Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

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 07:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

James gould[edit]

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

James Gould (February 14th, 1956-) is the subject of a controversial documentary entitled "Growing Up Gould". The documentary depicts the early life of James Castle Gould, ranging from his birth to his adolescence. The independent documentary dealt with the accusations of kidnapping, his Homo Erotic tendencies, as well as his passion for 'Interspecies Erotica'.

Early Life

James was born on February 14th, 1956 and was delivered at St. John's Medical Center located in Longview, Washington. James was born a healthy 8.7 pounds 15 1/4 inches, to parents Ona and Charles Gould. James was taken home shortly after.

At Age 7, Charlie Gould enrolled James in acting lessons at Madam Cherise's Academy Of Theatrical Arts. James struggled heavily along his stay at the academy, with frequent run-ins with the school authorities.

On June 10th 1964, James dropped out of Madam Cherise's Academy Of Theatrical Arts. Charles, disappointed in James' performance in school soon turned to alcoholism for relief; sometimes leaving James alone for a fortnight. James soon learned how to take care of himself, becoming a excellent cook. Often James would cook dinner for his siblings while his parents were away.

Adolescence

At age thirteen James was no longer allowed to sleep with his parents. Ona and Charlie weened James from the master bedroom into his own room. James was forced to apply flypaper to his crotch before he slept, as to prevent further damage to his genitals.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Harlamon[edit]

Questionable notability. Importance seems confined to local area. ghits: [1] NMChico24 00:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. Harlamon took over the reigns of a key Connecticut city during the height of racial strife. He was a major player in Waterbury, CT history. It should be noted that Wikipedia cites numerous Waterbury Ct mayors when went to jail. It should include an entry about an accomplished mayor who was later elected to the city's Hall of Fame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boston2bronx (talk • contribs) .
Keep one reference in the NYTimes [2] and this article more than likely mentions him too. I wouldn't expect much to turn up on the web for a politician who retired in 1970. Demiurge 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs cleanup, but is clearly notable. While all small-city mayors are not normally notable, this one IS, by evidence of the numerous sources and clear assertions to notability in the text of the article. If someone in the Waterbury, CT area could head on down to the library to find news or book references to this guy it would be even better, since finding web-references on a long-retired (but certainly notable) politician can be tough. --Jayron 32 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable, as per Jayron32. Bucketsofg 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up.__Seadog ^♪ 15:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 60 Hits on Google Arctic-Editor 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He had a notable history and references from WP:RS demonstrate that. --Oakshade 16:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I saw that he was local and questioned the keeps, but after reading it and all the references on him, he seems relatively notable. The article just needs to delve in on his term as mayor, since that seems to be what's notable. --Wizardman 17:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that he's notable enough to have an article, but it needs more focus on him being mayor. The NYT articles are definitely a reliable source. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:45 25/11/2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Everyking 11:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not easy to get good information about local history, especially from the pre-web era. The New York Times articles appear to be reliable sources, so the article should be maintainable. EdJohnston 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The New York Times is definitely reliable. He has some notability in him and just needs some cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Benbenek[edit]

Strong notability concerns. Also reads like a vanity article with a significant lack of objective references. Was proposed for deletion, but the tag was removed without explanation -- Tim D 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where to start? The Yahoo! reference doesn't say anything about a "pick of the year". Googling for "benbenek site:eastvillageartsdistrict.com" returns no results. The other references are just fluff — I can't see any notability here. Demiurge 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bolding his name wherever it appears is a good indication of the content. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is now. Has a window of hope if anyone can produce third-party reliable sources that indicate that this guy is known outside of his own self-created websites. Makes many assertions of notability, mainly for producing apparently non-notable works of art and performing with non-notable punk bands. I am willing to change my vote if notability can be established by producing third-party reviews of ANY of his work in reliable sources. --Jayron 32 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll never have the five seconds I wasted looking at that NN piece of vanity crud back. Pete Fenelon 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto on Pete's comments. Rever e ndG 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Nothing notable. Arctic-Editor 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the individual has apparently earned enmity in the free-art-online world, but that's not the same as notability. --Dhartung | Talk 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT What is "the free-art-online world"?? And what does "enmity" mean? Do you think this Benbenek guy is trying to use Wikipedia as some sort of "free-art" open-source text project?? I get the feeling you're correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennyson Miles (talk • contribs) — Tennyson Miles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
COMMENT So, suddenly Wikipedia is all about "notability"...or maybe it's just a kind of high-tech, open-source popularity contest? Not that many people in the obscure-est reaches of Arkansas or Mt Everest know who Einstein was (or what he did) yet Einstein is in Wikipedia. There are thousands of entries in Wikipedia that ARE NOT of a "notable" nature. How unfair is it to discredit a simple entry on the basis of "notability" - this type of "notability-based" stamp-of-approvalocity is unfair and narrow-minded and should not be tolerated. It's interesting to see that four or five guys (always guys...) with little sense of the "real" world can make or break a Wikipedia entry. All the negative criticism of this entry is based on spurious INTERNET data. Has anyone called The Swedenborg Society or East Village Arts District for verification of these Benbenek entry claims? Nah, I doubt it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

The following comments were added after this page was blanked by User:Otis Fodder, who created the article in question. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No reason for nomination? Hmm. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 06:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might be tempted to agree with the reasoning given, had it actually been given. As such I see this as a closeable incomplete nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to add some reasoning, then. See my comment below. :) Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Benbenek does not appear to live up to Wikipedia's standards of notability:

His name gets just over 500 hits on Google, not a good start.
His personal website, here, has an Alexa ranking of over 1.6 million. Thus, the claim "Over the past 10 years, Benbenek has posted literally hundreds of unique and artistic web pages, making Houseplant Picture Studio one of the most popular arts-oriented sites on the internet." a total falsehood.
"In the early 1990s,Benbenek was a member of the rock band The Shatners"; the band's website is hosted on Geocities, not good. Also, in the less than 1,000 google hits for this band, I cannot find a relevant and reliable source that mentions Benbenek's name. Moreover, the band's albums are on Archive.org, so they appear to be unsigned.
"In 1996, Benbenek relocated to London, England where he was Assistant Secretary at The Swedenborg Society" - the only sources I can find to verify this claim are from Wikipedia and the Answers.com and About.com mirrors of this page, and his Blogspot page.
"Between 1997 and 2005 Benbenek collaborated with and produced five albums for the Woolwich punk band The Plumstead Common" - this band gets even fewer hits than Benbenek's own name (164 according to Google), has not been signed, and so on, and so forth.
"In 2005, Benbenek also co-produced the critically acclaimed album Haymarket Revival by The Magnesium Pie " - this would be easier to believe if the review that was added to support this claim actually loaded, but the site appears to be down. Of course, it doesn't help that the band's name only gets 95 hits on Google, and no verifiable sources among them.
His solo album, "Third Toga Party from the Sun", gets only 179 google hits and no credible or reliable sources/reviews/mentions that I can find.

So, the article's claims to notability appear to be completely unfounded. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was vandalised when I read it, but by what I've seen above & checked in the history, this article should be exterminated... Spawn Man 08:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N - was also vandalised when I went to read it. Bubba hot ep 09:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bucketsofg 14:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable.__Seadog ^♪ 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Fails WP:BIO. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:50 25/11/2006 (UTC)
Delete his name is no longer bolded throughout, but that change does not create notability where there was none.--Anthony.bradbury 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-fails notability guidelines WP:BIO.--John Lake 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE - COMMENT I disagree...BENBENEK is very notable within and without Wikipedia guidelines. Does anyone (ie; freelance and unpaid Wikipedia editors) access knowledge bases beyond the internet around here? A few well-placed REAL WORLD phone calls might change a few minds concerning BENBENEK and his lengthy and very notable list of artistic and musical accomplishments. Calls for BENBENEK article deletion are premature and nothing but pure tech chatter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)
- As the dissenter, isn't the onus at least partially on you to point everyone to some of these "knowledge bases beyond the internet"? Also, since a substantial portion of the subject's claims to notability are based on his Web site, using Web-based research techniques isn't entirely out of place. I tend to agree that WP is somewhat biased toward first-world Google-at-my-fingertips research methods, but it's not like the subject in question works entirely outside of that realm, so it's reasonable to expect him to have left a mark there. Regards, PhilipR 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - - No, of course web-based research isn't out of place...but not all "notability" resides on the internet or is easily graspable via email, Google or (egads!) Wikipedia. Someone above mentioned they couldn't (or can't contact) The Swedenborg Society via electronic means...my suggestion is to use the telephone.

