Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 00:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Evolutionary medicine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - this is not a recognised field of study on its own Evoluu 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd is going on here. Evoluu has been a contributor to this article, and now he is challenging it? I worked on removing some POV issues yesterday and today removing some puffery, but still felt that it should be tagged for NPOV.

The established editor User:Evolu has edited the article in the past. User:Evoluu (notice the extra "u") is the one proposing deletion. SWAdair | Talk 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least someone has a sense of humor. One SPA spoofing another SPA. Still, not cool. SWAdair | Talk 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep ~~Keep or Merge~~ It seems that there is a body of work referenced from here which may make it notable, ~~but could this be merged elsewhere~~. Changed due to information from SWAdair --Kevin Murray 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. 42,000 Ghits for "evolutionary medicine", a bibliography section that in itself indicates this is a legitimate branch of medicine, and a SPA imposter attempting to spoof an established editor. SWAdair | Talk 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Kissoon[edit]

A speedy deletion of this article on a Guayanese columnist was overturned at deletion review, but an AfD was called for since the assertion of notability still lacks sourcing. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick Google turns up [1] [2] [3] [4] and apparently he is notable enough to upset the president of Guyana [5]. Given the Google bias, that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. Demiurge 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Demiurge--SUIT 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - faculty member and published columnist. Needs sources though. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable in his country, though sources would be helpful. D enni ^talk 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable, but tag the article as needing sources. --The Way 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for Wikipedia. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to keep. Hello32020 14:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add sources to avoid another AfD Alf photoman 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). The same reasons still apply, namely "WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines already state that plot summaries "should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles" (as per WP:NOT) & "articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources". (Thanks to Mrph for the wording.) CovenantD 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep per previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). - Peregrinefisher 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit this page needs a makeover. It would be great if we could make it look like Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). - Peregrinefisher 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest nominating that article for deletion since it should go as well. TJ Spyke 01:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - last AfD was in Oct. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Shorten and merge~~. Actually just delete. this is way too crufty to be salvagable. Artw 00:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why was the article kept the first time anyways? It seemed pretty clear that it should have been merged insteas of kept. TJ Spyke 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon reading the nomination reason, I was under the impression that each issue had a seperate article. However, it's actually giving quick summaries of all the story arcs on one page (except the last arc) which should be trimmed. Some formatting would probably help improve the article. (Example: List of Heroes graphic novels) fmmarianicolon | Talk 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason this can't be in the Ultimate X-Men article, and no reason for there to be an article just to explain the PLOT of some of the comics. TJ Spyke 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would really like to see some of the Keep advocates discuss how this article fits in with WP:NOT#IINFO #7, which is official policy here on Wikipedia. ""Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Until that happens I fail to see any valid reason for keeping it. CovenantD 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). Lots of good info can be included in this page. - Peregrinefisher 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article to which you direct our attention nor your comments address this conflict with policy. I see no sourced analysis, detail on historical significance, etc, etc. CovenantD 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Spider-man page, which is how this page can be if it's fixed instead of deleted: real world context = creators and dates. historical significance = first appearances and deaths. sourced analysis = Notes like "This storyline is continued in the video game.", differnces with the original Spider-man continuity, etc. This is the larger topic that reasonable sized plot summaries can accompany. I agree this page needs work, but it doesn't need to be deleted. It sounds like we're going to disagree on what constitutes a valid larger topic, but I'd like to point out this is just a matter of opinion, not an obvious fail of WP:NOT. - Peregrinefisher 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's not a fan page, which is where plot summaries like this belong. The important, encyclopedic info is already covered in the Ultimate X-Men article. - Lex 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comic book trivia belongs in a comic book wiki. Totally in-universe, unreferenced cruft that makes no sense to anyone besides X-men fans. Tubezone 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no need to reconsider the previous AfD outcome. There has to be finality to process. Metamagician3000 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant failure of WP:NOT, and apparently no desire to rectify the situation. Resolute 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as Tubezone says, this is merely comic book trivia. If you're going to have a plot summary or something it should be part of the original article and it should serve to illuminate the subject in question. This article does not and can never explain anything about X-men to the ignorant passer-by. It's just murky, impenetrable fancruft. It should never have survived the 1st AFD. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as mariancolon. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT concerns have not been addressed at all. And consensus can change. MER-C 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of the first AfD, this is still unsourced - see WP:RS - and questionable per the WP:NOT guidelines. Crystallina 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to indicate that this is anything but original research. I also question the closing admin's read of the previous AfD-one person advocated keeping, three merging, and two (including nominator) to delete. That's at most a no consensus, I'm really not clear on how a "keep" was read out of that. Seraphimblade 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not for plot summaries. - Aagtbdfoua 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete I like the X-Men, but Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. --Will Mak 050389 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like it may be deleted before we can fix it, but I fixed the first one to see if anyone cares. See Ultimate_X-Men_(story_arcs)#The_Tomorrow_People_.28.231-6.29. - Peregrinefisher 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Additionally, the information indicated as shielding from WP:NOT#IINFO is redundant as most is addressed on Ultimate X-Men proper. Observation with the cited second summary list, the best aspect of that page already exists on its parent. With regard to this page, the same information is on its parent, all be it in a rough state. — J Greb 03:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy is not a reason for deletion. This page organizes the info in a way that the main page cannot. - Peregrinefisher 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In and of itself when related to articles, no. However, I was pointing out that the material being used to shield what is essentially an arc by arc summary of the entire run to date from Wiki guides, is, for the most part, duplicated on the parent article. Hence it carries less weight in evaluating this article. If the material was unique, then it would be a strong argument for retention of the article. As it stands, the primary aspect is the summary, the notes do not add enough to outweigh that, even in the revised format of "Tomorrow People" and "Magical". — J Greb 08:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love comics, so it pains me when I have to support deletion in comics AfDs. But it's justified here. Plot summaries are fine if short and in the body of an already encyclopedic article. Articles that are only about plot summaries are pointless. - Lex 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the old format or the new format? Look at the edits over the last two days and see if fix the problem. - Peregrinefisher 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Your edits still fail to address our concerns. - Lex 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing but unnecessary plot summary (fails WP:NOT, WP:FICT), sourced to direct observation of the comics themselves (fails WP:V, WP:WAF). We're not here to recap comics, but instead describe them as artefacts in the real world, something this page completely fails to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:V does the new version fail? - Peregrinefisher 08:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's sourced to direct observation of the comics. Now it's cited, but the sources are direct observation instead of reliable external sources, per WP:RS and WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are called primary sources and are perfectly not OR, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's needlessly detailed plot summary. Primary sources are useful when you're establishing uncontroversial facts to support commentary backed by secondary sources. If you're writing an episode guide by watching the episodes or a readers' guide based on reading the work, you're writing original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We fixed the first sections plot so it isn't overly long. Anyway, it sounds like you're confusing interpretation ("Any interpretive claims require secondary sources") and summarization. If you think watching the show or reading the book isn't a valid source for summarization, I guess you think all plot summaries on WP are OR. No wonder you tilt at the cruft windmill, everything would be OR cruft with that def. - Peregrinefisher 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that this article is utterly useless without intepretation, and interpretation is verboten. Right now, it doesn't offer useful context to any encyclopedic commentary, just unadorned plot summary. People who want to know nothing more than what happens in the comic can read the comic. This is why WP:FICT counsels merging plot summary to articles with encyclopedic commentary, and redirecting when additional plot detail isn't needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comic is a primary source: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." - Peregrinefisher 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that some real-world discussion of the Ultimate X-Men series is needed, but I think this article should be regarded as a companion piece of the main Ultimate X-Men article. Real-world discussion about the whole series could go there, while real-world discussion about more specific plot-related issues could go here. The only reason this list is an independent article is its size. I can see in the page history that a couple of editors are working on it right now, so I'm willing to see where they take it.

Oh, btw, I like the new format used in "The Tomorrow People". One other thing - we should avoid duplication. If we do plot outlines here, they should be removed from the main article - just add a blurb like "Main article: Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)" in the main article. Quack 688 10:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V as only one of the many stories have any references. Also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as I believe this article to be plot summaries of the comics listed. Davidpdx 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Dil 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds 11:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Who are we kidding?Akanksha 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather clear violation of WP:NOT concerning plots of works. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quack. -Toptomcat 13:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought we weren't meant to have separate articles that just include plot summaries. Did I miss something ? WMMartin 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, the way the first entry's been tidied up with real-world information is pretty good, that could happen with all the other entries. If the only concern is that we shouldn't have several different x-men articles, we could merge them all into one, I just think the length of that mega-article would be a bit too much. Quack 688 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that different from TV episode summaries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the AfD will close soon, I have been working to improve this page over the past four days and would like to add some comments.

Problems do exist with this article. I do agree with many of those who chose "Delete" that this page has a large problem: lots of plot summary and not much else. Worse, it was all from an in-universe point of view. However, I don't believe a large problem means it is an unfixable problem. Peregrinefisher and I have worked toward providing better formatting and less summary in three of the sections: The Tomorrow People, Magical, and Cable. The sections still discuss plot, but we've added references to more real world perspective such as an interview where Robert Kirkman (the current main writer) describes how his perspective on the 90s mainstream Cable affected his choices when introducing the Ultimate version of Cable.
A problem also exists with the main article. The main page for the Ultimate X-Men is now 30kb. According to the Rationale section of WP:Summary, 30kb is the point where articles start to become lengthy. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball but I'm going to gamble that the Ultimate X-Men series will not end or be discontinued soon. The article will continue to grow larger when Brian Singer takes over writing, and larger when subsequent changes happen to Ultimate X-Men. Much of the information from the plot section on the main page can be merged to or added to the story arc page. This would leave more space to add additional general information on the main page while putting more detailing information on the story arcs and their creative teams (in a NPOV, out-of-universe style) on a seperate page without leaving either page lengthy.
The page is not unfixable given work and time. Is the page or even these three sections perfect? No. However, making a featured article or a good article takes time. 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies is an example of an article that went from AfD to Good Article status. I know some editors are worried that few improvements happened between the first and current AfD. However, the page history shows that since this AfD started many edits have been made. I personally have worked hard to contribute, and it would not end after the AfD ended. fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Hopefully we will be given time to fix this page. - Peregrine Fisher 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral / Comment. The page in its current state is a joke, but could be salvaged like in Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs), as per WP:WAF. However, redirecting to the main UXM page and adding the relevant info into the "History" section makes more sense, IMHO. —Onomatopoeia 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom 2.0[edit]

Neologism 2.0 Artw 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a marketing term used by one company isn't notable enough. Koweja 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 ^BETA! - nn neologism, 589 ghits. MER-C 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Sopoforic 02:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism Orderinchaos78 03:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a definition --Westmoreville 08:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs more in a dictionary of neologisms than in Wikipedia. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced WP:NEO. Davidpdx 10:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism.Akanksha 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Carpet9 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak as (an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)). Flyingtoaster1337 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TwinBlades and the DoomChasm Brigands[edit]

Plot summary of non-notable, self-published book _SUBWAYguy 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:V with 8 very similar ghits. Fails WP:BK. MER-C 03:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a stub for a non-notable book. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Device 2.0[edit]

Another "neologism 2.0" Artw 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2.0 as either a neologism or something made up in school one day. In either case it isn't notable enough to have an article. Koweja 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 ^BETA! - nn neologism. MER-C 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Sopoforic 02:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 - just because someone puts 2.0 at the end of a word doesn't make it encyclopaedic. Orderinchaos78 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to technical reasons: any device that speaks to anything that is so-called "enabled" for the so-called "Web 2.0 thing is way, WAY past its own version 2.0. Calling WP:NEO and the fact that I'm deathly allergic to marketing buzzwords. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again, same as previous, non-notable AfD. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with Telecom 2.0. Just a neologism unlikely to catch on. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Neologism and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bastun 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: non-notable. Big top 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism.--Anthony.bradbury 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced neologism 2.0.19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is a poorly sourced article about a rarely used neologism. TSO1D 04:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, poorly sourced WP:NEO. Davidpdx 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary linguistic abomination. Metamagician3000 13:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Welcome back when iPod TagCloud (with integrated last.fm support), Nokia PastelShade (you can specify that all of your phone calls will be released under Creative Commons licence) and Sony Goomapper (the hypothetical Web 2.0 product that actually makes profit, because hey, it's a Sony product) are released and someone actually uses this term. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete I like it or it's fun isn't a valid vote reasoning. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of calculator words[edit]

This article is kind of fun but hardly encyclopedic. Wikidepia is not a collection of trivial information. Also, it is not for ideas made up in school. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - it isn't encyclopedic, is original research, and is a lot of things made up in school one day. Now, if only someone had made this page when I was in highschool... Koweja 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also That said, adding a few entries to calculator spelling would be a good idea. Koweja 07:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Uncyclopedic. —dima/s-ko/ 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5318008 Artw 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom - Its one big trivia list. Floria L 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kind of fun, I could see an almanac having a page like this. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping. MER-C 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I think that it's a trivia.", the rationale used by several editors here, isn't a reason for deletion, conversely. A proper rationale would address the purpose of the list, per Wikipedia:List guideline, the scope of the list, per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the other hand, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says that stand-alone lists should be made only for encyclopedic information, and an assertion of triviality is (essentially) an assertion that the information is nonencyclopedic. At least, that is how I interpreted it. --Sopoforic 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would be a circular rationale: "It's unencyclopaedic because it's trivial. It's trivial because it's nonencyclopaedic." If one is asserting that something is unencyclopaedic, one should at least articulate what the relevant policy that one is thinking of is. Uncle G 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I meant that trivial things are unencyclopedic, and unencyclopedic things don't belong in wikipedia. ~~It's trivial because it isn't important.~~ In particular, I mean that this list isn't notable by itself. A condensed version in the main article for calculator spelling may be worthwhile, but there is already a link to a list of calculator words in the external links section. --Sopoforic 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to back up the keep here - see below. This is one of those things I think WP:IGNORE was intended for. --Dennisthe2 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12#What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article?. The main point of an entry in an article's "External links" section is to link to content that cannot or may not be included in the actual article. But you yourself have just stated that a list of calculator words can and may be included in an article. Since you yourself have just argued that a list of such words is acceptable content for an article, what is your basis for arguing that this article should be deleted? It cannot be that the list is non-notable. (If it were non-notable, why have so many separate people compiled and published such a list?) It cannot be that the list is unverifiable. (One can verify it against the several lists that have been linked to both in the article and in this discussion.) It cannot be that this is unacceptable content for an article. (You've just argued that a list of calculator words is acceptable.) So what is it? Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I was the main organiser of the article, so consider the bias. However, also consider the article (before I messed with it) dates back more than 1.5 years, and before that, other articles on a similar topic had similar content. The result of my work is not original, but merely a consolidation of already present matter in a better location. Spamguy 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge into Calculator spelling and Delete. --Sopoforic 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the list is clearly informational. The scope of the list is well-defined, and is not excessively broad, given that there is both a limited alphabet and a limited word length. All verifiability and original research concerns appear to be a matter of cleanup, not of deletion, given that the article is verifiable from many sources who have already done the research of determining what words can be made, such as this, this, and this. Our policies appear to be satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think it's 71830. TSO1D 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, that translates to "fool". Fortunately, we don't base our decisions upon what Wikipedia editors personally think to be foolish. That would result in the deletion of quite a lot of articles about various systems of belief, for starters. Please explain which of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines you think that this article contravenes, and why. Uncle G 05:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean that the article was foolish, however that the entire idea of basing an article on such a topic was perhaps ill conceived. I understand that WP:ILIKEIT is not acceptable criteria, I believe that the article can be no more than trivia and thus should not be included. TSO1D 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You haven't explained which of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines you think that this article contravenes, and why. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Wikipedia:Department of Fun. It has a long tradition, and its not made up in school one day. Oddly enough it can be verified with a calculator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton send to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. It isn't made up, unencyclopedic yes, but not made up, my dad taught me to do this when I was a kid.--Dakota 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but copy several well-known words to Calculator spelling first. MaxSem 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- Hm. I remember being amused by this when I was younger. A condensed version in the Calculator spelling article, along with maybe an external link to a more extensive list, would suffice to explain the concept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it's purpose is to describe and explain a subject, and it should only continue to accumulate data on a subject as long as doing so still sheds light on what it's about. This article has well and truly passed that point. It ought to go, simply because it is just a mindless heaping of data. Oh, and most of these were just made up in school one day. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Rey. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that this was, indeed, made up in school - but keep in mind how long pocket calculators have been around, and had to have been made up in school some...oh, forty years ago, maybe. Now, I can easily say delete on account of WP:LIST, and I can't vote keep just because I like it - but on account that this is something of a passed-on thing in schools and has a high hack value, and is not easily verifiable or notable by the normal channels, I'm going to pull the ignore all rules card. Strong Keep. --Dennisthe2 08:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is verifiable, note. Look at the sources that I linked to above. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am also going to pull the WP:IAR card. Ever heard of the Wikipedia: Department of Fun. Ever see what happens to this site on April Fools Day? This article can be verified with a common calculator. It is helpful, fun, somewhat useful, and actually knowledge. Yes, everyone who has ever passed through grade school in countries such as Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and especially the United States knows of this. This page should be kept! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. I always thought WP:IAR was a dangerous thing to have lying around. I strongly feel that it should not apply in determining wether material should be included in Wikipedia mainspace articles. In this area the rules are crucial- everyone is bound to want to save there favourite unencyclopedic articles on the bases of WP:IAR which just becomes WP:ILIKEIT on a policy footing. These words were dreamed up in school on many days. Sometimes such ideas can become widespread and popular amongst those of school age, but that does not make them worthy of an encyclopedia article where there content is unimportant and not notable (see Common room cricket for an example of a recent AfD of this sort). I think fun has its place in the Wikipedia community, but not in the article mainspace. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This whole list is available on websites linked to from the article Calculator spelling, and it should be noted that many of these words aren't words that anyone ever used before--they're just all possible words. There may be some value in this list, for some purpose, but for the purpose of the encyclopedia I think that we should just pick the most common calculator words to place in the main article on calculator spelling, and remove the list. --Sopoforic 13:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what source are you proposing to use for determining what are the "most common" words? Or are you proposing that editors perform original research? The sources that we have don't say which words are the common ones. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I want to state clearly, since I'm not certain people recognize it, based on comments: there is already a page about the practice of spelling words on a calculator. The arguments that have been used about how everyone knows about spelling words on a calculator, etc are arguments in support of keeping the article Calculator spelling, but what we are concerned with here is the article List of calculator words. The practice of spelling words on the calculator is notable enough for an article, but the list of all words doesn't merit an article of its own. --Sopoforic 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Long, long ago, a list like this one was present on the page you cite. Note the list's arbitrary nature ('donkey' in German...a great intro to calculator spelling!), and also its absolute uselessness. Any longer and it becomes useful, but unwieldly; any shorter or at that length, and it is manageable but pointless. It absolutely requires a separate article.
    I would, however, lightly agree that attempting to list every word in every language is a futile task. When some non-arbitrary boundaries ('your favourite calculator word sucks' doesn't cut it) can be agreed upon by the community, I will gladly bring the list down to something sensible yet useful. I will always be strongly in favour this article's continuation, but I do understand criticism of its length. Spamguy 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
313730 (looks better on a calculator) -- Chris is me 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Factually correct, but Wikipedia is not a repository of trivial information.--Anthony.bradbury 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate a list as one could ever conceive. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is indiscriminate about it? The criterion for inclusion on the list seems to be very discriminate: The word must be one that can be produced via calculator spelling. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cool, but not for WP FirefoxMan 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks funny, but it is definitely not Wikipedia material. --Insineratehymn^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep heh heh heh... Boobies. Just H
Delete for too arbitrary of a list.-- danntm ^T _C 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --Anthony cfc 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calculator spelling. I don't see this surviving as an independant article, but the calculator spelling page could always use a few more examples. FWIW, the World Almanac for Kids has included similar lists in the past. Zagalejo 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32008 + 5318008 = 55178!!! (cough) I mean, delete. We should take the same approach as used in Hexspeak and Leet. It's fine to include a bunch of common examples in the Calculator spelling article, but just like we're not the official dictionary of leet, we shouldn't become the official dictionary of calculator words. (Translation of my !vote is left as an exercise for the reader.) Quack 688 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At last an argument that appears to be appealing to policy! Just so that we are clear: Are you arguing that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy applies? Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that works for me. My main concern was with duplicating what's out there already. You've provided a few sources that list calculator words - there's no reason we can't list a fair bunch of examples in the calculator words article, then link to those outside pages as web resources which provide a full list of words. By doing that, Wikipedia readers will still have access to the full list - we just won't have to maintain it. Quack 688 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. It also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not. I linked to three sources that it can be verified against above. Please read the prior discussion. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I see nowhere in the article or the discussion that you have proved this is sourced properly. Looking at the article, there is one source (in Spanish). If you want to sit there and try to impune every single vote made against the article you wrote/contributed to then fine. I will not change my vote. Davidpdx 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifiability and OR aren't concerns - the sources listed here show that these words aren't the original thought of the editors of this list. Quack 688 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - AFD is not a vote. Pointing to sources counters claims of unverifiability. Your assertion that the article is not verifiable is simply disproven by the existence of sources, three of which are linked to in the prior discussion. Please read it again, more closely. Uncle G 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivial, but potentially interesting to someone. It's the list that goes with Calculator spelling. -- User:Docu
Merge to calculator spelling per Quack 688's arguments. Now can we get rid of ‎List of common misspellings in English? Dekimasu 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indiscriminate information with no deeper value: we might just as well have a list of "numbers I can type into my calculator using just my thumb". WMMartin 18:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though this article is kind of cool, I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia; what's listed in Calculator spelling should be sufficient. Babcockd 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Delete. Cbrown1023 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Lister[edit]

This article does not assert notability, is only a dictionary definition, and is not linked to any other articles. It appears to be an advertisment. I originally proposed deletion, however, the PROD template was removed by what I believe was a spam-bot. Sagsaw 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete with a possible redirect. Turbo Lister is an official ebay product/tool, and is probably important enough to include into the parent article. It does NOT however deserve an article of it's own. Any independant verifiable third party sources will be difficult if not impossile to find which is paramount for an article. wtfunkymonkey 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turbo Lister is a software tool of Ebay, which in itself asserts considerable notability, as a kajillion Ebayers use it and Ebay itself is prima facie notable. But the article lacks context. Suggest a speedy merge and redirect to Ebay until someone (not me) is ambitious enough to expand on the topic. Tubezone 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ebay. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more likely an over enthusiastic first time wiki-er finding a nicnhe to put something in than spam as such. Artw 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have known about this software for quite a while. According to WP:N "Software applications are products, and fall under Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)." The company eBay is obviously notable; therefore, Turbo Lister should be kept (and expanded). --BenWhitey 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge I misread Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). --BenWhitey 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete. As stated in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), unless the product is the subject of multiple nontrivial published works, or is so common that its name has become genericised, it should be included in the article of the company that produces the product. --Sopoforic 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep redirect, since it is quite possible that someone would search for Turbo Lister on this site. Koweja 03:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment article merged to EBay#Turbo_Lister, could use some obvious expansion. I'll look into it more later. wtfunkymonkey 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete this seems like advertising to me. Plus it fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural (band)[edit]

Seems like an elaborate hoax to me, but at the very least violates W:BAND and W:Verifiability Mikeliveshere 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content is hopelessly unencyclopaedic but the band is real, and did release singles that charted (hence meets notability guideline). I actually remember seeing TV ads for the album at around the time in question. My vote would be to rewrite the article as a stub and rebuild it. Orderinchaos78 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Google senses must be off. I've been looking for hours and can't find much on this. I've found a listing of some songs by Marc Terenzi that made the Swedish charts, but nothing attributed to this band outside of mirror and myspaces. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm wondering why I can't find any of these things. :) Mikeliveshere 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RIAA's official website notes they got a Gold single in the US, plus they had a No.1 single and No.2 album in Germany in 2004 (noted on reasonably reputable charting sources). There's several claims about a multi-city sell-out tour in the US but I can't find any independent confirmation of that. I've completely rewritten the discography section just now (note I had nothing to do with the original article) and provided refs to the above, but I'll let others decide what sections of the prose should be removed (IMO - most of it). Orderinchaos78 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I guess I'm just always wary of pages that include phrases like "It seems there's nothing on the web about X" especially when that seems to be true. :) Mikeliveshere 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Im allowed to write here; if not please forgive me Im only aware of how to write articles not the other workings of this site :p. Anyways Im the one who started this page and no its not a hoax. The history is similar to what is described: they were one of Lou's last 'successful' boybands and there biggest hit in America, Germany, Malaysia, and Japan was 'Put your arms around me' in 2000 and 2001. They had a lot of success in Germany (see German page) but didnt take off much here. They charted in the German top 20 for most of their career and the band ended in 2004 again as described. Marc Terenzi went on to marry Sarah Connor (German Britney Spears if you will) and hes charted in the top 50 himself. Maybe my tone wasnt right but the whole article is fact. That much I can say. Many of the links are long gone...Lou deleted their website (naturalofficialsite.com) which usuing the wayback machiene you can see (http://web.archive.org/web/20010509141202/http://www.naturalofficialsite.com/) and if you check amazon their CDs are listed especially on amazon.de. As for the tour in the US I dont know if it sold out but they did tour with the Monkess and partner with Claires as Claire's site still has the press release (http://www.clairestores.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=68915&p=irol-newsArchives2001). Thanks. User:Thegingerone

Anyone's allowed to write on an AFD - that's the whole point of it. :) Thanks for your contribution - the above verification re Claire's would be useful to the section of the article dealing with that partnership. Orderinchaos78 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NOTE and WP:BAND. Article should be tagged for cleanup. wtfunkymonkey 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep n' clean. Big top 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sections of the articles Marc Terenzi, Ben Bledsoe, Michael 'J' Horn and Michael Johnson (Drummer) may contain elements of the contested text - whoever ends up doing the cleanup should look at these articles also (as far as I can see it's the same paragraph or paragraphs that have been copied in) Orderinchaos78 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failure of WP:CSD a7 (no assertion of notability of subject). alphachimp. 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Planet[edit]

This non-notable site fails WP:WEB. Contested endorsed PROD. ➥the Epopt 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable--SUIT 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable and self promotion. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, NN, at best, redirect it to Sony, the company behind the software and site. J0lt C0la 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable website that fails WP:WEB and does not WP:CITE sources. Could probably be speedied due to not asserting notability, CSD:A7, and reads mostly as self promotion, CSD:G11.
Speedy delete - unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Pilotguy. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudy Bup[edit]

unverifiable neologism. Looks like something made up one day. Prod removed by anon user without comment. Resolute 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly speedy, as nonsense. Artw 01:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Nonsense article--SUIT 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, silly unreferenced nonsense. Author vandalized other articles with references to this, quickly removed. Apparently a corruption of "Howdy, bub!" Tubezone 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the article has already been tagged under CSD:G1, article does not WP:CITE sources, violates WP:NEO. A google [6] search makes an obvious case for deletion. wtfunkymonkey 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J2 Products Trading Co.[edit]

Non-notable website, with no assertion of notability. Paltry Alexa score, as well.[7] It has been around for over a year, though, so I thought I'd give it a proper AfD, rather than speedy it, in case there's something that everyone else knows that I don't... EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, advertising. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 08:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "independent reviews" sites linked seem to review the products the store sells, not the store itself. Demiurge 13:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original article was complete spam - probably by the owner, but was cleaned up into what is essentially a stub for a non-notable company. Cited references don't seem to help; can't seem to find anything else independent. Kuru ^talk 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, Advertising. Davidpdx 10:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is notable about this company ? Nothing. Delete. WMMartin 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adejinle[edit]

Non-notable family name, no non-trivial independent sources located Orderinchaos78 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a source can be provided. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete-if one became President of Nigeria, that would warrant a keep or expansion. Chris 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --BenWhitey 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be a general consensus that surnames are non-notable, though they are perfectly acceptable as disambiguation pages. A recent AfD on the Jewish surname Pinkus seems to confirm this, as well. There is a category for surnames though all names listed there link to disambiguation pages. --The Way 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it will be a useless disambiguation page, because there are no people in Wikipedia of that name. MER-C 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless sources are provided, delete per nom. Big top 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where di this come from? Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability.--Yannismarou 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear assertion of notability of the family, as opposed to one of its members. No references. WMMartin 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense, POV, nonnotable "movement", you name it. NawlinWiki 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penkridge independence[edit]

Obvious junk article M100 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, a nonsense fork of Penkridge. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1. Patent nonsense. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unnecessary fork. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus the Pious[edit]

Non-notable fancruft. Minor fictional character. Reads as if subject of the article was real. I am also nominating these pages as they are just the same.

Comment Reads as if subject of the article was real is not a valid reason to delete an article. Koweja 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Koweja, the main reason I nominated these is because they aren't notable, not because of the reason you stated. JorcogaYell! 03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are indeed fictional characters, but some of these characters are pretty important in the setting, not minor. Karl Franz is the leader of the Empire in the Warhammer Fantasy Universe, Sigmar is its founder, Magnus a major Emperor. However, in the case of at least some of these articles, I see that there may be a copyvio problem. The article on Karl Franz for example, reads almost identically to his entry in the Warhammer army book for the Empire. I get a similar feel from the Magnus article. The others seem a little better, but I'm not sure. I think somebody should really check into this situation. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep definately notable characters in the Warhammer world, whihc is in itself notable as far as these things go. The in universe and copyvio problems definately need addressing if they're going to stay. Artw 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep, Merge, and some Commentary Felix Jaeger is one of two main characters of a fairly long-lived series of adventure novels (8-9 books, plus short stories). Sigmar has had his biography published (Black Library's Life of Sigmar). These two qualify as very significant characters from a very popular wargame/rpg/fantasy series. I'm sure they need cleaning, but need of cleaning is not really a reason for deleting the articles. I would recommend Keep and tag for cleanup and copyvio fixes where present for these two. Magnus and Morglum on the other hand... I don't think that there is enough material on Magnus to make a very significant article. Merge with The Empire (Warhammer) or some such article is likely most appropriate. Not familiar enough with the last character to offer an opinion. --Clay Collier 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-list separately. These characters differ wildly in notability, and need to be considered on an individual basis.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tag with {{in-universe}}, but not a reason to delete off hand. Relist separately those you feel don't meet any guidelines to keep. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All This is fan craft and gives a plot summary (see WP:NOT). Also the topic of the article is non-noteable. Davidpdx 10:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find either fan craft or "fancruft" there. Perhaps instead of using that kind of language, you should be more specific in identifying your concerns? FrozenPurpleCube 14:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated my concerns about the article. Please do not reply as I will not be checking this again. Davidpdx 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, notability is at least a reasonable concern, however I can't agree with you that the subject of several bbooks(Felix), major characters in a world setting (Sigmar and Karl Franz) are not notable. Merge would probably work better with the other two though. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Magnus into The Empire (Warhammer). Merge Morgum into Orc (Warhammer)GraemeLeggett 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Karl Franz and Sigmar GraemeLeggett 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigmar, Karl Franz(with the copyvio fixed problem), weak keep on Felix Jaeger, merge the rest as already mentioned. FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for Sigmar, Karl Franz and Felix Jaeger. In the fictional background, these are major characters. Merge into the character sections of their respective race pages for Morglum and Magnus. - Heavens To Betsy 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just as we should try to keep our occasional obsession with the characters of Battlestar Galactica under control, so should we with our Warhammer characters. If we keep this I'm starting an article on Magnesium the Impious Gerbil from the great game of Warhamster. WMMartin 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all except Morglum, Weak Keep for Morglum All pass Notability, especially Felix Jaeger (the lead character in a long running series of fiction books) SirFozzie 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Lucas[edit]

Having trouble meeting WP:V on any of the articles claims to notability. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite claim to "gold" record status, nothing verifies that allegation (including the RIAA website). If that claim can be verified by a reliable source, I'd be inclined to reconsider. Agent 86 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable losing reality TV show contestant, no evidence from WP:RS of any other notability. MER-C 08:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Improved & Documented with better documentation and writing. I'm seeing the following:

"Bravo Bravissimo" which appears to be a national and international show/competion in which she won the national competition. This tends to support notability if more can be demonstrated about the prestige/notability of the contest.
Two recorded albums which may meet Item # 4 of WP Musicians: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, if the label is important. Meeting this criteria is an automatic notable
In 2003, Diana entered the Portuguese Idol competition, where she reached the semi-finals -- not individually notable, but tends to support
Several songs had substancial success by being featured in several national soap opera(s). This tends to give credibility to the significance of the two recorded albums.
Even though we are an english language based medium, we should be including notables from other cultures. She is considered notable at Portugese WP: (see [8]). While this article is new here it has been on Portugese WP since July.
It seems that there is enough on the web to disprove a hoax, but little to support the author's list of accomplishments.

