited to reliable third-party sources. I don't want Wikipedia, however, simply to rehash the comics'/series'/movies' plots; in-universe plot summary is what sister projects like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are for.

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take up your issues on the policies'/guidelines' talk pages. WP:FICT just went through a substantial revision based on editors' feedback. that I will do, but it's not the question here

As for being banned from the French Wikipedia: I doubt I'd be interested in contributing to a site that preemptively bans users who've never contributed to it, and who were banned because their edits to another project are cited to policy and guidelines. I am not going to lose le sleep over it. --EEMeltonIV 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of fr:wp was pointless, and badly presented, it was just an example.

I don't disagree with WP rules, but with your rather extremist interpretation of them. This is not at all the same thing. ""It is useful" is not a compelling argument to retain or write an article" Who decides what is useful here? You? I gave a context : it is useful, for people to better know the saga, and have a better hindsight about the universe it describes. It can also inspire people in creating forks about this universe (like Bettancourt did with Zelazny's famous saga - dunno the name in english, sorry). There are plenty of arguments in favour of STRONG KEEP. And only your extremist "follow the rule" attitude against it. Rules are meant to be interpreted. My interpretation differs from yours, widely. When my goverment told me to stop listening to several rock or hip hop band, because their lyrics were against the law, I did not obey. Stupid extremist interpretations of rules (in any organization, nation, or group) lead to destruction. This is my opinion. Oh, and what IS your interest in this, can't you just leave this article alone? We, its editors, want to keep it, so let it alone, why do you care, anyway? Does this make you feel important, or whatever? Why can't you just let people alone? We want it kept, can't you understand that? If you don't like it, just go away, and stop readin' it !!! Or do you suffer from The wrong version syndrom ? 78.113.82.16 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to cite another user, from another AFD discussion, if he may accept my use of his very sensible arguments :

I am yet to see a good argument for the deletion of mainstream "fancraft" articles from this wiki. People often claim that it is not notable, and that it needs to be cited. Rubbish. Wikipedia is written by experts in their own field, who better to fight over the exact speed of warp 5.6 then a bunch of fanatics? People also claim that we should trans-wiki it to another wiki. People don't search other wikis, they search wikipedia - because it is supposed to be the sum of ALL human knowledge - and fiction is part of that knowledge. Fosnez 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.82.16 (talk • contribs)

Well, this user's premise that Wikipedia "is supposed to be the sum of ALL human knowledge" is off; per policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. And in that same section (since quotes have credence with you), policy in that section states that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." --EEMeltonIV 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You like to cite laws, do you? As I said on Moya AFD page : I remind you that WP policies are made by its users, as WP would be nothing without them. WP is not a democracy, Nor a dictatorship. But, that's it, go on, delete the entire damn encyclopedia, I've had enough of all of your type. A single question, before I leave : If, say, in a year or two, or maybe tomorrow or next month, Wikipedia decides to change its policy in order to endorse the creation of plot summaries (which are useful, for example to students and pupils to help them in class - i.e. if they study a book in class), in that case, what would you do? Would you undelete all the articles you did delete? Will you stop harrassing us goodwilling small editors? Or will you continue to play God and consider these new policies don't concern you? I have my idea on that. 160.92.7.69 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia, as I like to believe in my naive way, belongs to its users, not the contrary.[reply]

I find it scandalous that some angry and (maybe) frustrated editor decides ON HIS OWN what is good or not on a page like this one. This has gone far from simple vandalism, it's an organised and voluntary attemps to destroy information of value. There is more than Starwars/trek in the Sci-Fi universe, especially when the book the article is about is a BESTSELLER, which, If I may be so bold, seems to mean a great deal of people were impacted by it in the real world. I say again, I am terribly horrified when I see how much informative data this ONE editor simply erased. I'd say we need an admin to come and see the extent of the damage. I am not familiar with en:wp, but I assure you this would not have gone this way on fr:wp (where I come from) 160.92.7.69 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors' input is just as welcome as anyone else's. --EEMeltonIV 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the main article. It can be edited from there. MarkBul 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, I see no third party sources for the notability of any of this. I'm sure there are, but references from them it would put the material into perspective. The amount of appropriate detail depends on the notability of the works. DGG (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as needing third party references. Not adhering to WP:WAF is a cleanup issue, not a deletion one. This article is about a major concept of a clearly notable work of fiction, which according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) may be separated out into a separate article from the main work ("To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons)."). JulesH 12:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - So where is the information on these aliens' real-world notability? Where is even an un-referenced assertion of these aliens' notability? --EEMeltonIV 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point of the quoted notability guideline for fiction. This article describes a major plot point from undoubtedly notable books. It exists as a sub-article to provide additional explanation about the subject that shouldn't be included inline in the main article for stylistic reasons. The context it provides for the main article is necessary for a full understanding of the subject. Its notability is therefore supported by the notability of the books, which is established in the main article. JulesH 06:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes a major plot point -- See WP:PLOT. All this article does is summarize the antagonists. Again, no real-world notability. "A full understanding of the subject" at Wikipedia does not mean simply regurgitating the story, which this article does. --EEMeltonIV 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) and Source I'm not so concerned about the real-world notability after reading the comments by JulesH, but I would like to see references cited for a lot of the info in this article. Page numbers in the books where they're featured etc. The sad thing is that we can't just take an editor's word on the information otherwise we'd have no way to distinguish vandalism from good edits. I'd like to see the article kept and referenced. If it doesn't improve in the future I'd have to vote delete.--Torchwood Who? 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect back into Commonwealth Saga. There's no reason to have a separate article on this. We already have had articles on Alamo Avengers and other details from these books. It's not necessary; the text and the author are hardly notable. 206.230.62.2 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Hamilton the author who's "hardly notable" ? Alex Pankratov 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes. 206.230.62.2 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a very strange judgement about somebody who has been described as "Britain's Best Selling SF Writer" (see covers of books in question). JulesH 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional evidence of Hamilton's notability: [10] [11] [12] JulesH 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of the commonwealth saga's notability: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Note that many of these book reviews directly discuss the subject of the article in question. JulesH 06:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, not a single one of these is from a reliable source. We dont prove notability of books from blog postings and blurbs. I agree though that he and his books are notable. Nobody is proposing to delete them. DGG (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems rather self-evident to me that this is a cleanup issue, rather than a deletion issue. -Toptomcat 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anima Banner[edit]

This term derived from the role playing game Exalted is non-notable, as the article has no independent sources to verify usage or context outside of its in universe descriptions. --Gavin Collins 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and for once GC is actually right about in-universe material. Percy Snoodle 12:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN and has no references. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Exalted, but it's looking like a pretty ugly merge, honestly...maybe just a straight redirect if it comes that way. --UsaSatsui 06:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Stauffer[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well referenced. Moreover, the subject in question is the author of 40 non-fiction books as well. He has also received national attention for leading an effort to fight the efforts of the Gannett Corp. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siva1979. This seems notable and verified to me. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (see [18]). Mr.Z-man 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ladd[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Flagged Notability in Feb 2007. Reads like a PR piece. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's appeared on CNN and in a well-known journalism journal (ha!), she's also been profiled several times. Could use a re-write tho. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~No source for CNN.~~ Assuming you mean Society of Professional Journalists as the well-known journalism journal, as is sourced in the article, that's a blog hosted by SPJ and not actual SPJ writing/coverage. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It's a regular column in blog form, for a very tough audience. I'd say it meets WP:RS. --Orange Mike 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - a bit less hagiography (a common failure of journalist when writing about our own) would be more encyclopedic. What do her foes and competitors say about her? --Orange Mike 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as has been pointed out to me, I don't think the article meets WP:N either, even though there is discussion ongoing of merging WP:N and WP:BIO, but as it stands now, they aren't merged and are seperate. Therefore, this article fails both. If anything, this person is of local interest, local being in Jackson, Mississippi where her free weekly paper is distributed. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think the James Ford Seale case makes her and the paper qualify for notability. It got national press, unlike most of the local newsreaders and talking heads that populate the obscure backwaters of this wiki. --Orange Mike 02:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her paper, Jackson Free Press, definitely deserves its rightful place/article, but I feel a page for her, herself, is unnecessary, at least in it's current form. Just about everything in her article can be found in the JFP article. And while the Seale case got national attention, she herself didn't other than being the owner of a free 16,000 distribution once a week paper that did some investigative work and reporting when then Gannett owned state newspaper The Clarion-Ledger didn't. As the old saying goes, "what have you done for me lately?" -- ALLSTAR ECHO 12:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic, Ms. Ladd was inteviewed on many national and interntional news outlets about her series of investigative stories on the old civil rights murders in our area (Charles Moore, Henry Dee). Her work is sited numerous times in the trial transcripts. I remember hearing audio for BBC, NPR, seeing her on CNN, and reading media in multiple news reports. Her site mentions interviews on CBS radio and Canadian Broadcasting, and her race work has been discussed in several journalism trade publications. Her race work has been discussed in at leasst one book about Mississippi. She also is the only strong female political voice in the state if that counts for anything, more recently taking on Haley Barbour, and she led the reporting that got the mayor in Jackson indicted, attracting national attention (and did a crazy series of interviews with him known as "the Melton tapes." I agree though that the page looks like a glorified bio. Will go try to dig more stuff up and make it more standard and complete. Would appreciate help! Msnatchez 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)--Msnatchez 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my concern about the bias of "Allstarecho" was deleted by that user. It is not meant as a personal attack. He has made his personal issues with Ms. Ladd very public. I don't have a problem that he feels that way, or criticizes her. But it feels inappropriate for him to lead an effort to have this page deleted from Wikipedia, possibly as part of a campaign against her. <Msnatchez 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)--Msnatchez 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV Read it, live it, love it. I addressed your concerns on your talk page. Please keep the discussion on topic. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a witchhunt concern is off topic here, and you didn't really address my concerns. I also see that you found another critic of Ladd on Wikipedia and asked them to come post here. But I have no desire to spar with you. I'll give you credit for adding a piece of new information to the page, though. At any rate, I've done some searching and found material to help update the Ladd page and did some re-arranging to make it looks like a press release. There is still more material that should be fleshed out better, like what the "national diversity chair" of AAN does. I also haven't found all the links to the BBC and other audio files, but I'm looking. There's out there somewhere if those stations didn't take them down. I thought they were linked to the JFP site but haven't found them yet. Msnatchez 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)--Msnatchez 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "it's not a witch hunt" do you not understand? Donna Ladd is the last person I think about routinely, I assure you. The fact is, that as a Wikipedia editor from the Jackson metro area, I read alot of Wiki articles having to do with things in and around Jackson. I decided to see if JFP had an article in WP after having looked at ClarionLedger's article. When I found the JFP article, I even said to myself "cool" because I didn't want the CL to be the only one on WP. Via the JFP article, I came to Donna's article. I found that most of the information in Donna's article was in the JFP article as well and the info that wasn't could be merged, which is why I tagged the JFP article as not citing any references or sources - do you know why articles are tagged like that? It's so other editors can work on the articles and add references and sources such as you have done to Donna's article. After tagging the JFP article, I then put Donna's article up for deletion review, because as I said, in its form at the time, 1) it wasn't notable, 2) was already covered elsewhere 3) had already been tagged in February as The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline and 4) failed to meet numerous guidelines for inclusion in WP. I've kept a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, aka WP:NPOV throughout because I knew questions such as this would arise. In all honesty, you'd done such good work referencing and sourcing Donna's article that it now meets the February tag. I'm still not sure she deserves a page on her own since I still believe most of what is in her article is fully mergeable with the JFP article, but that wasn't the point of all of this. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to belabor this, but you have an interesting wikipedia history, allstarecho. Your only deletion recommendations to date seem to be Ladd, her JFP partner Todd Stauffer (who has published 40 books) and the Jackson Free Press, although you changed your mind and edited it to just challenge the paper's references. But you say above that the JFP should have a page. Confused here. Otherwise, I worked on the Ladd page some and added some controversy per Orange Mike's request. There seems to me to be a lot here, but I'm not the expert some of you are. If my questions to allstarecho here are inappropriate for this page, I apologize, but this seems to need some daylight. Msnatchez 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)--Msnatchez 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to WP. Sorry I haven't had time to build up a deletion history to prove why any other articles should be deleted. And to correct you, the Jackson Free Press article was never tagged for deletion. Go back and look at the history. I originally tagged it as {{Notability|date=September 2007}} and then realized that wasn't correct and re-tagged it as {{Unreferenced|date=September 2007}} - the difference between the 2 being the box you see at the top of the article page that says:

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.

Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Please know the differences between the tags before calling someone out for something they didn't do. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano Vaporizer[edit]

Queried speedy delete. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21#Volcano Vaporizer. Anthony Appleyard 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources provided are suitable to establish notability (blogs, google-video etc.). Moreover, the article may not be the in-your-face advertising copy we sometimes get, but it still reads and is structured like a promotional leaflet. I think Appleyard's original G11 was spot on. CIreland 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads, junk. Keb25 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Volcano Vaporize, and let the streams of molten spam flow.--Victor falk 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hahaha, nice way to put it! Zouavman Le Zouave 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam. --Core desat 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does have a few mentions in newspapers, but only a few lines. It might be written up in pro-marijuana news sources and alternative newspapers. However, until those are located, there is not enough reliable source material independent of the Volcano Vaporizer to develop an attributable article on the Volcano Vaporizer. It might be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article, but does not seem to merit its own article. Here is what I found:
- (1) July 20, 2004 (about "a year-old application by Chemic Laboratories of Massachusetts to import 10 grams of marijuana from Dutch authorities for research into a device called the Volcano Vaporizer.");
- (2) September 30, 2004 (writing, "Sitting in his office, he pulls out a stash and brings down the "Volcano" vaporizer, a small steel unit made by a German company. He turns the dial to seven and the machine starts buzzing. Becker puts in a pinch of marijuana, and the plastic bag inflates. Inside, it's almost perfectly clear. Becker pushes in the mouth valve and inhales.");
- (3) Sheehan, Tim (May 8, 2005) The Fresno Bee Cities rush to address medical pot Visalia, Tulare grapple with how to deal with dispensaries. Section: Main News; Page A1. (writing "Jeremy Cooper demonstrates the "volcano," a vaporizer used to administer medicinal marijuana, Thursday at Medical Marijuana Awareness and Defense in Visalia. Medicinal marijuana may be taken several ways.").
- (4) Billhartz, Cynthia. (February 21, 2006) St. Louis Post-Dispatch Vapor heads Section: Everyday; Page E1. (writing, "He put the coarse mixture into a small heating chamber that he inserted in the top of a Volcano Vaporizer, apparently named for its cone shape.")
- (5) February 11, 2007 ("Then there was the Volcano Vaporizer, a stainless-steel device shaped like an Apollo space capsule. It works like this ..."). -- Jreferee T/C 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants deletions. -- Jreferee T/C 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-reliable sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vaporizer where it should have been in the first place, SqueakBox 19:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well good vaporizalizer. i am using one write now and it is the bom diggity bombom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.144.208 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commet Your poor spelling is not a good ad, SqueakBox 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vaporizer. Perhaps a PARAGRAPH is warranted, but not this much. Also, the whole approach of this article is wrong. The problem here is that there shouldn't be an article about just one brand of vaporizer. The article presumes this is the only product in the world that does what the 'Volcano Vaporizer' does. The article fails the test of 'universal applicability' and reads like an underground ad for a product.Ryoung122 07:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation with proper sources and a neutral tone. This does read like an advert, and I think this article would benefit from a fundamental re-write. This is a product that is well known internationally, and it did receive plenty of independent critical review. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when I say I merge I mean (a) the name should definitely redirect) and (b) we can mention the Volcano at Vaporizer but not necessarily merge any of the current content which does read like an ad, SqueakBox 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Volcano Vaporize~~ and support building a dyke , as per SqueakBox' motion, to stem the molten spam should it erupt again in the future --Victor falk 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A merge to Vaporizer is a good short term solution, but this device uses a technology that other vaporizers do not use. Most are just soldering irons in a jar. This is a distinct type of product, not just another vaporizer. I think if the proper sources were used this could pass notability requirements. This version is no good though, reads like an advert. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I kind of gett hat this is actually quite a notable device in itself and if we create a section in Vaporizert hen we could re-create the article, and I agree witht he above comment that there should be no prejudice against this article being re-created at a later date. opf copurse if someone in the know where to re-write the article right now I would happily change my vote, SqueakBox 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - It may be better as its own section in the vap article until there is enough content to justify a split. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to see that my request to restore the page again led to some discussion. I aggree that advertising no matter is unwanted. On the other hand it is the device ALL medical research is done with. I know at least 4 independent medical studies by universities (praising the device). Furthermore we are discussion here a form of application of that can be suitable for a whole lot more than just cannabis cause the effect of any substance via the lung is fast. In relation with (Listen up!) independent scientific studies I am sure the provided content is more than just PR - even if only talking about one specific device. (By the way, who is complaining about the iphone site, if taklking over commercial content?) I am pro restoring or rebuilding a new site for that simple product!