The problem with Wikipedia and it's users is that it (and they) assume everything of importance is web-based and can be found through Google, etc. It isn't and never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

Comment. The Internet is kind of like a meta-resource. If something is picked up by any medium (books, magazines, news reports, etc.), it will show up on the Internet. Almost every newspaper in the country is indexed by Google news, for instance. I'm trying to think of a possible exception to all of this, but I'm having trouble. Do you have any examples in particular? -- Tim D 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - - I don't know what you mean by "meta-resource" - sounds like questionable and vague Wikipedia-speak to me. Just because some cultural thing is "on the internet" (or can be quantified via often shady and/or meaningless internet statistics) doesn't mean it's "notable" (whatever "notable" means!) - some of the least notable things in the world started and died quick deaths on the internet. Where EXACTLY is it written that Google statistics are absolute LAW? For example, how is a website's (or person's or thing's) popularity or "success" or "notability" calculated on the internet? Is it calculated by number of VISITORS, PAGE VIEWS or ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE(s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

reply to User:Otis Fodder. At issue here is that any information we put into an article about Kurt Benbenek must be cross-referenced to a print or internet source outside of wikipedia, and also not written by Kurt Benbenek. It is real simple. If you can provide print or internet references, not written by Kurt Benbenek or anyone connected to him, that appear in any source that undergoes editorial process (newspapers(like New York Times), magazines(like Rolling Stone), edited websites(Like Salon.com), trade journals(like Variety), books, etc.) the article gets kept. Its that simple. This isn't a popularity contest, and it isn;t biased. Your calling it so does not make it so. Let me repeat what I said before. PROVIDE REFERENCES THAT TALK ABOUT KURT BENBENEK AND YOU KEEP THE ARTICLE. No one has done that yet. We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums, we don't want phone numbers. We want references that someone has written, an editor has reviewed, and a publisher has published. Such requirements are for every article, and the standard is applied here and everywhere else without prejudice. --Jayron 32 05:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - When you say "we" ("We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums.."), do you mean that you're paid by Wikipedia and you speak for them and all involved with Wikipedia? If you're NOT being paid to debate and investigate articles (such as this BENBENEK article), why do you do it and why do you use the word "we"? Are you speaking for Wikipedia as a thing or as an internet corporate entity? Or is the "we" referring to only you? This will help me respond to your immediately-previous comment...because I worry when single individuals start throwing the "we" word around. Plus I'm a little new to Wikipedia as an open-source text phenomenon. Plus I'm too lazy to hunt down your "Wikipedia User Profile" and see if you're part of official Wikapedia management. I figure you're probably just eager to respond to just about anything any body throws on these ever-changing and well-formatted pages. My other guess is that you're a BOT, but Wikipedia BOTs are probably out on Thanksgiving weekend vacation.

So, what is this "we" that you type of...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

reply The "we" that wrote the following policies and guidelines:

It is real simple. Click on each blue link I have put above. Read each policy and guideline. Rewrite your article so it meets the guidelines and policies set out above. Then the article gets kept. I refuse to use "I" when I mean "we". These are policies and guidelines that have been established and used by thousands of wikipedia editors long before I came along, and continue to be used by many thousands more. That is the "we" of which I speak.--Jayron 32 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Fodder, I think we can say that the authority of Wikipedia editors or the Internet isn't up for review here. All that's needed is for you or someone else to provide some real and accessible sources to back up the notability of Mr. Benbenek. That's all! And in response to your above question, a "meta-resource" is by definition a resource of resources. -- Tim D 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear mom (who was somehow born in the 20s in Missouri without the use of Wikipedic means of childbirth) always taught me to watch out for ***GROUP THINK*** and when some anonymous guy on the internet tells me to "follow the blue links" I think I better start worrying. Guy...guys...if you all really have raging hard-ons for deleting my nice, little BENBENEK article, then by all means cite Wikipedia authority and direct people to your blue links until you're blue in the face and get on with it. I figure the BOTs have the final say anyway in these important article matters...so...whatever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

if the "authority of Wikipedia editors" isn't up for review here, then where exactly will the review take place? I'd like to reserve a special front row seat when it happens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

Speaking of Wikipedia (and don't we all...) my biggest worry is that if all the knowledge in the world is sucked and uglified into Wikipedia, THEN if the worldwide electricity grid ever (somehow) goes out or is compromised by aliens from Neptune (one day in the bleak, Bradburyan future) then we're all up a wet knowledge creek with no brain paddles...because by then (as the Scriptures say) Google will have scanned and destroyed all our books including real encyclopedias and dictionaries, etc - therefore, putting everything on the internet is not totally good OR wise! Those that somehow think they are ***The Master Internet Scribes of Wikipedia*** should maybe give the whole smelly deal a better think-through...and also maybe should possibly be suspicious of cyber-movements of masses of lonely like-minded and self-proclaimed editors of The Almighty Wiki(pedia) into ONE MIND SET. It didn't work for the Freemasons and Lynyrd Skynyrd, so why in heck should it work here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

if a meta-resource is a "resource of resources" then I guess a meta-meta-resource would (by definition) be a "resource of resource of resources" - language sure is fun and mysterious. Yes, yes, yes...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)
- You know what...that is absolutely correct! So what do you think a meta-meta-meta-resource might be? Personally, I'm stumped. -- Tim D 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're serious or what. Tennyson Miles 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per all above and WP:SNOW, this is going nowhere. Is it just me, or does it seem like on AfD's, that there's nearly always an an inverse ratio between the amount of longwinded protests by an author and the amount of sources they come up with? Tubezone 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've started receiving prank e-mails from this jerk. Rklawton 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have too. I think that it might be an attempt at quasi-aggressive post-modernism or something. -- Tim D 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everything I had planned on saying was said above. I only found this because, even though I have no idea why I was chosen, I was spammed with a ridiculous email attempting to canvas a keep !vote from me. Not gonna happen. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive research by Daveydweeb. Lack of reliable sources means I am not inclined to believe Otis Fodder, who has a record of vandalism. Ohconfucius 03:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen...guys...fellas...we're all on the same team here, right? Huh? Am I right? I mean we all watch "Family Guy" and think Bill Gates is real neato. Now, take off your frowns and put on some BIG happy faces and retract all your deletes...please I beg of each and every one of you guys...oh, please. PS - looking forward to reading more impassioned commentary by this distinguished and highly intelligent, freelance and unpaid volunteer Wikipedia semi-editorial crew. You guys are doin' great! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2006
- I was going to reply that I don't really like Bill Gates, but after thinking about it for a minute, I guess he is a pretty good guy, what with all his charity funding and all. But that's neither here nor there. Now back to topic! :) :) :) -- Tim D 06:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how many categories of flame war does above comment by author fit into? It's certainly above 1. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete - how long do these "delete debates" tend to drag on? It seems like you guys have an awful lot of free time to waste on such an insignificant article as this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 November 2006