--Kevin Murray 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN 544 Google hits, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While she may appear in our Portuguese sister publication, I fear they've made a mistake. A principal test of notability for a pop artist is a chart hit, or a claim to be a major influence on others in the field. Although she's done well in what appears to be a local radio poll, when I look at the Portuguese article I find no evidence that she's had a hit in a national or European chart, nor does she appear to be particularly influential in her own right. So Delete for now. WMMartin 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnstones (band)[edit]

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. Chris 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mer-C. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, fails WP:MUSIC also nn. Davidpdx 10:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Word is Bond. Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, a7. NawlinWiki 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Bloink[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC and fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 02:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 JRHorse 03:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD A1 and A7, little context, no assertion of notability. Probably should have gone straight to CAT:CSD. Tubezone 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 (short, no context) & A7 (unremarkable) Orderinchaos78 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Comstock[edit]

Based on the current article, the subject was at best a minor personality within the Department of Justice with some marginal involvement with the Jose Padilla case and an occasional talking head on news shows--unclear where there is any encyclopedic notability. older ≠ wiser 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. The article, even if kept, would need a rewrite - it's not NPOV as it stands. Orderinchaos78 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, PR person who has done some TV appearances but only in her capacity as a USDOJ spokesperson, not in her own right. Demiurge 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite I usually vote delete on 99% of the AFD's, but this is one I feel could be rewritten to be NPOV (I agree it is POV btw). Her name got over 70,000 google hits. She may be a minor figure, but the Padilla case was a rather important case in terms of the war on terrorism. Davidpdx 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I, too, am mostly for weeding out non-notability, and in general a spokesperson with no independent activity/identity (i.e. who is just one staffer among many in a public-affairs operation) is not notable. That said, if she is/was in fact senior spokesperson for the DoJ, at a time when the Department's role, because of issues such as the Patriot Act and factors such as the Padilla case, is especially important in national politics. The article would indeed need much rewriting/bolstering. Robertissimo 07:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not able to make up my mind on this one. Perhaps this article could be merged into the Padilla one in some way. Somehow I'd like a record of who she is, but she's not really done anything notable per se: as a spokesman she was just doing her job, which isn't notable. She seems to have had a walk-on role in somebody else's story, and that's it. I'm mildly drifting to Weak Delete. WMMartin 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Wanuskewin NDP[edit]

A Riding Association isn't inheritently notable. Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Delete GreenJoe 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - elections results are already included in the riding article -- repetition here is not needed. Ground Zero | t 03:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of it would fail due to being redundant against Saskatoon-Wanuskewin (the tables and much of the info has been copied from there). If the association is notable (considering it has not got any MPs elected, I doubt it), it could go as a single paragraph within the S-W article. Orderinchaos78 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unnecessary duplication of more appropriate articles. Bearcat 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual constituency associations are not notable - any information relevant or notable can be put in the article on the constituency/riding. Sam Blacketer 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and the riding association itself is not notable.-- danntm ^T _C 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNN only 20 ghits, also seems like information fails WP:V. Davidpdx 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (copyvio) by Uncle G. Tevildo 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict with the above:) I deleted the article because it violated the copyright of a copyrighted ("Copyright 2006 © | Authorized by the Lenore Swystun Mayoral Campaign") non-GFDL web page, and there was no non-infringing version to revert to. I was going to leave the discussion open with the suggestion that it be discussed whether sources such as "Saskatoon mayoralty race gets 1st candidate". CBC News. 2006-08-30., BRIAN BERGMAN (2004-01-19). "Whose Thinking Is Outdated?". Macleans. Rogers Media Inc., and GLORIA TAYLOR (2004-08-24). "Saskatoon forges on with renewal plan". The Globe and Mail. Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Swystun[edit]

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." As second place candidate in mayoral race, received a lto of local press coverage. Also served as an elected coucnillor. Article needs a major clean-up, though. Ground Zero | t 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I buy the idea that a second-place mayoral candidate is notable enough for an article just because she was a candidate. As far as I'm concerned, at the level of municipal politics we generally need a person's notability to extend demonstrably beyond the boundaries of the city itself; we need to be able to show that people who don't even live in the same province are reasonably likely to have heard of the person: either because they're on the council of a major metropolis with a high international profile, or because they've gotten national media coverage for one reason or another. Dar Heatherington, for example, merits an article, but that's because of the international press coverage she got when she claimed to have been abducted, not because she was a city councillor. Ike Awgu merits an article because he hosted a program on a national cable network, not because he unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Ottawa. So unless somebody can demonstrate a better claim to notability than "she ran for mayor and lost", delete. Bearcat 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, protected. CSD#G4, recreated several times. Deizio talk 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybergrind (third nomination)[edit]

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete doesn't meet WP:BAND, no proof of major album yet. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermynd[edit]

Delete - notability issue128m6 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep signed to music label. Just H 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but does need better sources. Orderinchaos78 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs better sources, obviously. ~~They~~ ~~this~~ The guy meets WP:Notability but the page... maybe not WP:BAND. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom-once publishes, then article. Chris 06:19, 31 December 2006 (

Keep No need to delete it, just maybe fix it up. Each article has an initial stub. He's signed The Game's label, and The Game is one of the biggest artist in hip-hop. It is definitely of notability License2Kill 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Needs a serious rewrite. Grammar is bad, etc., but the subject is notable. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:BAND. Being signed to a major record label is not sufficent to meet the nobility critiera regardless of the nobility of the label or other artists on that label. His first album is still 5 or 6 months away from being released. Once he has a charted single or a second album it can be recreated if reliable sources can be found.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:BAND on every count. The label is not particularly notable, as its only major artist is the one who founded the label. Either way, WP:BAND requires two albums released, and this guy has zero. In addition, one of the sources cited is as trivial a mention as possible, and the other is non-reliable. Dear god, whoever closes this, please ignore the current consensus. -- Kicking222 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juice has no albums out and he has a page, there are many rappers with Wikipedia pages who are far less notable. List of rappers License2Kill 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the following essay - Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, it should explain why many editors will give your comments minimal weight.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, less then 5,000 ghits also fails WP:BAND. Davidpdx 11:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to delete it, just maybe fix it up. Each article has an initial stub. He's signed The Game's label, and The Game is one of the biggest artists in hip-hop. It is definitely of notability-I definitely agree. He is BWS's #1 man next to Juice. He is also known for 5 famous battles in New York. This page must be on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.161.190 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 January 2007
Delete fails the musician criterian and also fails the WP:BIO criteria The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Not notable. Lyrl ^Talk _C 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLATSTOCK[edit]

lack of notability, possible advertisement Chris 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Orderinchaos78 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Merge Didn't realise American Poster Institute had an article. Merge into that - but please don't take that blocky list across :) Orderinchaos78 11:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak provisory keep~~ per "I've heard of it." It's a somewhat major event at SXSW, so sources should be available. I'll see what I can find. Also, kill the all-caps and tone down the ad-lingo (possible copyvio?). ~ trialsanderrors
- Redirect to American Poster Institute (which itself needs sourcing). There's quite a couple of media mentions (67 on Newsbank), but only the Seattle Times article about Flatstock. ~ trialsanderrors 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support merge back into American Poster Institute, with major linking and wikifying, as per trialsanderrors Chris 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Davidpdx 11:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aptuit[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:V. No improvement in the last month since an unsuccessful {{prod}}. Bigr Tex 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. No other articles in the English Wikipedia mention Aptuit. ~ Bigr Tex 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be willing to change my vote if the article cited third party Reliable Sources. I think WP:CORP really boils down to The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. which is a reasonable requirement. Independent coverage separates notable companies from a company I started in my garage yesterday. ~ Bigr Tex 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though article requires substaintial rewrite. They have about 2000 employees and googling gives enough results. Also, please note that this was renamed in 2005[9], so sometimes it's mentioned by its old name. MaxSem 07:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked out MaxSem's google link, and all the stories seem to be repackaged press releases, specifically forbidden by WP:CORP. It's not important how many employees or Google hits they have; what matters is if there is enough reliable non-trivial independent coverage. We can't build an encyclopaedia article out of press releases. Demiurge 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with MaxSem, the article could be rewritten to include better sources. Davidpdx 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CORP is a faulty guideline (among the worst, in my opinion) that permits elimination of a potentially great source of neutral information about the many businesses that impact thousands of lives every day. Coming anywhere near passing WP:CORP should be a guaranteed keep, but failing it really isn't a decent reason to delete articles since impact of even average corporations is far greater than an average pop band on the charts, and that's why it's such a terrible guideline. A partial rewrite of this article is in order. Un focused 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORP, which, like it or not, is where we should probably start. My own rule of thumb is that "existence is not notability". We're not a directory, so the fact that this company exists is not enough: for a corporation to be notable it must be doing something more than simply being in business - it has to be notable for actively doing something. If the firm were doing something new and important I'd say keep, but it's not: it's simply a company with some funding and a business plan, which is not enough. WMMartin 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, spam. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Christian Anthem"[edit]

nn advert. Just H 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Full of meaningless buzzwords, especially compared to the 64 ghits this song gets. Non-notable. MER-C 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are 64 ghits? Why is this linked to Google results? Why do you feel it is full of meaningless buzzwords? In the 2 years the presentation has been online, I've never heard such a thing!Kutlessfan777 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits == Google hits. "Touched millions of lives" is meaningless, especially when Google hasn't heard of it. MER-C 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Someone might want to take a look at Lee Behnken with an eye on WP:MUSIC, as well. Tevildo 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter and complete failure of both WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The given claims of notability are entirely subjective and unverifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is merely an article that details a song. I was intending to add much more information, but I am new to this (first day) and I see now that you can't just add a page because chances are it will be deleted.Kutlessfan777 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kutlessfan777, may I respectfully draw your attention to WP:CIVIL? May I also recommend that you make it clear that your opinion is that the article should be kept? Thanks. Tevildo 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo, I find the comment civil enough. Dont bite .... DGG 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page, there is a better explanation there. --Dennisthe2 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish it to remain.Kutlessfan777 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS indicating the song meets notability standards at WP:SINGLE. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 08:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably call spam on this. But, it seems that selling is the secondary purpose of the site, and simply showing the movie. But looking closely, the movie and/or song is a means of evangelism - which is exactly one of the many things that Wikipedia is not. Aside from that, doing a google search and eliminating wikipedia and the artist's sites turns up less than 100 ghits (yes, I know...), and many of those seem to be either blogs or places where to buy the album with the tune on here. Verifiable, but not at this time notable. Delete. --Dennisthe2 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability test as per above, and article is not NPOV (should be in third person and neutral voice). Should be merged into Lee Behnken provided that that article survives its own AfD Orderinchaos78 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would not need to be merged with Lee Behnken; the entire content of the article is already there. It would need to be de-linked, though. Joyous! | Talk 15:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 16:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely to be expanded further then it currently is. No one can seem to be able to find any reliable sources on it. It is already present in Lee Behnken even though it needs a {{fact}} tagged added to it. Reads like ad copy with its use of "promotional" language. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurston Street Gang[edit]

Non-notable East Boston street gang, possible vanity page. Only Google hits [10] are Wikipedia mirrors and a MySpace page. Canley 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obviously failure of WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unremarkable group. So tagged. MER-C 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

the article is an advertisement, majority of it is written by the subject or one of his socks which violate WP:COI and the article doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements of notability ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was once nominated for deletion, the result of that discussion can be accessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

One of the reasons for the previous AFD failure was immense canvassing conducted by the Rajkumar Kanagasingam himself..And he has not disappointed us again this time.He has made messages at Ccsott, Freedom_skies,Seraphimblade,SiobhanHansa, Wackymacs, Tarinth, Bakasuprman, and many other talk pages,pleading them to help him..He didn't even spare Jimbo Wales from his spamming campaign.And I have already seen one of them cast his vote in favour of him, just like the last time.I have never seen such disgraceful canvassing by anyone in Wikipedia, especially to save his own article..This alone should disqualify him from having his BIO at our beautiful Wikipedia.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own understanding what am doing is disgraceful of your group's another AFD Scam. But read this about what an editor said on this canvassing here.[11][12].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you have learned something from that..Now I know, why you have decided to increase spamming to 10+ talk pages. Makes perfect sense. ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have learnt something from that.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete almost all the references are self authored or self published, or the results of the subjects own PR work. including the main one "Kanagasingam is writing a book titled German Memories in Asia. The book is due to be released by the US print-on-demand publisher AuthorHouse.[1]" By all author bio standards this is non-notable. The prev. Afd was noted for its lack of critical thinking. DGG 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A heavy aroma of CoI hangs over this article, and its claims are either minor or not independently verified. -- Hoary 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per DGG. Article just reads as an advertisement. - KNM ^Talk 05:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable. He is the founder of a notable organisation, Princess Diana Institute of Peace. Independent sources on him include mentions in: an article [13] in Sri Lanka Daily News, an article [14] in the Colombo Daily Mirror, an article [15] on Daily News Online, A Sri Lankan website. For what its worth, his name gets 4,640 ghits [16]. I am also concerned about a potential WP:POINT violation in bringing this debate, as the nominator is presently in dispute with the subject on an unrelated matter. WjBscribe 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator might have brought this article to deletion because of a dispute, but that doesn't make Rajkumar notable. All the links given by you are trivial, and mention him just once. The large number of Google hits is thanks to Wikipedia mirrors and his articles on PR sites where anybody can submit an article by registering an account[17][18][19][20]. utcursch | talk 09:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ezines and on-line PR firms where I have published my articles and PR releases also having editorial policy. If you refer their policy you will come to know. Most of the other Blogs and Ezines only picked those articles from those Ezines.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nominator :o) do not have anything against Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I have not even for a second assumed bad faith on him without proper reasoning. Princess Diana Institute of Peace is another scam of this editor, if you do a google search for this only hits you get is the wikipedia article, I come from Sri Lanka and I have never heard of it here. If one examines the image included in the wikipedia article, it clearly says its a limited liability company thats allowed to use the name "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" without the word Limited. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete For very simple reason, He is absolutely not notable and unheard in My country.Most of the sources are in fact written by himself and contain false information, such as calling himself a columnist when he has only 4 article for a certain newspaper!!!. Does anyone know how many Sri Lankans write articles or columns to local news papers ?? I guess it could be thousands, and do we need articles for every single person who write something to news papers ? And there are several hundreds of NGO in Sri Lanka and anyone, even I ,can start a new one..So I am not sure how that would make someone notable. And for the google hits, both rajkumar and Kanagasingam are extremely popular names among Tamils and I am rather surprised that there were ONLY 4000+ hits. Please do tell us how many of those hits are actually belong to the author himself..finally, this person has nothing to do with India hence this debate should not be included in the india-related deletions..ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For your comments in the last AFD a few Editors have already answered here.[21][22][23][24][25]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply: I am sorry ,none of them have answered.Means, your notability is not yet confirmed or established !!.In fact most of them came to vote as a result of your pathetic vote canvassing, and glad to see that you are doing the same this time .Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their reply stands forever, they should not repeat once again for you pre-planned AFD. See the details here.[26][27][28][29]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where ?? Could you please stop accusing me with fairytale stories in which my name doesn't even appear.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean based this, you are working as a group of wikipedians against me.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make your self more clear ? Are we debating about Rajkumar Kanagasingam or Rajkumar Kanagasingam ? If it is the latter, don't you think you are in the wrong place ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take the revenge something for other, don't you?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 05:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a Tamil and a Hindu, I am related to India Tag. Mere political jurisdiction can't single out a person from his cultural and language boundaries. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know you are a tamil, but how that would make you an indian ?? Are you a tamil of indian origin ?Can you prove that here ? From what I gather from your BIO,You are a Sri Lankan and have nothing to do with india..Please refrain from adding unnecessary Tags.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a India - related Tag, that doesn't require someone to qualify that he should be a Indian-origin nationality or an Indian. The same culture, religion and language also qualifies one for that tag. Why you are so interested to delete that tag?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it, if you read Wikipedia policies instead of wasting our time hereIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which wikipedia policy are you talking about? It is good enough if you could furnish that before you delete the Tag. Your interest to delete the Tag only shows - I am more related to that Tag than unrelated. All are originated from Africa some 2000 generation ago, but the close ethnic, religious and cultural identification qualifys for the Tag.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, as nn --Ragib 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my per previous vote. None of the references establish notability, and consist of articles written by himself. As Ccscott mentions below, there are multiple references, but these are not non-trivial -- see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. utcursch | talk 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As decided by the community less than three months ago, this subject is notable as he is discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references (see here and here) thus meeting the primary notability criteron of WP:N. I do not understand what has changed to necessitate another AfD so soon after the last one resulted in a Keep consensus. Ccscott 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment: I see a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? Incidentally, I'm surprised that anybody worth an article in WP would be so involved in the effort to retain that article: wouldn't he or she be too busy to be interested in, and above, such humdrum recognition? -- Hoary 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion process is highly biased and had some ulterior motive, I don't feel anything wrong a subject is taking interst for his article or image(you can interprete as you want). If you take some interest you will come to know the real motive of the nominator rather than accussing the subject.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: These references were already discussed before at the previous Article for deletion debate that resulted in a Keep decision. I suggest that all editors review the Afd guidlines, in particlular Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates. I am concerned this re-nomination was brought forth for non-policy reasons as the nominator has recently been in a dispute with the subject of this article. Ccscott 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any of the references were actually discussed at the previous AfD, which featured sockpuppet votes by Rajsingam. The references are multiple, but not non-trivial. utcursch | talk 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the references are non-trivial or not is an editorial decision, but in my opinion (and that of the majority of editors commenting in the first AfD) it is clear that this article and this article both have the subject as the main focus of the article and are non-trivial. This is enough to satisfy WP:N. Remember, notability is not subjective. The article still needs much work, and Mr. Kanagasingam's behaviour has not helped things, but the article should not be deleted on the basis of non-notability. Ccscott 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace medals ??!! Hundreds of them were given to students during 1994-1996 period by then Government..As a Sri Lankan I find it amusing that someone consider him to be notable just because he was given a medal, just like hundreds of other Students..Sorry, he won't become notable, just by getting an odd medal.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable because he has won a peace medal. He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here) and therefore this article satisfies the primary notability criterion of WP:N. Aside from the argument of utcursch who believes that the many newspaper articles discussing the subject are not non-trivial (I disagree), there have been no policy-based reasons put forth to delete this article by any of the editors commenting. All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom" (please see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). None of these are valid reasons for deleteing an article according to Wikipedia deletion policy. Ccscott 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccscott says: He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here). Pardon me for repeating myself, but: I went there and saw a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? I still haven't seen an answer to that. Ccscott says: All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom". Yes, I cited the apparent COI issues. But that wasn't all I wrote. True, I hadn't heard of him, but I'm very willing to concede that I haven't heard of most noteworthy people. (Example: I haven't heard of a single skateboarder, but I'm reliably informed that they can be noteworthy for skateboarding alone, let alone for their other achievements.) And I don't know why I should have to make such a banal declaration, but I neither like nor dislike Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Reason, I think, for deletion (from the very page Ccscott cites): Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth), of which the important member is WP:BIO. But perhaps I'm wrong and he does meet WP:BIO. If so, how? -- Hoary 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not addressing this directly but I have provided the link several time to the off-line articles, written independent of him, that discuss the subject directly. Again, the list can be found on the talk page for this article. Specifically: [30], [31], [32] are published newspaper articles completely independent of the subject which are primarily focused on the subject (and are therefore non-trivial). There are also numerous more marginal published articles (a few are: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and more here ) which discuss the subject in a more trivial fashion. This amount of news coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BIO and WP:N easily in my opinion and that of the editors participating in the first AfD. Ccscott 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the peace medal nor handing out an unknown report make this person notable..I don't see anything but pure propaganda in those pictures..In case you don't know, It is not a big deal to have your photo on a newspaper..Some people when they get married put an add on the papers, some when they passed an exam do the same, some others prefer to notify the whole Sri Lanka when they win a medal or competition(in most cases just to boast) by having their picture on the papers..So, just because one has some photos on a newspaper he/she won't automatically become notable , kinda common sense. And, no one here saying things like i don't like him and bla bla..People have come up with very good points and I would kindly ask you to read them instead of dragging this into a different direction.Oh,,You can always shed some light on this by showing us anything written of him in media BY others..So far i have failed to see a single article or anything reported in local media OF him, quite strange for such a notable person, isn't it? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sockpuuppet vote is only one, not several. But read these comments by another editor on AFD.[38][39].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar, The number of votes that you stacked doesn't matter here. If it's 1 or 1000, still you have violated the policy. You directly or indirectly violated number of policies. You know you are lucky to be here until this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though he has had his name in the news, none of his accomplishments seem noteworth enough for an article. Also the comment above highlights the glaring conflict of interest concerns. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is based on some unrelated issues as a wikipedian developed from the Sri Lanka Conflict and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no the conflict of interest stems from the fact that you are writing your own articles and citing yourself. A bit circular, no? —Ocatecir ^Talk 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That starts from here. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and the shenanigans surrounding it make me even more willing to see it disappear. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete This article is written predominantly by Rajkumar Kanagasingam himself or sock puppets and as such fails WP:BLP completely and should be speedily deleted. Its sources are exlcusively articles written by [[User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam|] himself and as such their genuiness and reliability can be questioned. Rajkumar's claim to be notable is based on articles written by himself. Wikipedia is for notable individuals only.Kerr avon 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is on my watchlist, and most of it was actually written by myself and RaveenS (talk · contribs). Lahiru k, Netmonger, etc has been found guilty of sockpuppetry (Iwazaki is clean though) as well, so those in glass houses should not throw stones at others. He's been noted and wrote for many prominent Sri Lankan newspapers.Baka man 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentFirst, please refrain from bringing irrelevant things to this debate.And remember you too in the glass house and should not throw any thing(even a dust) at others. Second, please tell us what are those, many newspapers, all we know is, he wrote 4 articles(1 or 2 kowtowing of a political leader) for Daily news and 1 article for some other..Mainly to promote his NGO work and him self!! Could you please bring us one or two articles written of him(by others) in the main stream news papers ? Since he is notable even in India , hope this won't be a big problem for you. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply - I have only edited sporadically in Sri Lankan/Tamil articles, a little bit in Anton Balasingham, and a few random historical Hindu figures in Sri Lanka. Just because I am Tamil does not automatically mean I am from India or that I support a ragtag bunch of terrorists. Noting this, I fail to see the glass houses you talk about. I noted above that I know you have not engaged in peculiar behavior unlike lahiru k and netmonger. As for notability, the sources on the talk page (kanagasingam's ) seem to assert notability.Baka man 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to bakaPlease stick to the point, this is not about those ragtag LTTe terrorist(even though Mr Rajkumar is an adamant supporter of them). This is about a unheard,not-notable person using wikipedia to boast himself..So, all we do is asking you to shed some light on this issue by giving us reliable sources about his achievements. Not blogs, Not School character certificates, Not self boasting articles, Not some clueless photos..If he is so notable, why can't you provide us anything written OF him?? ?

I didn't even know you were tamil ,and sorry if I have made a mistake about your nationality.All i know is that you are a trustworthy friend of this person and even shared wiki-passwords with him ,and came to vote here immediately after his SOS. And about the glass house, I was speaking of the same glass house which you mentioned earlier.So if you don't see it now, neither do I Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I say this as an outsider (I'm an American who's never been within ten thousand miles of Sri Lanka): Will everybody involved in this argument please calm down. The vicious fights surrounding articles on Sri Lanka and the Indian subcontinent are really starting to get out of hand. We are making an encyclopedia here, we are not creating a place where people can continue their real-world fights in cyberspace. And, before anyone uses this comment as a club against anyone else: I am talking to both sides, here. Please stop. --LastChanceToBe 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bakasuprman's allegations of sockpuppetry is mere speculation, I dont quite understand how he arrived at this theory of sockpuppeting by me and Lahiru_k and Iwazaki is clean!!!.. This only amounts to a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith on fellow editors. And these things are not something to be discussed here. This discussion is about whether to keep an article or not, so please adhere to the topic. As LastChanceToBe says lets not bring our real world fights to cyberspace. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although Rajkumar Kanagasingam is alleged to have written for many prominent news papers in Sri Lanka, he is not notable, nobody seems to know him at all in my home country of Sri Lanka. He is not a notable media personality, nor a prominent journalist so i fail to see what his claim to be notable is about.Kerr avon 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Sarvagnya 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nomination. I also believe this fails WP:BLP and that there are startling WP:COIissues. Xdenizen 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomination. Dutugemunu 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, the fact that contradictory to what someone said above he has just 170 unique google hits[40] (my username incidentally has 103 Ghits [41] :) and the fact that his book is been published by a print-on-demand publisher (ie they print a copy only when one is requested and don't pay the author anything - in fact the author initially has to pay the publisher a certain amount) --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete COI issues aside (I personally don't feel COI should lead to deletion unless the article is in such a poor form it's best to start over), it's not clear if this article establishes notability. I thought the peace medal might be something but [42] suggests it's nothing that special. Nothing else clearly established notability to me. Also there appears to be bad behaviour own both side. It is inappropriate to spam people about an AFD, especially if it's an article about you & those people are ones who have previously supported you. However it does appear the nominator is involved in a dispute with the editor with some controversy. Editors involve in disputes should not nominate articles for deletion about the person they're involved in the dispute with. Even if the editor genuinely feel it should be delete, this raises COI issues and just looks bad. Rather, you should bring the matter to the attention of other people, e.g. via the village pump or perhaps COI notice board and mention you are involved in an unrelated dispute and don't want to cloud the issue by nominating it. Nil Einne 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --vi5in ^[talk] 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all the references to newspaper articles are those written by him. I fail to see how this is notable in the least. Seems to be more of a vanity article than anything else. --vi5in ^[talk] 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't seem notable enough and per nomShindo9 Hikaru 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable. Everyking 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable RaveenS 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable; plenty of sources are given--Sefringle 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, weak sources (all from daily news articles or posts on internet forums written by the subject), article written by the subject and his socks (See WP:COI), he is unheard of in his country of birth (I am from Sri Lanka), he has written ONLY 4 ARTICLES TO THE DAILY NEWS if this is noteworthy and deserves a wikipedia article we would be disgracing the journalist community. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As nominator, you're automatically taken to be advocating deletion. Thus, I've struck out the "Delete" part of your post there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI know that as the nominator I am automatically advocating the deletion, and any admin would be wise not to count me twice, I just wanted to further emphasize the facts. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you're welcome to make a comment further emphasising those facts. It's just that in an AfD like this one, with people talking over each other every which way and accusations flying, it probably makes sense for those who've already expressed an opinion about keeping or deleting the article to be a bit more careful about writing either word in bold. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have written articles for local newspapers and given lectures and talks. By this standard pretty much everyone who has held any lectureship at even a university would be able to put up bios. Even teachers. I'm afraid the encyclopaedic noteworthyness of this article is 0 at best.Pubuman 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki. Cbrown1023 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacagawean[edit]

belongs in Wikitionary, useless Adam 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. So tagged. MER-C 05:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sacagawea. It's common to make redirects from other parts of speech, and I can see this redirect as being potentially useful. For example, if I was reading and came across the word "Sacagawean", I'd probably look it up in WP. Of course, you can still copy to Wiktionary as well if you think they would want it. delldot | talk 06:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~, dictdef. MaxSem 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC) No, delete. MaxSem 07:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, and use as redirect. There's nothing to stop us deleting (well, transwiki'ing) what's here, and keeping the title as a redirect. After all, if "Australian" can be used as a redirect to Australia, and "Einsteinian" is a redirect to Albert Einstein, why not use Sacagewean as a redirect to Sacagewea? Grutness...wha? 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it even possible to do a trans-wiki redirect? =O.o= --Dennisthe2 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Grutness is saying we should transwiki what's there now, and redirect Sacagawean to the Wikipedia article Sacagawea. delldot | talk 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - exactly. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki with maybe a redirect. Though it kind of seems like a neologism.... --Dennisthe2 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Davidpdx 11:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one do a transwiki? My opinion is that this should be moved to Wikitionary (is that what a transwiki is?) and this page be a redirect to Sacagawean. Just my two cents, Adam 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies in My Stomach[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as unverifiable because I can't find any external references via Google. Demiurge 10:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced, and notability concerns. WMMartin 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells parodies[edit]

This page is largely a collection of a few of the many parodies of "Jingle Bells". It is unsourced. It is highly debatable if thsi is a notable topic at all. An attempt was made to propose this for deletetion last December, but the AfD page was improperly formed. This was recently tagged as a speedy, but does not fit any of the criteria. I considered WP:PROD but several editors have contributed to thsi article, so i presuem its deeltion would be contested. But as it stands, this article contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. Delete. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seeing a total failure of WP:ATT here, which makes this whole article look like WP:OR. --Haemo 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless but amusing article but is not encyclopedic. Again as with a lot of these cases, have the article on a personal website, not wikipedia --PrincessBrat 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. . Mukadderat 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XS Energy Drink[edit]

This article has been around for two years but has never had a decent source. The only references I can find from Google are related to its distributor, multi-level marketing company Quixtar, to folks who are selling it, and some reviews on BevNet[43] (they review every beverage). The BevNet forum has almost banned any mention of it due to spamming and the lack of credible sales figures.[44] The product does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Will Beback · † · 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've heard of it before. Not sure if the page meets WP:Notability, though. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Red Bull gets well over 13 Million google hits, while XS Energy Drink manages to get a slim 208,000. I'm an avid drinker of energy drinks in general, and caffeine specifically. I've never even so much as seen, say much less actually consumed, this product. It's comparatively low amount of google hits shows me that it is not nearly as popular as the article claims to be. To me the article reads like an ad, the product DEFINITLY fails WP:NOTE and contains no sources, failing WP:CITE. I'd move towards speedy under CSD:G11, if Will Beback's argument hold water. wtfunkymonkey 05:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the details in the linked forum thread [45]. If what "BevNET" said therein is credible, there will never be a source for the #2 drink claim, and this is the only statement making this product look notable. Flyingtoaster1337 12:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advertising. Allow re-creation if and when someone finds a reliable published source for the claim of its being the second most popular energy drink in the U. S. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - BevNet has it ranked #3 on "Top Three Diet Energy Drinks (for the US Market) ranked on consumer taste/appearance".[46] and fifth most common requested brand for info [47]. XS's UK website says - " # According to BevNet.com, XS Energy Drinks in the United States had sales of almost $79 million in 2004 and are now the second largest energy drink in the US! # IBO’s in Australia have taken XS to within one percentage point of their market leader". This source, a company founder says it was #2 in 2003 with $51 million in sales, over $70 million in sales in 2004 and over $90million in 2005. One article I found said in '05 Red Bull has 47% of the market with $700million. That makes $90 million 6%. Given the huge number of brands out there, 6% could quite easily be #2. This report though lists the leading brands and doesn't show XS. Problem with direct sales brands is they often don't show up in sales statistics. Might be considered notable in that it comes in multiple flavours unlike competitors, as noted here. Found another source (blog comment) that says it has 19% of market share in Australia, cf Red Bull 20%. I'm writing to suppliers for info. One area of confusion may be in diet energy drinks vs normal energy drinks. --Insider201283 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it is even near being the second most sold energy drink it is obviously notable as so many people drink it. bbx 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Behnken[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC - only claim to notability is "success on contemporary Christian radio charts", and even this claim is not backed up by any reliable sources. Even if kept, the article needs to have the hagiography (and I use the word advisedly) toned down a lot. Tevildo 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand that WP only wants to see "verifiable proof" that an artist has been successful all over the place...which really confuses me. Obviously in ths case we have a person that has accomplished MUCH in his career (read "Accomplishments") and yet because he has not had songs on the top 40 charts, WP wants to see him deleted. Very, very sad and unfortunate indeed...but typical. If a person hasn't made millions, nobody cares.