09:24, 1 October 2007 User:87.139.78.32

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Daniel 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sources[edit]

I don't see the potential for an encyclopedic article here. The prod was contested with the explanation that the phrase was redlinked from Criticism of Wikipedia - but pretty much anything can be redlinked, so this is not sufficient. GregorB 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redir to Criticism of Wikipedia#Use of dubious sources. Article contains a single sentence which can be better explained in the context of the larger article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would find it daunting to be forced at gun-point to write such an article and it not being OR as the condition for it (the gun) not being fired.--Victor falk 14:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page in question, I endorse the suggestion to redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia#Use of dubious sources. I had only been trying to fill in a requested article, but the suggestion is sufficient to me. StaticElectric 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia#Use of dubious sources, seems to be the better option now per lack of sources to expand article. Carlosguitar 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above discussion. Bearian 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dubious and biased sources are still a very big problem on Wikipedia. There needs to be a standard of accountability or at least some kind of blacklist established. Many Internet "news" sources, though they may have wide readership, are inherently politically biased and they exist for every conceivable extreme. Redirecting to the criticism page doesn't help, a more concrete guideline of some sort is needed.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 03:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If Wikipedia has problems with unreliable sources, then article namespace is not the place where those issues should be dealt with. If you want to start a guideline proposal on project-space, feel free to do so, but this article isn't it.--Agamemnon2 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. Not notable enough to have a stand alone article. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Hardly more than a dictionary definition. And I don't see any authorities being quoted to justify this particular concept of dubious sources. Surely this is not intended to be Wikipedia-specific, since Wikipedia is not mentioned in the text of the article, and this is a mainspace article. EdJohnston 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, edited to remove copyright violation. NawlinWiki 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Gulf War Veterans Association[edit]

What is the rationale for its deletion? Anyways, I vote for a "weak keep" since the topic gets over 10,000 google hits and since the Gulf War Syndrome controversy is still notable and ongoing. Revolutionaryluddite 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is an important topic. Anthony Appleyard 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#G12 Possible copyright infringement from the subject's mission statement at its webpage: AGWVA Mission Statement. The article has remained basically unchanged in content since its creation (10-29-2006), with no other info other than the mission statement (not even in the intro), and therefore unsalvageable. Subject is notable, so should be recreated using original contributions with reliable sources. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't the aritcle survive the AfD if it is notable? Any POV and/or copyright problems would presumably be corrected after the vote. Revolutionaryluddite 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. The concern is/was that the article was a copy-vio. Even if you blank the page and start a new article, that copyrighted material will still be available in the edit history, which some of the copyrighted owners might object. Deleting and recreating the article will give it a "fresh start", since previous versions of the article (the copyvio ones) will not be a available for previous editors. Please take note that I advocate its existence, and therefore said that the admin who deletes it should then recreate it, even as a stub. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio, well-sourced recreation encouraged. shoy 14:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Buckshot06 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Since the organisation is clearly notable, i stubbified it to remove the copyvio. Now needs references and expansion. Almost nothing is unsalvageable, since WP:STUBs are acceptable content. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was recommended procedure, as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Alternatives to deletion: Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over. If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The head of the organization co-narrated the documentary "Beyond Treason" with has its own page. That article should be merged into this one if this one survives. Revolutionaryluddite 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The head of the organization has been quoted in a CBS News story [19], a Los Angeles Chronicle article [20], and a PBS article [21]. If this page survives, should those articles be mentioned in the page? Revolutionaryluddite 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stub and expand per DGG. Avb 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's now a stub that's not a copyvio, but still of a notable organization. --Oakshade 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bold redirect. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Meyer[edit]

Article repetedly tagged for speedy deletion Camptown 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Camptown 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to page about tasering incident. --Mr Beale 23:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Subject is not notable outside of the incident, so a redirect is best here. BlueAg09 (Talk) (Talk) (Talk) 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to page about tasering incident. If that goes to, delete. Managing to make a policeperson taze you by not playing by the rules does not make you worthy of an article. Greswik 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tasering article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, because it looks like the main article still has a few seconds of fame left. WP:BLP1E concerns. shoy 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The incident may be notable. Meyer himself is not. Revolutionaryluddite 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article about the incident itself. Not notable for anything else. Kingfox 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Florida tasering incident. Doesn't look like there's much dispute here. —Burn Down Babylon 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Revolutionaryluddite 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I third the above opinions. Crassic^(talk) 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect David Fuchs^(talk) 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there's a clear consensus, an administrator should change the article into a redirect. Revolutionaryluddite 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT: for the same reason I redirected the page initially. He got his fame. Redirect to the other page, then delete that page later too. This is all just ridiculous. Timneu22 01:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. This undergraduate has just protested and isn't notable at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be a directory of people.--71.105.27.191 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur, the man himself is non-notable outside of this incident.Blaze33541 03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The incident has an article, and deserves it. This article can only repeat it, as there's nothing else notable about the man. -- AvatarMN 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do not delete this article. I come to wikipedia for information what we once thougth of as encyclopedia is no longer valid. Please keep this article we should be able to think bigger in the electronic age then the old world of the paper encyclopedia --3.14thagoras 06:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camptown (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep, at least for the time being. The man is obviously an internet phenomenon and has drawn international interest, and as such he deserves an article. Bondkaka 07:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several YouTube clips are internet phenomena, but they are not notable articles. This guy has done NOTHING except call attention to himself through this incident. There's not reason to give him TWO articles, which he now has. I think both articles should be deleted, but as a compromise this one should certainly be redirected. Timneu22 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, hardly anything of note outside the tasering incident. GregorB 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Not even remotely notable outside of the incident. Brian Geppert 12:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chantessy 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, re-direct and delete to University of Florida Taser incident. I don't think there's much here that isn't already in that rather long article. Bondegezou 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the incident article ... no reason whatsoever to have an article on the kid. --B 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E and the subject is not at all notable beyond this single incident. Burntsauce 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. His only notability stems from the University of Florida Taser incident, which already has an article. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect for now, his notability is presently related to the incident. If he finds himself in the public eye for something else at some point, then it'll be time to recreate it. Rob T Firefly 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To the tasering incident. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cables on Demand[edit]

The article is a paraphrase of their 'company profile' page. Looking at the original version of the article, posted by Avneet, a user who is now gone, it is clear that the intent was to post an ad -- the article contained full contact info for ordering, etc.

Delete. It's been tagged as needing sources since April. --Alvestrand 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A division of Amphenol Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 12:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article about privately held company that does not demonstrate its notability per WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. Redundant to Amphenol, and so POV that no amount of editing could redeem this. They provide cable assembly solutions to consumers. Why would any one want to dissolve their cables? - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, company without assertion of notability. shoy 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports[edit]

article is one gigantic list with many redlinks. This is what categories are for. Perakhantu 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because lists and categories have different advantages, and it would be a shame essentially to waste all the effort people have invested in this page. Note that it dates to early 2004, before Wikipedia used the category system. Shalom ^Hello 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The effort put into the page is irrelevant if it is a bad page. Lists and categories may have different advantages, but you haven't told us why this should be a list. MarkBul 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The red links are precisely the advantage that lists have over categories--they can be more comprehensive, and the red links encourage the development of articles about missing topics. Categories cannot have red links by their nature. The list is also a useful navigational aid. --Itub 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories can't contain redlinks. Hate having too many redlinks - then create articles for them. Simple. Lugnuts 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too overreaching. No possible way to establish objective criteria for inclusion, which in part accounts for all the redlinks. My co-worker and I play trash can basketball, that's a sport, isn't it? Cap'n Walker 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a bad start, and it can be sub-classified even further. Oxford University Press, the same publisher that did the dictionary, published the Oxford Companion to Sports and Games which classifies sports further (bat and ball games, e.g.), and that would be an excellent source to compare this to. Mandsford 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Itub and User:Lugnuts. JIP | Talk 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability, just started today. NawlinWiki 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solofm[edit]

Advertisement. Inherently unverifiable through independent sources, as the station only starts braoadcasting today. The very model of a minor general 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy. Into The Fray ^T/C 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability to come. --Gavin Collins 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to meet CSD G11 and also NN. No sources. --Mike Vitale 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoscope Gang[edit]

entirely unnotable. EP not yet realeased, and the claim that Priest stay away from the kids has already leaked across the internet is not confirmed by google. The very model of a minor general 10:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy. Fails WP:MUSIC. Into The Fray ^T/C 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. StaticElectric 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism, in this case deletion is a bad thing. If this network agrees with the principles of freedom of speech and democracy this article should stay. Just as in parliament, the people decide about the laws by voting. Let this article be as it represents if not a majority, a minority of people who have rights too, and can surely use them with disadvantageous consequences. Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.234.139 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are unfamiliar with how WP works, it does not follow that we are Fascists. StaticElectric 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to User:Montchav/2007 Rugby World Cup try scorers in lieu of deletion. —--Montchav 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Rugby World Cup try scorers[edit]

No need for such a specific article. An overview of the information is given at 2007 Rugby World Cup. PeeJay 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many such lists (not only rugby-, but also football-related), and I see no point in them. Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Conscious 10:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only made this page because 2003's World Cup had it at Rugby World Cup 2003 try scorers. --Montchav 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted, could the info be moved to my subpage - User:Montchav/2007 Rugby World Cup try scorers. --Montchav 18:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change If I understand correctly the original intention of the author, this should not be an article, but a list SyG 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Air Charter[edit]

Fails WP:N. No non-trivial, third party reliable sources can be found which establishes notability for this small general aviation operator. Russavia 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. → AA ^(talk) — 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Southwest (Canada)[edit]

Fails WP:N. No non-trivial, third party reliable sources can be found which establishes notability for this small general aviation operator (flight school mainly). Russavia 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 10:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It has an ICAO code and a CALLSIGN and the article says it runs scheduled flights. I think this establishes notability. → AA ^(talk) — 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is some kind of intresting-ness in its history [22] I'll watchlist and work on it if it stays around. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These small scheduled airlines with ICAO codes are generally notable in for the areas that they serve. Vegaswikian 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5 banned user and also WP:CSD#A7 notability no asserted. Pedro | Chat 11:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yung D.[edit]

Fraudulent page. This million seller artist seems to have been heard of only on Myspace and Wikipedia Kww 09:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't turn up anything really notable other than myspace and some other rap based blogs and chatboards. The record labels listed are non-entities; the show he appears in is a non-entity; etc and so forth. Probably could be speedied. I'd also recommend that Fridayz and Just Like U (album) be deleted, which are two of the artist's works... Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nevermind, it's a page created by a suspected sockpuppet User:ImSingleAgain, so I am just going to tag it WP:CSD#G5, article created by a banned user. Should also be salted, User talk:ImSingleAgain shows the page created and speedied twice. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keep arguments are not tremendously pursuasive, but there is certainly no consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Witch Alone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Plot summary of a book that appears to fail WP:BK; the article does not refer to any secondary sources. The "Keep" arguments in the last AfD (one year ago, closed as "no consensus") cannot stand by today's version of WP:BK. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BK states that it should at least have an ISBN number, which it does, so providing it's available at some libraries, we should keep it. It's just that that needs proving. Lra drama 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood WP:BK#Threshold standards. Having an ISBN number is necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. It's obviously out of scope for Wikipedia to include articles on all books with ISBN numbers, and also on all books available in libraries (both criteria are fulfilled by more books than Wikipedia has articles today). What we need would be substantial coverage in secondary sources. --B. Wolterding 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Google brings up a fair few hits. What do you think of that? Although, in support of your views, this is the only book by the author that has its own article it seems. But going off that amount of links from a search engine, I'd say it could be noteable. Lra drama 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Put quotation marks around the booktitle, subtract out amazon, blogspot, and wordpress, and you're left with 699 GHits. [23] cab 10:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some of them are not for the book too, but are unrelated articles about Wiccan singletons, and an unrelated forum for solitary practitioners.Merkinsmum 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This book has been around for decades and is a well-known book amonst those involved in paganism (which is supposedly quite a few people nowadays.) It is among the first books people are advised to read, so most pagans will have read it. Maybe there are less sources because it first came out some years ago? Or maybe any sources mentioning it are not usually accepted on wikipedia? If it's decided it's not noteable it could be merged/mentioned in the Marian Green article.Merkinsmum 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WorldCat shows 103 library holdings, which is relatively high for a book of this sort. DGG (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would that imply notability? (WP:BIG) --B. Wolterding 07:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as in no way it is non-notable. Book or any other object may seem non-notable to a person who is not familiar with its activity. But to the persons associated with this field may identify it as a notable one which happens here. So, I will go with a strong keep. Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from WP:BK: "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on attribution; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." If you do have reliable secondary sources that cover the subject, please post these here or add them to the article. If no sources exist, the book fails the inclusion criteria. --B. Wolterding 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian ska[edit]

The same thing as ska (or more precise, third wave ska). Does not deserve its own article. Punkmorten 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following related page because it is a list of nonnotables:

Delete Zen ska is what you want if you can't find no love, no sympathy, mon.--Victor falk 11:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe Rasta ska, huh? --Evb-wiki 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's more it. Zen ska would be like: "What's the sound of one beat of a backbeat?"--Victor falk 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Judging by the amount of redlinks in List of Christian ska bands, this "subgenre" is WP:NN. In fact, I'm adding the list to this nom. --Evb-wiki 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding that. Punkmorten 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - delete list of christian ska--Victor falk 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. We can't tell if this is legitimate or a made-up genre. EdJohnston 00:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Clackson[edit]

Notability and verifiability issues. The three weblinks uses as references do not prove notability: once a member of council of a town with 478 people, a scanned img of one newspaper article from an unknown newspaper, and a link to his coat of arms. The one ref that is supposed to prove notability is to a book or paper "X-ray Studies of Defects in Diamond and Gallium Arsenide", but if you google it all that turns up are wikis about this guy. Unknown if this reference is even real, certainly not verifiable. The article says he has something to do with the Clackson scroll formula, and then in that article the reference is unverifiable, and doesn't show up on google at all either. Search for "Clackson scroll formula" on google and you only come up with various wiki pages. Google the guy's name and you only get wiki pages, and a couple posting from a message board. No proof of Notability and Unverifiable. Celtus 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I share the concerns of the nominator, after tracing the various wiki pages, and the Wikipedia entry for the Clackson scroll formula gives a reference dated 1981, which he therefore composed at age 20, and eight years before what looks like his non-notable Ph.D. thesis; makes me wonder if it's the same Clackson, given his description as someone well known for "lampooning". Also, the Clackson scroll formula is described as a "simple equation" -- but I wonder just how many blacksmiths are using it, since all the Google hits don't seem to have anything to do with blacksmithing. I suspect it's trivial, and all these suspicions add up to a delete. Accounting4Taste 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Crusio 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not is a notable physicist. Web of Science shows a total of 6 articles, cited respectively, 12, 5, 4, 1, 0 and 0 times. This is not worth further discussion. . DGG (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep weak ref.--Truest blue 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG, fails WP:PROF. Bearian 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blacksmiths on the continent use the scroll formula. (UK and US metalworkers are less mathematically minded and tend to draw out the scroll and measure it with a piece of string rather than use a formula.) Scrumpo 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow to improve This article is stub class. Judging by its history it has been gradually developping. Given time hopefully more references will be forthcoming. Rather than nipping it in the bud, let Wikipedia nurture it. 81.155.34.117 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without doubt he is notable (dare I say notorious) among British, especially Scottish, heraldists. As for his science, I am not in the position to comment, but this link [24] would suggest that he is one and the same. Ednan 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The website lets anyone "Nominate yourself or someone you know" to show add their name and Coats of Arms to the list. Notability requires objective evidence, not wikis, message board postings or sites anyone can submit their own information. WP:NOTABILITY.--Celtus 08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was not suggesting that my link demonstrated his notability, the link was to demonstrate that the heraldist was the same person as the scientist (as doubt of this was expressed by Accounting4Taste above). Ednan 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I was doubting that the inventor of the scroll formula at age 20 was the same as the composer of what seems to be a Ph.D. thesis eight years later... I have no opinion about the heraldry. Accounting4Taste 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His scroll formula is significant, although it is clearly difficult to find online references to it, however given the practical nature of the topic this is not very surprising. We should not jump to delete articles simply because references are difficult to find online. There have been many contributions to this article and in my opinion we should WP:GF and keep it. Je sais! 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG.--Eva ^bd 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Web of Science does not pick up industrial journals which may only circulate within the industry or be subject to commercial confidentiality. In the case of diamond research, such as he has done, most work is sponsored by De Beers and only what is not commercially sensitive reaches the public domain. Therefore DGG can pursue his project of "keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion" with a clear conscience in this case. 86.146.49.13 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey look, I found all my missing SOCKS. Burntsauce 23:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyles in fiction[edit]

Trivial unsourced list of mentions. Yet another "let's clean the article by moving this section to a new article". CONDENSE instead of just moving elsewhere. RobJ1981 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with a bit of work and reference adding, this can be merged into another article (Gargoyle for example?). But it needs sorting out first. Lra drama 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting whatever can be referenced. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can have some leeway with our content here. See also Ross, Theodore. "Gargoyles in Motion: On the Transmigration of Character from Page to Screen and Related Questions on Literature and Film," College English 39.3 (Nov., 1977): 371-382. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "reference" above states at the bottom of the page: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Gargoyles in fiction", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License." Ergo, not a WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And unfortunately, the article in College English is not about Gargoyles in a literal sense, but about stereotyped characters in general. It has one sentence about Hugo's Hunchback to explain the allusive title, and that is about it. The main subjects of the article are actually Russell's film of Lawrence'sWomen in Love, and Griffith's film Way Down East. DGG (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to Gargoyles in fact? Merge anything worth keeping into Gargoyle. --Evb-wiki 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is bigger than the main article - and filled with trivial citations with no references. The title is "In Fiction", but the first sentence says "in contemporary fiction", so the whole basis of the article as written is bogus. There's just nothing worthwhile to merge here. MarkBul 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these are non-notable appearances, the notable ones (if there are any) can be listed in the main article. Crazysuit 01:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one of those "I spy with my little eye a [name of item/being/event]". If any of these appearances are particularly significant and sourced, there's a good main article for them. If not, they can go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequent thought: Given that Gargoyles aren't real, they're pretty much only ever going to be in fiction. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last time I checked the bloody great big stone moinstrosities up the top of cathedrals were gargoyles. Artw 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A good point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there isn't anything worth merging here. --68.163.65.119 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this appears to be a SPA, devoted wholly to deleting in popular culture material DGG (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just another pile of steaming trivia cruft and its starting to rot. Burntsauce 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

language, language. DGG (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I wasn't aware of the tunnel fire before nominating this article for deletion (it wasn't mentioned in the article at the time), so I now feel this street is notable for inclusion. --—Scott5114 ↗ 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

Howard Street (Baltimore)[edit]

Non-notable street in Baltimore. Not part of a numbered highway. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A railroad tunnel was dug under it in the 1890s, and it has a light rail line now. It was a major shopping street. It was the first north-south street through downtown to have streetcar tracks removed; [25] is an unreliable source for this ("Later, in 1939, as part of the City's effort to make Howard Street a "free-wheel" corridor..."), and anyone with access to local newspaper archives should be able to find a reliable source. --NE2 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has some history, that doesn't make it notable. Has anything of historic importance happened on the street? —Scott5114 ↗ 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major north-south street and arguably the most important street in Baltimore as it's the street that the primary Light Rail (Baltimore) line is on. It was the location of the Howard Street Tunnel fire. The Howard Street Bridge is also notable [26]. The nom's contention of "not part of a numbered highway" is bizarre. Under that logic the Broadway (New York City), Sunset Blvd. and Strand, London articles should be deleted. --Oakshade 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of a numbered highway is actually the standard litmus test. If a state is numbering this road as a highway, it must have a good reason for doing so (considering that also usually means that the state takes on maintenance for the street). It's also a rule of thumb for making sure that we don't get an article for every little 119th Street in every city in every state. —Scott5114↗ 06:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Wikipedia guideline is this numbered highway "standard litmus test" stipulated? Sounds like you're making up an arbitrary standard. Anyway, Howard Street isn't just a "little 119th Street". --Oakshade 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability—Scott5114↗ 07:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not excluded streets without numbers. Besides, that guideline refers to highways, freeways and expressways and makes no mention of city streets. --Oakshade 07:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally major shopping streets are bypassed by numbered highways. Streets serve not just as traffic corridors but as part of a cityscape. By the way, all roads in Baltimore, even I-70 and I-83, are maintained by the city, except the few that are maintained by the Maryland Transportation Authority. --NE2 08:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Some "numbered" routes actually have an importance lower than those without numbers, and therefore, are not as worthy of Wikipedia articles. Sebwite 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - someone in the know can make this into a better article. Look at all the noteable landmarks 'on or near' the street. Keep for now. Lra drama 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NE2. I hate to pull WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but...the numbered highway guideline is just that...a guideline. It isn't meant to be exclusionary. See Pennsylvania Avenue, Wall Street, Fifth Avenue, Wilshire Boulevard, Downing Street and Natchez Trace Parkway for examples. Smashville 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a particularly poor nomination. Three days to establish notability? I have no doubt that any main street in a major eastern city has a significant history to it. I don't know Baltimore, but I'm sure there are some residents who could fill in the blanks - if given a chance to find the page. The "numbered highway" issue is irrelevant - the nominator misunderstands Wikipedia requirements for road notability. As stated above, city roads like Broadway are notable. The question is, does this particular street have at least the possibility of notability, if left alone for more than three days? First, before nominating it, look for references yourself. Then, leave it for others who know more than you to add what they know. MarkBul 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this would appear to be a fairly major thoroughfare in Boston, and is more than likely going to be able to stand up to a request for reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As one who has created quite a large number of articles about streets and roads in the Baltimore area, I have had to use my own judgement most of the time to determine notability of a particular street. Generally, I have assumed a street or road may be notable if 1.) It is at least several miles long, and is of major importance to thru traffic, 2.) It has at least several notable landmarks located on or near the street for which a Wikipedia article currently exists, or could exist one day, or 3.) Fits into any other criteria on a case-by-case basis. As for Howard Street, anyone who is not from or has lived a long time in Baltimore probably does not understand its importance. The article is still in its infancy, and there is a lot more to be written by myself and others. Sebwite 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 be done by the editors of the destination article. GRBerry 01:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Duncan[edit]

There is no Clan Duncan. There is a Clan Donnachaidh (Duncan is an Anglicisation of Donnachaidh). The surname Duncan is considered a sept of Clan Donnachaidh, and there is one website trying to create an independent Clan Duncan, but that's it. So there is no Clan Duncan, though there is a Clan Donnachaidh.Celtus 05:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Clan Donnachaidh, per nom and per the article's own admissions. --Evb-wiki 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per the above. John Carter 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. --Sc straker 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution theory[edit]

Not notable. Seems to be a local group, with no mainstream coverage. No verifiable links and google turns up only 39 pages for the title plus the founding location of Pizza Hut. Mbisanz 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per - non-notable, unless third party sources can be given. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as well -- Xtreme racer 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 06:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Carlosguitar 08:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 from SLAM Omaha --Mike Vitale 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total G12, dunno if I should tag it myself though and wait for AFD to run its course. Still, this group is absolutely unnotable. TheLetterM 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit new to the AFD process, so if there is a quicker way to deal with articles like this, I have no objection to using it. Mbisanz 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)ň[reply]

Check out {{db-copyvio}} --Mike Vitale 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio, and likely nn to boot. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "what may sound like a train wreck on paper, is in actuality" ... totally non-notable. Pete.Hurd 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this is a blatant WP:COPY vio from http://www.slamomaha.com/music/localMusicDetail.asp?band=415 as mentioned by Mike above. Additionally, even if it were re-written, it fails WP:N and WP:BAND. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Mill Road[edit]

Non-notable city street. Not a numbered highway. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an old road that predates the founding of Baltimore. --NE2 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's old, it's notable?—Scott5114↗ 05:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's old and sources cover that. --NE2 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless any notability can be shown. There are hundreds of thousands of "old" roads in the world. Crazysuit 05:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The road is actually from 1730 [27], not only pre-dating Balitimore, but pre-dating the USA. "Not a numbered highway" is not a reason to delete an article. AfD Sunset Blvd. or Broadway if you feel it is. --Oakshade 07:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sunset and Broadway are both heavily referenced in pop culture. Broadway gives its name to the New York theater industry. Windsor Mills isn't comparable to those streets. —Scott5114 ↗ 08:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable. I formated the existing references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- can anyone tell me why they feel this street is notable? There's lots of old things that aren't notable - that's not a good reason to keep. —Scott5114 ↗ 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability doesn't mean the biggest, or the best, or George Washington slept here. It means that reliable third parties have written about the topic so that the information in the article can be verified. Every town in the US has an article even if nothing ever happened there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's thousands and thousands of very old arterials in the United States, why is this one so special? -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a road. No sign that its name has become associated with an industry, a cultural reference, or popular culture. Mere existence means nothing, even if you find a reliable source attesting to its existence. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above arguments. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks to the above 4 responses, there are now more "deletes" than "keeps." But if you look clearly at them, it is likely that these are 4 people who know one another, or even possibly, the same person. The arguments do not seem individualistic, but rather supporting the previous one. They were all posted within a few hours of each other, late at night. It looks like part of a plan to rig this vote.

Meanwhile, there are many reasons for this and other articles strictly of regional appeal to be notable by Wikipedia standards. A place does not need to be known worldwide in order to be notable. Sure, people in Montana have no interest in Windsor Mill Road. Neither do they about all the public high schools in Baltimore County, most of for which an individual Wikipedia article does exist.

As for this article, it is well referenced, with information from reliable published books. The plain route description is verifiable from a Mapquest-like website. What Wikipedia policy opposes is creating an article on your own side street. Meanwhile, if you sit by Windsor Mill Road for some time, not a minute will go by without a large number of cars passing. Sebwite 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Though I have very much and do still favor keeping this particular article, I understand the point behind its consideration for deletion - to limit the number of road articles. But it is possible to write about smaller roads within the articles about the towns in which they are in. If a road has some importance to thru traffic or is home to some landmarks, but is contained mostly to a single town name or zip code, a few lines or paragraphs about that road can be written within that town's article. See what I have done in the articles on Owings Mills and Pikesville for an example of this. Meanwhile, a road like this one that has no number but transverses two or more cities or towns can still have its own article. Sebwite 20:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or do a List of roads in Baltimore, Maryland or something similar and merge it there. Or perhaps best yet, put it on an external site. I'm sure there's a roadgeek out there somewhere that would give you space, or maybe even a wiki focusing solely on the Baltimore area. —Scott5114↗ 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, what I have done is I have taken two articles on other roads that I created and merged them into the articles on their respective localities. These include Red Run Boulevard and Shawan Road. At first, when I created them, they seemed to me to be notable. But after I could find little to write about them above the stub level, and I could not expect anyone else to, they look better within another article.