- *sigh* - I'm not supposed to use the T-word, they tell me... Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban Otis Fodder for spamming. Danny 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ban - per nom and for disruptive behavior. Rklawton 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Hey, guys (and I use that term in kind reference to each and every one of you) you all sure certainly seem to be dragging your collective Wikipedia-enraged feet. Why hasn't anyone sent the real BOTS in? You know...the BOTs that Wikipedia management keeps in reserve for situations such as these. Every cry of "DELETE" only makes me more determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve the integrity and textual (and paragraphical) essence of what this proud and defiant "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article means. Thanks! Have a great day! PS - ask yourself if your mom would want you to vote for deletion and then please vote your conscience...and also watch out for the BOTS. They seem to be everywhere in this Wikipedic Hell! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) — Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete On top of all this - "Otis Fodder" is assuming someone else's identity. I believe Otis Fodder is actually Kurt Benbenek. How do I know this? Because I know Otis Fodder - and he would not defend this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.157.87 (talk • contribs)
Delete per Daveydweeb. Maxamegalon2000 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ - So, now I'm being accused of using a pseudonym...here...as I defend my article. Hey, Einstein...the internet lives and dies on the concept of pseudonymic nomenclature veiling (hiding one's identity) so I wouldn't get your britches in too tight of a twist. As for you "knowing Otis Fodder" I can only assume you're speaking in the Biblical sense and so, enough of all this high-and-mighty pseudonym-bashing. I can use damn well ANY pseudonym I want, under Wikipedic Law or any other law. So, buzz off and go get a coffee with your best bud Otis Fodder...geez, you wiseacres are all the same. How you all could be so mean, cruel and nasty at this time of the year is beyond me. You narrow-minded and frigid (morally) PRO-DELETE GUYS must be some kind of mutant Dickensian Scrooges without hearts, Souls or common Universal decency. Fer cryin' out loud leave my little "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article the Hell alone and go back to wrapping Christmas presents and de-fragmenting your constantly-malfunctioning 64 MB thumb drives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)
- Comment one vote per person - please stop voting multiple times --ArmadilloFromHell 07:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No mentions of notability, extreme disruption by the author. I smell WP:OWN and WP:VAIN here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we just delete now per WP:SNOW and WP:DFTT? Even the author has admitted it's a losing proposition, and prolonging this discussion helps nothing but to indeed continue feeding. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the guy who has problems with my "Otis Fodder" pseudonym? I think all debate should cease until he has a chance to respond to my immediately-previous comment.Anyway, all of this is beside the point becasue someone has already transferred my article (under it's previous title) to another informational web area. Please reset your browsers to the following independent HTML page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 November 2006
Delete and salt - And possibly ban the author. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, you guys talk (type) like you own the place and rent's past due. Jeez, have a little friendly Christmas Spirit, why don't ya? Life's short. Wake up and smell the roses. It's Miller Time. Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. Starbucks makes the best coffee in town!, What we have here is a failure to communicate, Mrs Robinson, you're trying to seduce me...OK, punk start countin'... Nobody does it like Sara Lee...YouTube...the Video Distribution Center for Today's Now Generation! OK guys...waiting for the next lonely guy to chime in and put his penny's worth in...it's Tuesday and things are getting mighty slow around here. Smile you're on Candid Camera!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)
Delete. - What's the deal? The BOTS said they banned me several days ago and that I couldn't edit this cute little text space anymore. And here I am back and roaming free with Sprint. Maybe one of you Wikipedians can explain. By the way...is Wikipedia a state of mind or a real place like Nebraska? Just wondering.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs)

Is this a case for {{db-author}}, then? Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Daveydweeb...look fella...I'm on your side...just go about your merry way and let the grown-ups handle this...thanks!
Delete... my Mom said "Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria." Gotta listen to Mom.--Isotope23 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:BIO --Charlesknight 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Hubbard[edit]

Contested PROD with no explanation. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, with no sources provided. This article about a baseball player still playing in the minors. According to the MLB site, this player is not on the Seattle Mariners active, or 40-man rosters. Whpq 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rklawton 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor league players are unlikely to generate press outside of game programs produced by his own teams. If anyone can produce reliable, third-party reviews of his play as a ball player, or other press about him, I might be willing to change my vote. --Jayron 32 02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rever e ndG 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Nothing notable. Arctic-Editor 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:51 25/11/2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why this article is nominated for deletion? There are plenty of other minor leaguers who have pages here on Wikipedia. By most scout accounts Hubbard will reach the minor leagues at some point within the next two years, how good he is shouldn't matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.242.1.15 (talk • contribs)

reply to above the ONLY criteria we care about is whether an article can be written about this subject where every fact listed therin can be referenced to reliable, third party sources. This one cannot, so it must go. If another minor league ball player meets this threshold, it stays. It has no bearing on what the article is ACTUALLY about, only if it can be populated with notable, verifiable facts that appear in other reliable sources, independant from either wikipedia or the subject itself. --Jayron 32 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't salt. Hope he makes it to the majors. --Oakshade 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirichlet prime[edit]

Contested prod. Apparent hoax, no credible sources whatsoever. Derlay 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - unless you count Harvard as not a credible source. I just checked in with a math prof (Ph.D.), and she knew it right off the top of her head.Rklawton 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -- the article has been corrected, and properly referenced. John254 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the word of even the smartest person in the whole world would mean nothing for an AfD discussion (unless said words were published in reliable sources), this term is notable. A google search turned up these references: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Next time, do a google search and read a few of the links before coming straight to AfD. Some of these websites are even referenced in the article (though I don't know if they appeared after this nomination). --Jayron 32 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - plenty of evidence out there to back this up. Pete Fenelon 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been sourced, it's a real math concept. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, so I'm going to eat crow on this.
- 1) it turns out my revisions (An + B where A & B are coprime) introduced Dirichlet's theory well enough (a worthy article). That's why my math professor friend keyed on the name Dirichlet. But this expression includes the set of all prime numbers, and I find it hard to believe that every prime is a Dirichlet Prime. I reverted my work back to the original (minus a "see also" and someone else's reference improvement.
- 2) I did find a few references to "Dirichlet's primes" in common use (see the article's talk page), but nothing that equated the term with the function 3n-1. As this term is used in these links, it may have been simply a reference to his prime number theory.
- 3) Likewise, none of the references thoughtfully provided above equated the term with the function, either.
- 4) I also read through two of the leading, general number theory books (Ireland & Rosen, and Niven, Zuckerman, & Montgomery), and while they had a lot to say about Dirichlet, they never once used the term "Dirichlet prime" or described 3n+1 as a "Dirichlet Prime." Without a reference stating that primes as a function of 3n+1 are specifically named "Dirichlet Primes" - I can't support keeping this article. I apologize for jumping the gun on this one. Rklawton 04:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - replyHowever, Dirichlet appears to have really worked on prime numbers, and his work really was novel. Some of the citations I foudn above refer to Dirichlet's Theorm or something similar. We could move this article to a new name, and then rewrite it from the sources I found to be accurate. I am not a mathematician, I cannot even pretend to be able to work this article out anymore than I have done in finding sources. However, I do believe that this is a rescuable article that a real mathematician could work out. Maybe just a move and rewrite? Is a delete really in order? --Jayron32 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - article You are correct. Dirichlet did very significant work. The article you suggest is here Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions. Rklawton 05:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed vote from above, since the term, as it exactly appears as the title of the article, does not appear to be a notable term, and the article I propose should exist in its place already exists. Even I can admit when I am wrong. --Jayron 32 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions or delete. There is no evidence for a proper definition of Dirichlet primes. The term is used sometimes, but it is sloppy language referring to primes of the form An + B in the context of Dirichlet's theorem (sloppy for the reason that Rklawton gives). However, a redirect would perhaps be helpful (it would certainly have saved Rklawton some efforts). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC), amended 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the new information above. John254 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a valid mathematics article. JIP | Talk 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Jitse, but tag the redirect as {{R unprintworthy}} ({{R from alternative name}} doesn't really fit, and neither does {{R from misspelling}}, and we don't seem to have {{R from misinterpreted concept}}). Xtifr _tälk 09:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to Delete per comments by Primehunter below (but if redirected, my previous advice stands). Xtifr _tälk 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason I gave in Talk:Dirichlet prime. Warut 13:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Seems like a Hoax Arctic-Editor 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prod'ed it. I haven't seen a relevant Google hit, credible or non-credible. Don't redirect, per my comments at Talk:Dirichlet_prime. Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions doesn't mention "Dirichlet prime" or hint at a meaning (which doesn't appear to exist). Regarding Jitse's comments: Rklawton only searched it because Wikipedia claimed it existed, and other users seem likely to be confused by existence of a redirect (e.g. if they search Dirichlet prime without quotes, which currently gives better redirects to the theorem as 2nd and 3rd hit). PrimeHunter 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jitse. Seems notable as a part of a greater article, but not notable enough for its own. --Wizardman 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions, as it seems to be part of the subject. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:55 25/11/2006 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ as per above. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or redirect per acknowledgement by the creator of the article that there are no sources. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate later if anyone finds a justifiable citation. Hv 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ony reference shows no information. This may be made up, it may be real, it does not matter because untill proper references are found it is not verifiable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe these numbers should be called Dirichlet primes, but sadly it appears this is not an accepted name for them. Gandalf61 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, original research. Melchoir 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Jordan (basketball)[edit]