This person travelled with one of the most well-known Christian music artists, Rich Mullins, yet should I assume that the article would need some sort of proof of this? Too bad it was in the early 80's, and now that Mr. Mullins has passed away, we can't get a quote from him.

Anyway, I am willing to "tone down alot" the "hagiography" as requested, if you'll allow this well written, well laid out, and interesting article to remain on WP. Either way, I had fun spending my ENTIRE DAY putting this article together, only to have it nominated for deletion before the ink was dry.

Cheers. Kutlessfan777 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it is our policy (see WP:V) that all our information has to be verifiable by independent third-party sources, and that all our articles have to establish the notability of their subject matter. As a musician, Mr Behnken is subject to WP:MUSIC to establish his notability - if you can prove that he satisfies any one of the conditions on that page, the article can stay. You may also want to look at the general WP:BIO guidelines; it's quite possible that he may be notable as an evangelist rather than a musician, but we'll still need independent proof of this. Tevildo 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this may be a copyvio, since large passages of it appear more or less verbatim at the CD Baby website. It is not impossible that the same publicist caused the same text to be cut and pasted there and here. Album charts for contemporary Christian music do exist. Plug in the name Lee Behnken in them, and you come up with nothing. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that I personally communicated with the folks at CD Baby and YES, they in fact DID copy/paste the information from the article I WROTE which has appeared throughout the Internet at various times. And, I might mention here that the reference to the charts was made in regard to the earliest release (1988), and I would like you to point me to any records of the 1988 CHRISTIAN charts (Not "Billboard") online so I can use them as my source. Kutlessfan777 05:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put the only magazine articles from the late 80's I could find on the article, which falls in line with WP:MUSIC MAIN CRITERION: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. - This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries" Kutlessfan777 06:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Doesnt seem to completely satisfy WP:MUSIC. Not listed at all on Discogs.com, one gospel album is listed on allmusic.com. If the authors cannot satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC by the end of the AfD would argue for a strong delete. MidgleyDJ 06:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added information in the article about Mr. Behnken's long-time producer and keyboardist, Jason Webb, who fits in with the WP:MUSIC criterion #5: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"Kutlessfan777 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesnt this last addition apply to bands, as opposed to solo singers? MidgleyDJ 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it states on the Notability page: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"

According to this statement, Mr. Behnken is, in fact, notable. He has met 2 of the notability requirements, including the main criterion. Kutlessfan777 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist. Montco 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Mr. Montco, Mr. Behnken has in fact met the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC (see above). Kutlessfan777 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (vote changed, see below). First, I'll make something clear: I may be biased. I have some issues with the horn-tooting about somebody's evangelistic accomplishments - this is something you do for God, not something you do to boast about what you do for God! That said, I'll put aside my personal problems with this, since Wikipedia is definitely not the place to go on about this, and note that there are major POV issues with this article. Aside from that, it's clear he's notable within at least the Christian music realms, if not within Christianity as a whole, but there is the issue that intra-group notability is not notability as far as meets the Wikipedia standards (we've seen much of that with some of the furry deletia recently), and it's exceedingly rare that a Christian artist breaks out of the strongholds of CCM - those inside consider doing so harmful, and of the few who actually do, most seem to fail spectacularly. I'm also not seeing assertion within the article of meeting WP:MUSIC. Clean up the article or get rid of it. Note to Kutlessfan777, please note that this is not a slight at you, but I would strongly encourage you to change my mind. --Dennisthe2 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As this is a fairly new editor, I'd like to give them a chance (in the spirit of Assume good faith and Don't bite the newbies) - it seems to me that this artist could well be notable. I have left a note on the user's talk page suggesting possible ways to improve the article. If this *cannot* be done, then I guess I will have to go with delete. Note that charting is not the only way to achieve independent notability (see WP:MUSIC) I'll withhold my vote for now. Orderinchaos78 12:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - found 2 cites from 2001 and 1994 which reference his trips to China and Uzbekistan, but both are from the local newspaper Dayton Daily News in Dayton, Ohio. I'm surprised that no Asian-region or US newspapers or religious journals reported on the China visit in particular. The reference to the "Samarakand city museum" seems suspect - I tried searching under "Samarkand", the correct spelling, and found no reference to Lee at all. If anyone can think of anywhere else to look, this article might be salvageable - but it's leaning towards a rather reluctant delete from me :( Orderinchaos78 12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for youur comments, Dennisthe2. I must point out you are then in disagreement with articles on such people as Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Bill Gaither, Michael W. Smith, and so on and so on. It just happens to be their career, and it is their American right to have a career as an evangelist. Anyway, these folks can have an article I suppose because they have won awards and sold millions of books and records in their careers as evengelists. You're right, WP is not the place to go on about this, since it is clear that WP allows articles on such people.And once again I repeat that the article now meets WP:MUSIC criterion #5: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." I have inserted the criteria here exactly as it appears in WP"MUSIC, so I'm not sure why there's any question. As for China and Uzbekistan, we have plenty of photos. Is that sufficient? Or not because we took them? We have photos from several different concert venues in the Philippines, as well as appearances in Thailand. As for why there are no articles in Chinese newspapers about the TV event, might it be because China is a Communist country? They do not necessarily support an event that has an American singing a "Christian" song on their airwaves. I can understand why there might not be any press on this. However, we may have some things in print that are not online. Does every source have to be an online source? Still learning.Kutlessfan777 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't get me wrong, I'm not harping about their careers - but thinking more about it, it's kind of a paradox. That aside, I'm looking closer at it, and you're right: it does meet WP:MUSIC (and maybe just so), but its references are a bit hidden. That leaves the issue of POV: it reads more like something for a church or for Harvest Crusade than an encyclopedia article, and many people who read this article are going to balk when they see that it's got a Christian evangelistic bent in its tone. As such, I'm changing my vote to Keep, but it needs cleanup due to the point of view problem. (Yes, I know, sanitizing it and all, but...well, know your audience.) --Dennisthe2 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion only, but the consensus lies between weak keep and weak delete, and work can be done on this article to improve it. I don't think there's any doubt that within the field or area this individual is notable, so it wouldn't fail notability - the main issue is verifiability and published reliable sources, which I would think to be more of a cleanup issue. Perhaps what we should do, and what I might propose as a compromise that could be acceptable to all here, is to close this AfD debate, whack a big cleanup tag on it, fix it up, find more sources (I've found two, Kutless may have a few more) and if within, say, 2 or 3 weeks we haven't got or can't get it to the stage where it's a decent article that cites sources, then revisit this debate. (In answer to a question you asked me, Kutless - a magazine that is out of print can be a reliable source as long as someone else can find it in a library somewhere. Much of my work is with geographical articles and most of the information can only be found in either the nearest local library or in the State Library.) What do others think? Orderinchaos78 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think we've even established that he's notable within the CCM community. We have two album reviews from 15 years ago, and two articles in a local newspaper. As an absolute minimum, I think we need evidence that he's been in the CCM charts. We should, of course, let the AfD run to completion, but I still think that we should delete the article if more sources aren't forthcoming, with no predjudice against re-creation if such sources are found subsequently. I'm sorry to sound sceptical, but it's important for us not to rely on unsupported assertions of notability. Tevildo 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my part. However, I want to point out to Tevildo that you continue to ignore the fact that the article DOES meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC criterion #5: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." I have inserted the criteria here exactly as it appears in WP:MUSIC. Why does this continue to be overlooked? It is very clearly spelled out, and WP:MUSIC is very clear in the criteria. If the notable sources are weak, but nonetheless are THERE and may just need "cleaned up" as Orderinchaos suggests, AND criteria #5 is covered without question, then why do you still suggest keeping this debate open?Kutlessfan777 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would only apply if Mr Behnken and Mr Webb performed together as a group (rather than as soloist and accompanist) - and, indeed, if Mr Webb is notable. We have no article on him at present, and his involvement with the (undeniably notable) Bill Gaither doesn't appear to be major. I'm not saying that this applies to the current situation, but a session musician _might_ be notable for performing with a major artist; that doesn't automatically convey notability on anyone who's ever performed with that session musician. Tevildo 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kutless, for what it is worth I agree with Tevildo (and I've commented on the band vs soloist issue previously). Notability has not been asserted (yet) and I dont think the subject (yet) meets the requirement of WP:MUSIC. MidgleyDJ 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessively flowery, uncritical, no evidence of substantial independent unpartisan sources which could be used to fix that. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless, prior to end of discussion, someone cites good published sources, meeting the reliable source guidelines, for this being an important artist who meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that subject passes WP:BIO, only sources cited are primary or trivial. If it's not a speedy candidate as spam, it's sure close. Seraphimblade 04:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, nn. Davidpdx 11:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak as (empty). Flyingtoaster1337 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Reality Television participants[edit]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. This looks like a failed attempt by the same person who created Category:National Reality Television participants which is also up for deletion. Otto4711 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-statement, not even an article. Chris 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Agent 86 07:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as {{db-empty}}. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradshaws[edit]

Unreferenced treatment of a group of characters created on a radio show. Existence, yes.. notability? not convinced. User:Booksbooksbooks who has been the sole substantive editor here recently has been unresponsive to several messages advising of good practice. Deizio talk 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got all the imformation from the Bradshaws episodes and Buzz Hawkins' live show in Salford, there are dozens of articles about fictional characters that go deeper than I did (for Example, most of the articles about the Discworld series of novels go so far in imformation that the articles have become like a fansite) I'll add some references very soon and I'll try to remove imformation that is not needed-User:Booksbooksbooks

The Bradshaws was a radio comedy, with tapes and CDs of performances as well as VHS tapes being sold commercially. A television spin-off was aired nationally, and a spin-off theatre show also toured. I fail to see how The Bradshaws is not a notable series, and would in fact argue that the article needs a request for contributions from other editors, not deletion. Lavareef 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable as others of its ilk, and no support for deletion so just close as keep rather than relisting and increasing backlog. Gene Nygaard 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet the standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Not perhaps the most notable of sitcoms, but certainly appears to be above the threshold - we don't seem to have a specific set of criteria for radio/TV series, surprisingly, but it would pass WP:BK if it were a book, I think. :) Tevildo 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a good cleanup, but I see no reason to delete. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to have minor noteablity, I agree it could use a good rewrite. Davidpdx 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just scrapes past the notability barrier. WMMartin 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Baptist Church[edit]

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dade Christian School (2nd nomination)
Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Master's Academy (2nd nomination)
Delete appears to be NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. BTW, take a look at the church's founder. Elvis is alive! --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Insanity is not a proof of non-notability. Andrea Yates and Michael Jackson are in wikipedia.--Jorfer 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a generic statement that does not comment on the individual article--Jorfer 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. This particular article doesn't make a clear claim to notability on behalf of this particular church which can be verified by reliable sources; consequently, this church does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I added sources on the bottom which I hope you will consider sufficient--Jorfer 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you delete this you would have to delete many of the churches in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church to be fair considering many have less content. This discussion is unfair because many people who would oppose deletion are celebrating Christmas with their family. I am the primary author.--Jorfer 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These statements don't constitute reasons to keep the article. The prospect of deleting some other churches which have previously been nominated for deletion would not be problematic to some editors. Also, this nomination was issued on December 26, was active for five days, and was extended again on December 31. --Metropolitan90 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: this seemed like a perfectly well-expressed basis for keeping to me, certainly no worse than "NN local church" as a basis for deletion. :-) Although precedent is not binding on Wikipedia, we do often use it to inform our decisions, and it is at least reasonable for an editor to suggest that we do so here. -- Visviva 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's not a good reason at all. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: What you cited is not even a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Even if it is an argument to avoid, it does not make it an invalid argument, just one that may be able to be refuted.--Jorfer 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Jorfer wants me to comment on the individual article, the article is unencyclopaedic, written in utterly uncritical terms, and there is no evidence of the reliable secondary sources which could be used to fix that failure of core policy. Or indeed on which to base a verifiable article (another core policy). There is no assertion in this article that this church is in any way remarkable. Most churches are not, after all. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is a (rather spammy) directory entry. Hopefully Jorfer will accept the validity of this argument, which addresses the individual subject article in some detail. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Criticism is not yet incorporated into the article but can be found in the external links section.--Jorfer 17:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete, there do not appear to be any reliable sources on which a proper encyclopedic article can be based. Will happily reverse vote if such sources are found. -- Visviva 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, agree with Visviva. Although the FL Sun-Times article is an independent source, it's a trivial mention. More sources are needed to establish [[WP:N|notability}} - Aagtbdfoua 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, the article doesn't seem to provide any useful information. Davidpdx 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Usefullness is not a requirement for articles. Wikipedia:Places of local interest--Jorfer 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Dino Pedrone is a proud Italian" !?! Does not appear to satisfy WP:CONG. Edison 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's one sentence. I went ahead and erased it which you could have done. The article may need cleanup, but it does not have to be deleted. Please base your decision on the notability of the church and not the quality of the article.--Jorfer 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence on its own is not notable. WMMartin 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Who is arguing that it is?--Jorfer 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable - and large enough to operate a medium sized school. Absoultly no valid reason to delete.-Doc^g 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore J. Van Toll III[edit]

Non-notable; fails search test and WP:BIO. Created entirely by a SPA. Carson 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. Chris 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO non-noteable. Davidpdx 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Guerrero[edit]

Subject, as a local news personality, has not achieved sufficient notability or notoriety to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Burghboy80 16:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable per WP:BIO. Can't find anything in Google News and Google doesn't provide anything either to show notability. Jayden54 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has done some noteworthy programs and shows. Examples include Acess Hollyood and Great Day San Antonio. --Scapone 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep funny I type her name into google and get all kinds of hits for TV she has done. IMDB has a listing for her as well.--Xiahou 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made some edits to this article a while back, I realized then that she was not notable enough merit an article. In addition, information on Kristina is very scarce making it almost impossible to write a quality article on her. --Dx316dd 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few noteworthy ghits, no indication of any real notability, very weak under WP:BIO criteria, extremely weak IMDB entry. Agent 86 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't appear to be worthy of a Wikipedia article...at least not right now. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the claims could be documented, I don't see the notability from the write-up. --Kevin Murray 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails noteability and does not appear to be worthy of mention in Wikipedia. Davidpdx 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru[edit]

Pre-announcement of a Tollywood movie, supposed to be released in 2007. From the sources I can read the only thing that has been settled upon is the name of the movie. The oneindia source could contain more, but sadly I can't read it, so I'm hoping the community can offer more input. Prod was removed without comment by an IP user. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article and gave you more sources to understand that there is nothing wrong in this one. This movie is scheduled to start in summer 2007. There are many pages on movies that may or may not start. I don't know why you want to delete this official page? Please do not delete this page Mirchi- Chala Naatu guru. I did not see any reason for deletion. This gives information on the movie and they did say that the movie will start soon so there's no problem with this article.I gave sources in english also. What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkobra123 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 December 2006

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to note that before anyone goes for deleting this article, it should be noted that Wikipedia is America centric and just because you A) haven't heard of it or B) can't find much info about it on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although we have articles on future film releases... All the article and the references say is that it has a name, a star and a director. No plot, coverage, budget or any other information. The only reason there's a name is that it's been registered ( I assume to prevent poaching ) and the article has NOTHING beyond the name. Delete as the film may not be released, may change it's name or star, director... in fact anything mentioned in the article - Peripitus (Talk) 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' It may be true that Wikipedia is American (or Western) centric, but that doesn't change the fact the film is non-noteable. The internet is world-wide and if something as small as this project was, had gotten press, there would be plenty of ways to prove noteablity. The notion that it article is being deleted because Wikipedia is American centric is not a worthy arguement. Davidpdx 11:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- America-centric is a valid concern. Notability, in my experience, can be far too culturally relative a yard-stick to be useful. And we should fall back to the more reliable yardsticks, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VER. The article cites telugucinema. So, is it an authoritative, verifiable source for "Tollywood" films? If so the article should be kept. -- Geo Swan 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 00:49Z

Michael Keith Smith (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

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

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

Malformed nomination, I completed this for User:Edchilvers, who will hopefully add a nomination statement. I have no opinion other than that I checked and this article is not identical to the one deleted in June, so speedy criterion WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been the subject of non-trivial articles by reputable sources including the Guaridan, so I say it passes WP:BIO. TSO1D 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the proper spelling is "Grauniad". ~ trialsanderrors 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three claims to notability in the article backed by more than one non-trivial mention in mainstream news sources. Clearly meets WP:BIO. JASpencer 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He has been the subject of multiple non-trivial articles by reputable sources. Is this nomination politically motivated vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
- The article has been deleted prior, so there is no reason to assume this. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JASpence, also should not have been deleted prior, no excuse to do it again. --Xiahou 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linked nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance JASpencer 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Conservative Democratic Alliance. The man isn't notable himself - he is only important in the context of the CDA. There isn't much interesting or relevant to say about him that can't be covered there (that article needs improvement, of course). This looks like a re-run of Gregory Lauder-Frost, IMHO. Keep per JA Spencer --SandyDancer 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above user voted delete "in current form" for CDA article. So merge and redirect would be to nowhere. JASpencer 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I didn't, actually. I said it needs to be rewritten and should be deleted if it isn't. My assumption was someone will rewrite it because it is a hopeless article. --SandyDancer 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Strangelv 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this entry as a useful bridge between the significent libel decision of Keith-Smith v Williams and Mr Smith's political activities which, although they are diametrically opposed to my personal views, are of general interest and frequently featured in the leading anti-fascist journal Searchlight. In common with Mr Spencer I am concerned by the involvement of Mr Chilvers in this AfD. On his own admission he is a former friend and associate of Mr Smith who has since fallen out with him, and that raises a possible suspicion of bad faith. Perhaps he would care to comment? James Loughton 13:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that User:Edchilvers hasn't stepped forward to offer an explanation for why the article should be deleted. Keep. -- Geo Swan 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a person of some note in conservative circles and Chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which, according to reports, has over 1000 members. Chelsea Tory 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If being in charge of an organisation with 1000 members makes a person notable in your opinion, then I think you set the bar far, far too low. Half the schoolmasters in the world would qualify for articles! --SandyDancer 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note ~~Could someone put up the no voting template please?~~A discussion has started on Tracey Williams' forum (of Keith-Smith v Williams) No votes have been asked for, but it may start. (The CDA forum, which has called for votes in past AfDs doesn't seem to have noticed these two are up yet). JASpencer 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (NB. {{afdnewbies}} now up}. JASpencer 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whatever one thinks of his politics, which tend to strongly polarise opinion (understatement), he is significant in the light of what might well be seen in years to come as a landmark libel case. RobinCarmody 23:42, 30 December 2006 (GMT)

Comment In all honesty I don't feel terribly strongly about this. However, for the purposes of having a proper debate - could someone who has voted "keep" explain to me why the man himself needs an article, distinct from the article about (1) CDA of which he is chair and (2) the important libel case which he was party to? Yes, the CDA is notable, yes, the case is notable - but is he?

There are plenty of clubs, pressure groups etc. more prominent than the CDA, the leaders of which don't have articles (and rightly so). There are much more important landmark legal cases where the plaintiff and the defendant don't have their own article (and rightly so).

Setting aside whether or not the nominator may or may not have a personal issue with the subject of this article (I gather he does), I think these questions need to be addressed. --SandyDancer 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable because of the legal precedent established by his lawsuit. --Duke of Duchess Street 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Math! Nine Keeps and No Deletes is not forming a consensus? --Kevin Murray 08:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Sandy Dancer I think that we need to look at this in three parts. Firstly there are more assertions of notability than the two mentioned. There's the leadership of the Monday Club's "ultra" wing in their last days, then there's the attempt to expel Smith personally for from the Conservative Party that forced the Tories to back down after attracting a number of unhelpful media articles and finally there was the candidacy in Portsmouth North for UKIP which was credited by Smith, the Tory candidate and the analyst Richard North for stopping a Conservative win in that seat. These are all backed up by quite a lot of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. Now these are all related to his political activities but the political activities are not all within the realms of the CDA.

The second point is that even with the two assertions of notability - they are seperate enough to warrant a bridging article. When you count in the other political activities (particularly the UKIP candidacy in Portsmouth) this point is more crucial. While the argument that if he only attracted attention as the leader of the CDA, or only the UKIP candidate or only the plaintiff in Keith-Smith v Williams then he would have no independent notability might have some merit, as someone who attracts attention from all three fronts then he merits an article as a bridge between these.

Lastly there's a more general point. Politics is never simply about the people who hold official office it's about the sea in which these fish swim. It is important for a student of politics to get an idea of the people who are in the background influencing the political climate. People such as Mike Smith, Tim Montgomerie and Mark MacGregor may not be well known to the public - sometimes by their own choice - but their influence means that they should be known - at least by those who wish to find out. Des Wilson in the Liberal Democrats or Neal Lawson in Labour would fill similar positions. While I have little sympathy with vanity articles or articles for every councillor on a particular council, influential non-office holders should be included - whether or not one agrees with their politics.

JASpencer 09:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JASpencer. I see your point - thanks for summing things up like that. Vote changed to keep. --SandyDancer 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep got enough influence to be noted -- therefore notable Alf photoman 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would WP:SNOW apply now? As Sandy Dancer's comments have been answered and Ed Chilvers has not come on to explain why it should be deleted, can we now close this discussion as keep? JASpencer 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per obvious notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close The consensus- and notability- are both rather obvious. -- Kicking222 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, better sourced than most articles, very little support for removing... Not sure why this is still open. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (season 1) / Lost (season 2) / Lost (season 3)[edit]

I was a member of the List of Lost episodes mediation a few months ago, where we unanimously came up to a consensus regarding season/individual episode articles. The guideline that we established for season episodes straight from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#General article guidelines reads as follows:

"In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments."

As of now, these pages do not discuss any themes or character developments; they are blatantly plot summaries. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 7 (Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.), the current season pages do not pass this policy and should be deleted. -- Wikipedical 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I definitely do NOT want this AfD to be seen as an attempt to overpower the mediation. I am not presenting any arguments whatsoever regarding redundancy with individual episode articles.

I am merely acting as a committed member of WikiProject Lost and fully believe that deleting these articles now will overall benefit the quality of our Lost articles and Wikipedia as a whole. I also hope and expect this deletion to be temporary until we as a Project can create meaningful pages discussing thematic and character developments over the seasons. Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, material is duplicated in the List of and individual episode articles. Lostcruft? Otto4711 07:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.Lumaga 07:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let the WikiProject Lost people decide if they want seasonal summaries in addition to individual show summaries. I find them useful and interesting even though I don't watch the show. Flip a coin as to which format is better, or keep both as a better solution. I don't see it as a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 7, because the individual episode articles are even more detailed plot summaries. See: White Rabbit (Lost) for a single episode summary. This should have been a request for comment, and not a vote for deletion since there is discussion already going on in the WikiProject Lost page as to which format is better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I am not against the format of articles about seasons, I am against blatant plot summaries. I posted this last week at the WikiProject talk page, and only two editors have replied. In fact, Lost editors did discuss which format is better. If interested, read the mediation. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WikiProject Lost is hardly a different group than the people you see commenting here now. The nom left a note on the talk page of WP:LOST, so there's no reason to have a split discussion there as well. -- Ned Scott 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Jyothisingh 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). --Gabi S. 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nomination is persuasive and the reasoning sound. Note that the nominator is "WikiProject Lost people". Guy (Help!) 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — No valid reason provided for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles don't pass policy? How is that not valid? -- Wikipedical 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your interpretation, I'm saying it is wrong.. so it must be. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had the mediation and if there is a problem bring it up on the talk page so we can fix it. --theDemonHog 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the other keeps. - Peregrinefisher 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Resolute 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current concerns seem more like clean-up issues than deletion issues. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that reasonable time has been given for said clean-up, and it has yet to happen. It's not worth the effort, because it has no significant value. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur Spindrift 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. Further, it seems to me that these season-wide summaries can fulfill the mediated guideline with additional refinement. As the nom says, "I also hope and expect this deletion to be temporary..." so I see no point in deleting this only to recreate it later. If there's a content problem, just edit it now.--Leflyman^Talk 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't look for a reason to keep them when we have no reason other than "someone might turn it into something different that is worth keeping". Since the creation of WP:LOST and other organized efforts, I would think we have given this a more than reasonable "grace period". -- Ned Scott 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FrozenPurpleCube, seems like a clean up issue. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. I also don't see the point to these when there are already an article for the show and articles for each episode. TJ Spyke 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the fact that individual episodes have articles, it makes sense to have a summary page for every season as well. TSO1D 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see entry above.
Delete All This information is duplicate. Davidpdx 11:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I think that with Lost as plot driven as it is, we should give people an overview of the entire season. A complete overview would be far too long for the Lost page. ~~Also, I think we should make a decision here first before deciding the fate of the other two season pages.~~- JustPhil 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep 88.108.173.118 13:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article called Lost synopses and then Improve the article. I'm against deleting because the articles give a good background of the main events of the plot lines in Lost but it doesn't need one article for each season and some information is repeated on all three articles. --Lakeyboy 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are synopses all over Wikipedia. I find them useful. billlund 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that plot summaries are a problem on Wikipedia is no reason to not fix that problem. I can find a hell of a lot of typos, but that's no reason to not remove typos. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A counterproductive suggestion. Chensiyuan 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't even make sense. These articles have no value, at all. I could create some article called "Lost story summary sub plot" or something crazy like that, and people would vote to keep it even if I created it just to make a point. Holding on to crap and an article structure that doesn't make sense is counterproductive. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepManderiko 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page acts as an umbrella for the individual episodes. Readers looking for a concise synopsis of the season can easily reference this page without having to sift through each individual episode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.194.69 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep like said above put it into one article such as Lost seasons and give more detailed descriptions of each season within it Jezabelda 13:27, 4 January — Jezabelda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak abstain 86.4.60.229 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These pages were much better when they contained summaries of the entire season, episode by episode. I lost interest in editing when we went to this format. Cominbg back to this page fresh today I didn't even notice the links to the individual episodes buried on the bottom of the page. Horrible Web usability--doesn't help the reader at all. --Sixtrojans 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think people understand that the only reason these articles still exist was as a compromise to end a previous dispute. They have no actual value and were only used to get people to stop arguing. That debate is long since dead, and we don't need these articles. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I was one of the parties in the original mediation, and the creation of these season articles was one of the core reasons that we were even able to navigate through the process. The debate took months, and I am disappointed that Wikipedical (one of the other parties in the mediation) decided to propose these articles for deletion so soon after we had come to our painfully-achieved compromise. I am also disappointed that there was so little attempt to gather further comment (just a brief note on the WikiProject page, in the middle of the holiday season). The articles may need some cleanup, but that's no reason to delete them. --El on ka 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Julliard[edit]

Non-notable french student. Page has been tagged for notability additions since September. The articles creators contributions to the English Wiki are restricted to two edits on this article. Bob 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs serious expansion and some sources, but through Google I found a Telegraph news article, a BBC article and more through NewsExplorer, so he seems notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Jayden54 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his position of chairman of the UNEF gives him notability. I wonder why the article was tagged for AfD - it is clearly written there in the very first sentence.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, adding sources such as those mentioned by Jayden54. The head of a student organization is not generally considered notable unless he's gotten WP:V and WP:RS coverage, not just campus newspapers; but this person has. The AfD nomination was reasonable based on the contents of the article, since all it said was that Julliard headed this student union when it opposed a proposed law. Barno 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jayden54 has shown that he is notable enough. Koweja 07:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a minor rewrite for NPOV and added one of Jayden's sources to the reference section. I think that we have an interesting article on a notable subject. Clearly a bit more information would be welcome. --Kevin Murray 08:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be rewritten due to WP:NPOV, but it should be kept. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jyothisingh 09:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz on Da Run (Part 4)[edit]

The article is about a television episode, but there's no scheduled air date and I couldn't find anything about it on Google. J Di ^talk 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jyothisingh 09:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with part 3, note part 4 is yet to air. if and/or when the episode airs, it can have its own article, but until then there's no point. SERSeanCrane 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Davidpdx 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spotlight Players[edit]