Meanwhile, this article, which I initially wrote as a small stub, has been expanded by others, and has really grown. It has more room for growth in the future. It already links from several other articles, and links to many more. It is 7.5 miles long and runs through both Baltimore City and County, so it does not work well in an article about a single town. Sebwite 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not because "it's old" but because it appears to be notably old (with cites support its historical nature, including role in local industry). Maryland jurisdictions are different from most other states as far as I can tell, in that towns are not incorporated: just because a road has a state number doesn't mean it's "important enough for the state to care" or is too large to be considered a local matter. DMacks 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merge requires sourced content. No content is actually sourced here. GRBerry 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarran Dreadnaught[edit]

Alien spacefaring race in the TV show Farscape, the Scarran--who have their own page--have large warships called Scarran Dreadnaughts. This is hardly surprising, and since we know what a dreadnaught is, how does this page enlighten us? Non-notable even within-universe. I will take a break from nominating Farscape pages to see how the debate shapes itself. Fans of the show should look at the lack of information in this page before reflexively arguing for retention. Ditto for Docking web, below. SolidPlaid 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scarran. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scarran. I'm a Farscape fan, but there's not enough information to warrant it's own article. --Kateshort forbob 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scarran--Victor falk 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either to Scarran or a new article that covers the various starship types in the Farscape universe. PC78 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable SF characters. --Gavin Collins 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
'Merge to Scarran.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. A reference has now been added at Scarran#Scarran Dreadnaught. PC78 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cprog artists[edit]

The article for Cprog has already been deleted due to original research and no reliable sources of the genres existence, Now this list of "C prog" artists needs to go for the same reason. Spydrfish 04:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - 'Cprog' seems to fail notability, even on Google. However, many of the artists do seem to have articles of their own. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration too? Lra drama 09:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should be deleted. There are no sources on the bands listed being referred to as it and no sources on the genre itself. Wikipedia is not the place to start new genres. Just because the band members are Christian it doesn't make them some sort of new "Christian progressive rock" Zanders5k 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zanders. Kevin 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like all these lists, it's impossible to determine whether someone fits/doesn't fit the criterion with any authority, and the lack of Google hits seems to indicate this neologism is limited to a single (admittedly busy) Yahoo group. Accounting4Taste 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merge requires sourced content. None is present. GRBerry 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docking web[edit]

A fictional (and minor) tool used in the show Farscape. No outside claim of notability. According to the page, the writers of the show can't keep the facts on this one straight. If they don't care, why should we? SolidPlaid 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor plot device. Only used once (shown twice, but the second instance was a retelling of the first). Delete, or merge to a relevant page, like List of Farscape technology or so. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tractor beam to mother article.--Victor falk 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, perhaps into Farscape terminology. Far too trivial to warrant its own article. PC78 12:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional gizmo. --Gavin Collins 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talyn[edit]

In-universe, a search on Google for Talyn and Farscape finds oodles of fan pages, but nothing to establish notability. These ships are characters, a feature of Farscape, but I see nothing of substance. Fans of the show may come in droves to defend the page, but without citations giving us something to hang our hats on, it should be deleted. SolidPlaid 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A character on the show, and a significant aspect of the series. Are you planning on AfD'ing all characters from the show? If not, then I don't see why this one should be singled out. The article has issues, yes, but AfD is not cleanup. PC78 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not planning on AfDing all the characters on the show. Why are you abstaining from the other Farscape AfD debates? If you know in your heart that they deserve deletion or retention, say so. SolidPlaid 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, and you'll see that I've already given my opinion on all the others. If I've inadvertently missed some, then please let me know and I'll post a comment there too. I believe the WP:OSTRICH comment below relates to a concern that you are unfamiliar with the series and haven't taken the time to properly assess the importance of these subjects, not an accusation of bad faith as such. Talyn and Moya are characters, not just ships, so I say again - I don't see why these two should be singled out. PC78 13:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because they are computer generated. Because they are like the Tin Man on Star Trek TNG. Because I couldn't find any independent critical analysis of them on the internet. SolidPlaid 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moya appeared in almost every episode. Talyn appeared throughout most of seasons 2 and 3. They really aren't comparable to a single episode character from Star Trek. PC78 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by saying Moya is like Tin Man is that the idea is a rip of Tin Man. SolidPlaid 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got to do with AfD? Besides, I'm fairly certain that Tin Man wasn't an original concept. PC78 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, what happened was I discovered this giant collection of non-notable articles, and decided to nominate some of them for deletion. I knew that people would really go to bat for the characters, so I nominated junk like Docking web. The problem is that to me, a person who does not watch the show, all the articles looked like junk, more precisely, like citation-free junk. So I nominated things, and the upshot is that most of what I nominated will be deleted. Also, I hope that this debate will galvanize fans to fix up the articles that remain, so that they won't get nominated for deletion. May I point out again that no out-universe citations have appeared on the page? SolidPlaid 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out again that blatant cleanup issues are no reason for AfD? My problem is that your nominations seem a little indiscriminate - yes, some of the articles are trivial rubbish, but other like this are really necessary. You keep pointing out that these articles lack citations, but have you really put any effort into finding out whether or not sources exist? If you're planning on nominating more articles, I hope you show a little more care and consideration for a subject you freely admit you know nothing about. PC78 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This not a blatant cleanup issue, I did put in effort. I will keep nominating articles, and since fan-created articles are so poorly written, it is likely that I will nominate articles that people really want, as opposed to the ones they only kind of want. Farscape fans should emulate the response of the Star Trek fans when I put a merge tag on Gomtuu (Tin Man). They were like, "kill it." Farscape fans should start trimming all the non-notable articles they can find, right now, and put the citations on the articles that they think can survive. SolidPlaid 14:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a blatant cleanup issue! These articles need referencing, rewriting or merging, not deletion. What effort have you put in? You admit to not being familiar with the show, so what's your interest here? Regarding Gomtuu, you only had a single reply to your merge request, and obviously Star Trek has a significantly larger fanbase. I want to assume good faith with you, but your rampant and indiscriminate AfDing and prodding of Farscape related articles suggests that you're trying to make a WP:POINT. A lot of work needs to be done on a lot of content here, and things aren't just going to happen overnight. It's not your place to make demands on other editors. PC78 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet no one has put DHowell's citations on the actual page. Why aren't you and other people who care about this topic willing to add those citations? Are you trying to make some sort of point? Here's the upshot; the article still is written in-universe and has no out-universe citations showing notability. A cynic might propose it for AfD again, in about three months, at which time it would be much less likely to survive if left in its present form. SolidPlaid 06:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What am I supposed to do, go out and buy the books just so I can rescue an article from AfD? Don't be absurd. (And thankfully it looks like this one's a keeper, anyway.) It's a cleanup issue; tag the article for cleanup and raise your concerns on the talk page - don't just bring it straight to AfD, especially when you don't have a clue regarding the subject. Things just don't happen around here according to your schedule. PC78 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a library, then? I have a clue, which is that Farscape has way too many articles for the number and quality of citations available. SolidPlaid 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Tin Man was not original, then derivatives of Tin Man are even less original. SolidPlaid 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really is irrelevant. PC78 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fictional gizmo. Notability is not inherited, unless demonstrated by independent secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 12:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep. Recurring character (yes, character) in a major television series; series and character satisfy notability requirements. Looking at this and the Moya nomination, I get the feeling WP:OSTRICH regarding this series might be a factor. Not implying every Farscape-related article nominated today deserve to be kept, but this one and the Moya one certainly do. 23skidoo 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I know what WP:OSTRICH means, but I am nominating in good faith. It looks like Moya and Talyn are getting many "votes" to retain, but the arguments are repetitive. I still don't see one single citation appearing on the page itself. Rhetorically, I'll ask again, "Why can't citations be found?" SolidPlaid 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says citations can't be found? As I said above, AfD isn't cleanup, and there are various cleanup tags you can add to this article, none of which were present prior to this discussion. PC78 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for citations, found nothing beyond fan-generated in-universe descriptions. This is nothing like Harry Potter, where one can find thoughtful analysis on .edu websites. There is a book, Investigating Farscape: Uncharted Territories of Sex and Science Fiction (Investigating Cult TV) that might rise to the level of a good source. I don't own it. SolidPlaid 03:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to Spaceships on Farscape with Moya, Command Carrier, Prowler (Farscape), Farscape One and maybe some others. This issue should really have been addressed in a talkpage first. {{mergeto}} also exists for a reason. Per WP:FICT, Non-notable information should be deleted only when all other options have been exhausted. Going directly to AfD was IMO too bold. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What sort of citation could you possibly need anyway? Misterandersen 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed this question extensively. It needs citations that don't talk about it in-universe. Even something as simple as "voted second favorite computer-generated sf character by the readers of TVguide" would do. SolidPlaid 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a major character in two seasons of the show, there is significant coverage of Talyn in the following independent reliable sources: Investigating Farscape: Uncharted Territories of Sex and Science Fiction, The Farscape Season Two Episode Guide : An Unofficial Guide with Critiques, and Farscape Forever!: Sex, Drugs and Killer Muppets, establishing sufficient notability for this article to be kept. DHowell 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have only your word for it, and the page itself still has not been updated with these or any citations. SolidPlaid 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prowler (Farscape)[edit]

In-universe fan page. No claim to outside notability for this ship type. Almost reads like a "how to" pilot it. Google finds plenty of fan pages that mention it, most are indirect.. SolidPlaid 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major plot device in a popular TV Series. - Fosnez 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rantath Flux for discussion of this topic - Fosnez 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it is so major, where are the citations? Just how popular is the TV series? Having an avid fan base that does a lot of Wikipedia editing isn't a convincing argument. I personally could be swayed by citations along these lines, and will cheerfully withdraw these nominations if they are forthcoming. SolidPlaid 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning I gave in the discussion linked above. Basically, OR, fancruft, no way to verify a bit of it, etc. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salvageable content into Peacekeeper (Farscape) (where it already gets a mention), or into a new article that covers the various ship types in the Farscape universe. Not really deserving of its own article. PC78 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional transport. Notability is not inherited, unless demonstrated by independent secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete Non-notable fanboy stuff. Not encyclopedic. MarkBul 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to Spaceships on Farscape with Moya (Farscape), Command Carrier, Talyn, Farscape One, and maybe some others. This issue should really have been addressed in a talkpage first. {{mergeto}} also exists for a reason. Per WP:FICT, Non-notable information should be deleted only when all other options have been exhausted. Going directly to AfD was IMO too bold. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article's subject fails to meet notability standards through significant coverage from reliable sources. Also, per WP:WAF, this article fails to provide a real-world perspective of the subject, providing solely in-universe information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. If (as seems likely) the outcome of this debate is to delete, can a redirect be created to Peacekeeper (Farscape)#Prowlers? PC78 01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't have a problem doing that, so long as the article isn't salted. Ichormosquito 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan 00:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moya (Farscape)[edit]

In-universe fan page. No claim to outside notability. I searched in Google; many hits, seemingly all fan-based and largely indirect. No doubt a group of editors will fight for retention. To them I suggest making a new wiki, if one does not already exist. SolidPlaid 03:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major plot device in a popular TV Series.. - Fosnez 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rantath Flux for discussion of this topic - Fosnez 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning I gave in the discussion linked above. Basically, OR, fancruft, no way to verify a bit of it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character and setting in the television show. Bad writing requires a rewrite, not deletion. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then you'd be for deletion of Docking web? Anyway, I'm not sure it's notable even if it is a major character in the TV show. SolidPlaid 04:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Moya is to Farscape what the Enterprise is to Star Trek: the main setting of the show. It just happens to be that Moya is a living organism. Kind of unusual, but...—Scott5114 ↗ 05:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Enterprise has a bit more notability. You may recall that Star Trek fans managed to get NASA to name a space shuttle after it. I'm an sf fan, but we need citations to establish notability. SolidPlaid 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I was merely drawing a parallel. :) —Scott5114 ↗ 05:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one would argue, one of the central characters AND locations of Farscape, all rolled into one. The article does need rewriting, but it does not justify a deletion. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - I'm going to use this as a forum to pose a question to the community at large. I've noticed that there's a large scale debate over whether in-universe references need their own pages. I'm going to suggest we, as a community, make better use of redirects and anchor text in our editing. There's no reason that we can't have very large and detailed pages on a main subject like "Farscape" which can be navigated by way of searchable redirects to anchor text. This way we can get the best of both worlds, we keep valuable information in wikipedia in a way that the lay person could easily search. my personal views fall toward not seeing a clear difference between a unique article and an anchor, it looks like 6 of one half a dozen of another if you really think about it. But there's a large camp of editors who seem to take issue with unique articles of "fancruft". Since there are not set "rules" about either, especially in a grey area like this article, I think we can meet in the middle by merging this information into Farsacape with an anchor and having the current article redirect to the newly establish anchor section.--Torchwood Who? 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with most of what you have said. None of this should be deleted. Some people will say that it should be merged into one page. But then when the page grows into a lage and detailed article, people complain the page is too large, so it gets split off, and then ironically it gets deleted. Kind of pointless IMHO. I am yet to see a good argument for the deletion of mainstream "fancraft" articles from this wiki. People often claim that it is not notable, and that it needs to be cited. Rubbish. Wikipedia is written by experts in their own field, who better to fight over the exact speed of warp 5.6 then a bunch of fanatics? People also claim that we should trans-wiki it to another wiki. People don't search other wikis, they search wikipedia - because it is supposed to be the sum of ALL human knowledge - and fiction is part of that knowledge. Fosnez 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wikipedia was to be the sum of all knowledge, certain of the Farscape pages should be folded into others. Part of the dislike for so-called fancruft is of its indiscriminate nature. For example, it would be amazing if one of the fans decided to merge International Aeronautics and Space Administration into an appropriate Farscape article before it gets nominated for deletion. SolidPlaid 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One good argument for the deletion of Fancruft is that Wikipedia is not a depositary for plot summaries. --Gavin Collins 13:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe it should become one. Maybe these AFD discussion will trigger a change in those policies. I remind you that WP policies are made by its users, as WP would be nothing without them. WP is not a democracy, Nor a dictatorship 78.113.82.16 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The problem is that certain fans go overboard, and create page after page on every minor detail of a show. Debate is healthy; I nominated Rantath Flux, Moya, Prowler, Talyn, Docking web, and Scarran Dreadnaught for deletion, and we can see what topics are truly important to Farscape fans from the result. How else could those of us on the outside have known? SolidPlaid 08:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Essentially a character on the show, and should be regarded as such, not to mention being a major aspect of the show. Article has problems, but AfD is not cleanup. PC78 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional space ship. Notability is not inherited, unless demonstrated by independent secondary sources. In universe descriptions do not demonstrate notablility. --Gavin Collins 12:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep. Non-notable? It's the main setting of a major TV series that ran for years. Plus it's also a character as established by the series, so if we delete this, then we need to delete all character articles related to Farscape. Content issues can be handled in the article talk page; the topic is just as viable as articles on the TARDIS and Andromeda Ascendant (and no I don't think consider that a violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as Farscape is equally notable as Andromeda). 23skidoo 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article needs copyediting, but subject matter is notable per 23skidoo above. Rob T Firefly 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, prefer merge to Spaceships on Farscape with Talyn, Prowler (Farscape), Command Carrier, Farscape One, and maybe some others. This issue should really have been addressed in a talkpage first. {{mergeto}} also exists for a reason. I think Moya is in fact an important character in the show, but I doubt that many independent sources exist for it to make a good article. Per WP:FICT, Non-notable information should be deleted only when all other options have been exhausted. Going directly to AfD was IMO too bold. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wonder if it was too bold. If Moya and Talyn are the most important ships, but have no citations worth mentioning, putting them on a list with the less important ships would just get the list on AfD. SolidPlaid 03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say that this looks VERY close to note six of the official notability policy page [28]--Torchwood Who? 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, for what it's worth, I've located at least two sources which are independent on Google Book Search for Moya. [29] I've already stated my position on this, but I do think dismissing a MAJOR character / setting of a series as fancruft isn't the road we need to go down. Maybe some truly minor characters, for example, kolrami from Stark trek TNG [30] might be better served on a dedicated wiki, but I have to support the theory that those searching wikipedia for farscape would be expecting a certain level of dedicated information on Moya. --Torchwood Who? 04:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a concerted effort to search, but my skills were not up to it. Even so, most of the books Torchwood Who? found talk in-universe. This whole debate gives us two examples of lack of perspective. One, people cannot find a way to write about their favorite book or show critically—they reguritate the hard work of the few talented folks who wrote/directed/acted the material. Two, people outside the fan base cannot distinguish the important from the non-important on Wikipedia pages because of the poor writing. I have a very liberal take on "importance," in which I always ask myself the question; "Could somebody in the distant future find themselves getting a PhD on this topic?" That said, somebody may get a PhD on Farscape someday, but probably not on Moya alone. SolidPlaid 07:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of Moya as part of Spaceships on Farscape saving all the other ship articles from AfD. I watched Farscape on DVD once (can't say I was a fan though), and I remember some specials talking about how the set of Moya was build and what it was made of etc. Although this doesn't constitute third-party sources for establishing notability, it at least proofs that there is real-world information about the subject. Kind of like writing about the puppeteers of Dominar Rygel XVI (also an inanimate part of the show yet still a major character). Encyclopedic coverage of major characters of a TV show, I would say. The fans of Farscape just need to show that they are willing to provide such info, or the next AfD will surely nip them in the butt, and then they can't say there wasn't enough "warning". In the meantime, I'd give them the benefit of doubt. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a major character (as major as the primary humanoid characters) of the show, there is significant coverage of Moya in the following independent reliable sources: Science Fiction Television from the Praeger Television Collection, Farscape: The Illustrated Companion, Investigating Farscape: Uncharted Territories of Sex and Science Fiction, The Farscape Season Two Episode Guide : An Unofficial Guide with Critiques (and those for the other seasons), and Farscape Forever!: Sex, Drugs and Killer Muppets, establishing sufficient notability for this article to be kept. DHowell 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage of the ongoings with Moya in the TV shows, or real-world context? The difference is critical. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup or merge, or both Not sure if it should have it's own article or not, but it's very likely that this information, in some amount, will have a home here, being such a basic part of the show. Look for real-world information, cut down on the summary, and see what comes out of that. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOOOH - Get Out of Our House[edit]