Nom - not notable except for fathering a notable person; his murder was only notable due to the same relationship. This subject is already covered in MJ's article. Rklawton 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep while ONLY being the father of a famous person is not in-and-of-itself notable; this was a murder victim who also received notable press. HOWEVER, the article is very poorly written, and needs a complete NPOV rewrite, including perhaps a name change, since he wasn't famous for any basketball reading. --Jayron 32 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the subject of multiple non-trivial published works: [7] [8] [9] [10] From the first page of the hits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ultra-Loser and Jayron. He's not there as a famous father, he's there as a famous murder victim. Bryan Pata just survived an AfD along similar lines -- he got the requisite press coverage. SliceNYC 02:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Pretty clearly notable as a part of a newsworthy event, press coverage in multiple non-trivial publications, as per WP:BIO. Article certainly could use expansion, though. Tubezone 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The murder receieved quite a bit of press attention at the time. As mentioned above, the article does need to be improved some (I already did some rephrasing) and it badly needs citations, but it is of a notable subject and it is definitely salvageable. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a huge re-write. FamicomJL 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Rever e ndG 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I'm not comfortable saying (basketball) as the descriptor, I can't really think of anything especially better. (murder victim) seems a bit too blithe. This article could be expanded though, with at least a few more details. If nt, at the worst, merge into Michael Jordan's article. FrozenPurpleCube 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep if there is more to his notoriety than his murder. Otherwise, I'd suggest that if the article is to remain in its own space, it should be named according to the event rather than the person. -- Tim D 04:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron. --Wizardman 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per everyone before me.__Seadog ^♪ 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Received notable media coverage, but I think that it should be renamed as "Basketball" isn't appropriate.
Keep, definitely notable due to the attention paid to his death. Anybody who received this much press coverage should have an article. Everyking 11:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please rename since this person is not a basketball Yuckfoo 22:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, content has been copied to Otherkin talk for use in merge. Tawker 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draconity[edit]

Fails the everything test. This vanity article is a WP:NOT soapbox violation of a small group of people believeing they are dragons. Fails WP:N as it doesn't prove any notability whatsoever. The entire article is WP:OR and it also fails to meet any of the standards of WP:RS. It its current state claiming the possiblity the article is a hoax is not outside of reason. NeoFreak 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Otherkin WP:BOLLOCKS. Pete Fenelon 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BULLSHIT. Rever e ndG 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should take such draconian measures, the word does garner over 10,000 ghits, there does seem to be enough people involved in this to make it notable (and others may be involved and not know it, take the dragon test to find out if you are). The article, on the other hand, needs work and better references. Keep Tubezone 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appreciate the draconity test! It would appear that I am, in fact, not dragon deep down inside or any other place for that matter (good to know). Yes, there are some people running around on the internet claiming that they dragons to varying degrees of manifestation but a solely internet based, argubaly delusional, group of people that find they have some metaphyscial relation to a mythical creature after a Mountain Dew and D&D overload does not automatically provide for notability. Just for the sake of argument, even if they did that doesn't remedy the unsolvable issues of soapbox-ish-ness, vanity, neologism, sub-culture forking or original research and reliable sources, esp the last as it will never exist for this "community". This material is best left where it belongs, on personal webpages devoted to the art of "being a dragon". NeoFreak 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. I think you could come up with plenty of other examples of weird subculture stuff (and other things) where the same problems would apply, too. However, those are content problems, notability isn't affected by how difficult a subject is to source references or write objectively about, notability is about whether the subject affects or affected enough people substantially enough to be notable. In this case it's an open question and drumming up reliable statistics on the number of people involved is difficult, but when I pop a weird word like this in Google and out pops 10,000 hits, it occurs to me that something notable might be going on. Tubezone 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keeping in mind you only raised the issue notability and that is the only issue that I'm responding too. Consider the fact that the word "Draconity" can refer to the simple "being of a dragon" which this article is not about and therefore any Ghit count is going to be horribly misrepresentative of what you are trying to establish. Again, for the sake of debate, even if this article were to prove some kind of notability (which it has not as it must in order to justify its existence) there is still a host of other rules it fails namely WP:NPOV, WP:RS per WP:V and more than a few aspects of WP:NOT. I really don't feel there is any sort of exceptional point in this article's nature that could warrant it being kept. NeoFreak 08:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You bring up a valid point about the ghit count possibly being bloated by other articles regarding dragons that have nothing to do with the topic of the article. Frankly, I'm not sure how one would determine how widespread this phenomenon is. I don't disagree with you about the problems with the current state of the article, or the difficulty of solving those problems. Tubezone 08:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO and WP:RS.

I want to grant this article every benefit of the doubt I can. I recognize that there are people who identify as dragons, and as far as I am concerned, there's nothing wrong with that. Many consider this as a subset of Furry Fandom or Otherkin, and logically a well rounded encyclopedia that covers those topics should cover Draconity as well. The problem with the article is that there is not nearly enough written about this particular subset, apart from personally published pages, USENET and message boards. (Compare the references and external links on Furry Fandom and Otherkin to Draconity, and you'll see what I mean.) Therefore it cannot be included into Wikipedia at this time. You can always come back and recreate it when there is more written on it by independent sources.