I removed a prod from this article which had been placed there because the article had been vandalized. However, after cleaning it up, I realized that the article described an essentially non-notable high school theatre group. The article is completely unreferenced, and I've had to remove some possibly libelous comments about one of the past directors. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless some reliable references are provided to establish notability. Jyothisingh 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable high school organization. - Aagtbdfoua 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN group. TJ Spyke 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN group also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence is not notability. In general student societies are not notable, though there are honorable exceptions. This isn't one. WMMartin 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa el-Mullah al-Howeish[edit]

Somebody tagged this for prod but did so incorrectly; the prod reason they provided was "reason". Ah, literalism. Anyway: I'm doing a procedural nomination as there was a bungled prod, but I have no personal opinion as to whether this should actually be deleted or not. What say you, good AFDers? Bearcat 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find only one reliable link[48]. French Wikipedia also has an article. However, if somebody provides any reliable links, please consider my vote as Merge with Saddam Hussain. Jyothisingh 09:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the first three wives are notable, I think the fourth (alleged or proven) is as well. References [49] [50] and blogs do discuss her, but I have a feeling we'd find more if we searched in Arabic, and I sure don't know how to do that. Her name may be transliterated 25 different ways, too, so Ghits on one spelling may not be that terribly relevant. --Charlene 11:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand with sources to avoid the next AfD Alf photoman 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough information to give any reliable information on this person. Also I don't like the fact that the article states something that is rumor. It gives the creditablity of Wikipedia a bad name. Davidpdx 11:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)

Strong Keep - But tag article as needing sources and make it abundantly clear that it is an alleged wife. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

Contested prod[51] (prod tag removal was user's 5th edit). Respectable person who can found at some security-related mailing lists, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. I could not find any reliable sources[52]. Jyothisingh 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See AfD for Open Security Foundation --Kevin Murray 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable references [53],[54],[55],[56] The last reference is a book written by someone else where he mentions Chris Sullo for his splendid work on Nikto scanner. I wonder why there isn't an article on Nikto Scanner in wikipedia. -- Nareshhacker 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references qualify this respectable person for Wikipedia:Notability (people). [57] says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, [58] mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, [59] mentions that he is author of a tool called Nikito, [60] has no reference to his "splendid work" -- it has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 11:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Davidpdx 11:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no strong points to support but this is just a desperate wish to keep this article. Chris Sullo is very very notable among security folks. This is all I can say. -- Smith.norton 15:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Desperate wish" is not a reason to keep the article! Jyothisingh 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ?? - It's quite evident that we do not understand the Wikipedia policies well enough. Moreover we are having difficulty gathering enough notable references for Chris Sullo. But we security folks know the wonderful work that has gone into Nikto Scanner. So we would just like to know whether we can merge this article with OSVDB with a short description of the contribution Chris Sullo has done to the security community? -- Nareshhacker 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Please note that (User:Smith.norton, User:Webhacker, User:Nareshhacker and User:Root exploit have made very few edits, almost all of which are on related articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal etc. Jyothisingh 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susam Pal[edit]

Contested prod[61] (prod tag removal was user's 6th edit[62]). Respectable person who can be found at some security-related mailing lists, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. I could not find any reliable sources[63]. See also Chris Sullo. Jyothisingh 09:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See AfD for Open Security Foundation, seems to be the same group of contributors --Kevin Murray 10:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Susam Pal is quite notable among security folks. He features in each and every security list across the world. In the worst case, if the article is deleted, I suggest merging this with OSVDB. -- Root exploit 11:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MER-C. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the following WP:BIO conditions.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (References: Secunia, [ SecurityFocus]).
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (References presented in support of the above point and references in the article are all part of enduring historical record.) -- Nareshhacker 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The person is not the "primary subject" of the references provided. Also, IMHO, the references provided are not "non-trivial". I visited these sites (secunia and securityfocus) for the first time today -- it seems that on an average day, more than ten security vulnerabilites are reported at both the sites[64][65]. As about the second point, you've grossly misunderstood the phrase "enduring historical record in their specific field". Jyothisingh 12:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. so he found a vulnerability in some website. so have most people in this thread.

also, article is wrong. the article implies that this person found a dos vuln, yet the link says its sql injection. there's a big difference 207.229.176.46 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO person is nn. Davidpdx 12:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The irony of this post is that people voting here have not been actively involved with security or you would have already known who Susam Pal is. I wonder why an entry in Bugtraq is not considered notable or verifiable. -- Smith.norton 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above commenter means the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database which is different from the Bugtraq Mailing List. Bugtraq Mailing List may not be considered notable but Bugtraq Vulnerability Database should be IMHO) -- Nareshhacker 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 207.229.176.46 states that the article is wrong. I refute this. The article states that Susam has discovered a few vulnerabilities which includes Windows, XSS, SQL Injection as well as Apache. An SQL Injection vulnerability in an Indian site can be used to cause a DoS. So what's the difference? Morover the link that this User ID has posted is a link to a forum which is non-notable. SecurityFocus Bugtraq is notable. -- Smith.norton 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go to sql injection. hit ctrl+f5. do a search for "denial" or "dos". you won't get any results. sure, maybe it could help in a few rare circumstances, but they are, in actuality, two very different kinds of attacks. sql injection compromises databases. it allows attackers to read data they might not otherwise be able to read - to insert data they might not otherwise be able to insert. denial of service, per its very name, does not do this. denial of service attacks do just that - deny service. honestly, how can you presume to comment on the notability of anyone in the security field when your understanding of the fundamentals appears to be so piss poor? -- 207.229.176.46

You are about to start a flame war where as the fact is that you yourself have not gone through the article nicely. Where in the article did you find "dos vulnerability" being mentioned? Susam has found lots of vulnerabilities, a few of which are listed in this article with proper references as well. -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should follow your own advice and go through the article nicely. check out Susam Pal#Assistance to Indian Tourismv. it says he found a vuln "which could be exploited by an attacker to bring the site down thereby making it inaccessible to intended users". "bring down the site" is the definition of a dos. and whether or not it can be is moot. it violates WP:NOR and mistates the vuln. 207.229.176.46 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Whatever is written in the article is true. It is an SQL Injection in the site which can be used to drop tables in the site in question there by causing the DoS attack. I hope you have understood the meaning now. (How the tables can be dropped is not a publicly disclosed fact and is still a guarded secret of the Indian underground community). Ok if that particular statement violates WP:NOR, then that particular line can be removed and it can simply be written that he discovered SQL Injection in the site and demonstrated standard probing techniques. The reference for the latter fact is present in the article. --Root exploit 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will concede that i had not thought of dropping the tables. that said, you're still a fucking idiot. SQL injection allows an attacker do a hell of a lot more than DoS attacks do and to call it a DoS attack is highly inaccurate. here's an example:

::::::http://www.wormweb.nl/nieuws.php?request=nieuws&item=&id=%3Cscript%3Ealert(/xss/.source)%3C/script%3E

would it be more accurate to call that xss or sql injection? technically, it's both, but if you could only chose one, it'd be more accurate to say sql injection, because that's, ultimately, what is enabling the xss. your calling of an sql injection vuln a dos is akin to saying that the above is xss, which is wrong. 207.229.176.46 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for the forum i posted a link to being non-notable... you're missing the point. you're claiming this guy should stay because he's found vulnerabilities. people in that forum have, too. so what if they're not posted on bugtraq? a vulnerability is a vulnerability regardless of whether or not it's posted on bugtraq. test the latest ones out for yourself if you think otherwise. -- 207.229.176.46

No, there is a difference between a vulnerability that you post in some XYZ forum like a school kid and some vulnerability that is reviewed by SecurityFocus Bugtraq team and included in the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database. If a vulnerability posted by you enters the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database, network scanners all over the world include this vulnerability in their scanning list. For instance, Susam's Apache vulnerability disclosure is used in scanners. Here's a reference. [66] -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a difference between a story that you post in some XYZ forum like a school kid and some story that is reviewed by the slashdot.org team and included on their website. If a story by you enters slashdot.org, websites all over the world cover the story. since your argument can be so easily adapted to advocate wikipedia entries on everyone who's ever gotten a slashdot.org story accepted, you must also believe that? otherwise, please explain to me how you're not being hypocritical.

also, your suggestion that people who post vulns on XYZ forums are as "school kids" is petty and childish. anyone who posts a vuln, in public, is an attention seeking whore who's more concerned about their own reputation then they are about a creating a safer anything and if you think bugtraq is an exception, you're a tool - an apologist - who conveniently truths when they disagree with your own vision 207.229.176.46 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. D. Moore does just that. So you mean to say H. D. Moore is an "attention seeking whore"? :-) -- Root exploit 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i think he is an "attention seeking whore". you can, of course, be notable and skilled, despite being an "attention seeking whore". 207.229.176.46 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrators - We are arguing here in good faith. We don't mind even if this article is deleted if it doesn't meet the policies. But we do object the language 207.229.176.46 is using for living people. He/She implies that all security researchers who go for public disclosures which include great researchers like H. D. Moore are "attention seeking whores". -- Root exploit 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, being an attention-seeking-whore isn't all bad. The upside is that "being known" allows projects like Metasploit to stay in active development. The more people that know about and use our tools, the less chance we will let the project die for lack of interest. The downside is that psuedo-anonymous Wikipedia users rag on you for being a whore :-) --Hdm 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and if you think bugtraq does make a difference, consider the fact that it's a mailing list to which anyone can contribute. just because bugtraq is notable does not mean that every peon who sends emails to it is. jesus christ, how can you even believe your own arguments? -- 207.229.176.46

We are not talking of the Bugtraq mailing list. (Have you even bothered to click and open the references?) We are talking of the Bugtraq Vulnerability Database. [67]. Not anyone and everyone can contribute there. Only vulnerabilities which are reviewed and considered notable and of importance to the whole world are kept in the BID list. Please have a look at the references in the article once again. Bugtraq vulnerability database and Bugtraq mailing list are quite different. -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in any event, Travis Schack should be deleted, too, not to mention most of the "manglers" at OSVDB. 207.229.176.46 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! But this is not the place to discuss Travis Schack. Please do it in the appropriate page. -- Nareshhacker 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jyothisingh says that Susam is present in some security related mailing lists. I would like to add that Susam is also present in all reputed and notable security sites. Apart from this his work is being used in network scanners. -- Jeev

Comment - Jyothisingh also says, "it seems that on an average day, more than ten security vulnerabilites are reported at both the sites". How does this make Secunia, SecurityFoscus, FrSirt, etc. not notable or verifiable? This argument is funny. More than ten news articles come up at BBC on an average day. So going by Jyothisingh's argument we should stop citing BBC as a reference too. This is a rant, but I never thought arguments at Wikipedia would stoop so low. -- Jeev

- your an idiot if you think including an article on someone who has a few stories on securityfocus is akin to citing the bbc. that comment is attacking the notability of securityfocus or secunia - it's attacking the notability of susam pal. a more proper analogy would be creating a wikipedia article on everyone who has ever written an article that's been published on the bbc. but no matter. you say wikipedia has stooped "so low". well, congratulation's - you've stooped even lower. if the only counter you have to arguments is by misrepresenting them, you shouldn't waste anyone's time trying to counter them in the first place. 207.229.176.46 13:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ 207.229.176.46 - I think a person who can't figure out how to cause a DoS attack using SQL Injection needs to be commenting on a person who is far more respectable in the field of Information Security. -- Nareshhacker 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think your fucking idiot. i am not saying that SQL injection can't be used to DoS - I am saying that you can do a fuck of a lot more with SQL injection than you can with a DoS attack. at best, DoS attacks are a subset of SQL injection. SQL injection allows things that DoS attacks do not and therefore, calling an SQL injection attack a DoS attack is highly misleading. 207.229.176.46 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that "Secunia, SecurityFoscus, FrSirt, etc. not notable or verifiable?". When I said "it seems that on an average day, more than ten security vulnerabilites are reported at both the sites", I meant that the subject of the article is just one of the many people who report vulnerabilities. Subscribing to all security-related mailing lists and registering at all security-related websites doesn't make a person notable. And if the person is so notable, where are reliable references? Jyothisingh 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else is a reliable reference? Please clarify this point. I admit we might not be understanding the Wikipedia policies well enough. But I don't understand why I am being attacked like this by 207.229.176.46. This is just turning into a flame war. And if this is the case I am never returning to Wikipedia again. -- Nareshhacker 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Please note that four people have voted keep: three of them (User:Smith.norton, Jeev and User:Nareshhacker) have made less than 10 edits outside Susam Pal or this page. The third, User:Root exploit has made less than 25 edits outside the subject. Jyothisingh 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I didn't get this. We are a bunch of guys from erstwhile Orkut hackers' community, erstwhile since the community itself was deleted, who were trying to write some wikipedia articles on the OSVDB volunteers. So our purpose was just that. We never intended to edit articles outside the domain of OSVDB. So why are we supposed to make more than 10 edits. We have made 2-5 edits per subject. Does that mean our arguments won't be given any importance here? -- Nareshhacker 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, i do think your arguments should be given as much weight as anyone elses. to dismiss something because of someones edit count is an ad hominem and is something to be ashamed of. 207.229.176.46 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following comment was made:- "Subscribing to all security-related mailing lists and registering at all security-related websites doesn't make a person notable." by JyothiSingh. I would like to make a correction. We are talking of two differen things. Security Mailing Lists and Security Organization Reports. It is quite easy to get your name into every security mailing list of the world. Just post a mail in the Bugtraq mailing list and it would soon be copied by all other security mailing lists. I agree with this point. But the story is different in case of Security Reports. All the references in the article are those of security reports. A security report is published only after verifying the security incident or vulnerabiliy. Only when it is found verifiable and worthful by the security organization, it is published as a report or advisory. So the subject in question had no way of forcing his name into the thousands of security reports that are available in his name. This is just a clarification. Of course the administrators have the right to decide what is the best thing to do with this article. -- Root exploit 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the argument that "if you were active in security you'd have heard of him" to be unpersuasive. Lack of substantial secondary sources is the problem here. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tornio[edit]

Contested prod[68]. Respectable person, who can be found on security-related mailing lists, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. I could not find any reliable sources[69]. Jyothisingh 08:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Delete. already merged at closing, see last vote. Cbrown1023 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Security Foundation[edit]

Respectable organization, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Less than 300 Google hits[70]. I could not find any reliable sources that can establish notability. Jyothisingh 09:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. The only evidence of notability found seems to be a reprinted press release. MER-C 09:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Yet I found http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=3070, which may or may not be credible or independent. Is Mer-c saying that the source he found is credible? If so maybe these two are enough? It is more than a hoax, but is it just another fledgling company seeking exposure? --Kevin Murray 09:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reprinted press releases don't count for corporations, bands and artists, biographies and webcontent, so there's no reason for it to count here. MER-C 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OSVDB is a very notable project and Open Security Foundation is the founder of this project. Hence, it would be good if we keep this article too or at the worst case, merge this article with OSVDB.

Merge - This article can be merged with OSVDB. - Nareshhacker 11:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OSVDB, where is has better context and sourcing.-- danntm ^T _C 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OSVDB and Delete. Davidpdx 12:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - LMAO!!! Who tagged this article for deletion? :-) I don't understand what has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Why are we tagging just anyone and everyone as "not-notable"? Come on guys! If you don't find them notable, it doesn't mean that it actually is not-notable. There are security folks in Wikipedia who need such articles to exist in Wikipedia because we believe that these guys and organizations have done really good work. -- Smith.norton 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per Danntm. And please refrain from tagging articles like these for deletion. There's a reason why {{mergeto}} tag exists in Wikipedia. -- Webhacker 05:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Please note that (User:Smith.norton, User:Webhacker, User:Nareshhacker and User:Root exploit have made very few edits, almost all of which are on related articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sullo etc. Jyothisingh 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally interested only in OSVDB. So what's wrong? How does that reduce my credibility? -- Root exploit 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged - I have merged this article with OSVDB since that was the overall opinion of this debate. Now this article may be deleted as per Wikipedia procedures and policies. -- Root exploit 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Accardo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial site, sad as a death may be Chris 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. May his soul rest in peace. Jyothisingh 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional info is provided Alf photoman 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe this one might have been recreated after it was deleted before. If so, I move to protect it against recreation. Davidpdx 12:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Cliffhanger. Cbrown1023 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be Continued...[edit]

Does not assert notability. Sr13 (T|C) 09:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a song. Asserting notability is irrelevant for songs. And whether an article asserts notability is irrelevant for AFD. It's only for the speedy deletion of certain specific classes of article that whether an article asserts notability is relevant.
The obvious way to address this article is to merge it into the article on the album that the song is one track of, All Hail the Dead, which is itself a stub. AFD isn't needed for that. Uncle G 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable, and barely information. I don't like the idea of a merge, either, if for no other reason than I would rather it be a redirect to an album titled To Be Continued... (which is also a stub, but still more likely to be searched for, being a full album, than a single song). -- Kicking222 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cliffhanger. Non-notable album track. —ShadowHalo 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ShadowHalo. TJ Spyke 23:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and provides not useful information. Davidpdx 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using WP:MUSIC - Album discussion, if the band is notable, their albums are notable; the only singles that appear to be notable are those that hit the top 20 of the charts, but that's not cut-and-dry yet. That aside, this doesn't make it either way. SkierRMH 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Storm in the Glass[edit]

non notable fan films. imdb no page. Google News no match page[71]. Sufnv 09:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must agree, there is almost nothing on the web about it. The only references are to some obscure Russian webpages. Nor is it at Amazon or IMDB Snailwalker | talk 11:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google searches work on its name in Russian. "Results 1 - 100 of about 85,100 for Звёздные войны: Буря в стакане" ALKIVAR™ ☢ 14:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in English isn't the way to demonstrate that though. I'm also reminded of the words of our chairman: User:Anthere/Values#Deletions... finally, this article was recently a DYK selection and was on the main page... This is plenty notable enough. Keep. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it was selected as DYK does not make it notable in my eyes, it's just another kind of original research in my eyes. And the argument about the Russian search result is not valid either in my eyes, I guess most of the results are due to the fact that Star Wars is in the title. Snailwalker | talk 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may possibly be mistaken on how Google searching works, or at least it appears so from the above response. If you search for the entire title as a quote, only sites taht directly reference that title will be returned as results. If I just search for Star Wars as loose words, I am going to get about 3 billion results. (give or take)... it is only if I search for the entire title that I get meaningful results, which is what I believe Alkivar did. Selection as DYK doesn't itself confer notability. But what it does is suggest that (since the DYK process downchecks non notable articles all the time) that the selectors DID think it was notable, whether they (our new process means one person selects, and usually another vets it before it moves to the page) actually turn up here to comment or not, and that perhaps they saw notability where you did not. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the original research was NOT with quotes. I just tried to search in Google using quotes and it only returned 559 results, which I must say is not very impressive Snailwalker | talk 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hardly think that the DYK thing is grounds for notability. This "fanfilm" (more a remix, if I read the article properly) is virtually unknown in the Star Wars fanfilm community, and I see nothing that lends any notability to it. TheRealFennShysa 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The English-speaking Star Wars fanfilm community, maybe. But it's a Russian film. Philwelch 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's sort of an "anti-fan"-film, actually. It is known in Russia, although not terribly popular. It is also not directed at the Star Wars community or fans, but at the general audience. The amusing part is not the plotline (which is warped beyond recognition), but rather, numerous quotes and episodes from Soviet and Russian history and media. This makes the remix interesting almost exclusively to those familiar with these realia, mainly, Russians themselves. The ru wiki has this article, as well. --Illythr 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, the translation would be an undesirable in the SW fan community, as it makes fun of something they like. I'm not surprised no English-speaking SW fan will acknowledge it. Chronolegion 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Counter Systemic Bias! Philwelch 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You would not see the movie sold in the United States, as I doubt Goblin had George Lucas's permission to translate the movie. Whether or not the movie is sold in the US or not should not be the grounds for deletion. Chronolegion 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have to remind that IMDB doesn't have it and they have almost all notable movies, including foreign languages. Snailwalker | talk 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even those that big movie producers might not want to be there? After all, as far as I know, the movie was translated and sold in violation of international copyright (something which doesn't really carry much weight in Russia). Chronolegion 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Russian Wikipedia article does not have any reliable sources on this either. The English Wikipedia article does not have reliable sources, and the Russian Wikipedia article does not have reliable sources. Are there any reliable sources whatsoever to be had, in Russian or English? If this had been an English Star Wars fanfilm of equal notability as it this is in Russia, would this not be deleted? —Centrx→talk • 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fanfilm, it's a mocking translation/total conversion. Perhaps you can decribe what do you want those reliable sourced to mention? That Goblin himself has become fairly famous thanks to these movies in Russia? --Illythr 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy meeting you here. Centrx, please stop reading my contributions and following me around everywhere. Philwelch 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "reliable sources", and then I can try to find those. Do you want the online store where you can buy it? The official website? An article reviewing the translation? Chronolegion 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see comments Illythr and others.--Leon II 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.232.95.151 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fancruft Artw 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - An entry from Star Wars: Storm in the Glass appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 December 2006 -- Jreferee 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaybib Yambao[edit]

Actor is not listed in the credits of the movies and soaps he has supposedly played in, except for one Wikipedia article where he is a By-stander near Eli's House (this line was also added by the creator of the article). Looks like a non notable background actor to me. The article was speedy deleted before once. Chris 73 | Talk 10:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable bit part actor. As a side note, some of the articles on Filipino television shows linked from here need a lot of love. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, had a small part in a few films. Davidpdx 12:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey DeChausse[edit]

Spam (Previously prodded) Harris 10:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete-vanity, Created entirely by a SPA. Chris 10:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertising. I did find this article so it doesn't appear to be entirely vanity. Demiurge 15:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if people want to use Wikipedia to advertise they should at least cite sources Alf photoman 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless properly sourced as notable, in which case, it could use cleanup. - Aagtbdfoua 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising, NN only 281 ghits, also fails WP:BIO. Davidpdx 12:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion. NawlinWiki 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man characters in film[edit]

Delete pointless article that is redundant to the movie articles. This is another entry from user EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who keeps creating categories and articles that get promptly deleted for being inappropriate or redundant to other categories and articles. Doczilla 10:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm really becoming convinced that EJBanks is another incarnation of User:Batman Fan, who was eventually blocked for exactly the same kinds of disruptive edits. CovenantD 11:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — J Greb 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost up to Nintendude's standards. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as pointless, redundant content. The Spider-Man film series is more than a list of names and films to be wikificated and tabled as a stub. Gah! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I second, HIGHLY SECOND, CovenantD's mention of batman Fan and also User:Creepy Crawler, who was recently banned for the same sort of Spiderman themed articles nad lists. ThuranX 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information duplicates info in the article about the Spiderman movies. It is not needed. Davidpdx 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gilbert[edit]

The subject of this article is a 22-year-old sports journalist. The article does not clearly establish notability, and the external links provided just go to the front pages of sites or companies he has worked for, not to anything that specifically relates to or identifies him. A Google search was unsuccessful because his name is apparently quite common; among the other Simon Gilberts is a musician, Simon Gilbert (drummer), who was previously covered by this article but has since been moved to his own article and is not the subject of this nomination. I previously submitted this article about the journalist for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed with the edit summary, "Big name on Fleet Street. Notable in the opinion of many." Since I am unable to determine who the "many" are who consider Simon Gilbert a notable journalist, I recommend that this article be deleted due to lack of evidence that he meets any of the criteria at WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 10:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only asserts the most tenuous notability and doesn't provide reliable sources to verify this. (Even if he has written some newspaper articles, that wouldn't make him automatically notable in my opinion, because they wouldn't count as independent sources.) Demiurge 11:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, difficult to find specifics from a quick Google search. Snowman 13:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that he meets WP:BIO. MER-C 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who the hell is he?? clearly not a notable bloke! --Kimberley Walsh 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from absurd non-arguments like that. If you have nothing at all to add, you could simply state "NN per WP:BIO" which won't add any fundamentally useful information but is at least non-inflammatory. Tarinth 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for "Simon Gilbert" Journalist still found mainly unrelated hits, and only a couple of hundred at that. Wait until he has his own byline in the Times. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that this is a hijacked article as the original subject was the drummer currently at Simon gilbert (drummer). Unless there are other notable Simon Gilbert's around that would make a disambig page necessary, this article should be reverted to the last version describing the musician. Resolute 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Davidpdx 12:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to original more notable drummer subject. --Guinnog 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hooley[edit]

Contested speedy on an academic. Being an academic, or your local union rep, is not notable. Nothing else of note offered. Nuttah68 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know nothing about physics and I have heard of the fellow. I know fame isn't a notability test but this seems petty at best! Thanks for your time. PatrickSW 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article mentions nothing especially notable about this professor. Flyingtoaster1337 12:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. MER-C 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No new evidence found in G-search "Chris hooley" & Oxford and "Chris hooley" & physicist. Seems to guest-lecture in US and was thus mentioned at Rutgers site, but a trivial quote from his lecture. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:PROF. Davidpdx 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Objectively on the basis of WP:PROF. It is only necessary to meet one of the conditions, and he meets criterion 3.3, The work must be widely cited. Seven publications in good journals isn't bad for a beginner, and the top 3 of them had 21, 22, and 28 citations in Web of Science, which is "widely" since the average number is between 1 and 2, varying by field, & this is an order of magnitude higher. (And all are peer reviewed journals). Negative results on Ghits is not conclusive for academics -- Use Google Scholar as well--there were 12. And it is not necessary to work in the US to be notable. But, normally a university lecturer in the UK, which I think corresponds roughly to a US Assistant professor, is not yet notable in any subjective sense, unless the work is extraordinarily good. However we have an objective (albeit still disputed) test. The only way to dispute it is to quibble on widely. If we follow our own rules, it's keep. DGG 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am going to disagree with this logic and quibble on widely. Criterion 3.3 has to be read in conjunction with the criterion 3, in particular -The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.- In this context, I believe, widely means cited by groups beyond the immediate geographic and research area (not from within the same research institution or group) and not merely a numbers game, which is not demonstrated. As mentioned by User:Drew30319 Editors should be careful when deleting articles that are outside of their field of expertise.. As someone in the field, the article as it stands shows Dr Hooley has done little more than that which is required as a researcher in the UK to maintain their research funding. Nuttah68 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. As a student of physics I have come across his work countless times - he's definitely one of the most cited sources on my course. (Quantum physics). Yeanold Viskersenn 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Yeanold Viskersenn. This is not my field but the number of published articles seemed relevant enough that I contested the speedy. Editors should be careful when deleting articles that are outside of their field of expertise. Thanks to User:DGG for doing the homework! Drew30319 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe's not especially notable, but has done research into several fields that aren't widely researched. Plus, he's gay, which shouldn't really enter into it, but I daresay that homosexual quantum physics lecturers with PhDs from Oxbridge are few and far between! Hawker Typhoon 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it shouldn't enter into it, bu perhaps the numbers may be the other way round. 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge with Mike 'Nug' Nahrgang, Delete, and then Redirect to Mike 'Nug' Nahrgang. Cbrown1023 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard Man[edit]

Absolutely non-notable meme. It was not mentioned on any reliable source (newspaper or the like). bogdan 11:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though I have found an apparently reliable source (Eye Weekly) that mentions this. [72] The scarcity of reliable sources that mention this meme [73] means that the photo and its subject only borderline notable at best. Since the meme concerns a photo of the subject which was taken with the intention to disparage him, I tend towards deletion in the spirit of WP:BLP. Flyingtoaster1337 12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Fury who sang "They got the mustard out!" in Once More, with Feeling (Buffy episode). First thing that came to mind when I saw "Mustard Man". Otto4711 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sourcing issues. MER-C 13:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect with Mike 'Nug' Nahrgang. The guys a notable B-movie actor with a few films under his belt, and the mustard man was a picture from a sketch he did that blew up big. It's not "intended to disparage" when it's from a sketch he put on. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Night Gyr. This is a (notable) comedian performing a comedy sketch, not something like Star Wars Kid. Tevildo 05:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. VegaDark 09:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Davidpdx 12:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. No reason to not explain why Mr. Nahrgang is famous on the internet. Chandon 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan Guides[edit]

Fails WP:CORP; not verifiable BJ^Talk 11:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 13:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make to read less advert. Actually heard of them in our small neck of the woods, so notability is coming. Chris 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recall these travel guides being very popular and were always found in the travel section in bookstores. (I actually owned one of these guides). --Oakshade 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Oakshade may be thinking of an older incarnation - this article is for the new (Oct 2006) e-guide. Their website doesn't appear to make any link between the two. So as it stands, the aforementioned criteria apply. SkierRMH 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Day[edit]

Non-notable veterinary surgeon. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Emeraude 12:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 13:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything out of the usual which he did. Sam Blacketer 13:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't asserted. Hello32020 14:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:V, also Wikipedia is not a memorial. Davidpdx 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Giraffes (Brooklyn band)[edit]

non-notable band. Not one of the external links gives notability. Akihabara 12:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability under WP:MUSIC, and the external links (cdbaby/allmusic) appear to accept user-submitted reviews. Demiurge 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, just barely meets WP:MUSIC with supporting tour.cities, they're getting some notice[74][75][76]. (FYI: Allmusic is not user-submitted; they produce their own biographies using paid editors, and being on there or not is a good first approximation toward notability.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Davidpdx 12:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dhartung Guyanakoolaid 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Oaks Mall[edit]

Article was {{prod}}'d, deleted, and is now undeleted. This article has existed for eight months without references. There is ample trivial reporting on Google news and news archive - Factiva not checked - but nothing found which takes the mall as its subject. A directory entry only, with no claims to encyclopedic notability through independent non-trivial reporting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not claim notability for this particular mall; it is just a list of stores and their square footage. Sam Blacketer 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anythign else. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. There are 'ooos of these malls. No independent significant media comment. BlueValour 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've personally had my fill of attempts to delete shopping center articles. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you may want to explain why this article meets the Wikipedia standards - and if you can come up with something, you may want to add it to the article. As it stands, however, it doesn't meet those standards, and it's hard for a mall to be notable. --Dennisthe2 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please see Alansohn's comments below. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've personally had my fill of attempts to create directory listings for shopping centers. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mall is not inherently notable. --Dennisthe2 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to Keep per below, shows notability now. Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've had my fill both of attempts to delete shopping centre articles and nonsensical attempts to stretch dot points in WP:NOT to claim the topic doesn't meet them. Rebecca 04:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could tell us how it does meet WP:N, then, that would be appreciated. See also my resonse to MatthewUND above. --Dennisthe2 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN mall, See WP:NOT. Davidpdx 12:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name, location, and list of stores... looks like a directory entry to me. More importantly, no reliable secondary sources in evidence. Shimeru 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --maclean 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article contains no information other than trivia. >Radiant< 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Merge per Visviva below. >Radiant< 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article will greatly benefit from additional attention, but attempts to use WP:NOT as an excuse to delete the article are at best, unjustified. At over 1.5 million square feet, this is one of the largest malls in the state, and a major regional business. Alansohn 07:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article includes references which appear to establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can those who voted to delete earlier please make clear if their vote still applies in the wake of the expansion and referencing of this article? Rebecca 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cautiously suggest a~~ merge and redirect ~~to Fairfax, Virginia~~ per WP:LOCAL (or at least one interpretation thereof). I would more confidently suggest a merge if the target article were not so woefully underdeveloped. We lack the focused independent coverage on which a proper article can be built, but there is some value in the information here. -- Visviva 10:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fairfax, Virginia per WP:LOCAL and Delete or Redirect. Merge the intro without the list of stores and the history. Vegaswikian 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of deleting most of the interesting content? Rebecca 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article the mall isn't in Fairfax, Virginia, but rather "just outside the City". -maclean 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Because of that, wouldn't it be a bit misleading to merge it with the Fairfax article? I say let it have its own article. I also agree with Rebecca that merging would result in the loss of the more interesting information about the mall. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out... that does seem to be correct, judging from this map, which would put the mall just north of the city limits. In that case, the merged information should go to Fairfax County, Virginia; and since that article already has a fairly well-developed "Economy" section, this content won't be terribly out of place. -- Visviva 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a large, generic building that rents space for commercial use...and...I just don't see how this particular mall is notable. -maclean 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, but if there are reliable sources at all, it might bear mentioning in Kim Possible (character). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:00Z