This group is described as a new political party which will nominate ordinary citizens for the United States Congress by an Internet-based nomination process. However, no sources have been provided other than links to the group's own web site (or miscellaneous political links that don't actually mention this group). The names "GOOOH" and "Get Out of Our House" generate mostly unrelated Google hits, other than the group's own web site and attempts to promote the group on social networking sites; I couldn't find any independent reliable sources. The article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, no reliable sources.--Danaman5 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rackabello 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article has a "References" section containing all of the reliable sources that can be found. Zip. --Evb-wiki 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination (I checked the Google hits) and also WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. As far as I understand it, this proposes to alter the political process within the United States, which would take an act of the national legislature, and thus this is a national political party delineating its own position/platform, which falls under SOAPBOX, I believe. Accounting4Taste 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'll let this discussion continue without voting, but wanted to point out that GOOOH has an outside reference located here Ericwooten3 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources. Political movements by their very nature receive press coverage if they are at all noteworthy. EdJohnston 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable political party. JIP | Talk 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of representations of Seattle in popular culture[edit]

A prod tag was unceremoniously removed. Elements of the list could be turned into categories such as "Movies set in Seattle". List is not really about popular culture anyway, nothing like "Seattle is rainy" or "Everybody's moving to Seattle" are referenced. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list does what it sets out to do, in that it covers shows, movies, and other popular culture items set in Seattle. (By contrast, I think the list correctly excludes Whose Line Is It Anyway, even though it did once make the joke "Stick it where the sun don't shine/Seattle, Washington" on the show.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ugly list, poorly named, categories are superior in this case. SolidPlaid 03:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have Category:Films set in Seattle, Washington and List of television shows set in Seattle, how many times do we need to duplicate these lists? There's Category:Lists of films by setting, Category:Films by shooting location, and Category:Lists of films by shooting location, which could contain new lists created to cover most of the content. The only notable references left are a few books, they can be mentioned in the Seattle article if anyone cares about them. Crazysuit 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & SolidPlaid. --Evb-wiki 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed recommendation). My initial response was to the nominator. However, Crazysuit made a convincing argument: the list is redundant, given the categories mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundent per categories. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Older[edit]

Article is about a non-notable player. No reliable sources have been provided that show he played in a fully professional league or is otherwise notable. E.g., the Swiss and US clubs are amateur or semi-professional. Jogurney 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Jogurney 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the article's claims, I can find no reliable sources that confirm that he has ever played for a professional team in any country. "One of the first American-born players to play professional soccer in Europe" is clearly nonsense as there have been US-born players playing in Europe since at least the 1970s. Looking on a couple of US soccer forums, this guy seems to be somewhat well-known as a self-hyping comparative nobody..... ChrisTheDude 08:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I could not find any references with redeeming qualities. The article's writeup is taken from his own site (about.htm). Most external links supplied do not even mention him. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 12:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hall of fame member, Paul Caliguri, was playing in the same USL league as him in 1995 in the USL and this player has 10 times the experience, credentials 95% of players listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_soccer_players have. So if you are to delete this based on "non notable" or semi-pro leagues like the USL you should delete most of all the American players listed on that page. I'm the one who expanded the entry and each link given, I found them in Google, besides the link to clubs, have direct 3rd party references to facts about this player. I also saw the 1998 Soccer America Poll where fans voted him onto the World Cup roster. The poll has been removed from Soccer America, but is referenced in more than one post on bigsoccer.com where people say "he voted for himself" - http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-70774.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerexpert (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC) — Soccerexpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I'll be happy to support keeping the article if you can show that Older played in a fully professional league (as far as I know the USL D3 doesn't qualify). By the way, that BigSoccer message about Older was a joke and should not be taken as evidence of notability. Best regards. Jogurney 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bold claims made within the article are not backed by reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 21:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Burntsauce (!) I have searched every page available and i can't find a reliable source. The claims in the article cannot be verified. Woodym555 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameheads[edit]

Seems quite spammy and non-notable, but I fear hitting it with a speedy deletion tag will end up in its being listed here anyway. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Promotional, with no assertion of notability. I would say speedy but unfortunately, CSD A7 doesn't cover films. If this were released solely online, you could argue that its web content and then it might qualify under A7. Rackabello 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Get yours here...etc. --Gavin Collins 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got yours right here... Delete as non-notable and spamalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although there's no question the "get yours here!" bit is pure spam, doesn't IMDB inclusion suggest a semblance of notability? Kevin 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Erik here. Sorry about the "get it here." I didn't mean to be "spammy" and I do admit that was over the top. Anyway, I fixed it. Also...the film has had two screenings and the DVD is officially out and will soon be available on Netflix (I will post the link as soon as I have it.) The film may also be premiering at the St. Louis International Film Festival but I am waiting on confirmation. So I ask that you keep it on here. Thanks. Erkman27 23:38, 21 September 2007 (CST)

It needs to have multiple, non-trivial reliable sources to prove its notability. If you've had large amounts of media coverage that would count as reliable sources, I'd suggest adding that to the article. Generally, though, unless a film has received lots of coverage and some awards at major film festivals, it's not considered that notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publicity articles have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet requirements of WP:NOTFILM or otherwise show notability. Eluchil404 23:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 02:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towson Bypass-Burke Avenue-Putty Hill Road-Rossville Boulevard[edit]

Non-notable local arterial. Not a part of any numbered highway. —Scott5114 ↗ 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm pretty sure a road needs a number to be notable, and in any case I don't see us getting many sources to prove why this needs to be in an encyclopedia. Oh, for the want of an actual policy on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if this is kept, it's in desperate need of a title change. The present title is a tad confusing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you there! —Scott5114 ↗ 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maryland Route 45#MD 45 Bypass. There seems to be some notability for this section: [31] There may be some history behind the stub at the east end of Rossville Boulevard, but I can't find anything. --NE2 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This long road intersects with MD-45, and does twice, so therefore, it does not make sense to combine it into a common article. That is why I put the main article template linking to this one in the bypass section of the MD-45 article. Sebwite 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Towson Bypass-Burke Avenue-Putty Hill Road-Rossville Boulevard (don't try saying that without breathing in first) leads to the road of deletion--Victor falk 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long road with some notable landmarks. It is still just a stub in its infancy, so more can be written in the future. Sebwite 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The landmarks may be notable, but what makes the road notable?--Victor falk 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. It's not a unified road and I was unable to find significant citations for its various pieces (on a cursory web search). How major is this road anyway? Is its functional classification a principal arterial or a minor arterial? Maybe a better suited to a "List of arterial roads in Baltimore County"? --Polaron | Talk 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. What seems to look like a bunch of stubs with no clear notability master son^{T - C} 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly doesn't come off as notable. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the title is too long and its not notable. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks to the above 4 responses, there are now more "deletes" than "keeps." These four do not sound individualistic, but rather are in support of the one before. They all came within a few hours of one another, and may very well be a group of people who know one another, supporting the nominator, or even possibly the same person.

The nominator of this article has made other weak nominations. For example, he nominated Howard Street (Baltimore), only to get a long, unanimous list of "keeps." Some of the user names involved in the above 4 deletes are also involved in the Windsor Mill Road discussion, only giving more fuel to the possibility that these people are all supporting the nominator's cause. The times posted are all very close. What is the likelihood that such a large number of people would each support the deletion of articles on two separate streets in different parts of town under such indentical circumstances?

Anyway, this article is notable for many reasons. Wikipedia policy opposes the creation of a page on your own side street. Meanwhile, this is a road that altogether (under its many names) is more than 10 miles long, and is of great importance to the county. Just sit anywhere along the road, and not a minute will go by without a countless number of cars passing. The information about its route is completely verifiable from a Mapquest-like program. Other information, for which finding sources will take longer, can also be verified. I do agree that the title should be simplified. I just have not thought of a new title for it yet. Sebwite 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if four people hold the same opinion, they must all be socks of each other? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not automatically accusing them of sock or meat puppetry. But I am bringing up my suspicions as a concern. It is just the appearance of the whole thing. Besides, in this debate and especially the one for Windsor Mill Road, the nominator seems to be strongly rebutting all posts in favor of keeping the articles. Under no circumstances should these articles be deleted without this being investigated by an expert in the subject and resolved. Sebwite 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay. Until then, assume good faith, please. —Scott5114 ↗ 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that all four of us have extensive edit histories going back 1-2 (for me 2.5) years, and considering that I live in California, master_son lives somewhere in the Midwest, JA10 lives in Pennsylvania, and TMF lives in New York... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't known Baltimore, all you know is data, not the whole picture. I have lived in the Baltimore area for 30 years, and driven down these roads countless times. Others should feel free to post. But more weight should be given to those who know these roads well and know what they are talking about when they view the road as notable. Sebwite 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So "my vote should count more than yours?" No. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the numbers of "keeps" and "deletes" is not the basis for the decision. It is the meaning of the points made in the arguments. The "keeps" and some of the "merges" here have made really good points in favor of keeping. Meanwhile, the "deletes" are mostly out-of-towners who are thinking technical and trying to back up others who posted "deletes" or else rebutt the "keeps," but who really do not know the road and why those who voted "keep" felt it was worth doing so. Sebwite 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some sense, out-of-towners (or those even Timoniumites who don't come down the road) may be more able to see clearly here. If the road is only of extremely local notability such that it can't be described to others and even that notability can't be supported, is it really notable? See this essay for some thoughts. DMacks 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Since at least the Towson Bypass part of this is associated with MD 45 (designated MD 45 bypass), it makes sense to merge it there. After all, Maryland Route 835A is merged with Maryland Route 835.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Various parts might be notable, it might go past notable places/things. It itself doesn't seem notable (notability generally isn't inherited). Other AfD noms and the motivations behind the nominators are irrelevant, and (within a few) the number of comments one way or the other are not relevant. This isn't a vote. If the topic is viable and we're not swamped with puppets (which we don't seem to be, lots of unrelated folks here too), please give the closing admin a bit of credit that he might be able to see through whatever is going on here, and then take it to review if you have serious concerns. DMacks 02:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: Though I have very much and do still favor keeping this particular article, I understand the point behind its consideration for deletion - to limit the number of road articles. But it is possible to write about smaller roads within the articles about the towns in which they are in. If a road has some importance to thru traffic or is home to some landmarks, but is contained mostly to a single town name or zip code, a few lines or paragraphs about that road can be written within that town's article. See what I have done in the articles on Owings Mills and Pikesville for an example of this. Meanwhile, a road like this one that has no number but transverses two or more cities or towns can still have its own article. Sebwite 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have since merged two other road articles I originally created into their respective towns: Red Run Boulevard and Shawan Road. Since their creation, I have found little to write about them, and I could not see others easily expanding them above the stub level. Meanwhile, this road, being more than 10 miles long, and passing through multiple localities, may need some more time before it is determined whether to keep it as a separate article or be merged into another. Sebwite 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone please tell me this is some sick joke to see how long a ridiculous article (such as this) can survive on Wikipedia. Really now. Burntsauce 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:50k ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of Fools (podcast)[edit]

Tagged as unverified and lacking sources for a loooong time, no sources have been provided. Photo is credited nicely, though, which must please the photographer. Anyway, there are an unusual number of different single purpose accounts in the history of this article, notably Feastoffools (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus some real editors. The article itself does not in my view establish why we should care, but it does do a decent job of promoting the thing. Noth that we are here for promotion. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link to the People's Choice Awards is incorrect. The show won the Podcast Awards People's Choice Award, which is an entirely different award. http://www.podcastawards.com/, not http://www.pcavote.com/pca/index.jsp Corvus cornix 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if nobody adds sources. User:Feastoffools looks like WP:COI. Isaac Pankonin 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is written like a promotional piece for the show, especially the intro and the section on regulars. With the nicely credited photo, one would not be surprised someone involved in the show didn't create this article so as to know how to get the aptly credited photo.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improving through regular editing not deletion by AfD process. Benjiboi 10:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - for now, consensus seems to be that a rewrite is/has been most appropriate. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive module[edit]

Essay on cognitive functions or something. According to the talk page, it's a cut and paste from a GFDL source. I don't know the policy on that, but it's a definite AFD candidate so I'm listing it here.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific in why this article is an AFD candidate. I have tried to modify it so it should not any more be an AFD candidate. If I have not done this rightly, please tell me what is wrong and how I can make it not any more being an AFD candidate.