(Oh, and to those of you quoting WP:BOLLOCKS, that's only intended as an essay, it's not policy. Please try to use a valid reason if you want to object to this article.) --RoninBK_ETC 08:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not a dragon, and I have never contributed to this article. The Wikipedian people need to know that their King, Lord Protector and Dictator Of All Reality, is not a dragon. Also, I was only bringing up the point of notability, which I believe you are addressing properly in the context of similar topics. I will leave the podium now and you may address further questions to the Secretary of Otherkin. Where the $%#$#& is he? Tubezone 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we must, redirect to Otherkin or something, for which this seems to be only a subspecies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present this article is original research (no sources outside the community itself, no reliable sources at all). They can come back when they have their own article in Vanity Fair and we can actually verify the assertions made. Demiurge 10:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, what the hell, delete, this is nonsensical OR neologistic rubbish. Moreschi 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We have a policy of verifiability to prevent this sort of thing. This article has been in existence for almost two years [11]. "Come on guys, give them a chance, they'll produce reliable sources .. probably" does not cut it. A word concocted by followers of some on-line fetishist subculture is just another example of things made up in school one day. Not to mention WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:CRUFT and WP:BOLLOCKS. There is no encyclopaedia article to be had here, period. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I was the person who put the various clean-up tags on the article last week, and since then the article has been untouched. If it's been around 2 years, I honestly can't see it being improved to the point of inclusion. DarkSaber2k 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. --Wizardman 17:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per everyone too.__Seadog ^♪ 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 0L1 Talk Contribs 19:05 25/11/2006 (UTC)
Delete on almost any count you can think of. A small group of people playing with reality does not make an encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT for something made up in a gaming session one day either! Seraphimblade 10:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and clean up. While the article itself makes a few assertions that seem rather unplausible, I think that it could be cleaaned to the point that finding sources would not be completely out of the question. While it is a rather controversial issue and a very obscure subject, I'm willing to bet there's some mention of it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Stamper (talk • contribs)
- In that case I'd have to say: Show us some proof. The article has been up 2 years and those 4 sources were the best they can come up with. Find multiple independent non-trivial media mentions of this and maybe then theres room for negotiation. The Kinslayer 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to otherkin. I've been trying to think of ways of improving the article and haven't managed to do so. It is admittedly obscure, but it certainly brings up a number of hits as an internet subculture and there's a fair number of people in it. However, it is definitely closely related to otherkin, and may not be notable enough to merit a seperate article. I think the only real solution is to merge to otherkin and give it a subsection in that article, which has been recently gutted due to complaints about the lack of reliable sources. If someone can come up with numerous sources for this which are more independent, I'd be more likely to vote for keep. Titanium Dragon 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What verifiable, reliably sourced, non-original research material would you recommend merging? NeoFreak 14:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - When I looked for google hits, all I could find were multiple message boards relating to the subject, and message boards are not sources for establishing notability. (ior sources for anything else to do with an article for that matter.) The Kinslayer 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The problem is notability and lack of sources, which is why I think it should be merged with the otherkin article with very little of its text - though they make up an important subset of the community, they aren't notable in and of themselves, but their existence is mentioned (but not gone into in any detail) by several publications cited by the otherkin article (that is to say, dragons are mentioned along with others, but only briefly). So. really, I guess its really not much of a merging at all so much as "mention them in otherkin briefly". Titanium Dragon 11:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - It's a fair point, but it would probably be better to mention this on the otherkin talk page instead of here, especially seeing as how the emerging consensus seems to be that there is very little, if anything, in this article that is worth salvaging and moving across to the other article. Also, a good point made earlier in this debate was to have Draconity redirect to otherkin as well. The Kinslayer 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Otherkin, with caveats from discussion in previous thread. I.e., I agree with Titanium Dragon. I feel having a WP article on draconity has been valuable, I've contributed to it when I could, and I've been meaning to add better sources for a while. But many good points have been made on this page. I'd love to argue the article needs cleanup, not removal, but I just don't see enough verifiable sources right now for WP:NOTE. The best solution is to fold this back into Otherkin, which does at least pass that threshold, and then bring Draconity back if it ever starts getting attention on its own merits. Baxil 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. I thought this would be an obvious decision, but a bit of research changes my mind. The article as it stands is too much like original research, so I'm going with Delete for the moment. However, if the article returns with better references I'll be inclined to vote the other way: the phenomenon is real and though I've not met anyone who believes he's a dragon I have met some Otherkin, and believe that some of them are sincere. ( They may be wrong or loopy, but that doesn't stop them being sincere, and having a state of mind that should be covered here. ) WMMartin 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The core problem is that the neologism Draconity is not, as far as I can find, a recognized term for a demographic by any creditable academic or journalistic sources as this article asserts. It's soapboxing original research. NeoFreak 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Therianthropy, Otherkin is genuinely a neologism has been completely gutted. The idea that there is some incredibly important difference between believing you're a dragon and believing you're a wolf seems very weak to me. (I'm a dragon, I'm allowed to say that.) A paragraph or two in Therianthropy with a redirect on the word Otherkin is all the subject genuinely needs. Perhaps a note pointing to the existence of online communities specifically for dragons and vampires (do other species have specific communities?) is worth making. NickArgall 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are 5 to 10 websites with more than 1500 members and there are other articals with less than 75 people in the subculture !!! user:michak

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-25 23:57Z

Daniel Assef[edit]

Depending on which web page you read, Daniel Assef is either a Louisville,KY police officer, a Pepsico executive in Brazil, or an agricultural bureaucrat in Argentina. Whatever, he ain't notable. Author's Hbegg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) other edit was to an Australian boarding school... Tubezone 01:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can hardly say he doesn't assert notability. Delete, as a joke/hoax. Demiurge 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment D'oh! I should have said "not notable despite considerable assertions to the contrary" ;-) Tubezone 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of the Daniel Assef's appears notable. --Jayron 32 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a hoax and as failing WP:BIO. Crystallina 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable despite considerable assertions to the contrary. Rever e ndG 03:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 14:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. --Wizardman 17:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable.__Seadog ^♪ 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 0L1 Talk Contribs 19:12 25/11/2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I would have used {{db-nonsense}}. Article is wholly implausible, and given the dates of WW I it implies that he's at least 105 years old.--Anthony.bradbury 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't believe this made it to afd. Totally agree with Anthony. bradbury {{db-nonsense}}.--John Lake 23:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 Hoaxes this implausible can be deleted as obvious vandalism. Jesse Viviano 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Under Benjamin's Bed[edit]

This was prodded as "Book synopsis, no encyclopaedic content, little context". A user placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article. I take that to mean the user doesn't want the article deleted but didn't know that they were supposed to take off the prod to contest it. In any rate, I've brought it here as a contested prod. Metros232 01:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article provides little upon which to expand. Google and Amazon have little to say about it. Not an incredible amount comes up for the author, either. --NMChico24 01:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - NN book of little interest to anyone other than the author. Pete Fenelon 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article a mess, book non-notable, not worth it. Rever e ndG 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. #2,178,999 sales rank at Amazon. A total of 11 links returned in Google. Doesn't look to good for the book. -- Tim D 04:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NMChico24 and Tim D. Clearly a non-notable book. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm rivetted, just rivetted, to the awesome storylnie. What exactly was under little Benny's bed eh? This editor's writing ability IMHO... ;) Spawn Man 08:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the fact that this book sounds like the next Da Vinci Code </sarcasm>, it needs to go, entirely non-notable. Shadow1 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article in its present state is almost borderline speedy-deletion worthy. --Wizardman 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable. Rugbyball 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on your logic a bit? What do you feel makes this notable? Kuru ^talk 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pay no mind Kuru, this is a retaliation !vote for my comments at an AfD this user made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Dollard . Metros232 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he picked one you've put forth procedurally and is a semi-snowball delete? Boy, that'll teach you. Kuru ^talk 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me - But why does everyone put a "!" before "vote" to make "!vote"??? I'm confused as it makes no sense. Anybody up for clarifying it to me pretty please? Thanks, Spawn Man 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that while we call these things "votes," they're not really in a strict sense of the word. A "!" in the computer world is often used as a symbol for "not"...so "!vote" is a way of referring to this as a vote without really calling it a vote. -- Tim D 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination... Spawn Man 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable fails Ghits. Un-referenced no attempt to assert notability.--John Lake 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails the proposed WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually unknown book, published by a publishing company with only 56 unique google hits. They're redefining the meaning of "small press" in a downwards direction. JulesH 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ HOWL[edit]

non-notable RadioActive 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this article is incomprehensible, and as far as I can see, NN by Ghits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Fenelon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 November 2006
Delete per nom. John254 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems to be written in gibberish. Rever e ndG 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, or transwiki to Klingon Wikipedia.--Hús ö nd 04:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails MUSIC. Spawn Man 06:46, 25

November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC As to the style, I would suggest that the editor is a non-english speaker who has dragged a translation through a dictionary, or perhps two, with total ignorance of grammar.--Anthony.bradbury 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It hurts the eyes and warps the brain to read it. Non notable, fails Ghits.--John Lake 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:35Z

The Comedian's Comedian[edit]

Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Comedian's Comedian- Archive 1 Gnevin 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as apparent {{db-repost}}, and still no assertion of notability. DMacks 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason I created this article was that there were about 50 dead links pointing towards it. So obviously all the other authors of those articles think it's worthwhile mentioning...