Kigo (Kim Possible)[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable genre of fan fiction, and article is mostly original research. Prod contested. SpuriousQ 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, as fanfiction under WP:FICTION. Demiurge 13:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced speculative original fancruft. MER-C 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, un-notable "slash fiction" similar to previously deleted "South Park Slash". a relationship that has never and will never occur That kind of sums it up, I think. Tubezone 15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and because this is the same concept previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim shego. --Metropolitan90 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:FICTION for being fanfiction. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons; perhaps include a smaller version as part of femslash? Panelanimist 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain this article. I remind everyone of the Ignore all rules "rule" which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules “rule.” The informative merit of the article along with the fact that there will most likely never be any articles published on it by “reputable” independent sources makes it worthy of inclusion. I also cite the 'fandom' section of the Xena: Warrior Princess article in which, it was stated, "However, in the interviews and commentaries on the DVDs released in 2003-2005, the actors and producers continued to stress that the question about Xena and Gabrielle's relationship was never answered and was up to each viewer's interpretation.” This article was originally posted separately from the Kim Possible page to avoid this sort of situation. If it were to be included as part of the 'femslash' article, just how smaller would you even propose it to be?Creativetoo 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Creativetoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There really needs to be a strong reason for invoking WP:IAR, I don't think slash fanfiction on a Disney cable channel character is important enough. never be any articles published on it by “reputable” independent sources That pretty much sums up why this shouldn't be in WP, it can not pass sourcing and verifiability guidelines, IMHO. Last, ref Xena, has Disney has ever made such a statement regarding these two characters in Kim Possible? The two are enemies, not partners, right? Tubezone 09:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How small? How about "fanfic isn't important enough to get mentioned at all" small? Danny Lilithborne 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, and how about "fanfic on a copyrighted Disney character that makes implications about her sexual preferences" small? This would fall under WP:BLP, if Kim Possible were a real person. Tubezone 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this is fan fiction and should be deleted under WP:FICTION. Davidpdx 12:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete fanfic, the end. Invoking WP:IAR on the basis of the informational merit of silly fanfic authors is ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain this article.I think you all forgot that there is canon subtext in the KP Show(I am sure that you all would watched KP and wouldn't ignore the subtext if you were saying WP:FICTION,huh?) True,this wasn't stated as canon by Disney,but if you watched the show you would find the canon points out even if you aren't interested in Kigo. Everyone still not satisfied? Then read the Ignore all rules "rule" which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules “rule.” Sincely,Tantrix—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.212.51.32 (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I'll cite WP:IAR right back at you and say this article should be deleted because it is obvious trash. Danny Lilithborne 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "canonical subtext" is an unreferenced fan fantasy, even the article states except for exceedingly rare occasions neither character has ever openly expressed anything but dislike or even outright hatred for the other, so at face value the KiGo pairing seems a highly unlikely one to say the least. What's next, WP articles about Superman getting it on with Lex Luthor? Puh-leeeze... Tubezone 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that IAR is only applicable in cases where Wikipedia process would get in the way of a very obvious or inevitable decision. This subject, which fails WP:FICT for notability and where listing most of the subtext for this pairing would be obvious original research, is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia and invoking IAR would actually get it deleted, not kept. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't add anything that hasn't been stated above. Someguy-021 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk

Delete per WP:Fiction, and above. --theblueflamingo^Speak 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk

Delete This doesn't exist in the show and never will. Shego has made many attempts to send Kim to a grizzly death and enjoys the thought of Kim being dead. Kim has also openly told Shego that she hates her. The end. --Erased Paper 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This article should be retained, because it has been acknowledged as possible by the creators and writers, but is unsupported. The objections noted before seem to lack the same basis in fact the article is criticized for. Thousands of articles even on Wikipedia have no basis in physical fact, yet remain on the site. These same reasons could be used to delete the article on God.Triaxx2 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) — Triaxx2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

because it has been acknowledged as possible by the creators and writers When and by who? Where can I look that up? If that's true, please put a reference in the article to where we can see a reliable source that supports that assertion. Tubezone 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that God has more relevance than Kim and Shego getting it on. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. I can see that the author(s) of the page is/are working hard, but there are no acceptable sources for this term at this time. To make matters worse they are using other Wikipedia articles as reference. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain as per WP:IAR Kellendros2 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) — Kellendros2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

extended commentary moved to talk

comments moved to talk

Comment The greatest chance of this article not getting deleted is if reliable sources are found for this topic. WP:IAR is not used to justify original research. You mention that the creators of the show are aware of this topic; if you can find a source for that, it could be a pretty strong argument for the inclusion of it somewhere on Wikipedia, whether in its own article or in the Kim Possible article. -SpuriousQ 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmaria (talk • contribs) — Karmaria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Retain - Kigo is a very prominent aspect of Kim Possible. It may not appear on screen, but anyone who watches the show and discusses it with another person of some kind will eventually discuss this in rather great detail, either the validity of it or the "hotness" of it. It doesn't matter how the fans discuss it, the point is that they do. A LOT. As such, it should be found on Wikipedia, as people come to it for information. Tsaalyo Phoenix 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC) — Tsaalyo Phoenix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- People discussing something a lot is not a reason to "retain". Danny Lilithborne 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please note that WP:IAR is not a reason to keep (aka retain), and I would recommend those who have !voted such to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks. Yuser31415 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Destroy this fan fiction filth. — Mirror of the Sea Yes? 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Merge. Cbrown1023 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonios Androutsopoulos[edit]

A Greek neo-Nazi who has attacked a person once, does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. An alternative solution would be to merge with Hrisi Avgi. Mitsos 14:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's a notable member of a notable organization. Google returns a few non-Wikipedia related hits and you can find more through Greek language channels. Koweja 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hrisi Avgi, as nominated. No independent notability. Demiurge 15:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as by Demiurge , Alf photoman 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have had multiple media coverage. Tarinth 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, as per Demiurge. A minor fascist thug, with no claim to significance (except for the people whom he tried to kill). The link in support of the claim that he wrote a book leads to a Webpage that doesn't mention him (perhaps the claim should be that he read a book — almost as unbelievable). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as per nomination. --SandyDancer 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect English ghits = 19, and I couldn't get any ghits with Ανδρουσοπουλος - perchance there's more out there in Greek but I couldn't get google to return any results that way. SkierRMH 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships on Scrubs[edit]

Cruft, plain and simple. We don't need an oh-so-detailed guide to the love lives of characters on a TV show, no matter how awesome said show is. I believe a firm delete is in order, or at most merge into character pages. -- Chris is me 14:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically, Wikipedia is not for plot summaries). Demiurge 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Demiurge. - Aagtbdfoua 15:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurd. This really is cruft. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into character pages per nom. Just H 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a "List of significant others of Friends" article for Friends, which has survived multiple attempts at deletion. Doesn't that allow a prescedent for this? EJB341 17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support the deletion of that page if someone nominated it. TJ Spyke 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of cruft MartinDK 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I watch this show, but this article is the very definition of original research. It reads like TV Guide crud. Tarinth 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, this information is too specific. Perhaps merge into the Scrubs (TV series) article, however I am sure that the characters list can be made to include the information. TSO1D 00:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into revelant character pages. Quack 688 09:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Davidpdx 12:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know what "indiscriminate" means?
Keep or Merge into character pages. -- User:Docu
Keep - no valid reason given for me to consider deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relationships are the key to TV dramas so it makes sense to itemize them. - Peregrinefisher 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crufty as it comes. --Wizardman 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just had a look at some of the character pages, and it seems this page is used as a method of avoiding duplicating information. E.g. for Carla and Turk, instead of having a significant outline of their relationship history on Carla's page, then the exact same thing copy-pasted onto Turk's page, they both link to this page. If a consensus is reached to delete, we should make sure that appropriate information gets merged back into char articles. Quack 688 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 00:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Chris. Way too much like a fan site. However, some of the prose might be salvagable, to be edited and placed in the main Scrubs article. Blueaster 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 15:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional government agents[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711. - Aagtbdfoua 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable list Alf photoman 17:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a useful organization tool that only includes notable characters. It isn't indiscriminate because it deals with a specific subject. The fact that it can't approach completeness is not an argument for deletion either, since no article on Wikipedia will ever hope to encompass all knowledge on the subject. Tarinth 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, categories are better organizational tools, such as Category:Fictional secret agents and spies and its sub-cats. Is it really a useful organization scheme to put for example Emily Sloane, who worked for the State Department at some point before the events of Alias, with Agent 13 (who doesn't even have an article, instead it's just a link to Get Smart) and Manuel Valenza? Otto4711 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --71.126.240.180 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops thought I was signed in --BenWhitey 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far to arbitrary, it would never be acceptable to the Minister of Silly Walks.-- danntm ^T _C 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There must be a plethora of them. TSO1D 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Davidpdx 12:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split This list would be more effecive as a separated list for different major agencies. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the agencies already have categories, which I still contend are superior to lists for this information. Many if not most of the listed characters don't even have individual articles. They just link back to the TV show or film the character is from. Rather than a separate list for the members of a particular show's agency, or lists of fictional agents not otherwise notable enough for individual articles, list the agents in the article for the show itself or, if the fictional agency is significant enough for its own article (c.f. Covenant (Alias) list the agents there. Otto4711 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of individual articles indicates to me that a list could be far more useful than a category. (this is not to say a category is useless mind you, but categories and lists do not exist in opposition to each other). And while sometimes the source material may cover the material adequately, at other times it might be worth having a separate list. For example, members of the FBI are in the X-files, Law and Order, and dozens of other works. While there is a category for them, I know there's a lot that don't have an article about them (and probably shouldn't). This indicates to me that a list would work better. Putting them in the real article about the FBI won't work either. I suppose FBI portrayal in the media can fulfill this role, so it's not a huge issue, though more articles on that sort of thing should be done. (can't find the equivalent for the CIA for example). But then we have to factor in size issues. Covenant (Alias) may be able to list all of its members, but I can't say the same of S.H.I.E.L.D.. I think a similar issue could happen with regards to the CIA, KGB, MI-6, Mossad, even if they had an article like the FBI one. FrozenPurpleCube 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleting a list merely because it isn't exhaustive, is like trying to delete all of Wikipedia, just because it isn't "complete" yet. -- User:Docu
Strong Keep. Good list. Nothing indiscriminate or unmaintainable about it. The argument that lists are only valuable if they are complete is bizarre. AndyJones 08:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The problem is not that it is now incomplete but that it will always be incomplete, so broad as to be indiscriminant, and too large to be an effective navigational tool. Eluchil404 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that lists are only valuable if they will one day be complete is bizarre too. AndyJones 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 and Eluchil404; information already categorised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are never made redundant by categories. AndyJones 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is: it doesn't include any information. To be pedantic, {{db-empty}} could apply here. Adding "List ..." does not make an article immune from WP:CSD A3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that only a pedant could think {db-empty} is relevant, so why are we arguing about it? As for the lack of information, in my view an organisational structure IS information (this is self-evident, I hope: correlating fact A with fact B adds something more than fact A and fact B both appearing separately in the encyclopedia somewhere), and this list provides an organisational structure that isn't available in the category. My vote still keep. AndyJones 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current information in the list is completely categorized, but it does not follow that all entries in the article will continue to be so. The impossibility at completeness is an inherent problem with all articles and lists. Zahir13 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Priory Gardens[edit]

Contested prod - see here for confirmation. There are no sources given, and nothing in the article is verifiable, apart from the location of the street and the individual's address mentioned in the external link. However, there is nothing else in this article that asserts its notability. SunStar Net^talk 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivory Coast consul's address is there, but this does nothing to make the street notable. The Paris Hilton reference is doubtful, and, in any case, says she is believed to have a house there. I agree, there is nothng to make this street notable, so delete. Emeraude 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Unremarkable street, no assertion of notability except for some unsourced rumours. MER-C 02:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gururaj Ananda Yogi[edit]

Article previously deleted per WP:CSD A7. Founding the FISU (Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment) appears to be a claim of notability. Was tagged again with {{db-bio}}, tag removed. A procedural nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar and related articles, lacking the claim to notability of having founded FISU, are bundled with this nomination:

Jasmini Ananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rajesh Ananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Again, a procedural nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding those articles

Hello! So far the only notability regarding these persons is that they founded / leading FISU (Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment). These people, organization and their functions concern a certain thousand people, so that's why they are considered notable. They are also responsible for authoring books and other publications, but this list is being compiled and will be added. Same goes with news / media clippings. Please note that these articles are rather young and content is being added gradually, as soon as the certain community of contributors are mobilized. Thanks and Happy New Year 2007! MarekTT 15:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted, and nothing so far to justify them returning. An organisation concerning a thousand people is not necessarily notable (there's that number on my train or in my street), but since deletion authors have had a chance to get their act together and provide evidence of notability BEFORE remaking articles. Until that is done, I favour deletion. Emeraude 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, time will tell :) Cheers! MarekTT 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chris 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, whatever then. Personally I disagree, but if someone wants to go ahead and delete it, it's fine and understandable. Anyway, it will be rewritten in a way that is proper for wikipedia, so either being online or deleted, it's mostly fine. So, I favour whatever :). And happy new year! (PS: What is better to start our first day of the year? - Checking out wikipedia, of course! :))) Cheers! MarekTT 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to FISU. The people mentioned are not noteable enough to warrent having an article on Wikipedia. Davidpdx 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greetings all, thanks for your time and effort into this discussion. A user friend staple across this: ::http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gururaj_Ananda_Yogi and was cool enough to let us know in the talk page. And it seems it has been there for a while. I should have made this search earlier and simply having it translated from Spanish to English and other languages (since the article was already accepted in the Spanish Wikipedia). I notified some Spanish speaking wikipedia users and they promised that they will take over soon; and if anyone else knows Spanish and English is most welcomed to contribute! :)) For the time being, I just added a link of the corresponding Spanish wikipedia article in the English one.

About the rest of the people, Rajesh Ananda and Jasmini Ananda, yeah, their articles are currently poor in content and citations. I will personally will not remove them (as I disagree), but thankfully a friend told me that he will take over; he found list of books that they written by them (and their ISBNs) and other information and stuff so to increase their notability. He also told me that he will gain access to news clippings archives from newspapers, magazines and television stations and use them too. well, good luck and hopefully soon we will see some quality contributions, until then, be well and c u laser, MarekTT 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense (Solon's birth certificate, yeah, right). NawlinWiki 15:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silon[edit]

This article is apparently fiction. Nothing links to it, and the topic does not appear anywhere. The original author is anonymous and has not responded to an earlier proposal to delete the article. Paul 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BOLLOCKS. "The Athenian lawmaker Solon, for instance, owes his name partly to Silon: Solon's mother hoped her newborn son would display the qualities of the famed Greek hero, but a typo on the birth certificate resulted in the Athenian's more recognizable name." Demiurge 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, apparently part of a pattern of unreferenced junk and hoaxes that are leaking into articles on ancient Greece, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maeoniae. Tubezone 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article mixes Doctor Who, Dragonball Z, and Classical Greek mythology, and is clearly a hoax. Delete. Uncle G 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Tarinth 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rugbyball 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain why? Also your confusing messages in other AfDs? Femto 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, WP:BOLLOCKS. Resolute 19:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not even pretend to be serious. The Greeks had typos? Does not really even qualify as BJAODN — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter balls. Google search turns up about 40 hits for +silon +"greek mythology", and nothing asserts that Silon was even the name of the greek equivalent of a plebian. --Dennisthe2 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathville Road[edit]

No assertion that this road in London is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability. —Mets501 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be any one of thousands of streets in Greater London - nothing sprecial. Emeraude 17:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't asserted. Hello32020 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion for notability. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of noteablity, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional heroes[edit]

Delete - a number of similar categories, e.g. Category:Fictional Heroes, were recently deleted on the grounds of POV. The same POV concerns would apply to a list, which also has the added problems of maintainability and impossibility to ever approach completeness. Actually I'm thinking we may need to take a look at all of the lists of fictional characters by profession. Otto4711 15:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't think POV is the issue here, as it seems to be fairly clear in fiction where a character is being presented as a hero. The issue for me is that it's a fairly random list of people from wide areas of fiction. It seems to fall foul of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I would delete although I'm capable of being persuaded differently if there is a good reason. Sam Blacketer 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete broad list that lack sources. "Heroes" is subjective. At least the anti-heroes list is carefully cited, unlike this list. A big problem with this one is that it's too broad, covering so many kinds of heroes from so many different media that the list becomes useless. It will also be painfully incomplete. When fleshed out, it will be too long to be useful. Who will read a list with four million entries? Doczilla 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Hero" is synonymous with "protagonist" which is a feature of nearly any literature, and one can place items on this list based on whether secondary-sources consider them heroes. The main problem with this list is that it is incredibly large. I would recommend trimming the content of the article to include only those characters where we can point to a secondary source that discusses the character in the context of being a protagonist (not simply articles about them as a character). Tarinth 17:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but I think you're digging a bigger hole for yourself with the observation that 'hero' is synonymous with 'protagonist'. In many cases, the protagonist of a piece of literature is far from heroic (think Humbert Humbert, for one). Sam Blacketer 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. We cannot maintain a list of all protagonists. That list would have millions of names and be utterly useless to anyone. It wouldn't even be a useful category. Doczilla 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are interpreting "hero" to mean, roughly, "a good guy." When I read "hero" in the context of literature, I assume the author is using it as a synonym for protagonist. In any case, I still think it is not a subjective term because one can refer to secondary sources who define them for us. Tarinth 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly unmaintainable list, no matter how you define "hero", POV concerns. Resolute 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is much too broad and could be extended to infinity and beyond. TSO1D 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too broad a list. A list of super-heroes might work. A list of fantasy heroes, maybe. Peasant heroes? I could get behind that. World-saving heroes? Maybe. Destined Heroes? Again, possible. Heroes in Greek Mythology? Sounds great. This is not focused enough though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the list is too broad and generalized, see WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate things. Davidpdx 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discriminate by adding protagonists that meet the definition. -- User:Docu
Delete per above. This list is too broad in scope to have much value.--Kubigula (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. How many heroes would there be in all fiction? Millions. This list is totally unmaintainable. Yuser31415 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable near-infinite and thus indiscriminate list of [WP:NOT]] type. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Swindells[edit]

This article was prodded in March[77] for lack of notability. After it was deprodded by an anonymous user I added a {{not verified}} tag and apparently forgot about it. I can't find any reliable sources for the information in this article. See Google results for "Joe Swindells" model and "Joe Swindells" lawyer. Delete as unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable verification is added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. I can't find anything on this individual that does not originate from a Wikipedia mirror no matter what combination of search words I use. Resolute 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Chris 01:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable and unsourced. NawlinWiki 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable and unsourced...fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stanton[edit]

Non-notable Michigan public affairs officer. Fails WP:BIO. Dual Freq 15:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Dual Freq 15:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable and unsourced...fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is actually more like the fifth time... please consider joining a discussion on how to make this data more usable/maintainable rather than renominating again: see also 0th, 1st, 2nd (partial), 3rd (partial), etc. -- nae'blis 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by name[edit]

This list is absolutely humongous and completely unmaintainable. Most of the biographies on Wikipedia aren't listed anyway, making this a huge waste of space as it is unsusable. If people want a list of all the biographies on Wikipedia, then this could all be made into 26 huge categories (one for each letter). I am nominating all subpages along with the base page in this nomination. —Mets501 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The list is actively maintained. It is a very useful alternate index to human names. older ≠ wiser 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it's not actively maintained. I honestly just randomly checked out 7 people in Category:1980 births, and none of them are in the list. —Mets501 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at the edit history of individual pages. It is actively maintained. Simply because it is incomplete does not mean it is not actively maintained. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's obvious that a lot of work was put into setting up this complex of pages, and so I certainly wouldn't want to see them deleted or deprecated without thorough discussion. If there is a problem with keeping the pages updated, that may be a result of insufficient awareness of them: I have contributed 50 or so biographical articles, but I never heard of these pages until I came across this AfD discussion, so of course I never added my biographees to the pages, which I would have been happy to do. I just added one of my bios to the page as a test, and I had to go through a number of subpages to get to where I needed to be, so it will be a challenge to get the list comprehensive, but if it's a useful list could be worth it. Am wondering if the list has been useful to others, and what the editors at Project Biography might think. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't categories just be much easier? A bot can run through and place everyone in Category:xxxx births into the correct category. —Mets501 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, categories are obviously useful, but they typically group by just one criterion, as opposed to the few words of description after each name on this listing. By the way, has anyone asked the people who set up these pages what they think they are useful for? Newyorkbrad 17:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, they were created more than 5 years ago, so I'm not sure how accessible the original authors would be. —Mets501 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I've never seen this list before. What a Herculean effort! Someone should write a bot to transfer all this information into Persondata templates. Then we could jump from having about 4,000 articles with Persondata to about 100,000 or so. Kaldari 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see a good reason to keep something like this, in that it could be a useful organizational tool for people to look up a name when they can remember something vague about a name but not its exact spelling. The main problem with these pages is that it appears to have some major technical problems in that it takes a long time to load. Is there a better way to address the problem that this page is attempting to solve? Tarinth 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is a better way, and that is putting these into letter categories. —Mets501 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, it's the very definition of unmaintainable and redundant per categories. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply cannot see the use of this list. It does not aid the user in finding anyone. Anyone looking for a specific individual will use a search engine rather than dive three or four levels deep into such a list. Anyone who isnt certain of a name, but knows attributes (ie: profession, nationality, etc) will not be aided by this list. Unmaintainable, indiscriminant, redundant with categories. Resolute 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is potentially a useful resource, but I think there ought to be a better way of presenting the information. Like many lists, it would be much better as something much more like a category. WP is full of biographies, sometimes several for people of the same name. Peterkingiron 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what disambigs are for Bwithh 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JzG and Resolute. TJ Spyke 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG and Resolute. Also, it is so large that my computer will not allow the edit page to load before timing out. This article is unneeded.--Will Mak 050389 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impractical, redundant Bwithh 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Please stop those absurdities. It is my experience that articles, especially lists, are usually considered "unmaintainable" only by those who neither use them nor have any wish to maintain them themselves. It's high time you thought about other users. A happy new year to you all. <KF> 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What other uses? If there in fact good uses for this page then I may reconsider. —Mets501 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other users, not other uses. Different people do use different methods when carrying out research, and a lot of people, myself included, find alphabetical lists of people useful, if only to see what names there are and how many people worldwide share the same, or similar, names. I was actually going to ask you on your talk page if you might consider retracting your nomination. I do see the necessity to get rid of POV and dangerous stuff or of copyvios, but those lists? <KF> 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry for reading error :-). That's what we have categories for, isn't it? Categories are automatically alphabetical and easily maintained. —Mets501 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no reason whatsoever to oppose categories. Rather, I find them quite useful as well. However, I don't believe any category could give me all/most of/many of the names starting in, say, Flei- and at the same time, and at one glance, provide me with who they were and when they lived. Am I wrong in surmising that there is a tacit assumption among opponents that man/woman-made lists can never rival computer-generated ones and that the former might appear like an antiquated feature in an otherwise top-notch multi-media project (when in fact they are not)? <KF> 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing categories do everything that this list does, and more. The most commonly-cited reason to use a list in place of a category is if the list would contain redlinks for possible articles in a finite set; however, this one shouldn't. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to load it (my patience was low) so I doubt it is a good idea for WP at all. Such lists may find a good use in the future when/if MediaWiki will be able to generate them automatically, add context information etc. Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the usability of a list depends on how it is generated? <KF> 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The list's functions cannot be replaced with Categories, as Cats are presently implemented, for several reasons:

Red links placed on LoPbN have a high rate of turning into lks to bios.
Rd lks cannot be assigned to Cats, so replacement of LoPbN by any Cat scheme would destroy this popular venue for calling attention to needed bios.
Multiple LoPbN entries for a single biography are important for people whose names don't fit the typical "Western" pattern of a one-word given name (possibly with initial(s)) followed by a one-word surname:
1. the obvious exception is Chinese names (to which Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and traditional Hungarian names behave similarly) which, depending on the individual, may appear in their proper order, inverted for convenience of ignorant Westerners, or sometime one way and sometimes the other for the same person -- but don't forget
2. compounds formed from two surnames (sometimes with and sometimes without hyphenation), related to noble status, or (at least in Britain) eligibility for inheritances or assertion of female equality, or gods-know-what in the case of Pauline Viardot-Garcia, whose maiden name was Garcia and whose name is so non-conforming that we mistakenly entitle her bio Pauline Garcia-Viardot,
3. the reflection in Spanish-speaking cultures of mother's original surname, and (apparently different) practices in Portuguese-speaking cultures,
4. surnames that include a prefix, raising the question of whether to alphabetize according to the prefix (Van Dyck, Anthony) or not (Beethoven, Ludwig van),
5. non-inherited Icelandic last names,
6. many surviving tribal-culture naming practices (Eritrean names were recently cited to me), and, moving beyond modern commoners,
7. ancient Roman names ("Julius" is simply the name, IIRC, of the family line that the great Gaius Julius Caesar came from, but it is common to assume otherwise),
8. European names from before the adoption of surnames (which tend to exist in different English-language texts in an Anglicized, a Latinized, and at least one version reflecting a language local to the person's origin or work),
9. names of noble rulers (James I of England was the same person as James VI of Scotland, IIRC, and i think most Holy Roman Emperors were also monarchs under other titles and usually numbers), and
10. other bearers of titles, who are likely to be sought under different parts of the alphabet depending on how many of their eventual titles they had inherited or been granted, by the period of their life that the seeker saw discussed.
11. Besides these classifiable patterns of repetitive problems, there are misspellings and misrememberings of rare names, some of them also predictable, like Byron Janis (whose LoPbN entry i stumbled on, long after adding a rd lk for Byron Janus), and worthy of preemptive duplicate entries.
12. Less obviously, some quirky and unpredictable mistakes like Henry James Ford need a duplicate LoPbN entry because they are so widely found on the Web. How can such quirky mistakes be so widespread? Sometimes bcz they got made by WP editors, were not quickly caught, and have been spread far and wide by cloners of our content. It would be irresponsible for WP not to be helpful to users misinformed by such WP errors.
Multiple tags in an article for the same Cat produce only one entry on the Cat page, so relying on Cats is useless to a user who knows only variants differing from the title of the bio sought.
There are many groups, each with numerous bios of similarly or identically pronounced names like Hofman, Hofmann, Hoffman, Hoffmann, and Huffman (none presently on LoPbN, tho 11 are listed on Category: Living people). Cross references could be added on those LoPbN sections to alert users whose memories rely on sound more than spelling, or who heard a name in a lecture or broadcast, that they've not considered all the options. (A few of these have been done by me and others, tho i haven't made it much of a priority, and can't remember an implemented example at the moment.)
Cats offer no facility for putting instructions, let alone cross-ref lks, on the Cat page. And altho you could have smaller Cats, for people named Hoffman, or for people with surnames that sound like Hoffman it's hard to see what good either of those could do for people who are expecting the bio's title to have a spelling other than "Hoffman" as its surname.
Speaking of "unmaintainability" (the name being bandied about here in place of the truth, which is undermaintenance), pick a common given name, and go to the corresponding page on Category:Living people to see how many bios for people with that given name are listed in the Cat among people with surnames that start the same way as that given name.
Fortunately for users seeking bios misfiled on Cat LP, LoPbN has two factors making it more maintainable against such errors, so that is serves as a backup for some such cases:
1. The errors occur much less often, bcz those who make them in most cases have to place them adjacent to entries that are clearly filed by surname, whereas you can put a biographical-Cat tag on an article without piping the tag, are likely see no examples with piping, and don't see the rendering of the Cat entry without following the Cat lk on the page you tagged to the Cat page.
2. When an LoPbN maintainer notes such a misfiling (usually a given name like James or Henry that has a heading ending "... as surname", containing lks to monarchs surnamed James, Henry, or whatever), they may be keeping {{List of people by name exhaustive page-index (sectioned)}} open in a window or pane, and can use it to lk directly to the correct page for the lk, use its ToC to lk to a roughly 24-line section, cut and paste the offending lk from page to page, and if necessary repipe that lk (or re-code it using {{LoPbN Entry}} and get the piping done for free). (Those maintaining bio Cats re misplacement may have to wade thru an oversized section on the bio article, or even scan the 18 Cats 3 times before it occurs to them to look at the top of the page for the offending Cat tag!)
The assertion that Cats would be a valuable supplement to LoPbN, let alone a superior replacement, is belied by the fact that ~~no one has created~~ no one suggests that there exists a Cat that embraces all bio articles except thru its descendant subcats, and i am confident that no Cat (except hopefully Cat LP, which lacks subcats) exists that embraces solely bio articles thru its descendant subcats. In order to find a bio using its subject's name as the most definite information, you have to have people of all fields of endeavor, eras, and nationalities on the same alpha list, which we try to do via Cats only to the extent of all living people. The existence of LoPbN is no barrier to the creation of such a Cat, so either its creation would be not worth the improvement over LoPbN that it would provide, or all the other editors on WP are stupider or less responsible than the Del voters on this AfD, who are trying to destroy something that colleagues consider useful but not taking any action to create what they think should replace it. At the very least, it is inconceivable that LoPbN should be deleted without the creation first of an automated tool that can verify that every bio listed on LoPbN is tagged with (at least) a descendant of Category:People. (Ideally, those descendant Cats that do not consist overwhelmingly of bios should be detected, so that a DAG descended from Cat People can be searched, rather than all descendants of Cat People.)
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive.