Jpalme 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)jpalme 13:36 (UTC) 5 September 2007[reply]

I think that the critic is making the argument that the text might be violating copyright or that the article is really from a single source. It would pay to include in-line citations from authoritative sources and to put in links to other wikipedia articles by double bracketing a term like evolutionary psychology and rewording the article to facilitate such links. The latter effort might show what has or has not already been covered in WP. Please forgive me if you already knew all or some of this. DCDuring 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I have added a link from the article to Evolutionary psychology. I also found another article in Wikipedia (entitled On Intelligence) which describes somewhat similar ideas as Cognitive modules so I added a link to that article, too.

Jpalme 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the notices on your user page discussion tab. DCDuring 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not this is a copyvio or not, it surely counts as original research, within the strict meaning of the actual policy: it is an original synthesis that seeks to advance a new theory. It also reads like an essay, and lacks a lead section to let us know what it's supposed to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The provider and original author of the material actually knows what he is talking about. It is a great first draft. We just need to wikify it. The original deletion issue arose because a bot identified a potential copyright problem which has been resolved. This article is far, far better than many articles not marked for deletion.DCDuring 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC) DCDuring 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject might be worthwhile, but it would need a lot of work. The end result won't look much like what we've got. ~~I'd be willing to take a run.~~ DCDuring 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to that. It is great cooperating with people in creating a better article.

Jpalme

merge this article seems to replicate the subject matter of Modularity of mind, instead of expanding this entirely referenced cut-and-paste job from another site, why not merge any really novel contributions which can be supported into that article? Pete.Hurd 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I support Pete's idea of directing the content to Modularity of mind, instead. • Lawrence Cohen 13:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a decision tree: I have put a little time in to trying to encourage the author (Palme) to work on improving it with citations. I don't know how long it would be appropriate to wait.

I intend to find more references, but that may take several months. I have borrowed two evolutionary pscyhology basic books from the library and will check them for support of the article.

Jpalme 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without some citations there would be nothing or next-to-nothing to merge and therefore we should DELETE.

Does anyone know of any significant work on any invidual "module" that has benefitted from the theoretical modularity framework?

If there were, that might be a reason to have a separate cognitive modules article. Therefore KEEP

If there is only theory and an alternative vocabulary for talking about cognitive faculties, then MERGE.

DCDuring 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please (even more begging than last time) add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rewrite I've tagged it {{rewrite}}. A subject with 755 Google scholar hits ought to have an article on wikipedia, and a good one; which sadly can't be said now. At all. I oppose the merge with modularity of mind, while intimately related they're not the same thing. Modularity of mind is the idea (or theory) that parts of it are functionally independtent;cognitive modules are tools (themselves independent part of the mind) that can be used by other parts.--Victor falk 12:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may need a good article on "cognitive modules", but the article would have to be about the question as to whether and in what sense they exist. There are plenty of folks doing research as if such things might exist in hopes of demonstrating that a particular functional capability is embodied in a cognitive module. The sense in which they exist is very unclear given the apparent plasticity of the physical brain. The research seems to be concerned with relatively basic functions in sensory and motor processing. A relatively high-level function that is ascribed to one or more modules is language. The article that we are dealing with discusses modules that come into being in the course of one's education and socialization. If it is difficult to determine whether the more basic functions are "modules", if will be still more unclear that "prejudice" is a module.

I would love to learn more about the research being done in this area. I just don't think that we are likely to find the expertise for much depth among Wikipedians. It would take a lot of OR and improper synthesis to produce something that was coherent, IMHO. DCDuring 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Language module and Visual modularity articles have some references to good research. The problem is that this article attempts to apply models unproven at the level of basic brain functions (speech, hearing, and visual processing, where brain function modularity is most likely to exist and apply them to behavior and attitudes. There are not likely to be acceptable sources for this. In this article "cognitive modules" seems like a relabelling of "habits". DCDuring 13:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment what does "Strong rewrite" mean? This article is abysmal. It does not belong in an encyclopedia in it's current form. Keeping this article as it stands effectively suspends WP:V and includes WP:OR. Why not just delete it, and wait until somebody writes an article which meets wikipedias standards of quality to replace it? Refusing to delete this, if no one is going to fix it, simply means we reject the notion that there are minimal standards for inclusion. Pete.Hurd 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong rewrite~~ Gut and stub is was I meant, exactly. And I meant to do this myself (though if anybody wants to help I don't mind :). The current text should be linked to its original site as a reference (at most). I've been doing some research on those modules, as to have a one-line intro and a couple of sources. --Victor falk 13:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gut and Stub seems like a reasonable course of action, althought I note a great deal of activity to add sources. DCDuring 13:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 06:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on the "gut and stub" recommendations above, I've now had a go at removing the uncited material, material only supported by self-published sources, and obvious original research. This left a number of non-sequiturs, so I've trimmed them out as well. I have also deleted those "further reading" references which are not directly used to support the argument in the article, lest they be seen as providing support by numbers and reflected reputation of their authors. Where there was ambiguity about relevance, I've tried to give the original material the benefit of the doubt. There's really not much left.

Update 2: In fact, going back to the original source material, there's so little left that no coherent article remains. I've now trimmed it to a stub. There may still be a good article to be written about this, but it should be rewritten from scratch, with detailed cites to peer-reviewed literature in the relevant areas of study. With the help of User:Victor falk, I've put a list of possible sources on the Talk:Cognitive modules page. -- The Anome 14:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article has been nominated for rescue --Victor falk 16:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

Are we reaching a consensus that this stub is to be retained and not deleted ? The original question was whether this article should be merged. Apparent decision was "No, nothing to merge". What would be in this article that would not be covered in modularity of mind? DCDuring 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aye good stub, rescind my delete !vote. Pete.Hurd 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aye nice to see some {{sofixit}} mentality in this crowd! (: --Victor falk 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aye looks good to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

''Modularity of mind'' seems to be only oriented towards inherited basic capabilities, and not include learned modules in the concept of cognitive modules. To me, this seems very restricted, since that excludes most of human thinking, since most of human thinking is using also learned and not only inherited modules.

There seems to be a disagreement of whether the term cognitive module is to be used only to refer to basic, general cognitive methods used to create more advanced thoughts, or also to refer to the more advanced thoughts created using the basic modules. For example, with the first definition of cognitive modules the ability to rapidly compute trajectories of moving objects is a cognitive module, but the ability to use this capability to play basket ball is not a cognitive module. With the second definition, also learned capabilities like the capability to play basket ball are themselves a set of learned cognitive modules. Different experts seem to use the term cognitive modules in these two different ways.

Jpalme 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--JForget 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in Iraq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Content fork to Iraq War, Iraqi Insurgency, and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006. Isaac Pankonin 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —Isaac Pankonin 06:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep No reason offered for deletion. Its a 'fork'. So what. Hmains 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is covered in more detail in other articles. No information is unique. It's the same information under a different title. Let's say there were two articles named "Hillary Clinton" and "Senator Clinton". You would want one of them to be deleted. I thought "content fork" was clear. I apologize. Isaac Pankonin 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this a content dispute. All articles are notable and duly referenced, but highly controversial. The article you nominated as a fork has withstood a previous nomination, and was created over 2 years ago. Given the highly contentious nature of these subjects, these should be processed through the proper channels before simply nominating for deletion as a fork. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Iraq War article gives a general overview of the sectarian conflict and points to the civil war article for more information. The main Iraq War article has many important sub-topics that are expanded upon in other articles. The civil war, a significant conflict within the war, is one of them. Also, please note that the AfD immediately follows two content disputes involving the nominator. • Gene93k 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and re-write. As I wrote MANY times (see the talk page!), the name should be "Sectarian strife in Iraq" or "Sectarian violence in Iraq". The "civil war" is already covered by the Iraqi insurgency, terrorism by Terrorism in Iraq, the war in general by the Iraq War and yes, the post-invasion Iraq by Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006. The sectarian violence article should be about the violence which is NOT political, but motivated simply by sectarian hatred (which is, for example, that Mr. Sadr is completely unrelated - but the rogue elements in the Mahdi Army stay). Which means bombings of a random Shiite civilians and the pogroms of Sunnis, for example. --HanzoHattori 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the point that there is no reason given for the deletion. This conflict indeed qualifies as a civil war conflict. Contrary to the HanzoHattori contentions, this is a civil war. Most civil war-deemed conflicts arise directly from sectarian conflicts, see the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and so on. Few conflicts have a strictly political nature as in the U.S. Civil War or the anti-Bolshevik civil war of 1917-1922. Dogru144 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Schonken 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Nominator failed to provide reason for deletion. Does the nominator wish to delete, merge, modify, disambig? Content disputes should be resolved at the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In any case, it's a commonly used term in the public and media, and can refer to any of the above-linked articles, so meets notability. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wars can be part of other wars. See WWII, Pacific War, Second Sino-Japanese War, Pacific War, French-Thai War, und so weiter.--Victor falk 12:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SD#A7. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 08:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tomorrow (band)[edit]

Article lacks references and documentation. Band does not appear notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Band accomplishments seem so thin I considered going for speedy delete but the age of the article and number of contributors suggested this route. I'd say delete but I'm very curious how others will view the article. Pig^man 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band. Delete the guy. Delete the label. No notability in sight. MarkBul 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE! --Missingno390 UBX Farm Watercooler 2007.0921.0249 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the local coffee house to the dizzying heights of the Squintfest. Totally non-notable. They don't even have a CD released yet, none, nada, zilch, zero. Not only do they not meet WP:BAND they wouldn't even be able to see it with a pair of 50x binoculars. ---- WebHamster 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Spiegel[edit]

delete there is nothing to suggest that this doctor's medical career yet merits inclusion. At less then 7 years in practice, there just isn't anything there (yet). Skimpy Google footprint & Medline trail. Droliver 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless more info is hiding, I don't see enough here for an article. Pig^man 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My prod was rejected in January, but not much more has added since then, and his notability is still not up to Wikipedia inclusion standards. Fram 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. WP:NN. Did anyone check the Yellow Pages for a copyvio? --Evb-wiki 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Brown metal[edit]

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion A1 and contested. I don't believe it's speedyable outright (though feel free to speedy for something if you think I'm wrong), but it certainly appears to be less than notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be eligible for speedy deletion as of now (i would probably delete it myself, if i were an admin), however, as stated, Brown metal is a new sub genre and more information is coming all the time, soon it will be a legitimate article, and thus, should not be deleted for the time being. I plan on adding more information as well as pictures that help represent Brown metal in the future. I do not believe this article should be deleted yet, but possibly in the future, if i cannot come up with enough information to make this article legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-briskettt (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't wait for things to become notable or verifiable. This may even be a hoax, but I'll assume good faith and say it's unverifiable original research. "Brown Metal" + "Advantageous Mutation" gives zero Google results. Crazysuit 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely made up. Just look at the links listed at the bottom. Zanders5k 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to prove notability in the article, no sources. Having looked at the first 10 pages of Google results, I can find no reliable sources, only a couple of non-notable bands (most of the results are for unrelated descriptions of products). As another commenter pointed out, the links at the bottom don't increase my confidence about this article. --Kateshort forbob 10:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably made up in school one day. Zero references, and I couldn't find anything about it. Melsaran (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flush That's what you do with brown stuff.--Victor falk 13:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Victor, you owe me a new keyboard. Cap'n Walker 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Wiki is not for things made up ... wherever this was made up. (Songs about dragons? Nah. Dragons playing in the band? That I'd pay to see.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this doesn't exist, and, if it does, it should be (at best) a subsection of black metal. J Milburn 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate delete Just because it's got one iTunes download (compliments of you), one fan (you again), and one artist (you and your band) doesn't make it a subgenre!

--Gp75motorsports 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Gp75motorsports[reply]

Delete, non-notable music genre, made up at school one day. Just how many different sorts of metal do we need? Where is neon pink metal? JIP | Talk 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glory Farm Primary and Nursery School[edit]

Elementary school, has a bit more detail than the schools that I have nominated in the past. School seems to have an agricultural theme. I doubt that will help it rise to the level of notablility. SolidPlaid 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're right, there's slightly more marrow scraps in that bone than usual. But I still say as usual: no claim to notability whatsoever.--Victor falk 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yep, I would say it fails WP:N. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bicester per the redirect guidelines and all that. Burntsauce 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable, per wp:n and Wikipedia:Schools/March 2007 --Victor falk 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete. Maxim_(talk) 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Fish[edit]

Delete claims of several gold records defeats the speedy nomination, but I can find no confirmation that their records ever went gold or did anything really. NN band /hoax claim of gold records. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the claims for gold records, or for that matter, record labels are confirmed by a Google search. Gold records would generate ghits. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the CSD nominator. (along with several others of what appears to be a Fat Man Records walled garden). There's no evidence that any of their assertions are actually fact. ---- WebHamster 03:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found a couple of other articles related to this: Fat Man Records which is up for deletion through AfD as well. Dylan Trenton was in the band but his article has no documentation as well. These articles have no supporting sources for their info which is my concern. Oh, and a deleted article for Troubled Brother, another band connected to this matrix. I'm not up to doing an AfD on Dylan Trenton. Umph. As others have now said due to my edit conflict. Pig^man 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Tear down the wall! --Evb-wiki 14:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete (with a skanky beat), per aboves. Pete.Hurd 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was actually keeping an eye on this wondering if I should put it up for afd myself... but yes, delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with 200000 volts to the gills. NawlinWiki 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The content remains in the history if anyone wants to merge, but there doesn't appear to be anything sourced. Eluchil404 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rantath Flux[edit]

In-universe, pure OR, probable copyvio in the pics, no claim to notability, even within universe doesn't seem too important to me, more like a plot device. SolidPlaid 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would leave this article to provide definition of the term when it is used in the 74 articles that link to it. For reasoning see the examples in this page. Fosnez 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, now that you pointed them out, I duty bound to ~~nominate~~ investigate most of those 74 articles for deletion too, for the same reasons. SolidPlaid 03:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope that was said in jest, in any case I will be watching your contributions very carefully. Fosnez 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you have already started... This should be interesting... Fosnez 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am being very careful to stick to articles that have no apparent outside notability. My concern is that these things are uninteresting even within-universe. I have argued for the retention of certain Harry Potter articles that I felt had importance within-universe and outside. My take on deletion is long-term, and I always ask myself this question: "Could somebody in the distant future find themselves getting a PhD on this topic?" SolidPlaid 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that some of the articles you have already nominated need work, but deletion is not the answer. They should either be fixed up or merged to Farscape (Plot Devices) - Fosnez 04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merging this is a good idea, but in order to do so we'd need some encyclopedic content to begin with. What we've got now is pure original research fancruft - there's not a single reference that backs up the information, not even to a fan site (I did look at the one external link, but it doesn't mention Rantath Flux anywhere on the page). If this can be severely cleaned up to have an encyclopedic tone with usable references, it may be worth keeping. As it is, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 21

September 2007 (UTC)