And the fact that even the BBC reported on it, even though it was a show by their competitor, leads me to believe that this was not just another "best of" show, but something with a bit more weight. --Frescard 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really surprising that a list of 50 well-known people (notable enough to have wiki pages) is linked from about 50 wiki pages? And even if it were 10K pages, WP isn't just a self-referential asylum. The article itself really needs an explicit explanation of the selection and why it's notable, not just a listing with some un-explained refs. If it's cast as a list of people selected by peers, it might be notable enough and distanced enough from "some TV show" to survive.DMacks 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Speedy Delete and Salt as repost of copyvio content Bwithh 02:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted, restored original redirect to antidote Opabinia regalis 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexipharmic[edit]

I'm not quite sure if this article meets WP:MUSIC. There's definitely no sources given for that, that's for sure. Google searches won't really work for this since Alexipharmic is another name for antidote. In fact, this article was created by "hijacking" the redirect of the article to antidote. Seems to be doing something good with his Darfur efforts, but, is he a notable rapper? Metros232 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 03:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allmusic.com has a listing for a musician with this name, but the only credit relates to a 1997 electronica compilation album. See http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:t4he4jo73wau and http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jbz1z8ba1yv4 On the other hand, the 20-city tour that he is organizing would presumably mean that he would pass WP:MUSIC if it takes place. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this dude actually has a proper website (setting itself apart from the droves of musicians with just a MySpace page) - I have added the link to the article so people can make a more informed opinion. I am totally not into this type of music, but will not let that cloud my judgement! Bubba hot ep 09:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "would pass WP:MUSIC if..." is the key. Lots of bands and musicians would pass that guideline if only they'd do some of the things on that guideline. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He does sound like an admirable person, but I think we should wait until he is actually notable (and not just poised-to-become-notable) before we have an article. Xtifr _tälk 10:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: He seems to come kind of close to meeting WP:MUSIC, but isn't really there yet. Heimstern Läufer 23:48, 1 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 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Maranha[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; if anything he'd be notable under his project which doesn't have an article. Couldn't find external coverage. Crystallina 02:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. He's from Portugal, strange I've never heard of him or his band.--Hús ö nd 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 03:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Spawn Man 06:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusicguide has a listing, he's got two albums out, not sure if the labels are major or "important indie", since I'm not that familiar with Portuguese labels. Isn't on any of the charts that AMG tracks, but two albums could be enough to qualify him per WP:MUSIC. Might be worth investigating further. I'm going to say Weak Keep for now, in order to try to avoid more systemic bias, but I hope someone more familiar with Portuguese sources can investigate further. Xtifr _tälk 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-Nothing Notable Arctic-Editor 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping fetishism[edit]

Sexual arousal from watching someone strip naked seems way too universal to be considered a fetish. "Stripping fetishism" only gets 792 Ghits. Robotman1974 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before we get naked woman fetish. Rever e ndG 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though, I think I might have this fetishsim. I definately have sexual intercourse fetishism. Should I create an article about it? --Jayron 32 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haha, per Jyron32. A fetish implies that something is outside of the ordinary. Unless some kind of data can be shown that there is an observable group of people that can only or primarily derive sexual satisfaction from the act of becoming nude then this is just a neologism for "People that enjoy nudity". NeoFreak 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jeez, now I know what I've had all these years! Do I go see a doctor about it? Is there a patch for it? Man, this article has changed my life! ;) Thanks, Spawn Man 06:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more than adequately covered in Voyeur and Exhibitionism, and there is no mergeable content, or use as a redirect. --RoninBK_ETC 08:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Arousal from seeing naked people is way too common to be a sexual fetish. JIP | Talk 09:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one? So I'm normal?! Wow, what a relief! ;) (Tongue in cheek of course...) Spawn Man 09:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS - ouch, that's an awful pun - but seriously, a fetish implies abnormality. Moreschi 14:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent original research and probably neologism. Bucketsofg 14:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- LOL. This cant be true... Getting aroused from stripping is a Fetish? Arctic-Editor 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoFreak's reasoning, less we get Attractive Body Fetish.-- danntm ^T _C 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. A normal behaviour pattern is not, by definition, fetishistic (is that a real word?)--Anthony.bradbury 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's fetishy or abnormal about getting aroused watching a stripper?--John Lake 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every method of sexual arousal needs its own "fetish," people. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some fetish related article. Yankee Rajput 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlashTrek[edit]

Doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. If it even possible, maybe merge it with a star trek article, but it sounds as though it's only based on star trek... Spawn Man 06:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be plenty out there about it for at least a brief mention. Bubba hot ep 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- Online games shouldnt get so much space. games like runscape might just limbo in, but not these. Arctic-Editor 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply Unnotable. Eusebeus 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. No indication of notability Bwithh 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Elgin United Church[edit]

It does not contain an assertion of notability; no sources Ab e g92contribs 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (A7) No assertion of notability, no sources, 10-20 results from Yahoo/Google searches.--Hús ö nd 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Husond. Another vanity advertisment for a NN church. NeoFreak 06:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Oh-please-don't-smite-me delete - NN, Advertisement article. The "About us" section is a dead give away... ;) Spawn Man 06:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trion, Georgia, which I did, as no other merge target was suggested. Sandstein 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpsewood[edit]

This location of homicide doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge? - The article says that the murders were part of a series of killings by a devil worshipper's cult thingy. Maybe this article can be merged into that article, but I don't know enough on the subject to find the actual article... If there is no other article, then Delete this article based on natability... Thanks, Spawn Man 06:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge- NN but if you can find the Murder article then its cool. Arctic-Editor 15:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first, Create article to merge this into second, Delete third per nom. --Wizardman 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you merge before you find out where to merge? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Location of murder is not notable, despite unverifiable possibibility that it may be haunted. There's really not enough content here to be overly concerned about merging. -Kubigula (ave) 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Trion, Georgia. Trion's article is quite short and boring and could do with an injection of mild notoriety. DrKiernan 10:11, 2 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Bedane[edit]

Only claim to notability is being recognized as Righteous Among the Nations. Did once get mentioned in BBC, but there are only 231 hits on Google for this person, doesn't seem like being a good person during WWII is enough for an article. Doesn't really meet WP:BIO. --Rory096 04:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Google is a poor reference finder for people notable for events dating 60+ years ago. He seems at least somewhat notable, and information contained in the article is verifiable. Sources are provided. Could use some expansion from, say, books??? (good information exists outside of the internet!!! No joke!!!) but I see there being enough here to support keeping this article. --Jayron 32 04:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's information off the internet, but there's no dispute that the only reason he would be notable is because he's a righteous gentile- a title which, currently, 21,311 people hold. --Rory096 05:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason per se why the Righteous Among the Nations are not as notable as other heroes? And since Wikipedia is not paper, is there any reason why we may not hope to see eventually the deeds of all current 21,311 Righteous described here? Man vyi 07:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced and informative. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has two non-trivial external sources and a blue plaque on his house, that's good enough for me. He died in 1980, so Google is not the best source to prove or disprove his notability. Demiurge 10:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides valuable information. I agree with Man vyi here. I also hope to see similar articles about people who behaved decently in other genocidal contexts. Stammer 13:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. BBC story is itself evidence of sufficient notability. Surely in time the referencing can be deepened, but for now clearly a keep. Bucketsofg 14:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, though the article needs to say more about what he did. -- Beardo 23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Righteous Among the Nations is certainly a meaningful notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remembered a docudrama about the channel islands and WW2 on PBS - I'm not sure if this guy was featured in it but I was curious enough to do a search on LexisNexis (probably not the best source for old UK news). Anyway, I came up with 15 hits, including a 1240 word profile in The Guardian (2004) and a 714 word profile in the Daily Mail (1999) as well as about a dozen other much briefer articles. I can send copies to someone working on the article. This is an old and obscure story but not a non-notable one. Besides, the article is pretty good and I really can't see the harm in keeping it. GabrielF 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to redirect. I found the tail end of this discussion a bit disturbing. This is a discussion, and not a vote: we're not tallying numbers here. And again, if anyone has objection to placing redirects in lieu of these infobox+stub articles, please say so on my talk page. RFerreira 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andros Karperos Middle School[edit]