It is also important to mention that proposals for enhanced Cat features, that some argued would meet some of these needs, began being discussed soon after the introduction of Cats, and there has been no sign of motion toward those enhancements. (The reason may be despair abt making the Cat structure into a DAG, which is also a further reason to dislike using the current Cat system in place of LoPbN.)
--Jerzy•t 07:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are points raised here, with more merit than the AfD proposal, that i will at least address on the Talk:LoPbN page or subpages; these may be off-topic on this page. I am referring at least to the performance complaints, which are new, and may be valuable observations that are otherwise not naturally accessible to me.
--Jerzy•t 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. However, I'm really uncertain for a few reasons. First, the load time is intolerable. This is due to the many sublevels of templates. At least on the top few should be substed. Second, I think the list is lightly used, and thus lightly maintained. It will thus perennially stay incomplete. For this reason, I ~~tagged~~ tried valiantly but failed due to timeouts to tag it with {{Dynamic list}}; it might need additional disclaimers. Finally, this isn't the best format for such a project, but there's no better way to implement it on MediaWiki. The ability to caption items in categories could solve this in a much more natural manner. Superm401 - Talk 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sup, i think what happened is that you succeeded in the edit, but failed in viewing the result. (Best way to confirm the change is viewing diffs via popup tools, maybe diffs w/out will work as well.) I think the LoPbN page is even slower to load than the problematic templates that i was aware of, and i'm going to make at least some temporary fixes in the next half hour that may suffice. Not sure how much time i can give quick fix and better approach to the underlying problem, in the next 24. BTW, depth of nesting is bad approach, and while it's important not to subst, i'm confident this can be cleaned up with the goals i had met and this problem solved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 January 2007
- I think the limited hacking out of changes i've done will probably make a substantial difference. With more time i expect both further improvement, and restoration of the new functionality (hidden from users and most editors) that i was aiming at w/o the performance problems they previously introduced. User reports welcome, tho i must go w/o taking the initiative to start a section & lk to it from here, at a page where it'll be on topic. Someone else start it, or perhaps use my user-talk page in the interim. Thanks.
  --Jerzy•t 11:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the new objections are convincing to me; They make some good points as to how the page should be maintained, but as to whether it should exist, I still say it seems useful to some, and harmless to the rest of us. Andrewa 09:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obvious that a lot of work's gone into this page and its subpages. Some sort of indexing by name is needed - I'm not convinced that one-letter categories would do the trick. It's entirely possible that someone comes up with a better method of indexing than what's used on this page. But I haven't seen one yet - all I've seen is a discussion on what might be better. Until we see a concrete, fleshed out proposal for how to carry out this task, the existing system should not be deleted. Quack 688 09:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I totally agree with Resolute. dh ▪ 2¢ ▪ 10:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people like these pages, some don't. If you don't like the pages, let someone else who does do the maintaining. I can't see Andrew Orlowski pointing at List of people by name: Bra and saying it only has 500 entries when it should have 2000. Andjam 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, of some use even though it is far short of comprehensive. For better or worse, Wikipedia has long grown beyond the point where lists like this can be maintained by ordinary means. Ideally this would be maintained by a bot which would crawl the various bio categories (and have its output subjected to a quick sanity check). Even more ideally, every bio article would have persondata embedded, and a list like this could be generated with a trivial database query. -- Visviva 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete - just today I was thinking about nominating this for deletion... Unsourced, unmaintained, disgrace to Wikipedia, and nothing that Categories could not achieve. Renata 13:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absent including all bio articles directly in Category:People, I don't see how categories could replace this. -- Visviva 13:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "unsourced" objection doesn't make a lot of sense to me in this context, and rhetoric like "disgrace to Wikipedia" should be avoided. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If editors are willing to maintain these pages (even if imperfectly), I find it problematical to force a more restrictive view of what type of indexing is useful in Wikipedia. I'm sure there are a lot (quite possibly the vast majority) of Wikipedia users who have never used (or found) these index pages, but for a minority - assuming whatever load problems there are can be fixed - they are presumably very useful. In short, this index is clearly the sort of thing that should be done by better categorization software and/or by a bot (using categories or other structured data). But the reality is that neither of those things exist at the moment. John Broughton | Talk 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The alleged load problems seem to be pure speculation, based on the slowness with which these particular pages load. If they really are low usage, as is also claimed, then that's no problem for the rest of us. And, even if there are performance problems, deleting content to fix them is a last resort. We're not to that point yet, to say the least. The logic of the delete case is not nearly so strong as its rhetoric. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep as there do appear to be uses for the pages; but hopefully this discussion will continue to spur useful improvements in the set-up of the listings as well as more publicity for their existence. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and cannot be replaced neither by categories nor by possible DBMS (unless as smart as an average illaterate American) for at least one simple reason: seach for similarly sounding names Smith or Smythe, Johnston or Jonhson, Yvette or Yvett, Ivan or Iwan, etc. Also, for hundredth time: categories cannot replace lists, which can be annotated. "Poorly nonmaintained" has always been rejected as an invalid reason for deletion: if we let lazy people rule the world, we are in real big trouble. `'mikka 17:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds more like a case for redirects than anything. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per comments by other keep proponents. A lot of people have obviously put a lot of work into this, and no one is forcing anyone to use this list if they don't like it, and it's not as though it contains anything offensive. Also, as for it not being complete, there are people working hard to change that now. This has been up for deletion before and the vote was no, and people are just rehashing the same arguments, so it's time to just let the matter rest. --Slyguy 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - An excellet reference, it will probably be a work in progress for as long as Wikipedia is around but I find it as an useful reference. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is actively maintained, there's no hurry to have it 100% updated, it is harmless to those who don't find it useful, it's a good anchor for newly created bios, and, at the very least, it's a nice window on the universe of human names, a fascinating thing by itself. RodC 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, these lists are being worked on, and will grow as time goes on. Just get a bot to stick {{listdev}} on them and that should be enough. --Merovingian ※ Talk 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems to me (i) it is being worked on (ii) it does things categories can't do (iii) it may never be perfect but then what is? Richard Pinch 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above, particularly per KF. The list shows information at a glance which would not be easily available in categories. --Eliyak T·C 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wasn't planning to vote initially, not having much of an opinion, but when I saw Renata's "Strong DELETE" for four reasons, and realized that I don't believe any of them, I needed to put in a vote for the other side. Matchups 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's bulky, it's ugly, it's huge, it's redundant, it could be implimented in a much better way, and yet I am still neutral. I can see arguments on both sides as holding water, so I really can't base it on that. However, does anyone even know if this list is helpful? wtfunkymonkey 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my personal opinion, I believe that the list is long and time consuming, but useful. It would be great if someone created a bot that would help us list the names. Tony the Marine 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. There are some major, irreversible problems with the list:
- It's ugly and bulky
- No one uses it (I for one, don't; instead, there's something I use called a "search box")
- It will grow to a point where it is too unmanageable to maintain
- Wikipedia is not a directory
- The range is too broad and none of the people in a group may be related (other than name)
- Some of the articles are not maintained (see Special:Ancientpages)

The list is just a big zit on Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) 08:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inflammatory rhetoric like calling a complex of pages "a big zit on Wikipedia" should be avoided. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "ugly" and "bulky" are not criteria here, and there are so many subpages that this list is in fact not ugly or bulky. People listed in a telephone directory are also "only" related by name but that's no reason to abolish them as they serve a useful purpose. Wikikiwi 10:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an index page (or rather a series of index pages). As WP is not paper, size isn't an valid argument. -- User:Docu
Conditional keep, if it is maintained and regularly updated - it could be a useful index.--Yannismarou 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found this AfD from WikiProject Biography comment by Newyorkbrad. Not canvassing, but getting the opinions of people at a relevant WikiProject. Carcharoth 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per JzG way up above. The comment by Wikikiwi is also perceptive in the comparison to a telephone directory. But that is something Wikipedia is not. Eluchil404 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing" Issue[edit]

Note for closer: Jerzy has apparently undertaken some unfortunate canvassing on behalf of these lists, which may confuse consensus in the end. -- nae'blis 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - For those who can't wait for the annotated version, exactly my User talk: edits related to this AfD may be viewed.
    --~~71.234.178.42~~ Jerzy•t 02:55 & 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nae' wrote on my talk:
  Are you aware that it can be considered disruptive to consensus to "lobby" for keep in an AFD, as you did recently for the second nomination here? You may have made your task harder going forward, if it looks like this has tainted the natural balance of the discussion. -- nae'blis 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Jerzy•t 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- _ _ I did not lobby. I did make well-informed users on the topic aware of the situation of this long-standing resource, which BTW has withstood not one, but about a half-dozen previous deletion attempts, each ending in a lopsided Keep vote, explicitly or implicitly covering the tree as whole -- a fact that would have come out in more careful decisions to vote for deletion. IMO the support and contributions it has received in the past indicate a valuable resource at risk.
_ _ The significance of the risk particularly struck me as calling for an alert because i became aware of the deletion only the next day when i received a talk-page msg, and probably would not have, before the 5 days expired, without such a msg. (I monitor the LoPbN-tree via {{List of people by name exhaustive page-index (sectioned)}}, a dynamic list of something over 700 LoPbN-tree pages that does not include the "unmaintained" page that is so fully developed that virtually no one but deletion nominators needs to edit it, and that Tl also provides a much more convenient means of access to pages.) Others may be in a similar position -- in contrast to the possibility of holiday-bored AfD browsers finding the opportunity for a deletion-frenzy with an "absolutely humongous" target to rouse their blood. I think it would be foolish to advocate that deletion of large structures require AfD tagging every page, and outrageous to rule out a reasonable mechanism for alerting a reasonable number of those who would have been alerted by that measure. My messages seem to me to fulfill that reasonable mechanism. But if there is sufficient concern that i made a bad choice, it would be reasonable to disallow the 13 votes, and restart the 5-day clock from zero at the time when the nominator suitably places an AfD notice (roughly imitating the look and feel of the AfD template) on WP:VP, which should include a high-profile notice of the disallowing of those votes and their caster's option of responding to the VP notice by recasting them. However, it should be expected that this would ensure that any future editor who seeks unfair "canvassing" advantages will organize it by EMail or other private media, instead of leaving the public record that my effort left.

_ _ While i drew the attention of those who had previously voted to their previous position, in presenting them a lk to their respective previous arguments, and described to some one basis of my concern, i asked no one to vote for retention nor to make their "weighing in" conditional on continuing to support retention. I will, within the next 12 hours, provide below a list of lks to those 14 edits by me, to make firsthand examination of my wording convenient.

_ _ It seems to me that the appropriateness of my action can probably be gauged to some extent by looking at the results of these messages to this doubtlessly quite admin-heavy group of 14: i left messages for 14 colleagues, of whom 10 responded only with (IIRC) sober responses here, 1 responded by echoing my holiday greeting, sending family news, and responding soberly here, and 3 made no response on this page or my talk page. (Let me be explicit: none of these 14 raised a concern here or to me about the propriety of my request to them.) To further answer the concern, i will ask those three to indicate here any procedural misgiving that played a role in keeping them for voting, and i will inform you which of them have saved edits since my posting -- since one doing so ensures their being notified to look at the msg (mine) on their respective talk page.

_ _ At this point, i think questioning the 13 on their talk pages (as opposed to via this page) would be an unreasonable disturbance, but of course that should not be up to me. I ask only that anyone who thinks they need to be interrogated discuss it here, and that that not be pursued without agreement on a plan for minimizing the disturbance of those of the 13 who fail to respond to this discussion.
--Jerzy•t 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New vote here moved above newly delineated section, to with other votes.

~~Keep - found this AfD from WikiProject Biography comment by Newyorkbrad. Not canvassing, but getting the opinions of people at a relevant WikiProject.~~ Carcharoth 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also saw the comment on the Biography talk page. This could be very valuable as a way to track recent changes in Biography articles. I might myself favor it being broken up into different types of groupings, but that's really irrelevant to whether it should stay or not. Badbilltucker 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following tabulation will assist those who want to review the effect of my notification to other editors of the existence of this debate:

00:37, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:KF (AfD for LoPbN)
Simply my acknowledgment of a colleague's notification that the AfD was underway, with a "[sigh]" (meant to suggest "There's no avoiding the need to deal with these repeatedly."). I note that i implied (above) that i heard much later than this about the nomination, bcz i carelessly relied on the timestamp of my first edit on the AfD sub-page.
Msgs to various recently active Keep voters in the '05 Dec AfD
- 08:28, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Superm401 (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Responded with a "weak Keep" vote including three reservations.
- 08:52, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Interiot (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Includes result of my confusion about why this editor's name was so familiar, failing to recognize their (later?) association with a user-profiling tool; this user made no response i am aware of.
- Two edits (combined effect) in quick succession, including holiday greeting and family inquiry.
  - 09:00, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Marine 69-71
  - 09:03, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Marine 69-71 (→Feliz Año - whoops)
  Response was Keep (while acknowledging costs); this user and i have since exchanged further messages unrelated to the AfD, tho following up on other aspects of this two-edit message.
- 09:07, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Andjam (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Response was a non-vote comment (that sounds to me like leaning to retention, in case that matters to someone).
  - Yes, I am leaning towards retention. I probably would have !voted keep if it weren't for the fact I was canvassed. That being said, the fact that those proposing deletion did not mark List of people by name: Bra as being up for deletion should be noted. I'm not going to assume bad faith. Instead, I'll argue that the two cancel each other out. Andjam 10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Msgs to various recently active Keep voters in the '04 Oct VfD on List of people by name: Db-Dd
- Two edits (combined effect) in quick succession,
  - 09:20, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Andrewa (New AfD on LoPbN)
  - 09:26, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Andrewa (→New AfD on LoPbN - correct careless boilerplating)
  Response was a Keep vote.
- 09:24, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Mikkalai (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Response was a Keep vote.
- 09:31, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Gtrmp (New AfD on LoPbN)
  No response.
16:06, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Eliyak (New AfD on LoPbN)
Message to the recent creator of {{LoPbN Entry}}; response was a Keep vote.
Messages to users who stand out as contributors to large numbers of LoPbN-tree pages in the last few days:
- 16:20, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:John Broughton (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Response was Keep vote
- 16:31, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Dale Arnett (New AfD on LoPbN)
  No response.
- 16:33, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Sue Anne (New AfD on LoPbN)
  No response.
- 16:50, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Richard Pinch (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Response was Keep vote
- 17:14, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:RodC (New AfD on LoPbN)
  Response was Keep vote.
- 17:24, 1 January 2007 (diff) User talk:Merovingian (New AfD on LoPbN)
  I invoked his "long-sustained work on the LoPbN tree" beginning over 3 years ago; response was a Keep vote.
18:07, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Chrislk02 (AfD for LoPbN)
My message to a relatively new editor, who had taken enough care to ask well thot out questions on LoPbN stylistics. Response was Keep vote.

Careful readers will note some small errors in the statistics that i previously quoted from my hand tabulations without checking them against the records cited in this message.

I submit that the clear positions stated by those who previously voted should not be disregarded simply bcz they didn't happen to notice the capricious reopening of the closed debates, and that (with the possible exceptions of Eliyak and Chrislk02) the remaining editors i contacted are a good sampling of, and much fewer in number than, those who would have taken note of the AfD during its 5 days if it were legalistically posted on all 700+ pages whose deletion was requested. Eliyak & Chrislk02, tho not typical, are better qualified than average to grasp the issues, and can only improve this process, in which the numbers are only a valuable guideline, with closing admins exhorted to consider them only in the context of the relative quality of the Keep and Del arguments.
--Jerzy•t 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said i would query 3 colleagues i left msgs with, who did not respond; there were actually 4. I expected there would me more interest than has been apparent, so i will follow thru by imposing on their attention, only if there is some indication of such interest.
--Jerzy•t 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the four editors i contacted about this AfD who have not responded on this page have saved edits since receiving their respective messages, and none has responded on either their talk page or mine.

I seem to have stimulated an admirably conscientious and reserved colleague into speaking. Here's my msg to the four:

== Notice of Process Inquiry re my msg to you, "New AfD on LoPbN" ==

_ _ A colleague has questioned the wisdom and/or propriety of my messages to you and to 14 others, each a retention-voter in a previous LoPbN AfD and/or recently showing heavy interest in LoPbN. For the benefit of the eventual caller of the current AfD, and secondarily as it reflects on my individual behavior and judgement as a Wikipedian, i have undertaken to place this 2nd message before you and the three others who have not acknowledged my respective earlier msgs to you-all.

_ _ I defended my actions in part by asserting the responses to my talk-page messages do not support misgivings on the part of those recipients, while admitting that the non-responding recipients might have been inhibited from responding at least in part by just such misgivings. At my own initiative, i am making this second contact to ensure that at least knowledge of the process question informs your choice to remain silent or comment on the AfD subpage.

_ _ The AfD nomination is stamped 15:44, 31 December 2006; 5x24 hours expires at 15:44, 5 January 2007, approximately (as i post this on the AfD sub-page) whoops, an hour ago, with closer attention of course more likely after midnite UTC, 8 hours hence. I assume potential closers will give it at least a full day from now if any of you have not saved edits between now and then.
--~~~~

--Jerzy•t 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size-Challenged Browsers Can Participate By Editing This Section[edit]

This page reaches 32 KB with this edit. Some users will be unable to edit the page as a whole, but they can edit in this section. Courteous colleagues will check here for such edits, and place them in sequence at the end of the main section (or otherwise as those contributing here indicate, in order to respond among other responses to the same previous msg).
--Jerzy•t 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a good bit of maintenance should be automatic, and have proved that it's feasible User:Alvestrand/LoP Experiment, but a hand-edited list is MUCH better for "irregular" data like names than a completely automatic one. BTW, the name of this page is wrong; it shoudl be 7th nomination, not 2nd. --Alvestrand 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is interesting to note that polar-opposite arguments are given by delete proponents, i.e., the list is too bulky, and it also does not include enough of the names. --Slyguy 21:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, the problems are not diametrically opposed, and hence can both be true. -- nae'blis 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- _ _ I stretch the don't-further-edit rule here, by posting my last few hour's work, that i completed as nae' sent me notice of calling the AfD as Keep. I'll try to compile the views here in the Talk:LoPbN structure.
_ _ Alvestrand has indeed so proven. The primary barriers to it that are currently visible to me are
1. the plethora of unmaintained Category:Living people tags, whose effect can be observed e.g. among 10 entries for Jonathons (altho i cannot find other examples that i thot i recalled, suggesting that someone's systematic work against this problem has had at least a temporary success),
2. the info that probably needs to be manually added to any software for traversing the Category:People tree, in light of descendants of it that are not bio articles
3. perhaps the likelihood of cycles that would be encountered in attempting to traverse Category:People as if it were a DAG.
(I assume that the recent introductions of {{LoPbN Entry}}, {{Deln trk list entry}}, and at least one family of permanently rare Tls could be handled as a series of SMOPs using a registry of LoPbN-entry Tls.)
_ _ Another contributor above mentioned {{Persondata}}, potential enhanced versions of which i regard as
1. a potential substitute for explicit Cat tags for any Category:People-descendant Cat, and
2. close to a prime mover for the automatic generation of a resource that could be indistinguishable, by non-editors, from the current LoPbN. Note that this does not contradict Alv's deprecation of a "completely automatic" scheme: my proposal is for moving the manual work from one entry (or in some cases several entries) the central list to the individual bio's Persondata markup. Nor does it have to imply abolition of LoPbN rdlks, even tho they by definition have no Persondata markup. (It would also need
  1. a small database of "sounds similar to" and "may sound identical to" relationships among surnames and perhaps given names, and
  2. another of more complicated relationships re transliteration or (at least) Mandarin and Cantonese pronunciations of the same Chinese character, and the variety of established romanizations of each, such as i have hinted at for the name Li (李) in List of people by name: name Li#People named Li (which should in due time mention the character, if not w/ a lk):
    This may be a transliteration of one of
    various Chinese surnames that are each also transliterated as one or more of Lǐ, Lí, Lì, Lai, Lee, Lei, or Lie; or
    
    various Vietnamese surnames transliterated as one or more of Lý or Lê.
    
    This may sound like a Korean surname transliterated as Lee, I, Rhee, Ri, or Yi., and
  3. perhaps, either permanently or as an interim measure, structural information, analogous to that about pages that is implicit in the layout of {{List of people by name exhaustive page-index (sectioned)}}, but covering section and (if used, as i advocate) multi-level bullet-lists as well.
3. a solution (applicable for bios only), to the non-bio-descendant & cycle problems mentioned above,
4. an equally natural vehicle for serving, for bios, the purpose of the perpetual fata morgana of a flat view of a category's descendants (which i suspect reflects the apparently intractable problem of keeping the Cats within the specs of a DAG): subject to standardization LoPbN of nationality and occupational terminology (presently diffident but often visible), and tightening up slightly the vital-stats format, maintenance such as deciding that a particular person has only three causes of notability rather than five could remove them from 3 lists each for their birth and death years and decades, by nationality and among all nationalities. I hasten to add that some of these lists would correspond to Cats without subCats, so that the list would offer no advantage over the Cats, and others would never or seldom be used; by generating the various lists (and single-page or single-screen portions of lists) on demand (and caching the results under discard-LRU discipline), we would extend the powerful principle that WP is not paper by providing access to information that is not only not occupying paper, but not occupying storage dedicated to it.

--Jerzy•t 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright violation. A straight copy & paste from the publisher's website. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Muscle Machines[edit]

This is SPAM. It reads like an advert. It claims no verifiable notability. Rugbyball 16:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the Hemmings related articles to one article on the company and their publications. It seems like they'd be easily notability based on 200,000+ subscribers and a long history; probably a good opportunity to turn this into a good article. Tarinth 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Hemmings publications are well established and notable. Merge discussions should take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than AfD. Not sure quite what this editor is up to, has a pattern of edits and behavior on random topics which make no sense. Tubezone 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep not much doubt of notability, articles on notable publications aren't spam. Merge proposal tags have been placed on this and Hemmings Motor News. Tubezone 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car[edit]

This is SPAM too. Rugbyball 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the Hemmings related articles to one article on the company and their publications. It seems like they'd be easily notability based on 200,000+ subscribers and a long history; probably a good opportunity to turn this into a good article. Tarinth 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Hemmings publications are well established and notable. Merge discussions should take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than AfD. Not sure quite what this editor is up to, hasn't edited this article or anything on a similar topic. Tubezone 17:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Motor News[edit]

THis is Spam. Rugbyball 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the Hemmings related articles to one article on the company and their publications. It seems like they'd be easily notability based on 200,000+ subscribers and a long history; probably a good opportunity to turn this into a good article. Tarinth 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, publication is well established and notable. Merge discussions should take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than AfD. Not sure quite what this editor is up to, has been warned for disruptive behavior. Tubezone 17:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand it, Merge is basically the same as Keep for AfD, except it carries the suggestion that editors merge it after the AfD closes. Tarinth 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this and the other Hemmings articles shouldn't even be on AfD, so this AfD should be speedy closed, there was no good reason to even nominate them. Merge discussions are better carried out on talk pages, a simple suggestion to merge doesn't need to be brought to AfD. Tubezone 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep not much doubt of notability, articles on notable publications aren't spam. Merge proposal tags have been placed in this article and Hemmings Motor News. Tubezone 23:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Classic Car[edit]

This is spam. Rugbyball 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the Hemmings related articles to one article on the company and their publications. It seems like they'd be easily notability based on 200,000+ subscribers and a long history; probably a good opportunity to turn this into a good article. Tarinth 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McKenna (theologist)[edit]

Some random religious studies teacher. No claim to notability other than he follows the Bishop of Rome. Rugbyball 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Common-or-garden school teacher with nothing to assert notability other than he's a devout Catholic (which goes without saying if he's employed as RE teacher in a Catholic school). Emeraude 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Speedy A7? There is no real claim to notability here. -- Ben (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, not assertion of notability and a google search on his name is incapable of locating anything helpful, since his name is relatively common. Tarinth 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abolitionism (bioethics). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionist Society[edit]

~~References provided are either self-published or do not mention this organization, Google turns up little on it. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:ORG. Seraphimblade 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Withdraw nomination, please see below. Seraphimblade 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With due respect to the admirable goals of this organization, nothing in the article asserts notability (potential speedy per A7). I did get a lot of hits on google, but it is mired in a lot of confusing subjects with a similar name (such as anti-slavery organizations dating to the US Civil War). Tarinth 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That was what I meant with the above comment-tons of ghits, but little about this organization. Should've been clearer though, thanks for pointing that out. Seraphimblade 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is demonstrated by the uniqueness, critical value, and utility of this article. Google hits is a rather inaccurate method of determining whether or not something is notable. For example : there are many hits for editor-reviewed articles of Britney Spears - yet the value of this information for purposes of improving humanity's knowledge base is limited. Also, BLTC Research is a sister site of the Abolitionist Society, as well as Hedweb, and David Pearce is it's cofounder.67.189.71.183 18:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice The creator of the article referenced [78], where "abolitionism", "abolitionist" and "the abolitionist project" is mentioned. The article may cover a legitimate subject, however, it conflicts with the Abolition Society of the 18th Century, and the understanding of the use of Abolitionist without referring a researcher to the possibility of that definition. The title "Abolitionist Society" differs from the lead definition, "abolitionism". The article should be, at least, rewritten and the title changed by renaming or adding a qualifier.

Comment there are many definitions for a single term. Abolitionism is a philosophy - too late to change the name of it or the Abolitionist Society, just have to do with making messy looking addendums to let people know that there are multiple pages for the same term.67.189.71.183 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename since there's a disambiguation problem here; the article isn't solely about the Society, and there is already an abolitionism article. As for deletion, I've no strong opinion either way, but tend towards a weak keep if it's a "real" philosophy. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is only one 'Abolitionist Society' in existance today - which also happens to rank #1 in google search the rest use qualifiers like "Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society". the abolitionism page does not cover the Abolitionist Society or the meaning of Abolitionism that it promotes. how do you determine if it's a 'real' philosophy?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25/67.189.71.183 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response As I said, the article in its present form isn't solely about the Society, nor even very much about it, but rather it appears as an attempt to define the philosophy. The problem comes with renaming it to the more appropriate "abolitionism". An alternative would be to make it clearly about the society, but then I'd expect it to do less well in the current deletion debate. As for whether it's "real", I mean to say if it's not a neologism (see WP:NEO), and I don't attempt to answer that question either way ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Good for you as moderator I guess... ;) The perception of attempt is irrelevant. Relative 'newness' to determine whether or not it is a real philosophy - How much time is your criteria for when something becomes a neologism? Clearly there is unique utility - though the content needs to be improved - why not spend your time there instead? You don't have to have a page with a singular utility for information.67.189.71.183 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's not "my" determination, it's a Wikipedia guideline. Please refer to WP:NEO. I'm not a "moderator" by the way. Incidentally, since you're modifying your comments as you go along, I'm going to stop responding now, for fear of appearing later to have been replying to things which I wasn't. Good luck with the debate. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Just make your points and you have nothing to fear - use quotations. Also, expect others to correct grammatical errors... The WP:NEO guideline is not clear - and it's purpose is to ensure accuracy. When you enter your thoughts here - you become a moderator, attempting to moderate this article - with a degree of accountability and vested interest in your role. What is your motivation here? To preserve accuracy of information?67.189.71.183 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people." - from the WP:NEO article. So we are trying to promote clarity of information - however, these issues are easily resolved with the articles content or by making additions to its content.67.189.71.183 19:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many articles with titles that have competing meanings. This doesn't require the occlusion of information - just better means of clarification. Quality as opposed to cultural acceptance is the issue here.67.189.71.183 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to abolitionism (bioethics) and rewrite accordingly. Presently the article is promotional, not explicatory. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Pennsylvania Abolition Society or Abolitionism. --Bachrach44 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Redirect to abolitionism (bioethics) and clean this up. The information is interesting, but needs to be written in NPOV. Davidpdx 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom for deletion but advocate move to Abolitionism (bioethics) as discussed above, article is significantly improved and referenced but is about the philosophy rather than an organization. Seraphimblade 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I redirected it to Abolitionism(bioethics). I removed the tag, thanks Seraphimblade, and I'll link to this page on the Talk page.Gloriamarie

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lamb[edit]

Footballer who doesn't appear to have even played at Conference level. See also Kieran Sullivan. ArtVandelay13 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not at all notable since has not played even in Conference level. KRBN 16:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Northampton is a league team. But is the information verifiable? Punkmorten 13:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no record of him having played a first team match at Northampton, according to Soccerbase ChrisTheDude 14:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is non-noteable and the article about him is poorly sourced. If there is verifiable sources then they should have been used. Davidpdx 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude and WP:BIO. Qwghlm 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Sullivan[edit]

Footballer who has barely even played at Conference level. See also Paul Lamb. ArtVandelay13 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit- also Adrian Fuller and George Redknap. ArtVandelay13 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-noteable and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notablie, fail WP:BIO. Qwghlm 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- these players have not played for a team in a fully professional league. If they do in the future, then, then they will merit an article. But not now. Robotforaday 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy and Legends Organization[edit]

None of the 39 unique Googles appears to be a reliable source. No evidence of meeting the primary notability criterion, namely that it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[79], [80] and [81] are independent of the subject.--otherlleft 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like it, but...well, I like it. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 00:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable and lacks any sources, therefore it fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 request of author and sole editor Macspaunday (talk · contribs), who explains both here and on the (now deleted) talk page, that given the Wikiquote article this page is entirely superfluous. The policy that Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of quotations also applies. Uncle G 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Auden: Quotations[edit]

Superseded by vastly superior wikiquote page for Auden Macspaunday 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/export to wikiquote. Rugbyball 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep. 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Terabithia (band)[edit]

nn band FirefoxMan 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How famous does a band have to be in order to merit an article? They released a CD on a record label, and it got reviewed by third parties. Is this not enough? skoosh [[User_talk:Skoosh|(háblame)]] 17:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep See WP:BAND. Fame is subjective, but whether they've been noted by the media and/or the charts isn't. This one might be a keeper, might be notable--the article includes one independant music review. Unfortunately their name gets an enormous number of google hits because it is used in a lot of other places. Perhaps someone familiar with the band could provide an additional reference, otherwise it probably isn't going to meet WP:BAND.
- That's exactly why it's so hard to find information on this band via search engines (excluding the term "bridge" seems to help). In fact, even the term Terabithia in Wikipedia just redirects to the article on the novel. Part of my motivation for writing the article, in fact, was to attract casual editors who could add something I don't already know. Thanks for the link to WP:BAND. At this point, I'm not sure if this band is notable enough to have an article either, but here's another short online review, for what it's worth. I'll let the community decide. skoosh [[User_talk:Skoosh|(háblame)]] 19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that you found two independant reviews I'd say they have a tenuous grip on notability. As far as I can tell, both references come from independant, non-personal sources with some editorial control, which is the standard for WP:RS. That should be added as a reference in the article. I'll put down a weak keep. Tarinth 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two non-trivial independent reviews does meet the requirements of WP:BAND. --Charlene 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:DivineLight/Atlas Honda CG 125. WP:V is an overriding concern here, as the article cites no sources; please recreate it only once all substantial assertions (e.g. technical data, popularity) have reliable published sources. Sandstein 08:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Honda CG 125[edit]