Trim, Merge and Delete - I think there's enough information in outside sources to make a brief, one-sentence reference to the phrase in the main Farscape article where it may concern wormholes in the Farscape universe, but we shouldn't go in to great detail unless we can source it. The article is too long as it is not to cite references. If someone knows if there was ever a Farscape technical guide of some sort in print that would be helpful to make sure the information presented is accurate. As a sci-fi fan I love reading about in-universe cruft on Wikipedia, but I also want my cruft to be factual and sourced otherwise we end up with technical fan-fiction.--Torchwood Who? 06:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, into Wormhole (Farscape weapon) I guess. Probably deserves a mention somewhere, but it's not really deserving of its own article. PC78 12:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional fork from Black Hole. Notability is not inherited from TV, unless demonstrated by independent secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete as the article's subject fails to meet notability standards through significant coverage from reliable sources. Also, per WP:WAF, this article fails to provide a real-world perspective of the subject, providing solely in-universe information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog)[edit]

Way to indepth for an encylopedia, this content should probably be just deleted and a important detail or two be left to merge into a sonic list or something.DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a merge why is this on AFD. I ask because deleted articles can't be merged so deleteing this would mean it can't be merged. This really should have been on the talkpage first. --67.71.79.76 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is clearly relevant to Sonic The Hedgehog and is apparently diverse enough to warrant its own entry within the Sonic "universe". I don't think the nom has a very compelling argument for deletion. Kevin 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agreeing with Kevin. "Way too deep for an encyclopedia" is not a good argument, nor is it good grounds for deletion, especially when the page is clearly relevant to the Sonic series, and contains information that would be better off on its own page rather than the main page itself. La Bicyclette 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedia's exist for in depth knowledge, that is their very reason. Viperix 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Savalas[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO, notability is not inherited. Carlossuarez46 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weak filmography, unlikely search term so redirect unwarranted. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Telly Savalas. Redirects are cheap. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dhartung, but maybe a phrase should be inserted in his mention in Telly Savalas that he's an actor. Accounting4Taste 18:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, only arguments for keeping are from article author, whose username and use of the first person, below, indicates relationship with the subject. NawlinWiki 05:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LFMG[edit]

Fails WP:BAND The Evil Spartan 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ for now. I tagged the page with a speedy when it first came up, then saw that it was asserting some notability, so gave the editor time to clean it up a bit. When I still thought it failed WP:MUSIC, I prod'd it, which they removed. Most recently, I cleaned the article up a bit and have invited the original editor (a single purpose account) to review WP:MUSIC and explain how it is notable. I've also thrown out a line at the reference desk. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, I see they made it back to touch up my cleanup, but neglected to answer my questions on the discussion page or particpate here. Into The Fray ^T/C 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but certainly not speedy. They assert notability, but show no evidence. If I can get some form of proof of notability, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it asserts notability, but the only hits from a few search engines were anything besides myspace. Since it has no sources, it'll have to be deleted, but go ahead and add them if you have better luck than I. If so, I'll change my mind. *Cremepuff 222* 01:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Google for "LFMG band -wikipedia -myspace" gets me a forum about Saturday Night Live and a bunch of pages on molecular biology, of all things. If references can be added to back up the claims to notability, great, otherwise, delete it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finally figured out how to post on here..I kept going to the talk page, I am fairly new at editing pages on here(disputes, etc.)...What search engine are you guys searching on??? Search LFMG or lfmg or "Left Field Muzik Group" on google or yahoo. Search it on Napster, iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. I can't find any articles online..but that is not the case only for us, i've tried other famous artists as well and can't find their album reviews either? ..I can't find the article on MiamiHerald.com or Miami Times to link to or other articles that were written but, I have the actual copies of the Papers? Maybe some advice on what I can do to verify notability? All I can think of is uploading images or sending copies of material??? This is not a world famous band...Neither is Baby Sham of Flip Mode Squad(Whom we have produced for) or Money Mark. I can't find proof for most of the "features" Money Mark's Wikipedia page says he's done but, I know he's done them..from living in Miami and knowing his music. We're requestable on every station in Miami(college radio also)..we have also had plays on all these stations and continue to get plays on College Radio weekly(UM/F.I.U/Miami-Dade Community/F.A.U./etc.) As far as The Molecular Biology thing...that has not come up on any hits for me. LFMG is also a lawyers group called Law Fund Management Group..nothing to do with LFMG the music group. If the page is going to be deleted there is nothing I can do about it..just help me with some ideas on how to prove notability..i'm out of them. All i can think of us is searches and uploads. Maybe a little more time would help me think of other links I could find. If you search LFMG you should get more hits than myspace. This is the best i can do, though it doesn't help much. This is a link to a schedule for performers for SuperMotorFest '07 at the Orange Bowl..It has us listed as "LeftField" early Saturday because the Webpage was never updated..but we ended up playing both days and on the Main Stage replacing "Platanos" and opening for PitBull(F.Y.I. This was not the first or last time we have opened for Pit or Rick Ross, Whom though not on the schedule also performed later that evening): http://www.supermotorfest.com/super_motor_fest.html Scroll down to the "HipHop Stage"..If you noticed "Molly Hatchet" also played there...Sorry so long winded..Leftfieldmuzik 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Leftfieldmuzik[reply]

Comment - I've repeatedly directed you to WP:MUSIC to tell us which criteria LFMG satisfies. For musicians and ensembles, there are 12 criteria. Based on what you've said above, you have partial support for #1 (you have been written about in The Miami Herald) and perhaps support for #10 in that you performed at what might be a notable event. You do not need to upload your sources. We assume good faith here. They merely need to be verifiable sources. So, what date of the Miami Herald were you written up in, etc? Please read the links I keep giving you. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was in The Living & Arts Section: May 9, 2006. Like I said: I have searched it..and can not find it in the archives online. I also can not find the Sun-Sentinel article or the Miami Times article(s)(2)..but I have copies in front of me. As for SuperMotorFest..It was a pretty well promoted event...it was at A Car Show @ The Orange Bowl??? Promoters don't rent out the Orange Bowl with the intention of putting together small, not notable events? There were THREE different stages playing live music simultaneously..The Event Schedule proves that. It was a genre mixing event..We were on flyers and posters all around Miami promoting the event(It's was a Car Show, please do not think the website reflects the way it was promoted) There were commercials on T.V.(we were not mentioned in the commercials, but the concerts were) ..this was a 2 day event. You ever heard of South Beach??? If you live in Miami..go look at the poster walls on Washington/Ocean. There are a lot of LFMG posters...performed every weekend @ Clubs all over South Beach and Dade County/Broward for several years. If I only have to fill one criteria..than most definitely performed @ several notable events: Super Motor Fest '07(7,000 to 12,000 people at the event), Miami Apollo @ The Joseph Caleb Center, which broadcast on a local station at a later date(not national broadcast, but it was a notable "Live event"(3100 hundred people, sold out..also placed second), The Arabian Nights Festival: a yearly parade in Opa-Locka, Florida that has thousands in attendance always(have performed at this event for 4 years)..as well as preforming weekly locally for years. So #10 should be unquestionably met. In all technicalities #1 should also be met. All those papers I mentioned are the three largest Newspapers in Miami-Dade/Broward Counties. Not to mention being written about in not 1 but, 4 College Papers..which I believe means created atleast a significant buzz in those schools radio stations. Miami-Dade Community, UM South, F.I.U. North, and F.A.U. papers gave us a mention. There are a lot of artists who are Off the Radar..LFMG is one of those groups right now but, still notable. And I believe satisfies the requirements for #1(though can not find articles online myself) and #10 is met undoubtedly. But I see it is open to interpretation and in all rights..this is the only way to keep things fair and prevent this from becoming an advertising board. I respect the rules and have a better understanding of them and now definitely know this group's notability requirements are met. I will try to find the articles by searching under "LeftField or Left Field Muzik Group" the group was better known as LeftField from 2002-2005..this is why, for legal and promotional reasons, the group name is LFMG(to distinguish from Leftfield the Electronica group). That has happened. Leftfieldmuzik 05:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Leftfieldmuzik[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Dunin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject is a non notable person, and hence fails BIO. A google search reveals few topics. CO₂ 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aerospace engineer published in his field. Head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project and part of a team that launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite. Seems like the sort of person Wikipedia should have a biography about. Am I missing something? WjBscribe 00:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —WjBscribe 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as mentioned by WJC. ViperSnake151 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will, and the reliable sources. Google searches is not everything, especially when you have the sources already in the article. Daniel 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you must set a very high bar indeed if someone who has "...been head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project, and in the 1960s successfully calculated the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit." is not notable. KTo288 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm still convinced of notability if claims are verified, however verification remains to be satisfied. KTo288 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is relatively well-written and the man has done plenty of notable things. Anyway, the google hunt does show up a good amount of topics. Lauren^whisper 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't list any reliable sources. The first is trivial and only lists his name and what he does. The second doesn't make much sense. The 3^rd is trivial, the fourth has no relation to Stanley, the fifth is trivial, and the 6th isn't reliable, as it's a family tree constructed by members of an online community. CO₂ 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable secondary sources can be provided that discuss the subject of the article. Tim Vickers 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. If you feel that its not well referenced enough {{sofixit}}. Deletion isn't cleanup. Shell ^babelfish 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked, but could not find any. Perhaps you might have more luck. Tim Vickers 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shell, why obviously notable? Do you consider the claims to be accurate? Discussion below strongly suggests they are either untrue or unreferencable. Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because you have decided the gentleman should have published his work before allowing his employer the leg up to get to geosynchronous orbit first doesn't make it so. Regardless, his paper is still the first published describing the mechanism. It would be helpful if you offered some proof that the claims are false instead of your original research. Shell ^babelfish 12:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than likely notable, and I'm thinking that the sources are more than good enough. Animum, slow down there. :) *Cremepuff 222* 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep --Victor falk 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason given to keep article - could you provide one? Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm willing to be shown otherwise, speaking as a space buff, but I'm skeptical of the claim that Dunin played the primary role in calculating the first geostationary orbit. That's usually credited to Herman Noordung. Additionally, few of the sources where I would expect to find information about him make any mention. I'm not saying he wasn't accomplished, but the jump from that to notability seems fishy. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me if Herman Noordung fully superceeded Dunin. The artice on Noordung says that he calculated the geosychronous orbit. From all I can tell, he may have just calculated the height of a geosychronous orbit, whereas Dunin calculated how to actually get into it, which is something different. But I don't know enough details to say one way or the other. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to notable. (Personal attack removed). Just where are the sources that this guy had any material responsibility for advances in satellite technology at Hughes? 12.10.190.132 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{This is this user's first edit. Tim Vickers 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Clearly notable by the citation of Multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. including the The New York Times, Detroit Times and Letter from Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan to Secretary of State Article needs cleanup with {{fact}} tags. Full Disclosure: I originally WP:SNOW non-admin closed this AfD - but this has been reopened by an Admin (which I am fine with) Please refer to my Talk Page for the discussion. Fosnez 03:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT reference is about his grandfather, not the subject of the article. The Detroit Times reference is about his mother, not the subject of the article. This leaves the entire claim for notability resting on a letter from a senator about the naturalisation of one of his constituents. This isn't really very convincing. If this article is to stay, it needs better sources that establish the notability of Stanley Dunin, not his relatives. Tim Vickers 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I got an edit conflict saying essentially the same thing. These are reliable sources, yes, but they do not speak to his notability. Even having a Senator write a letter about your citizenship is not notable. Unfortunately, this reads like a "my famous relatives" genealogical entry, not an article about an person whose importance is recognized by his peers. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't being published in his field isn't recognized by his peers? Shell ^babelfish 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I have many more papers in more significant journals than this person, but I am not even close to being notable. Being published isn't enough, see WP:PROF. Tim Vickers 17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this article Elmao 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason given to keep article, either - could you provide one? Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Notability. There are a few chief claims to notability - one, that he was "head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project". Heading a project team is not in itself sufficient, even if the project team was at NASA. The second is that "in the 1960s (he)successfully calculated the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit.". This is a lie - the calculation was carried out years earlier by Herman Noordung. The other two are that he was "part of a team"; this is also no sufficient. The only meaty assertion of notability is the succesful calculation, and this is the claim that is untrue. Note that being related to Polish nobility is not an assertion of notability, as this is true of about 10% of the population of Poland.

References are lacking. Many of the sources provided fail to mention him, and they certainly fail to provide evidence of notability, being trivial mentions only, articles about his daughter and not him, or a family-created (and, therefore, utterly unreliable) family tree:
- - [32] - one mention of his name, in a footnote. Useless.
  - New York Times (1945) reference is solely to support Edward Werner being vice-Minister of Finance for Poland (it was published when Dunin was nine years old), so has no value here, and certainly does not count as a non-trivial reference in a notable secondary source.
  - The 1947 letter, again, solely shows that Dunin became an American citizen at the age of 11. No value to assert notability, solely a biographical aside.
  - Ref #4 is a paper Dunin contributed to. Doesn't provide any evidence of notability.
  - Woman sets sights on code on CIA sculpture, going from the mirror on Elonka Dunin's website is a minor mention. (full article is here "woman%20sets%20sights")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no but I'm not paying for it)
  - "Engagement of Countess" is another background biographical thing. Does not provide evidence of notability.
To summarise, the whole article reads like a carefully constructed piece of flummery, on a person that isn't actually notable, but has synthesized some (unquestionable) basic biographical facts (name, nationality, who their grandparent was, etc) together, mixed in some exceptionally minor assertions of notability, one untrue larger assertion, and, given the creator of the article is his daughter, a Wikipedian who knows the rules inside out, comes across as a piece of vanity with a bunch of smokecreens to flummox us into keeping it. Neil ム 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - But how do you really feel? Being part of a historic project would seem to be notable, even if you consider his other work at NASA to be routine. You have yet to provide any proof that his published paper and claims are false. As far as nobility, as established on the Antoni Dunin article, which also recently under went AfD, the nobility was not of the kind that 10% of all Poles hold; please note that he is not just szlachta but Hrabia or you can read the entire discussion about halfway down here. Please note that this is not a discussion of Elonka and she can very easily be left out of the discussion by talking about the article content. Shell ^babelfish 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the wrong way around. People have to show that a subject is notable for it to be included. The onus is not on the people questioning notability to prove a subject isn't notable. Instead reliable sources that discuss this person's achievements must be provided to establish notability, otherwise the article will be deleted. Tim Vickers 17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Neil. Also, three extra sources have now just been added. One is Elonka's self published autobiography, and two are sources which appear to using as their source... this entry from Wikipedia (!!)