Middle school that isn't notable for any reason other than that it's a middle school. 123 Google hits. Rory096 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability.--Hús ö nd 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's find some middle ground here... Fah fah fah fah.. ;) Spawn Man 06:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school. Opabinia regalis 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yuba City, California or (even better) an article about the school district if one exists, per WP:LOCAL. Plainly non-notable, but maybe if we turn more of these crufty stubs into redirects, it will help direct some of the school-stub-spammers to articles that actually need and deserve some of their energy and time. Xtifr _tälk 10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not assume bad faith. Unless you have specific reason to believe that the creation of these stubs was done for malicious purposes, it is absurd to refer to adding factual, verifiable, NPOV content as "spamming" regardless of whether or not it is something that belongs in the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 15:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not assuming bad faith. I suggest that you learn what the term "spamming" means before you criticise people for using it correctly. (Hint, it has nothing to do with "malicious behaviour.) Xtifr _tälk 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a massive community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Finally, at Wikipedia:Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kurt Weber 15:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such massive consensus, I wonder how it has gone unnoticed all this time.--Hús ö nd 16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is massive, and readily evident to anyone familiar with the history of this issue on Wikipedia. Kurt Weber 18:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It certainly is not massive; don't be disingenuous. Moreover you are conflating keep with no consensus, which is the principal outcome of many of those debates. It was massively agreed that the bitter disputes and name calling was getting out of hand in school AfDs (or VfDs as they were). But as you know, the WP:SCHOOL compromise is not much liked by anyone - neither those who feel schools are notable sui generis, nor those (like myself) who feel they are simply not notable in and of themselves. Delete. Eusebeus 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note that in the last two months deletions of schools have become more common. It is difficult to see any such consensus. JoshuaZ 05:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yuba City, California per WP:LOCAL. No indication that the information in the article violates our content policies, but it makes better sense in the city article instead of its own. If the article is expanded sufficiently, keeping as-is may be okay too. JYolkowski // talk 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I always love it when people say we should keep a school because there is a consensus to keep them (which is both clearly incorrect and circular reasoning), and because being a stub is no reason to delete (which is a strawman, since none of the supporters of deletion did so because it is a stub, but because the school is non notable). If this was an article about a band instead of a school, it would be speedyable... No assertion of notability whatsoever, just like all other articles on schools in Yuba (like Lincoln Elementary School (Yuba City)). Fram 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Basically a directory entry. -- Kicking222 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consensus does not exist, as the previous posters point out; rather, many afd's on schools result in 'no consensus' which is an automatic keep. Many of us do not understand why schools are supposedly inherently notable while hospitals, for instance, are not. Furthermore, while I'll admit precedent seems to indicate that high schools should typically be kept (no matter how much I disagree), there does not seem to be a similar precedent for middle schools or elementary schools; indeed, if my memory serves me, most middle and elementary schools do get deleted. --The Way 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little content, no sources, not much beyond a directory, no claims of noteworthiness. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and even the earlier, extremely lenient SCHOOL proposal. Also do not object to adding a sentence about it to the Yuba City article and redirecting, though I see little value in doing so given the paucity of content here. Shimeru 11:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content, unsourced, insignificant and entirely non-notable school. Principal Schoolswatter 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the city.Edison 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to yuba city per our local interest standards Yuckfoo 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per having almost no content, nor any indication of being verifiable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to you know where... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kurt Weber. Kukini 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:SCHOOLS3. Vegaswikian 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yuba City since I don't see anything really worth merging and there's no notability of this whatsoever. If someone starts an article on the school district a redirect there might make more senseJoshuaZ 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kurt Webr, school is bona fide and people love school articles. --ForbiddenWord 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh hi again FW. Welcome back. You will note by the way the responses above to Kurt's claim of consensus. Finally, the claim that "people love school articles" is both unfounded and irrelevant. It isn't clear what poeple you mean other than the general school inclusionists. Wow, I'm shocked, shocked that people who like to keep schools love the articles. If you mean some other group it might be nice to specify. JoshuaZ 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even a quick search on google will show that there is lots of verifiable information on this school. As per the points you made on my talk page, school pages are not the most important ones, they are significant and add to Wikipedia's value and help attract new editors. I think that these points are underappreciated by people who are quick to delete. --ForbiddenWord 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know what the google search showed. I did a google search before making my above comment. Very little of it was both verifiable and not just the number of students or similar stats. None of the sources were in any way non-trivial. JoshuaZ 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. —ptk✰fgs 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yuba City, California or school district article per WP:SCHOOLS. Silensor 06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close this discussion -- no consensus will be reached apparently. Just H 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus? 13 deletes, 4 keeps of which at least three are based on flawed reasons (Kurt Weber) and one on no given reasons at all (yours), and a number of merge/redirects? It's up to rhe closing admin, but I can see a quite clear consensus here for deletion... Fram 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also counting the merges/redirects. We shall have to agree to disagree on the consensus, and I find your opinion of Kurt's opinions (calling them "flawed") to be incivil, but everybody's entitled to their own opinion and you can disagree with me if you'd like. Just H 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And note that that isn't a reason for keeping. If you want your keep to be taken seriously, I suugest you give a reason for it. JoshuaZ 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken seriously by who? I stated my reason above, that's good enough. This discussion is like the afd as a whole: the longer it lasts, the nastier it is appearing to get. Thus why my vote: when in doubt, return to the beginning and move on. Just H 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any comment about the content of the article which is the relevant matter. As to taken seriously by whom- the relevant person would be the closing admin. JoshuaZ 01:27, 1 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. --Core desat 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClassicKidsTV.co.uk[edit]

No independent, reliable evidence of notability. The site is now a Wiki, therefor hurting reliability of the little information it has. ~~I searched through several random pages and via Google, and can find nothing stating that edits have to be under the GFDL or a similar free license, and~~ no images I found had any sort of licensing. Many pages contain copyvio full recreation of song lyrics. Forums have just over 400 users. Alexa rank 997,149. Also delete the template used to link various kids show articles to pages on the site, but don't forget to remove it from all pages it is used on. Drat (Talk) 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I struck out the GFDL bit. They don't take text from Wikipedia, at least that I've noticed, so it isn't relevant.--Drat (Talk) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no content copied from Wikipedia that I know of, it links to Wikipedia does where Wiki has more/better information. The site is not open to public editing, so the reliability is sound. But I accept the notability argument, though I've never known anyone personally that supported the concept of removing entries for notability, fine for paper-based encyclopedias, irrelevent for massive web-based ones like Wikipedia. --Orbling 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Alexa rank has been falling heavily since September when the site changed to a wiki as all the pages changed entirely and thus the page rankings went down dramatically, this will pick back up in time. Also, as the site is a MediaWiki it promotes the use of the technology. If the page is to go, I suggest keeping the template as it provides a neat way of doing the external links - there are plenty of other sites with external links with far more dubious content, including videos which that site doesn't do, removing the template will just result in the links being entered manually which is less tidy. Any copyright issues on the site could easily be covered as easily as the show logos are handled on Wikipedia. --Orbling 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Template nominations for deletion go on Templates for deletion, not here. Kimchi.sg 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability/verifiability requirements due to lack of external reliable sources. Demiurge 11:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party coverage as required by WP:WEB. Sandstein 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. WMMartin 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tawker 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Demiurge. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 1 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 Opabinia regalis 04:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulch, Sweat, and Shears[edit]