I think this article should be deleted because it does not seem to be notable, has no sources, and is a stub. Natl1 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nomination is longer than the article. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a stub but I expanded it pretty much and Now i think it is better not to delete it, as I will continue to expand it over time and i have big plans for it. Thankyou --DivineLight 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A commonly used motorbike is certainly notable, although sourced information is needed. Keeping it in the main userspace will help with this, but I would rather see this Userfied than simply deleted. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional anti-heroes[edit]

Delete - we recently deleted a number of categories for "heroes," "villains," "anti-heroes" and the like on the grounds that inclusion was too subjective. A listing of anti-heroes suffers the same problems as a category for them, and has the additional problems of incompleteness and maintainability. See also the Afd for List of fictional heroes a little up the page. Otto4711 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It isn't subjective because we can use secondary sources who identify the characters in the list as anti-heroes. Seems like a good article that can be made even better. I'd like to see more sourcing to scholarly literature that talks about some of these characters in the context of anti-herodom. Tarinth 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd agree, if not for the policy that states that there must be a verifiable source confirming that the character is an antihero. There have been cases where users randomly add their favorite characters but I and other editors have worked hard to keep them out of it and their edits are usually reverted the same day. A category which cannot verify if the articles are representative is not the same as a list with legit, cited sources.--CyberGhostface 18:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is different from the list of fictional heroes. Anti-heros are fairly easy to determine and only occur in particular genres of fiction. This can be a useful list. Sam Blacketer 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The list is verified (every example has at least one reliable source) and is strictly monitored (by me and others) to ensure it remains as such, rather than become unmanageable or full of POV and OR as has happened with previous versions of the list and with the categories. And incompleteness is hardly reason to delete an article. --TM 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is sourced with scholars which identify the characters as antiheroes the subjectivity issue is eliminated by the presence of a body of professional opinion establishing that said characters fit the form. If someone really has a problem with the list as it is named. Perhaps rename it to List of Characters Argued to Be Anti-heroes or something. Though I find that a bit weasel worded myself. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rename it, and your suggested name would just open the door to a bunch of nonsensical borderline cases (anything can be "argued" but generally disregarded by the plurality of professional opinion). Tarinth 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the anti-hero is an important critical concept and if sourced a list is better than a category. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indiscriminate, unsourced, or OR-based lists are bad, but this one is thoroughly sourced and provides more information than a category could, by linking character, work, and source, all in one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is carefully referenced and policed by numerous editors. OR is rejected. POV is rejected. Only those called "anti-heroes" by outside sources are listed, as is noted at the top. We can probably go through and weed out a few based on notability of the sources, but the list itself works. Doczilla 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is too broad and generalized, see WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate things. Davidpdx 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Points those seeking information in the right direction. Wikikiwi 10:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If none bothers explaining why it's to be deleted. "We deleted a template with 'of' in the name" wouldn't really be an explanation either. -- User:Docu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 breast implant, which all interested editors are invited to do. Sandstein 07:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implant controversy[edit]

Started as a fork of breast implant, not much edited since, has all the hallmarks of a POV fork and is less discussed than the main article so does not seem to be under active scrutiny for neutrality. Strongly sympathetic to the implant damage cause, which is not supported by the medical establishment. Paucity of sources reinforces that. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comments. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - any worthwhile information in this branch can be merged with the breast implant article. There's no need to have a separate article. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fork of main article, no reliable sources. Terence Ong 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Plenty of sources, but it should probably just be a subsection of the main article. --BenWhitey 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already is, pretty much - it was split out because, it seems, it didn't say quite what one lot wanted it to :-( Guy (Help!) 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge any verifiable worthy information into breast implant.--Dakota 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.--Dakota 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge is not an option per GFDL requirements. --- RockMFR 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to breast implant. --- RockMFR 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to breast implant. Quadzilla99 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to breast implant. Try to preserve some of the well sourced information though. Davidpdx 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's comments. Uioh 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VSG[edit]

A bar band with one original song and no albums. Horribly non-notable. Salad Days 17:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND, not-notable. Hello32020 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Phileas 18:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Events[edit]

A local company which makes no claim to notability. Since it's unreferenced, I cannot find a website for the company since it is apparently a common name for one. Salad Days 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless referenced by the end of this process. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of noteablity and poorly referenced, thus it fails WP:V. Davidpdx 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ledvina[edit]

Self-created vanity page Kymacpherson 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [82]. Maxamegalon2000 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain ~~Keep~~ if the statements in the page are accurate, i.e., that he's a top-ranked professional poker player. The fact that it might be "vanity" isn't really relavent if that's a true statement. Needs sources. Tarinth 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- N.B.: The poker accomplishments listed (competed in WSOP three years, a 13th place finish in an unspecified tournament) are not noteworthy —Kymacpherson 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject. Tarinth 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the World Series of Poker is open to amateurs (apparently it's how they fund the purse). --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Zero poker results. The rest is just gibberish. 2005 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Chris 01:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I will also vote to bump to speedy, this person is non-noteable, the article fails WP:V and WP:BIO as well as being a vanity article. That's a face only a mom could love. Davidpdx 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 by Mel Etitis. Tevildo 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuxor[edit]

Seems like nonsense; could have done a speedy delete, but I thought there might be some point to this page that I hadn't understood, so decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt as per WP:AGF. Walton monarchist89 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the content (which is poorly sourced, b.t.w.); merging it or not is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Hopkins[edit]

He appears in one scene in the new Harry Potter movie, and nothing else. Is this enough for a Wikipedia entry? Phileas 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Delete. Otto4711 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep except that in addition to that the article includes an interview with him, and a review of his performance in a theatre, which means that the media has taken note of him. Tarinth 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close to Merge to Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter, the same as done for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Utechin. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Actor is notable, yet better to organize into the list of minor actors article. --- RockMFR 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fbv. The actor may technically meet WP:BIO but one scene does not a career make. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fbv with minor actors and actress in Scary Potter. Davidpdx 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable actor due to appearance in HP franchise. Anchoress 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least before HP 5 movie is shown. Afterwards, we can determine if his role is significant enough or if there's enough media coverage on him, for him to have his own article or if it should be merged or deleted. Moonwalkerwiz 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find a picture ray 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -i agree find a picture. We have to acknowledge that although sad(in my opinion) it is a fact that Harry Potter is a major part of our culture, whether we like, hate it or are indifferent. I would agree to wait until after the movie is out to make a final decision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.20.111 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep He's had professional acting jobs before appearing in OOTP.68.210.18.226 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott steinberg[edit]

This was prodded and then immediately deprodded by the author so I bring it here. This is nothing but advertising. There is very little content, yet a load of external links to the various things associated with this person. The editor who wrote this has edited nothing else. Possible conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 18:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy and fails Geogre's First Law at that. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. Danny Lilithborne 14:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable and self-promotional. NawlinWiki 15:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless wikified and properly sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, fails noteablity requirement and WP:V. Davidpdx 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower[edit]

I don't think this is notable, or that you could get reliable sources for it. Previous AfD was over a year ago, so we're doing it again instead of G4ing. Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in need of significant improvement, but if the statement that he was one of the founders of the company that produced Runescape (one of the largest MMORPGs in existance) is true then he's quite notable. Tarinth 19:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Questions regarding potential sources:

Is eduhistory.com credible? See article including Gower at: http://www.eduhistory.com/RuneScape-runescape-cheats.html --Kevin Murray 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out (sorry if it's been mentioned/noticed already), the article on the link above resembles an almost exact copy of past versions of the RuneScape article - we can't use ourselves as a source :\ Same goes for the thestocktools.com link below, it resembles a past copy of RuneScape Agentscott00^(talk) 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing hints around that he is the creator, but can this be re-referencing of WP creating a circular rumor. --Kevin Murray 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This press release, while not compelling evidence may serve as an exhibit which lends credibility press release reprint --Kevin Murray 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Product/investment review mentioning Gower: stocktools.com appears independent. --Kevin Murray 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jagex - Profile, Alarmclock.com, October 27, 2005 is this credible? --Kevin Murray 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time Online (London?) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/person/0,,39448,00.html discussing Andrew Gower's wealth. --Kevin Murray 22:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the rumor thing, if you simply LOOK on the page that I put as a source, you can read everything on that page. I don't see why this person can't be notable. He made one of the biggest MMORPG's to date, with thousands and thousands of players. He's an interesting person, and I felt that it would be nice to inform people about him, since not much is commonly known. ~ rih29 00:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per apparently credible sources (above) which seem independent and non-trivial. Upon some evidence of consensus, I can rewrite this article and add the references --Kevin Murray 22:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Looks like I was mistaken. I could just close this now, but I won't, in case someone else has something to say. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable. He created RuneScape, one of the biggest MMORPGs of of recent years - • The Giant Puffin • 13:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's definitely notable. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although his notability has been questioned in the past, the fact that he is indeed the creator of one of the largest websites on the Internet (Alexa WT ranking: 819) definitely gives him notability. Besides being a popular website, it's one of the leading MMORPG's of our day, and with millions of people playing the game, I think that makes him and his creation unique. Nishkid 64 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nishkid - The RSJ ^{Sign my book}|^CCD 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a large rewrite in terms of the text. Appears noteable and that there are enough sources to fix this. Please remove the trivia section though as it is lame. . Davidpdx 01:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just fix the large masses of RED LINKS. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It definitely needs more sources, and a possible rewrite. He is notable though, and deserves an article. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omega zeta chi[edit]

Prod was removed without comment. Non notable sorority Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) low Ghits [83] no independent sources given Dakota 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising and copyvio. So tagged. Demiurge 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP --Anthony cfc 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union[edit]

nn student group — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of a ton of non-notable people does not make the list notable. -- Kicking222 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable list. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-noteable list of people. Davidpdx 01:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-neteable -- User:Docu
Delete- The University of Nottingham Students' Union may be notable, but an exhuastive list of its personnel certainly is not. I was involved in my student union, and I don't think that merits a mention on wikipedia, either. Robotforaday 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nottingham Students' Union[edit]

nn student group — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it's not entirely non-notable, it is generic. This is a directory entry. We can have an article when we have some evidence that it's considered significant by anyone independent. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)--Doc^g 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep nominator doesn't understand UK universities. This is not a 'student group' but the statutory organisation that includes every student in this very large university. UK university student unions an their politics are inherently notable.--Doc^g 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Doc says, student unions are important institutions within the universities; under the Education Act 1994 they are responsible for the representation of the interests of all students within the University, without prejudice to their affiliation (so in the case of the University of Nottingham we're talking about a statutory organisation providing representation to in excess of 30,000 people). I agree that the article at present is poor and includes a lot of vanity material, and the List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union is excessive, but the student union is a very important part of UK student life. Robotforaday 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps this is notable within the school, but if Doc Glasgow there can demonstrate why it's notable beyond the walls of the school and/or what otherwise comprises the "softer" parts of the school (i.e., off-campus housing and such), then the article probably has a fighting chance. --Dennisthe2 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the usual reasons. IT has an athletics union that has been mentioned in the times [84] and probably various other papers. If they are like most student unions they have been invovled in every left wing cause for the last X years. The various arguments over money[85] Recently there have been ah issues with radical islam. On the other hand they have been clearing up litter which is a little odd for a student union[86].Geni 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please also see WP:NOTABILITY for notability standards. This will give a guide as to what constitutes "notable" around here. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in by my judgment, informative, and verifiable. And on further reading of the article, seems well done. I can't conceive of a reason to remove information of this caliber. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for sources, otherwise Delete. The criteria for notability are not about how well the article is written, or about how large or useful the subject is, but whether it's gotten enough independent coverage that information about it can be verified. This organization is local and so WP:ORG Criterion 2 applies, and multiple independent reliable sources are required. The article in its current state simply doesn't demonstrate that. Folks who are interested in having the article kept would be wise to spend their time trying to dig up sources where the Union is mentioned, or preferably featured, in independent media articles and the like that meet the WP:RS policy. If they can't be produced, Delete. --Shirahadasha 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shirahadasha. Notability MUST be established by references to non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mere existence is not good enough for inclusion, this organisation must have done something newsworthy in order to merit an article. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Jcuk 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because my brain just can't comprehend how a "organisation that includes every student" is somehow fundamentally different from a "student group". At best this would be a merge with the school's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A University student group may have as few as a dozen members. A 'Student union' has 30,000 and is the regulatory and umbrella organisation for all student groups and activities (and this is not a single 'school' - but the entire university)--Doc^g 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete; merge with the article regarding the school. Case-in-point, there are no articles for each and every student government body for each and every college in either the US or the UK (and there shouldn't be!). --Mhking 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?--Doc^g 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because those bodies are rarely notable outside the confines of their respective schools - and it has yet to be established how this particular student body is notable independently from the school itself. — Swpb ^talkcontribs 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For very solid historical legal reasons. Universities do not want to be held acountable for the activities of their student's union (some of the rag week stuff did in the past go a little far).Geni 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doc Glasgow. A statutory organisation recognised by the Government, a member body of the National Union of Students and recognised by the university who's students it represents. NUS and the University of Nottingham should represent reliable sources. Like almost every other students union it's mentioned in the various university guides describing facilities and giving reviews. Also referenced by British University Sports Association with regards to sports results. All this most surely represent multiple reliable sources. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can demonstrate these points (read: provide linkage), you'll change my mind, for one. As such, please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linkage? please we are talking about a body that predates the internet. Still at random[87].if you want further references ask the university for thier prospectus.Geni 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Various British Wikipedians are testifying that University Student Unions in the UK are inherently notable. Will those who are obviously ignorant of UK Educational arrangements please at least consider that we might know what we are talking about. Anyone who insists in talking about a UK University as just a 'school' obviously knows nothing about the subject matter and probably should no more comment than I would on articles on astrophysics.--Doc^g 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I use school in the American sense of the word, which includes all institutions of learning. Semantics aside - this group is not notable outside the University. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that proves notability, with reliable sources needed. As regards Doc glasgow's points, university and school are completely different terms. --SunStar Net^talk 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing vote per Doc glasgow's argument. --SunStar Net^talk 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Student Union at the University I attended in the U.S. was composed exactly how Doc describes Student Unions in the UK - every student was automatically a member, it exerted significant policy influence over the institution, the whole shebang. I am still not impressed that such organizations are exempt from the requirements of multiple non-trivial (note the documentation Heligoland and Geni describe is certainly reliable, but is trivial) sources documenting notability. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um those were from 30 seconds of searching and I don't have newspaper or court records to hand. solid refences are going to be paper based.Geni 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main representative body of the students at a notable educational institution is inherently notable, providing it has more than a shadowy existence. I suggest that some people don't understand how UK student bodies work. We have several such entries, see e.g. Glasgow University Union, which are accepted as notable. I am certainly not suggesting we treat every student club as notable, I was involved in getting one at Glasgow University deleted myself. PatGallacher 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Guy. I'm not averse to keeping if coverage in non-trivial sources are established. - Aagtbdfoua 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep student's unions are inherently notable.Geni 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - For those who are insisting that, as per Geni's note immediately above, "student's unions are inherently notable", please refer to this link, which explains what is considered notable here on Wikipedia. If I am reading this correctly, a student union is actually not inherently notable - it is simply a student union. If a student union is notable at all, notability needs to be demonstrated here as per the standards - and in this case we're not seeing notability being demonstrated. Please also note that, per my replacement of the removed afdanons template, this is not a tally vote, this is a concensus, and this requires a good argument. My !vote as such remains "delete". --Dennisthe2 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so extremely patronising. The people that are arguing UK Student Unions are inherently notable include experienced Wikipedians and administrators. You are simply wrong about policy. WP:N is a guideline - and a contravention one. My argument that this is inherently notable may not satisfy you, but there is no MUST about what I need to do to hold or express this opinion in the debate. You are entitled to your opinion, I to mine. You may think my argument is weak - I actually think your is lousy - but that's by and by. I've also removed the anon's template, since I see no anons or single purpose accounts present. You seem to be assuming that because people don't share your view of notability they must be clueless newbies. Wrong. --Doc^g 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zonk[edit]

This page has been flagged for months to address its issues and has seen no change whatsoever. There are no real credible references to this game. The tone and person of the article are entirely unencylopedic. As a variant on an existing game the subject merits possible mention as a variant in Farkel if it can be source but as it stands this is not really salvageable — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT. Demiurge 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shamed under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one --Anthony cfc 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And WP:NFT. Ugh. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. could not make a sense out of it. SYSS Mouse 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wa Lolita[edit]

This is simply a subsection of Lolita fashion, to which it adds nothing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologistic, unreferenced. Google gives no indication that this is a common term. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Jojjn 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Tokek 13:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation. Despite the fact that I know a great number of people who are interested in this, and I know it exists, I simply cannot find sufficient sources (one is not multiple) that vouch for notability. If more happen to pop up, I will gladly change my mind. It may be a good idea to recreate this as a redirect to Lolita fashion if this is deleted. --Core desat 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had been doubtful of the sheer existence of this term in the discussion for Qi lolita, and while I still maintain no such thing as "Qi lolita" or anything related exists in Japanese, I did find "和ロリ" or Wa-rori (Wa-loli) in the ja.wiki Lolita fashion article under the heading "Related fashion". Now, this is, per said article, a related fashion statement, so not necessarily to be considered part of the Lolita genre even with the name that would suggest so. Further on, even if it is included in the ja.wiki article, this doesn't necessarily mean it's not an unnotable neologism. Searching in google with the term 和ロリ gives about 15000 hits on text and about 100 picture hits. Not notable enough, IMO. The text belongs in the Lolita fashion article. TomorrowTime 12:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, fair use galleries are not allowed and in any case these images are posted as pd-creator, which is absolutely not on. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mia and Tia Twins Cars[edit]

We already have a page with more information here: Mia and Tia. This page isn't necessary. I put this up as an afd since a CSD would make all the images abrupt orphans. -WarthogDemon 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall[edit]

Poorly-defined list article (i.e. what exactly is meant by the term "building" the fourth wall?) with potential original research. Most of the examples can already be described in more clearly-defined articles such as List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall, metafiction, etc. Stratadrake 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own vote is, of course, a delete. When I think about it, the fourth wall is an inherent characteristic of any and all fiction; it's impossible to "build" the fourth wall per sé because the fourth wall is already there; it can only be respected, or broken. And using a fictional fourth wall as a plot element does not actually constitute breaking the fourth wall, but metafiction instead. --Stratadrake 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Breaking the fourth wall is a known dramatic concept, building it is not and I would challenge you to find reliable sources for either the concept or the inclusion of any given entry. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am familiar with the term, and even I find this confusing... -WarthogDemon 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is this actually an established term in literary analysis or critisism? As the list stands, it just appears to mean "List of fiction with an explicit narrator", which would seem to include all the Sherlock Holmes books (purportedly written by Dr Watson), "The Lord of the Rings" (purportedly written by Frodo), etc etc. Without a definition that doesn't include 95% of all fiction, this list is unmaintainable. Tevildo 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confused OR which doesn't seem to understand original "breaking the fourth wall" even... Maus, while it uses a cartoon anthropomorphic device, is not fiction. Bwithh 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic. Dramatically so, in fact... Guy (Help!) 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. No, this not an established critical concept. I think it means more than an explicit narrator, but at present it's barely more than things made up at the student union one day between Comp. Lit. classes. I think metafiction is a better overall concept for the stuff listed. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment doesn't all fiction that doesn't explicitly break the fourth wall build it? The criterion doesn't seem well-defined, but I'm not sure that with a better criteria this wouldn't be a useful, viable list. Wintermut3 02:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is not an acceptable reason for deletion to say that one has never heard of it. No one of us is an encyclopedia. DGG 08:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it tends to imply that verifiability is lacking, and besides -- that isn't the only reason for its AFD nomination. See JzG and Dhartung's statements. --Stratadrake 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icon of Entropy[edit]

Another bar band with no albums. Salad Days 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. -Doc^g 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Freedonia[edit]

Non-notable micronation, with no references in article. All Web references to the Somaliland story come directly from the nation's founder. Prior AfD in Feb-2006. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.

Delete as encyclopedically non-notable unsuccessful micronation scheme. Yes, its in that Lonely Planet micronations book[88], but I don't think this "humorous mock guidebook"[89] is reliable. If there really were a serious deal + public protests involving deaths in Somalia over this, it would have an international incident attracting substantial press and blog attention; the micronation enthusiasts would probably have been investigated by the US State Department. (Somalia is not so obscure for the US public - this is around the time that Black Hawk Down was a bestselling book and was being turned into a major movie by Ridley Scott. Excerpt from the one hit I get for Freedonia + Awdal in the Factiva database:

Land of the e-con.

1266 words

8 August 2000

The Australian

First 2/3rds of the article are not about Freedonia but about another micronation at the centre of a fraud case

The Principality of Freedonia, an internet nation based on libertarian ideals, hopes to set up a physical state, either on :Norfolk Island - if the Australian Government agrees to sell it - or in a remote part of Somalia.

...

More than 260 people are involved in Freedonia, according to its leaders.

Founder, Texan John Kyle - who prefers to be known as Prince John I - claims to be involved in negotiations with the Sultan of Awdal in Somaliland with the intention of setting up a Libertarian nation.

Kyle says his nation is still some years away from becoming reality. "The next thing to do is send an emissary to North Africa and Pitcairn and to consider fundraising and making preparations," he says. "We're about five years off."

Freedonia remains unfunded - apart from an attempt to sell Freedonian currency online - and Kyle, who fusses over his international phone bill, admits he has not even raised money for a plane ticket.

...

Even the "unstable" Somalis appear to have become leery of the Freedonians, exemplifying the difficulties internet-based nations have in getting off the ground. When The Australian spoke to a source close to the Sultan of Awdal, there was a swift denial of any links with the libertarians of Freedonia.

The source says the Sultan agreed to the deal after a Somali Freeport representative, Ethiopia-based Flory Barnabas, made an approach.

"Sultan Ibrahim and elders of Awdal had no idea about the connection between these groups," the source says. "When I called today, the Sultan and rest of the elders were surprised.

"There is no deal and these people will not be allowed to do business in Awdal or other regions of Somalia. We never support these types of groups."

Bwithh 20:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non notable computer based nation simulation. Similar has been discussed before. See here for example Reunion debate.Obina 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is factually not true - there is plenty of printed reference material to back up there having been real-world activities by the founders, not "computer based". This objection is poorly founded. Georgewilliamherbert 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's practically nothing in this article. No citations or links or any physical information. PolarisSLBM 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Freedonia is referenced in numerous major media articles, including one in the New York Times, as well as the recently published Lonely Planet micronations guide. The comments above concerning reliability of sources and international incidents make no sense at all. --Gene_poole 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the book. It's in any number of other references. It's notable in that it's the only micronation project known to have caused fatalities, albeit not by their fault. The claims of non-notability are insufficiently researched. Due to the fatalities during the backlash from the land purchase attempt, Freedonia is probably the second or third most notable micronation. Georgewilliamherbert 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference you just added [90] says Meanwhile leaders of the intellectual community in Borama have established, after reviewing documents presented by Vice-President Riyale, that the Fredonian project was actually a fake. That seems like a fairly strong delete argument to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's in a book. All sorts of trivia are in books. It seems a bit nutty to assert that "claims of non-notability are insufficiently researched": Where's the notability? If this really is "the second or third most notable micronation", that's nanonotability indeed. -- Hoary 09:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In a book, several magazine articles, newspaper articles, and a well documented international incident with fatalities are notable. There is a world of difference between article did not cite sources (a {{cite}} tag was needed, yes) and there being no sources. Any google source will find more sources, many of which are print and meet WP reliability criteria, than are needed to justify the notability claim. If I can disprove the claims that it's not notable with a minute's work on search engines, finding both online and print references that fast... Georgewilliamherbert 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I may yet change my vote. So, stick in the sources. As the article stands, though, I'm not impressed. -- Hoary 10:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We now have references to (print sources) the Lonely Planet book, (online copies of articles from print sources) the New York Times, a Somali newspaper, another local news magazine in the US, (online-only) the Freedonia website and a micronational coin-collecting site. Is that better? Georgewilliamherbert 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The NYT article might be, if the site allowed me to read it. I'll rethink and be back later. -- Hoary 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's actually pretty well-sourced. The article treats the concept a little too seriously though. It's not actually a nation or even a micronation, just a funny concept that is, well, something that was made up in school one day. – Anþony talk 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- just a funny concept that is, well, something that was made up in school one day: yes indeed, and the word for this is "micronation". -- Hoary 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no one seems to have noticed that the article does not assert notability in the slightest. This is a problem. In fact, it's a valid CSD criterion. Multiple non-trivial references from major reputable reliable sources? The only thing that seems to meet this criterion might be the New York Times article, which I can't see. Being mentioned in a book is no guarantee of notability, the Freedonia website itself is hardly a reliable soure, I'm unimpressed as to the validity notability-wise as to a mention in the Metro Santa Cruz - if that's anything like the Metro we have here in London, then certainly not, and the Republican magazine thingamajig does most certainly not have this "micronation" as the main topic of that article, or even anywhere close. Notability is not sufficiently asserted: if one leaky bucket will not hold water there is no reason to think that ten will. Glorified NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some question about the New York Times article from May of 2000. In an 1114-word article, there are just 120 words on Freedonia, most of which are about the kid who started it:

THE PRINCIPALITY OF FREEDONIA: www .freedonia.org A country of libertarian leanings, Freedonia has very little connection with the Marx Brothers' fictional country of the same name. Its leader, John Alexander Kayle, is a student at Babson College in Massachusetts. He is studying for a degree in investment finance and professes a fondness for the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand.
Mr. Kayle, who uses the screen name John I, and his fellow Freedonians hope to purchase a chunk of territory in Somaliland and establish a libertarian enclave. Notwithstanding its homelessness, Freedonia has minted its own money (silver) and even written a national anthem that has this refrain: Oh, Freedonia, Freedonia the land that saves, Freedonians never shall be slaves.

My opinion is that this does not make the micronation notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out http://www.freedonia.org/articles/ there are quite a few more media mentions. Most of them aren't available elsewhere online, so I won't press them, though I doubt Freedonia made them all up. Still, there's a Wired Article and an article from Der Spiegel. The Metro Santa Cruz article was reprinted in the Boston Phoenix. This one concept, whether or not it's very serious, has been covered in repeatedly in different media. Add on all of that the very real-world deaths caused by their attempt to buy land in Somaliland, and I'm extremely surprised why this isn't a slam dunk on notability. – Anþony talk 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article also has just one graf on these guys, with the bulk on Talossa (whom the Freedonia site refers to as "imaginary," which may be Freedonian for "not notable"). The Der Spiegel article is behind a wall, unfortunately. But the real reason I'm commenting is this: I don't buy the riots/deaths story at all. It's mentioned on the Freedonia site, and in that one English-language Somali publication that only says that the Freedonia issue is "believed" to be the reason behind the riots, but then refers to the Freedonia project as a fake. Is there a better source for this particular story? I'm pressing that point because that claim in the article more than any other bit sent my delete-o-meter to red (per WP:NFT). | Mr. Darcy talk 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article posted above from The Australian at a minimum confirms that Freedonia representatives were in contact with the Sultan. It would be appropriate to note that most of the details come from Freedonia itself, but I don't see why that means the article should be deleted. I think the "fake" bit was the Somalis' impression of Freedonia people as a group of pranksters playing a joke on a tiny country rather than a serious organization looking for terrority. Even if it is just a joke, it's a notable joke which merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. – Anþony talk 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a question of what constitutes notability. I see passing mentions in articles about other, more notable micronations. To me, that is insufficient for notability, a problem exacerbated by the joke-like nature of the project. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time understanding how you can keep referring to this as joke-like nature of the project despite the well documented fact that their very real attempt to purchase land on which to found an actual physical independent micronation was sufficiently real that it resulted in a riot and fatalities. That is the most serious real-world incident involving any micronation project in the 20th century. Despite the fact that it admittedly started as someone's made-up project while in school, Freedonia clearly moved beyond that into having very real and serious real-world activities. That they went nowhere ultimately is not in dispute - but their active pursuit is well documented and in a sense notorious. Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bit of rhetoric does not address the very real question of whether the riots or fatalities ever took place. It's just a claim by the Freedonia founders, picked up by one news outlet none of us had ever heard of which in the same blurb referred to the Freedonia project as "fake." We've seen no mentions of it in reliable news sources, no photographs of the riots - nothing. There's no actual evidence that the riots or fatalities actually took place, or even if they did, that they had anything to do with Freedonia. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources independent of the Freedonia project which all state the same basic facts. These sources meet WP reliability standards. You can't just say I don't believe them and change WP articles based on that opinion. We report what's verifyable. Those facts are verifyable. If you believe that they're all some big media conspiracy, you have the burden of proof to disprove the events or the reliability of the sources. Georgewilliamherbert 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change any Wikipedia articles based on my opinion. I removed unsourced content. Since you added the sources - even though one is the Freedonia project, and the other might also fail WP:RS - I haven't removed it. You say that these "facts" are "verifyable [sic]," when in reality, you haven't verified them at all. And given the way your responses have focused more on me than on the topic, I'm guessing that you can't do so. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go around just rejecting sources and saying "You haven't verified this!". They're reliable by WP standards. You have provided no referenced information claiming that those sources or events are bogus. All you have is your opinion and suspicion. Those aren't valid reasons for deleting an article. Evidence and references are - and we've got them reliably cited now. If someone's pulling a megascale media hoax on all of us then they've done so across a very wide array of otherwise completely unrelated sources. The burden of proof is on you to show that there's something suspicious about the sources. You keep claiming I'm attacking you instead of the question - that's because you've stopped attacking the article's former lack of sources, and now are attacking the sources themselves. You can't do that. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of Wikipedia, I haven't rejected any sources - I haven't even removed the items that are sourced by the Freedonia Website, which fails WP:RS as a self-published source. You earlier used the riots/fatalities as a way to argue for notability, but it seems to me that the evidence that these riots/fatalities happened or had anything to do with Freedonia is quite weak. Hence my comments in that regard. The article should be deleted because the subject isn't notable, and because it appears to fall under WP:NFT as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, there are exactly five Google hits on the phrase "sultan of awdal" (link), all of which relate to Freedonia. Are we even sure that such a person exists or existed? Awdal makes no mention of a sultan or sultanate. There were sultans in the region in the 1500s and 1600s, but I can't find any other mention of one today. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican piece refers to him as "one of the elders of the Gadabursi tribes". Presumbably, the Sultan title is more of an affectation than an official title. There does seem to be plenty of evidence that the Awdal Roads Company was real and the two actually did travel to Awdal and met with local officials.[91][92] In a mailing list post on Somalia, Davidson notes that local communities are run by sultans.[93] – Anþony talk 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to describe real events. There is no reason to believe otherwise. This appears to be an obituary of one of the prime movers in those events. Again, there's no reason to believe the reportage to be false, or part of some co-ordinated information falsification conspiracy, as the nominator appears to want us to believe. --Gene_poole 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Poole, neither of your links mentions Freedonia at all. And again, I'm looking for any bona fide news source that mentions rioting and/or fatalities as a result of the Freedonia founder's trip to Somaliland. Looks like none exists. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple sources you've already been directed to are perfectly "bona fide" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. They show that people associated with Freedonia travelled to Awdal, had discussions with clan and/or govt officials there, and that after those people were deported, public disaffection resulted in the shooting death of a protester. Incidents of a similar unfortunate nature occur throughout the world daily. Few, if any of them are reported in any mainstream media outlet. On the balance of probabilities the events described in the article took place. The fact the New York Times or Fox News didn't report doesn't make them any less real or verifiable. --Gene_poole 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've pointed me to two sources. One is the Freedonia site itself, which does not qualify as a reliable source. The other is apparently the site of a newspaper in Somaliland, which referred to Freedonia as "fake" - so if we're going to accept it as a reliable source, then that's a clear motion for deletion of this article. Is that what you're saying? And is there some other source that indicates that the Freedonia visit to Somaliland led to a riot? Because right now I count ONE. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally pointed you to 2 sources, neither of which is the Freedonia site, yet both of which support assertions made on that site. Others here have pointed you to other references, including one above in the national Australian broadsheet daily which also plainly support those assertions. It is for you to demonstrate how being described as "fake" is a "clear motion for deletion". Continuing to claim that there are no reliable sources is symptomatic of disingenuity, wilful deception or outright stupidity. Take your pick. --Gene_poole 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning display of personal attacks, Mr. Poole. You pointed to one source, The Republican, the accuracy of which I have questioned; the only connection made between Freedonia and the demonstration is unsourced ("The demonstration was believed to have been triggered by a government decision to deport two foreigners who arrived in Borama recently..." - believed by whom?). The other source you gave (the obit of the Dutch libertarian) never mentioned Freedonia at all. The Australian article, printed in full above, doesn't mention riots or fatalities, nor does the paragraph in the NY Times. There is no source other than the Republican article and the Freedonia Website (which isn't reliable, per WP:RS#Self-published_sources) that verifies these alleged riots or fatalities. Your ardor to defend a micronation like your own is admirable, but the verification of these alleged riots and fatalities is sorely lacking, and if they are part of the argument for notability, I take issue with it. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, MrDarcy. Let's assume for a moment that Freedonia was a fake. Ern Malley too was a fake, and see how that worthy article is categorized for plenty more (many of which may be undeserving, for all I know). That something was a fake is not in itself reason for its lack of notability. Rather, one should see if the fake, phony, sham, fiction or whatever was a notable one (and most aren't). -- Hoary 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with that. I still don't see notability, but the fact that the best reliable source we have on the project's efforts in Somaliland refers to it as a fake is rather telling to me. Bottom line is that I don't believe we have the "multiple, non-trivial works" required to meet the standards set out in the notability guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<--- reset indent

OK, first off, it should be pointed out that all of the reputable media articles mentioning Freedonia -- including The Australian article, the Wired article, the New York Times article, and the Santa Cruz Metro article -- were printed prior to the December 2000-January 2001 trip to Somaliland, so it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't mention the trip. For that matter, that I can name that many reputable media articles mentioning Freedonia at all should be sufficient to prove notability.