The subject is clearly non notable, and the article is pure vanity. None of the old or new references support notability of Stanley Dunin one iota •CHILLDOUBT• 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry but I agree with WJBscribe. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the whole. It may be that it could use better sources; but that's not a deletion criterion.Notability seems to be answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which citation is it that convinces you of the subject's notability? Tim Vickers 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, I just posted the same thing. Out of curiosity, on what grounds is notability answered? Neil ム 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What part of He is most notable for having been head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project, and in the 1960s successfully calculated the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit. do these editors fail to understand? The argument about this sentence on the talk page appears incoherent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim made in that sentence is perfectly understandable, however it is unverifiable with the references provided. I have searched hard for reliable sources that discuss this person and have found none. Tim Vickers 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the citation for the publication on orbital determination appears to be wrong. The full citation is " Orbit determination for stationary satellites (Orbit determination of stationary satellites through data analysis, noting perturbation effect and estimation of Early Bird satellite orbit) BALSAM, R E; DUNIN, S E AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY, SPACE FLIGHT MECHANICS SPECIALIST SYMPOSIUM, U. OF DENVER, DENVER, COLO ; United States; 6-8 July 1966. pp. 123-136. 1967" (link) This appears to be just a meeting report, not even a peer-reviewed paper. Tim Vickers 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. As well, the references all appear spurious and sprung from the daughter's creation of the page. She has encountered quite a bit of criticism (including from Jimbo) about the veracity and lack of diligence evident in family and related vanity articles. Elonka Dunin or her editing charateristics notwithstanding, her dad Stanley Dunin is just not notable. 216.43.156.91 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{This user has made few other edits. Tim Vickers 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment Lets try and take some of the heat out of this debate, what seems to be the residual ill feeling from earlier confrontations elsewhere need not lead to farther hostility here. The concensus seems to be that if Stanley Dunin did indeed achieve what is stated in the article than he is notable. It is not even neccessary to debate the truth of this article, if both sides can accept the notabilty and truth of article as a given, than this debate can concentrate on meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability. KTo288 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that call to focus on content. However, a core claim for notability is that he made a key contribution to the mathematics of space flight. This claim is based solely on an abstract from a meeting, rather then a peer-reviewed paper, and has been disputed by an editor with expertise in the field. This is an area where the truth of the article is seriously questioned. Tim Vickers 01:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may skirt around the issue, but if it can be verified than its true and notable and should stay, if it cannot be verified than it can be deleted and whether true or false does not matter. By simply concentrating on verifiability than conflict over issues that may lead to hostility can be avoided. KTo288 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost none of the references are to the point. the material about his noble family is irrelevant altogether, and that eliminates ref. 2, 3, and 6. The decipherment--ref 5-- was not primarily his work--according to the source, he "helped with the final English translation." Ref. 1 is his role as consultant on a business report. That leaves ref 4, his junior authorship of a paper at a subsidiary AAS symposium. Is there anything else?--yes, the paper in the AIAA journal not specified exactly in the article, but it is: "A terminal guidance technique for lunar landing" by CITRON, S. J. DUNIN, S. E. MEISSINGER, H. F. ( AIAA Journal 1964 0001-1452 vol.2 no.3 (503-509) from Web of Science, it is cited 7 times only. And read carefully, the WP article itself says he was a minor member of the group, who came up with one particular calculation. End of story. DGG (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The prose is poor; it should be reworded. The lead contains material it shouldn't, which should be moved. Indeed the article includes material that probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia, which should be deleted. But the two cited, published works by this individual are noteworthy, particularly the one on lunar landings, which was published between the Luna 2 "first impact" and the Luna 9 "first soft landing". (sdsds - talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N suggests: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability." The subject individual's life does not appear to be covered by reliable, independent, available secondary sources. (sdsds - talk) 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed, Dunin is notable. • Lawrence Cohen 06:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Borderline, revising my view upon a second look. The article is horribly unsourced. If kept, it needs a gutting or a heavy sourcing immediately, either way. • Lawrence Cohen 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Tim Vickers & DGG, Publications appear to be unrefereed, "Dunin SJ" generates zero hits in the Web of Science citation index. But he is User:Elonka's father, and she and most of her relatives (Elonka Dunin, Elsie Ivancich Dunin, Rodryg Dunin, Antoni Dunin) seem to survive AfDs so no doubt the "rescue squad" will save this one too, but the evidence presented in support of tthe argument for notability is really quite deceptive. Pete.Hurd 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citation note: WoS was never fully updated from the program used to produced it as a printed book from punched cards back in '65. For the relevant years, it only includes the first author in the cited reference index. So to find all the citations to someone's papers, you have to find all the individual papers (assuming he's among the first 5), and then look each one up under the first author's name. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Neil and DGG. --Crusio 09:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources that specifically discuss this man or his accomplishments. Deor 13:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just noticed that the meeting abstract cited to show that Dunin was the first to calculate a geosynchronous orbit was published in 1966, three years after Syncom 1, the first satellite to have a geosynchronous orbit was launched. This claim does not seem plausible. Tim Vickers 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Syncom 1 failed and Syncom 2 was the first to reach geosyncc. orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 05:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That also happened in 1963, three years before this Dunin meeting abstract was published. You can't claim that a publication described how something could be done for the first time if this publication was made long after this had already been achieved. Tim Vickers 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am becoming more and more convinced there is something very hinky about this article. Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am becoming convinced, on the other hand, that the deletion campaign is excessive. Please do not spam my talk page again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to everyone claiming this calculation is nothing but falsehood, one tiny search shows papers which cite the original article as being handed out "pre-print" in 1962 (see [33]). And the "meeting" - AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY, SPACE FLIGHT MECHANICS SPECIALIST SYMPOSIUM - was a large conference; the citation points to the speech given - but you actually read the reference first, right Tim? This witch hunt is just ridiculous. Shell ^babelfish 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're getting confused there, that's the other paper he has in his CV. The one was are talking about is the one on geosynchronous orbits that is claimed to be the first time this was worked out, not the one on guidance for moon exploration cited there. Calling a serious discussion about how we can't verify these claims "ridiculous" is not constructive. This is what we are supposed to do in these deletion discussions. The reason I am so skeptical of this claim for priority is that histories of geosynchronous orbits do not even mention Dunin NASA document. Instead the idea is credited to others working in the early 20th century. Tim Vickers 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently written. Significant person based on the article as written. If the article is in error then in needs to be corrected and then we can reconsider keeping. So, resolve the factual issues with the material in the article and not here. Vegaswikian 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the controversial and unverified claim that he was the first to calculate a geosynchronous orbit with the statement made later in the article that he just calculated the most fuel-efficient way of reaching this orbit. This claim is also unverified, but seems more plausible since it doesn't contradict other sources. Tim Vickers 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. Yahel Guhan 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, part A Notability of knowledge workers is a tricky subject. There is some evidence that Wikipedia is biased against knowledge workers; the Professor test is more stringent, relatively speaking, than the notability requirement we place on Pokemon or minor Star Wars universe characters. Two published papers is not very much but he seems to have contributed in a reasonably significant way to the early development of spaceflight. Thatcher131 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - It is very hard to tell if he did contribute in any significant way to spaceflight. Reading what I can access of the papers - which is their introductions and abstracts - and the handful of papers that later cite these papers, it is entirely unclear if the Dunin papers were significant advances in the field. A review article or a secondary source such as a history of spaceflight that mentioned Dunin would solve this problem. However, it is impossible to prove a negative here, some editors have asked for proof that Dunin did not contribute to the early development of spaceflight. This evidence is entirely lacking, just as it would be lacking for the idea that Joe Dimaggio was important in the history of particle physics. We need reliable secondary sources that put his work in context. Tim Vickers 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, part deux I have a vested interest in articles of this type, or at least in the one article of this type that I have created. The importance of the subject must be established by independent reliable sources. However, once the subject is established as notable enough for an article, we must also be flexible in recognizing that the coverage of people of lesser notability is likely to be confined to the reason for their importance, with pretty thin independent coverage of the rest of their life. Strong sources are of course required for derogatory or negative information. But if the information is relatively uncontroversial, is provided by a family member so is unlikely to be challenged, and helps to flesh out the person's life, do we really need to require rigorous citations? Such articles should definitely be de-fluffed, and family editors need to yield to the judgement of independent editors. But I'm not sure there is any real harm, assuming the notability of the subject is proved via independent reliable sources in allowing family members to flesh out life's little details. Thatcher131 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims to notability made in the article's (well-written) lead. While I'd like to see more references, it seems that the article makes some attempt at verification, and thus I will use "AFD is not the cleanup department" there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. All scientists have been a part of something or other. This person doesn't stand out. Arrow740 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He who performed the calculations necessary to insert satellites into geosynchronous orbit is unquestionably notable. We now learn that this wasn't Stanley Dunin, and that Wikipedia has been wildly misinforming its readers all this time, about Mr. Dunin and about the history of space travel alike. This debacle - and a debacle it is, for such a falsehood to remain unchallenged for so long - suggests that nothing else in this article - which is not, and will likely never be, based on reliable third party sources (which apparently don't exist) - can be trusted.Proabivouac 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think I've found the person who was responsible for the advances made in the Syncom project. It was Harold Rosen - a Biography at Inventor of the Week. None of the biographies of Rosen I have read so far mention Stanley Dunin at all. This biography link lists some other members of the team, but doesn't mention Dunin. Tim Vickers 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, member of several bands notable enough for articles; article now has source; vandalism can be cleaned up. NawlinWiki 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl-Michael Eide[edit]

This is a non-notable person. Everything that is said in this article is already written in other articles, where information can be verified. Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, see also Wikipedia:Deletion policy). This page has brought nothing but vandalism. The article is also not sourced. Delete. Death2 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A look at the article history shows that you created the article. What caused the change in heart? If it's the vandalism, why couldn't you have it protected? —Scott5114 ↗ 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He's a member of several notable bands. Bondegezou 11:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, wrong place.. Maxim_(talk) 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of overviews[edit]

This is pretty much a list of articles on random topics sorted by various categories, like a table of contents of sorts. However, something in this format certainly does not belong in the mainspace. I am listing it here because discussions on moving it elsewhere have failed or stalled. As long as it remains in the mainspace, it is an indiscriminate, directory of very loosely connected topics, and is self-referential, and is a candidate for deletion. If kept, this should be moved as a direct result of this AFD discussion. Core desat 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Could you expand a bit on why it doesn't belong in the mainspace? I'm thinking that if it doesn't belong in the mainspace, then it doesn't belong anywhere. Is it duplicative of other pages in the mainspace? SolidPlaid 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't belong in mainspace because it resembles a portal or a page in the portal namespace. However, it's not exactly a portal. It's basically a flashy "list of everything". --Core desat 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Portal:Overviews. —Scott5114 ↗ 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per Scott5114 and Coredesat --Emesee 06:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The reason given for deleting is invalid - that is, we don't delete pages just because efforts to move them didn't acquire consensus - which means the consensus was to keep them in place. The nominator seems hell-bent upon moving this page and is admittedly using the deletion process as a tool or forum to override the current consensus which the discussions he referenced failed to change -- this is an abuse of the AfD process, and therefore is grounds for speedy keep. Move discussions belong on talk pages or on the village pump, not in XfDs. Note that all lists are self-referential, and are an exception to the "no self-references" guideline, and therefore WP:SELF is also an invalid reason for deleting. See Wikipedia:Lists for more information. The overviews page is a part of the Wikipedia contents system, and is a link on the contents navbar:

Contents · Overviews · Academia · Topics · Basic topics · Glossaries · Portals · Categories

(Continued)... The list of overviews is not only an overview of Wikipedia, it lists articles which are themselves overviews (aka root topics). Far from being indescriminate, it is a one-page summary of knowledge, basically showing the top end of the taxonomy of knowledge. It has served as a major browsing tool of Wikipedia for years, so deleting it would be silly. Move this debate for moving the page to Talk:List of overviews where it belongs. The Transhumanist 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, as long as this page is in the mainspace, it is an indiscriminate list and a directory, a blatant violation of WP:NOT. Since previous attempts to deal with the page were unsuccessful, it's here. I really don't think it should exist (at least in the mainspace), and I really do think you should assume good faith. At the very least this will draw some attention to the issue. --Core desat 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move per nom; though the forum shopping isn't good. I'd note that List of glossaries could be an encyclopedic list of genuinely notable glossaries (such as the National Information Assurance Glossary), as opposed to a list of WP lists by a different name. Furthermore, moving the page out of namespace would enable the navbar above to be consistent...--Nilf anion (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Yes, I know that's a odd vote, but deletion is not the answer here, but neither is just a straight keep. Something should be done, but AfD is not the place to try and force through a consensus! Shame on the nom. humblefool ® 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microeconomix[edit]

1 office, four employees, very few google hist (<500), no real assertion of notability other than the fact that it was the first economic consulting firm in paris (though founded only 5 years ago) AdamBiswanger1 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suspect a conflict of interest. Article was created by a user with the same name as the article, see Special:Contributions/Microeconomix Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, most certainly. This shouldn't be hard to delete; I just saw a minor assertion of notability and figured I'd bring it here. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microeconomix : well you can delete it if you think it should be. But as I saw that Nera or Lecg and other economic consulting firms had their own article in the section, I think it would be fair to delete them too... in this case, the categorie "economic consulting" should also be deleted... Best regards. Regarding the conflict of interest, indeed I am the ceo of Microeconomix but I think that the presentation fo microeconomix was as objective as other contributions in the same category.

I'll check out those other companies, but the ones you listed seem like pretty large companies with offices all over the world. AdamBiswanger1 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the arguments to avoid is known as other stuff exists, trying to justify one article because a similar article exists. I checked the history of those arts, but there's no obvious conflict of interest (one was created by a still-contributing editor who has over 500 edits; the other was created by a now-dormant editor who appears to have stubbed a number of articles). If you object to those articles, you're also welcome to contest them, just like pretty much everyone else.... Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MicroeconomixOK, no problem. I should have take another name to create this article ;-). I don't understand the argument about the size of company and did not think wikipedia was only for big companies. If this is the case, then this article should indeed be deleted. But I understand that a category "economic consulting firms" or any other category related to firms could not be the purpose of wikipedia.It is a difficult debate to decide wether ant to what extent companies should be included. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your input-- if you'd like an idea for what Wikipedia's official stance is, check out this link: WP:ORG. AdamBiswanger1 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about the size of the company (tho there appears to be people who participate AfDs using that as a basis), but more of a matter of notability and verifiability. There are guidelines located at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and also the general notability at WP:NOTE. There's probably some other stuff, too, but I think for this discussion, notability is the main point. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete vanispamcruftvertisement. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Yngvarr and Pete.Hurd. Violates virtually every core policy - WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Bearian 00:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown corporation, no sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hartwell High (Show)[edit]

The article is about a supposed sequel to Flight 29 Down starring the original cast. However, there appear to be no sources saying that such a sequel is being produced and no relevant references on IMDB or Google. The article creator is now claiming (on the talk page only) that it's going to be a 3-d animated show on YouTube -- however, the article still implies it's an actual live-action filmed show with the original cast. The most charitable reading of this is that it's a fan-produced animated show on YouTube, which is nowhere near sufficient notability (at this time) for an article. In my opinion, it's probably a hoax from bottom to top.

The related article, List of Hartwell High episodes will be added to this once I jump through the right hoops.
ArglebargleIV 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

-- ArglebargleIV 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are YouTube series encyclopedic? Are fan creations? Are fan creations that don't yet exist, but might, someday, on YouTube? Delete. humblefool ® 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as humblefool Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll change my mind if you can point me to a page about this show on TV.com, IMDb, TV Guide or something along those lines. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Leave it alone, it think that it should be put back up because the ratings on the show are very high on youtube

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