It's clear from several sources that Jim Davidson and Michael Van Motten really did travel to Somaliland and spoke with local authorities. The Van Motten obit doesn't mention Freedonia because the men weren't actually involved with Freedonia. Freedonia claims that the Somalis mistakenly associated the men with Freedonia because their website made reference to Awdal as a potential location. I would guess that the website likely mentioned Davidson by name since he was actively promoting the region via the Internet.

According to The Republican and The Australian, the Somalis had a very low opinion of Freedonia. They thought it was a sham/hoax/fraud/fake, whatever. That has nothing to do with notability here, but the fact that they formed an opinion on Freedonia at all is proof they were aware of the group.

Given that the Somalis were already suspicious of Freedonia, this last bit makes sense, but honestly can only be attributed to The Republican and Freedonia itself: The two men were (erroneously) associated with Freedonia and deported, resulting in a protest which was put down with lethal force. It would be entirely appropriate to note that the claim originates from Freedonia and can only be confirmed by a small Somali newspaper. – Anþony talk 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN micronation. Pavel Vozenilek 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If multiple people writing about other micronations spend ink to mention it, it's not non-notable, else they wouldn't bother. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple people writing about all sorts of things spend ink mentioning stuff that WP rightly doesn't bother with. (Consider all the ink devoted to the minutiae of soap operas, the moral implications of televised "wardrobe malfunctions" [was that the phrase?], etc.) I was willing to be persuaded that "Freedonia" is notable as "micronations" go (which is nanonotability, as "micronations" are merely private fantasies fueled by bullshit). MrDarcy is leading me to doubt even this negligible claim. But if there is indeed something to it, well, "Freedonia" can get its own sentence or even little paragraph within the article on micronations. (To me, the potential significance of Freedonia is that a young Youessian would unwittingly use this staunchly Marxist term for his "libertarian" fantasy and yet have even a tiny number of other Youessians look at it with straight faces. This may serve to demonstrate the decline of Marxism, the myopia of "libertarians", or the general earnestness of Youessians.) -- Hoary 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if the story about the Somali being killed can be better verified. One link is clearly biased, and "The Republican News" doesn't seem like the most reliable of sources. If the shooting did not occur, then this micronation is not notable, and should be deleted. Lankiveil 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep, and I will explain why. According to the nominator this article is up for deletion for the following reason: Non-notable micronation, with no references in article. All Web references to the Somaliland story come directly from the nation's founder. Prior AfD in Feb-2006. | Mr. Darcy [[User talk:MrDarcy|talk] - he says Non-notable, this is not only a complete lie but also proves that the nominator did not research the subject matter previous to this careless nomination, type "The Principality of Freedonia" in Google and you will gain enlightenment, it even has its own website and "embassy" for crying out loud. Web references or any references even if they are realted to the perpetrators of the "creation" are still notable and reliable enough for an encyclopedic article especially if they are published and have been recognised worldwide. This nomination is done in bad taste, and I feel once again a down pour of "deletionism" as at the heart of this nomination with disregard for the truth and facts behind this article. Perhaps this article needs more work, but careless deletionism is not justified simply because the majority of people voting refer to it being "non-notable" which in my opnion is a bunch of garbage. Learn to research your argument before you refer to something as non-notable. It clearly IS notable. Piecraft 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piecraft. --Billpg 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was hesitant about commenting here. I don't really have that much faith in the wikipedia processes any more. Does participation in a process imply endorsement? --Billpg 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Active editor from May 2005 to October 2006.)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted, WP:CSD criterion G4 (repost of deleted content). Guy (Help!) 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlow Crab[edit]

Delete; violates WP:V, plain and simple. More than likely WP:BALLS or some sort of fan fiction for which Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder NPWatcher appended "(2nd nomination)" to this... it's been deleted before. I believe CSD G4 applies in this case. Admins, can we close this one? --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Article is essentially gibberish. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article that should have been here for longer, Zhanle 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the work of the North Carolina Vandal. Already speedied. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to St Ignatius' College. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Ignatius Enfield[edit]

A duplicate page to St Ignatius' College also St Ignatius' College has more information than this one.

I suggest delete and redirect to St Ignatius' College Fatjoe151 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it, no special powers required. Be bold! Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting.Phase4 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect will be helpful - it would seem the creator of this page did not realise the other page was the same place.Obina 23:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done it now.Obina 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as Bobcruft. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right Sets[edit]

unusable, unneccesary entry Scottydude 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worthless article. Any such information should be contained in The Price Is Right (US game show) (and related articles). --- RockMFR 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was a bad idea for an article, and it was not followed through to its illogical conclusion (probably a good thing, in the end). Guy (Help!) 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could easily be put in the main article. Hello32020 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oy. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge; The Price Is Right would be a better home for this. --Dennisthe2 00:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Bobcruft. --Charlene 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing there to merge, anyway. Quack 688 08:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources provided by Uncle G indicate that a practice of stopping watches on advertisements at ca. 10:10 likely does exist, but there's still no reliable source on it. The content is available on request once a reliable source is in fact found. Sandstein 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10:08[edit]

Doesn't contain a single verifiable fact. Dtcdthingy 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that one of the references is stupidquestions.com says a lot. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The other is Cecil Adams, however. Moreover, the name of the web site should not detract from the fact that the article on it appears to have been researched and fact checked. Furthermore, what does the fact that the name of the web site cited is actually "stupidquestion.net" say? ☺ Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself and the links it provides give numerous times (8:20, 10:08, 10:10, etc). Certainly worthy of a mention in the main watch article if it can be sourced. Considering the claim that almost every watch manufacturer sets their watches to the same time, it should be documented somewhere. --- RockMFR 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have mixed fee about his article. As I mention on Talk:10:08, I strongly doubt many of the claims that are made here. On the other hand, the subject of how watch hands show up on advertising has been around for a very long time, I gave a reference from 1922 on the talk page. There *are* many facts that can be verified, such as not obstructing the logo or the date window commonly found at the 3:00 position. Unfortunately, some of the other "facts", such as most ads use 10:08, can be verified to be incorrect. I could see this article being cleaned up and made into something that could be kept, but I don't see much evidence that this will happen. Wrs1864 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Intriguing if barmy idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Back in the 70s, Bill Walker (former host of Party Game in Canada) did TV ads for Timex watches, addressing the "often-asked" question of why Timex watches always read ten-to-two (1:50). I immediately checked the catalogues in the house (yes, yes, WP:OR), and noticed that all the Timexes were set to 1:50, but all the non-Timexes were set to 10:10. I idly wondered if perhaps Timex had somehow "trademarked" ten-to-two in visual ads. Perhaps the verifiable info here could be moved to wristwatch or somesuch. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 08:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's actually true and verifiable, it deserves its own article. But it isn't, really. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (Well, that and WP:Notability.) It is clear to me that this is a notable subject that could have verifiable facts documented about it. Those facts could include such things as people having the impression that there is "one" time that all watch manufactures use for all advertising for all of history, and the misunderstanding that people may have with the relation to that time to famous people dieing. Other facts include major watch manufacturers stating that the reason they use a given time is so that the hands won't obscure important logos and names. What is also somewhat clear to me is that this article doesn't currently meet those standards and I don't think it is likely that anyone will put the effort into fixing it. Wrs1864 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, yes, but if it's not going to have anything to do with 10:08, it shouldn't have an article 10:08, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It would be trivial to move the article to something like Watch hands in advertising. That would also preserve the edit history and discussion pages. Wrs1864 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That the title may be inappropriate is a matter of renaming the article, which any editor with an account can fix. It doesn't require that the article be deleted, and doesn't require administrator intervention. Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Hello32020 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an unusual and quite amusing problem. I "know" that people who sell analogue watches set them to specific times. I know this from firsthand experience, because I once had a job that involved (amongst other things) adjusting the positions of the hands on watches being displayed for sale. But I cannot immediately give you a source for this, because the knowledge was imparted by word of mouth. Wikipedia articles must not be based upon the sole words of pseudonymous editors.
As Wrs1864 says, there is this source on the article's talk page, which could form one part of the basis for an article. It's far more authoritative than the Straight Dope article. But it doesn't support either the current content of this article or its current title. Similarly, the stupidquestion.net article appears to have been reasonably well researched and fact checked, but it doesn't match what the article currently says or what its title currently is. I'm going to hunt for some sources, but given what sources we already have I'm currently at weak keep with the strong provisio that the article requires a major rewrite to remove the unsourced speculation and hypothesising and to include the material from the Elgin source, and almost certainly renaming (to something like watch times in advertisements) as well.
I hereby reserve the right to discover, now that I finally have cause to research it, that what I've known for so many years is wrong. ☺ Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick skim turns up this, this, this, this, and this. Uncle G 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a repost of deleted content. BryanG^(talk) 08:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-bar[edit]

I prodded this and it was removed, so I nominate it here for non-notability. I've also discovered that User:Kneale, the person who removed the prod, his talkpage indicates that this article has been deleted before. Make of it what you will. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was a valid A7 speedy at G Bar, reposted here and still makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. So tagged. --Charlene 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Mergers remain an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below the line (film production)[edit]

I nominated this article because it belongs either on Wiktionary or as a small section on the Film page. It's basically a short definition that I don't feel could be expanded further. I am also submitting Above the line (film production) for the same reasons. Quadzilla99 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Above the line" as dicdef. Weak Keep and Rename to Below The Line (magazine) on "Below the line" - the magazine has the potential to be notable, at least. Tevildo 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more clarification to the different jobs that fall under "Below the Line" and the distinction between ATL and BTL is very important in film budgeting. Also the ATL deletion box links back to here; there is no deletion page for it. But I'm also for keeping the ATL page. I've added more clarification to it and again it's important for the people that will actually be searching for it. Joey 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~both~~ one - The article should be expanded (and not only for costs, but also for crew classification). The term is well know so it should be possible to expand with good material. ~~Eventually~~ merge Below the line (film production) into Above the line (film production). It is no a simple dicdef (and see also dab Above the line). ~~Cate |_Talk 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~~ --Cate |_Talk 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think I agree that these terms don't necessarily need their own articles; as important as they are, there isn't much more to say. There is actually an article on Film budgeting which would be the perfect home, and a Production budget stub which references ATL and BTL could be merged too. There are several similar articles/stubs in Category:Film and video terminology; some are deserving of their own articles but perhaps others may be merged into other pages. The list Motion picture terminology is a place to start. TheRhani 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - ATL and BTL is not only about budget. I use it also for notability in AfD: BTL (technical and artistic crew) are per se n.n., ATL people needs more checks (an awarded film "creates" notability of some ATL). So merge BTL into ATL, but keep one! --Cate |_Talk 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perú Top 100[edit]

Article contains absolutely nothign which is not blatantly obvious from the title: Peru Top 100 is the top 100 in Peru. No shit, Sherlock. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "No shit, Sherlock"? --FlareNUKE 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ut uh If its a WP:CIVIL thing, pehaps his user talk page might be appropiate for a template of sorts. :P Navou ^talk 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic, close to being speedy delete per empty. Hello32020 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Unless the article can be fleshed out, for now I endorse deletion. Navou ^talk 22:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete - but is there anything else to this story? Is there, for example, a famous, notable Peruvian Casey Kasem that reads the list out each week? Anything else that makes this notable? A Google investigation seems to say no, so I'd say delete. But if anyone knows of a reason to keep, I'd be willing to change my (cough) "vote." --TheOther Bob 23:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per The Other Bob. This may simply be underrepresented online, or it may not exist; perhaps somebody in Peru could elucidate? (The Peruvian Casey Kasem?) --Charlene 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little assertion of notability other than the fact that it exists. —ShadowHalo 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaytime TV[edit]

Small tv show that ended some years ago. Not notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability is asserted for this article. Hello32020 22:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Pioneering show, the first entertainment show for lesbians and gay men on British television. Attracted considerable press coverage at the time and after and if you're not nice I'll dig it all up and annoy you by showing you what a stupid nomination this was. Incidentally it used to be the number one most requested redlink on the 'to do' list on everyone's watchlist. Fys. Ta fys aym. 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, assume good faith here and be civil. If you can dig up said information, that will prevent the article from being deleted. In short, change our minds. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserts notability, but no links on the site. I'll leave it to Fys (above) to get those - the article certainly could use it. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (vote changed, see below)[reply]
Delete, though if Fys can dig up that mass press coverage I don't mind changing my mind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Source here (repost of Gay Times article), non-trivial mention here in American national gay magazine, tons of articles on the hosts that mention the show and the Gaytime TV awards and their recipients. Sufficient to establish notability IMHO. Otto4711 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. And, as always, the references need to be in the article, not just the AfD. Tevildo 06:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A show that ran four years on the BBC is certainly notable enough. Keep. Bearcat 10:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references added to article, including praise from Daily Mail. Eludium-q36 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, my mind is changed. Good show! --Dennisthe2 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-trivial references. —ShadowHalo 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hardy[edit]

Didn't seem to do much besides be in a Hole for a small while and some other band; no info that can't be put on other articles. FlareNUKE 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being in Hole, however briefly, _does_ constitute a pass of WP:MUSIC. Tevildo 06:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, subject seems to be notable but the article lacks Alf photoman 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been in two notable bands so lacks an apropriate merge target. Eluchil404 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Schultz[edit]

Delete - not every medical doctor is entitled to a Wikipedia article (and neither is every Who's Who entry...). The information supplied in this article and the results of several Google searches I've conducted fail to yield evidence that Schultz meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. The book he wrote, Office Practice of Skin Surgery, has 49 Ghits, mostly coming from his official website and Amazon, and I did not see any independent/third party reviews. "Dr Bryan Schultz" yields only 16 Ghits from the same four sources, and "Bryan Schultz MD" yields 28 from 3 sources. Only some of the "Bryan Schultz" sources are relevant (here). The article also mentions that Schultz has done research. I used this generator to compute his h number (which is the number of times your paper with the median number of citations has been cited by others), and searches for "Bryan C Schultz," "Bryan Schultz," "Schultz Bryan C," and "Schultz Bryan" under biology and medicine all yielded zero. (Full professors at research universities well into their careers often have h numbers in the 20s or higher). Fabricationary 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use rational criteria The source for scientific articles by a physician is PubMed. The way authors are listed there is by name and initials, so he is "Schultz BC" He has written 11 articles listed there, one in Journal of the American Medical Association; the latest in 1998. His book was published in 1985 and it is therefore not surprising that almost all the entries in Google were used book dealers. The H-number generator works with Google Scholar, and more than half of Google Scholar's content is from 2000+, while all his articles were earlier. But in any case the first step is to use the name in the standard format for the field, and if you do the h-number is 2, not zero. (There is no magic number, and no intelligent database.) He is an associate professor in a major university, but it's an associate clinical professor, which is a distinction most medical specialists get with time.

But adding all of this up, it does not amount to notability in a general sense, though he may well be notable among Chicago area dermatologists.

Delete-- DGG 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weir Brothers Adobes[edit]

No indication of why a single homebuilder's homes in CA are notable. No sources. Also including Weir brothers. NawlinWiki 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lafayette, California. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Valley Elementary[edit]

non notable elementary school, merge with article on school district, if there is one or Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Naconkantari 23:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lafayette, California#Schools. Cf. WP:LOCAL, WP:N; there aren't sources (at this time) on which to base a proper encyclopedic article, but that doesn't mean this shouldn't be covered. "If there is one?" ;-) -- Visviva 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any independent published source that has the school as its subject? Is there any reason to think that there exist such sources? (Is 3 playgrounds and 45 classrooms notable?) If not even one can be found, on a modern-day subject, it is doubtful that multiple non-trivial ones could be found. —Centrx→talk • 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, which is why merging is the best solution. -- Visviva 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district or town article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLS. Article is part of a series of similarly-maintained stubs by the user 169.199.38.130. --ForbiddenWord 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously that doesn't make any sense, WP:SCHOOLS been inactive for a while, 169.199.38.130 haven't really done any non vandalism edits since March, and this was the only article the anon wrote back in October 2005, there is no other stubs, so your explaination is completely wrong and misleading. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lafayette, California#Schools, per Visviva. There's nothing here indicating enough notability for this to stand on its own. --Core desat 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. We aren't a directory. WMMartin 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect already merged. Vegaswikian 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Vegas, already merged. Silensor 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Vegas. JoshuaZ 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Vegas. Guettarda 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect doesn't seem to be independent notability. Any redeemable info should eb merged and the article redirected as suggested above. Alansohn 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Muslim[edit]

Subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Notability not asserted. Articles circulating the net do not qualify for notability. Allegedly mentioned in "Sexual Ethics & Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence. Oxford, UK: Oneworld, pp. 146, 191, 192" possible minor discussion (unknown, though only three page references). If notability cannot be asserted the article should be deleted MidgleyDJ 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the subject of the article is more notable than the subject of the Wikipedia entry for John Gilchrist. Both are polemicists and the subject of controversy.--Mere dhimmi 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references in the article are largely self-referential. Not seeing it here. Might I suggest referencing WP:N and WP:BIO for what is requrired? --Dennisthe2 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, written without any references. Looks like propoganda article used to improve hits on some freaky website. I being a Muslim has never heard this term because either you are Muslim or not-Muslim... --- ALM 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and NPOV.Montco 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been established. ITAQALLAH 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another web pundit trying to make a name for himself; what makes him notable ? Nothing in the article says. WMMartin 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you took a look at the history, it's obvious that this entry was originally submitted by a detractor and critic of the person in question, not himself. Mere Muslim is a well-known figure and writer on Muslim apologetic websites, winner of several awards for his weblog, and I have updated the article to show that. ALM missed the point, since his pen name Mere Muslim relates to the name of his Mere Islam weblog, which is an Islamic twist of C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity. FatimaAR 07:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for lack of substantial third-party coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesea[edit]

Disputed prod. Concern: "Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria; no referenced assertion of notability. Previously deleted at AFD. Possible CSD A7 / G4." See Talk:Nemesea#Save Nemesea! for explanation of prod removal. The editor who removed the prod tag cleaned up and expanded the article; it's no longer a speedy candidate but there are still no references to verify that the band meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Muchness 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet on a G4. Speedy DeleteRetracted, see below. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure whether the current version is a substantially identical duplicate of the previously deleted article, so G4 may not apply. --Muchness 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, figured that and then I saw the talk page a little closer; the talk page would constitute enough for a {{hangon}} I think. Retracted between then and now, but I'll still hold to a Delete. --Dennisthe2 00:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah sorry, didn't notice you'd retracted before I added the hangon tag. --Muchness 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs improvement, but the move to delete is misguided. This band is well-established and popular in Nordic Europe, an integral part of the gothic/symphonic metal scene thriving there. Appropriate Google and established rock reference searches will easily confirm this. I accept that appropriate references need to be added, and given enough time either myself or another editor will add them. This is the third time I have had to defend an article from individuals ignorant of a band and the genre with which they are associated. If these AfDs were raised by those knowledgeable of the field, in this case Symphonic Metal, this would be a reasonable debate, but there is a flaw in the system that allows articles to be removed on the initiative of people who know nothing about the associated genre or anything musical that goes on outside of North America. In short, I resent having to defend knowledge against the unknowledgeable (in the field concerned). I believe that the upgrading of an article, (which is certainly needed in this case) and proving beyond reasonable doubt its worth to the layman should not be to a deadline after which the article is removed. In my last two experiences, justice and the preservation of knowledge triumphed over ignorance, and I hope that experience is repeated with this article, because this is what is at stake. Headshaker 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And the band played on... Major label? No. Multiple albums? No. What part of WP:MUSIC is this supposed to meet? Specialist knowledge of minor regional music subgenres is not required in order to assess inclusion, sources - specifically, multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources - is what's required. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have read the "And The Band Played On" section and found it disturbing if not sinister. Is its author seriously suggesting that even if a band makes the cover of Rolling Stone, they would be excluded from Wikipedia because they pushed their luck before they got famous? Would that not make Wikipedia itself vain and arrogant? I would argue that the objective of the enterprise is the preservation of knowledge. If that principle is sacrificed to make a point then mindless bureaucracy has triumphed over reason. Returning to the matter in hand, I will address each "point" in turn:
  1. The absence of a Major label deal or prolific discography are not the sole criteria: extent of fanbase is also important. Given time it can be demonstrated that this band has a significant European fanbase and therefore are worthy of inclusion.
  2. Symphonic Metal specifically and the European metal scene generally is not a "minor regional sungenre". Regional yes, but a multi-million dollar regional industry with a massive fanbase. Metal in general is mainstream in Northern Europe. Some knowledge of it is required in order to make a fair judgement of an individual band's significance within it.
  3. Nemesea has had considerable coverage from the regional rock media of Northern Europe. Given enough time, that can be demonstrated. The AfD came to my attention only 24 hours ago.
- Finally to point out that I have no direct interest in Nemesea, and only have one of their tracks. I have however in a relatively short time learned much about the metal scene in Northern Europe in general and Symphonic Metal in particular, so I know about that of which I speak. Proof will be forthcoming, but I resent having to produce it (again!) just because some individuals in North America know nothing about a scene thriving far from their shores. I am also passionate about the proliferation and defence of knowledge. I plead that a travesty of justice is in danger of being perpetrated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headshaker (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 January 2007.
  - I don't think that's what the article is suggesting - it's pointing at a possible path that the article can take if it keeps popping up. I mean, if this were 20 years ago and you had (say) Toad The Wet Sprocket, if I may name one amongst millions of examples, they would possibly have been rejected before 1991, when their third album (Fear) was released - or possibly later, when it went gold. Point being, local notability doesn't work unfortunately, and thinking it would may get the article killed if they do become popular enough for Rolling Stone. --Dennisthe2 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for trying to explain, but by your own last sentence, the cumulative effect is that a band making the cover of Rolling Stone would not have its own article. That is just plain wrong. I know the significance of Toad The Wet Sprocket and as part of a new movement it would also have been wrong if they had been excluded, gold album or not. Regarding "local notability", in the case of Nemesea, we are not talking about a few bier kellers in Amsterdam, but a fanbase across Northern Europe. --Headshaker 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have added some references to the Nemesea article as external links and divided them into two sections. The first is "band-sponsored", ie endorsed by the band. The second section consists of references to the band from independent sources such as online magazines. I hope this goes some way to demonstrating that this band are well-known in Northern Europe.--Headshaker 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the newest articles on the group that have been added and bio's. Someone should merge these links and these articles information into the current article. I will put it on my to do list for next week if the article survives. Good work to whoever tracked down the sources. It should also be noted they did release on a label and the popularity of the group to attract the attention and tour for another group is pretty high. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of now, the article offers nothing towards WP:BAND. Notability criteria are not interpreted mechanically. However, ignoring criteria in a random and chaotic manner, with no predictability or consistency, is cruel and unusual to those articles that do get deleted for failing the very same criteria to which we'd be turning a blind eye in keeping this. So the question becomes: Does this band have something WP:BANDish, with reliable sources backing it up? Not "established / integral / WP:ILIKEIT / part of something thriving / has fans in different places / uninformed people want to delete". See WP:BAND, very carefully read the paragraph that starts "Also, please keep in mind..." Weregerbil 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very hard for me to respond to most of the above points because I simply can't understand them. Plain English please! I did get the NPA bit, to which the short answer is that my remark that people moving to delete this article are uninformed is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. Unless any of them can tell me that they actually know about the European metal/goth scene, it is perfectly valid for me to question their credibility in attacking articles related to it. If I had accused them of being uninformed generally (which I clearly wasn't) that would have been out of order. If anything they are out of order for failing to assume my good faith. I defend the article out of a sense of right and wrong, not from any personal stake. As a matter of personal morality as opposed to Wikipedia policy dogma, I would never move to delete bands just because I had never heard of them, particularly if relating to whole genres and (major!) regional scenes of which I was previously unaware. On the contrary, I would feel gladdened that I had learned something I didn't know before. I believe passionately in defending knowledge and people's access to it, and I am well within the bounds of politeness and Wikipedia policy to point out that in this case, in the eyes of any reasonable neutral, those judging this article as not worth knowing do not have the credibility to do so.--Headshaker 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having had a good night's sleep, I went back to the Weregerbil's arguments to see if I could make more sense of them with a fresh mind. It was still very hard to read (which is not a personal attack but a statement of fact), but I have the following counter-points to make:
    1. In the limited time I have had available I have included neutral recognised information sources in the external links to back up the article, so I do not agree that I have offered nothing towards criteria for inclusion.
    2. The fact that the band are established and well-known within the field of European gothic/symphonic metal is a valid point to make. Researchers into this genre would want to know who the established bands were.
    3. It is most definitely not valid to counter arguments I never actually used. I have never at any point said that I liked the band. On the contrary, I have already stated that I only had one of their tracks in my possession.
    4. Not only are policies quoted inappropriately, but in Wikipedia policy itself, in the same set of guidelines as I LIKE IT, it also clearly states that simply quoting policy is not a valid argument, unless it is properly backed up with how the policy is breached.
    5. Instead of asking ME to chase round looking up all these misused policy articles in order to counter the points, it would have been more useful to neutrals viewing this argument if the relevant passages had been quoted directly here. I couldn't even find the part that started "Also, please bear in mind..."--Headshaker 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD's on notability are not decided by who calls others "uninformed" etc. Please see WP:NPA: there is no excuse for personal attacks. None. Please don't even try. If you attack other editors we'll just think you have run out of rational arguments on the real issue at hand. It truly does you no good.

AfD's are also not decided by essays on "defending access to information". Those appear regularly here, and are kind of a running joke... Not helpful.

The outcome of AfD's are decided by policy and guidelines. Instead of "defending information" and speculating on other editors' knowledge please concentrate on WP:RS and WP:BAND.

"Also, please bear in mind" is the fourth paragraph of WP:BAND. "Established and well known" opinions on talk pages have no importance; explain in the article itself using reliable sources. Weregerbil 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. Sorry, but I can't find a reason to ignore WP:BAND here. The article has sources that review their only album (which is nothing unusual), some sources are trivial listing, some are written by the band itself. There is no evidence of meeting WP:BAND or some other special condition that WP:BAND doesn't list but would establish notability. Weregerbil 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:BAND. If they were notable they would have been covered by some of the mainstream metal magazines, which they don't seem to have been. One Night In Hackney 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasna Mađarević[edit]

AfD nominated by 83.3.33.136 with reason: "Not a professional mathematician, just a teacher". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it a little interesting that the original anon nominator is a contributor to Đuro_Kurepa which I'd sooner delete before this article. wtfunkymonkey 01:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:NOTE WP:CITE and WP:PROF, both this and Đuro_Kurepa could probably be speedied under CSD:A1 and/or CSD:A7. wtfunkymonkey 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE and CITE aren't deletion policies, let alone speedy deletion policies, and neither are the many notability guidelines. A7 requires that the article doesn't even assert notability, which this one does. Melchoir 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are her cites going to be obvious on a search if her name is normally written in Cyrillic and could be transliterated in more than one way? WP:GOOGLE actually uses the example of a Serbian individual to point out that individuals from countries that don't use the Latin alphabet may be underrepresented in any kind of search, not just Google. --Charlene 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really can't tell about this person, but I can't understand why wtfunkymonkey wants to delete the article on Djuro Kurepa, who is clearly notable. But with that article too, we see the problem of various transliterations. For example, the biography in the MacTutor History of Mathematics is titled Dura Kurepa.--OinkOink 06:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried all kinds of Latin transliterations (including for example Madjarevic) as well as Cyrillic, and found little else than hits related to teaching mathematics and giving presentations at local maths conferences. I found no publications, also not on the "Jasna Madjarevic Official Website". The list under "Recent works" appear to be such presentations; that is why we have no citations. No evidence of notability. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, no full citations to any printed works. EdJohnston 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lambiam. Melchoir 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambiam. --Sopoforic 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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