This article is about a cover band that solely plays at Disney-MGM Studios at the Walt Disney World Resort. There are no notability things, save for the fact they play at Disney. This article was deleted once, tonight, then recreated, and went through a non-AFD deletion tag edit war until I decided to send it to AFD (during which the author made the below statement).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm trying to figure out what needs to change in order to avoid deletion. Can anyone help me here? Or perhaps suggest a page to merge it into? I feel the band is worthy of an entry here and am a little concerned that the article was deemed "blatant advertising" as it was not meant as such, nor am I in any place to do any advertising for the band. I am not a band member or anything like that, just someone who likes their shows. Perhaps I should remove the CD track listing?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HBKFan75 (talk • contribs) .
Comment or Suggestion, if you will - I think I can tell you this much - the many and various external links at the bottom of the page seem to suggest that the article is more than just about Mulch, Sweat, and Shears. Bubba hot ep 10:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an extremely non notable house band playing covers. Nuttah68 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The suggestion above was implemented. Thanks. Any other ideas? I guess there is supposedly some sort of objective standard by which one can judge notoriety, but certainly there's something subjective in it. What makes Epcot band Off Kilter worthy of a page, but not Mulch, Sweat, and Shears? They've been around longer, I guess. But for the record, I'd say "extremely non notable" is an odd description of a band whose shows a minimum of 10,000 people a day at least catch a portion of. They do play in the world's fourth most visited them park, after all. And a Google Search turns up plenty of results from people who obviously consider them worth mentioning. Anyway, I suppose that's the case I have to make for them having an entry here. Looks like a losing battle, but I ought to make it in full nonetheless.--HBKFan75 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not just a numbers game. If Disney were to replace, one or all of the band would anyone (apart from the band) care? They need to be notable in their own right, otherwise they are just the band at the Disney resort. Nuttah68 09:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn group, per Ryulong. The Google hits don't impress me, there's little there but evidence someone has been very busy submitting lyrics to numerous song lyric sites and pr audition notices to various music sites. In addition, neither band name gets any hits on Factiva. Also, the website listed in the article doesn't work for me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to make a statement for delete or keep since I was involved in the speedy delete edit war on this article originally. I would like to say that if the first two sections of this article were the only ones that existed I probably wouldn't have a problem with this article staying on Wikipedia. The problem is that the article right now is really two articles. One about the Disney band, which probably has enough notability to stay, and a second article about a different band with the same members that does not have enough notability to stay. Lose the parts about the second band, add some references (if they exist), and the article would probably measure up.--Hatch68 07:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete as not notable. WMMartin 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leaving a cleanup tag on the article. --Core desat 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual anorexia[edit]

I'm skeptical of this article (and so is another user, who said so on the article's talk page). Seems to be a non-notable dicdef with dubious sources. —EdGl 06:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like a neologism to me. Also, a really, really big reach (fear of intimacy is "sexual anorexia"? Come on.) Opabinia regalis 06:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 08:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Opabinia regalis. I thought this sort of thing was over for the night after the "stripper fetishism" article. Oh well. NeoFreak 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Piffle. Bubba hot ep 10:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -NN and should not be. Arctic-Editor 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks adequate verifiable sources to pass WP:NEO or WP:V.-- danntm ^T _C 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part WP:NEO WP:DICDEF, part WP:OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While the article is not well written, containing inappropriate text and inappropriate links, the condition does have a vast number of google hits, and clearly exists.--Anthony.bradbury 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Anthony.bradbury. It does get a high number of Ghits, needs a cleanup, possible rewrite and better links.--John Lake 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My quick take after some time in some library databases is this is for real. See Patrick J. Carnes article titled "The Case for Sexual Anorexia: An Interim Report on 144 Patients with Sexual Disorders" in the December 1998 issue of the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. The abstract says the term "sexual anorexia" is used to describe "sexual aversion disorder." Another source in the June 2003 issue of the same journal is by Laura Nelson and titled "Sexual Addiction versus Sexual Anorexia and the Church's Impact." According to the Academic Search Premier database, this is a peer reviewed journal published in the UK. Please let me know if more information is required. Keesiewonder 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you add the citations for the sources that you have found to a "Further reading" section of the article, using {{cite journal}} for best results, future editors will know where there are sources to be had that can be used to clean up the article. Uncle G 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the suggestion; I've made a pass at implementing this. Keesiewonder 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Thanks to Keesiewonder. The exact terminology appears in peer reviewed journals as a real dysfunction. We have multiple, non-trivial, and very reliable sources here to write a good article from. While at first it may have appeared deletable, it looks like new evidence has changed the landscape of this one. --Jayron 32 06:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keesiewonder. Everyking 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per jayron & Keesiewonder. I suspect that several different syndroms are being conflated here, but that's for the experts. It is being written about in respectable journals, people are doing research on it, its real. Need building up to standards expected of WP psychological/medical articles, but that should not be difficult. It may be a vogue word, but its here now. we record & document, not judge or predict. DGG 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because some people are not familiar with psychological terms it does not mean they don't exist. Rough 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons cited by the last three Alf photoman 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, which one is next, Gender Dysphoria? Naem 213.42.21.78 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keesiewonder. This appears real. --Oakshade 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cleanup though, the article needs work, badly -- Tawker 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only with serious cleanup, which I am willing to undertake. There are reliable sources for it, and it isn't a neologism. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:32, 1 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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Fantasy X Anime[edit]

Fancruft Duenr 06:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge any usable info into the Mario Fantasy X article. If this cannot be done, Delete this article. Spawn Man 08:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mario Fantasy X There's no such article. Do research before voting, please. --Kunzite 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- RoninBK_ETC 08:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norm. Arctic-Editor 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. It's either a fan game or a hoax a fan game. Two G-hits for the name, both on forums. Seems to be a game created by a fan forum Sakura Kiss (deleted) and fan game info for one of the "creators", fan game creator info --Kunzite 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split Lip Rayfield[edit]

Has been speedy deleted several times. No references provided to establish notability. Author has asserted notability on article talk page. Hatch68 06:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - They have an Allmusic.com page and their albums are readily available at Amazon. The article is a small hagiography at present, but the subject is notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and heavy cleanup Arctic-Editor 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Several records on notable indie Bloodshot Records, national tours, coverage in the indie press. Clearly passes WP:MUSIC; just needs sourcing. Chubbles 20:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - toured with and admired by the likes of Del McCoury and Reverend Horton Heat— Softie1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hatch68 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. nn.. Aksi_great (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runa Lucienne[edit]

Self-promotional article. Otherwise non-notable model/actress. 13 Google hits are all from stuff she's done in high school. Purported involvement in a Will Smith movie, but this is not verifiable. Delete —Brim 07:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Although she is supposed to be in a Will Smith film, there is no way to know as it is coming out later next year. Until then (& probably only if she has a lead role etc), this article should be deleted... Spawn Man 08:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. – Hillel 11:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and once she's starred in a few box office hits the article can maybe be re-created but that'll be a few years still. Jayden54 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But she majored in mechanical engineering at an unidentified college in New York City! Delete!Dmz5 06:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick ! Delete this article before the non-notability of it drives me mad ! WMMartin 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greene Building, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute[edit]

Contested speedy. Non notable building and course description that belongs in a student guide. Little, if anything, worth merging to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute article.

Also including Pittsburgh Building

Nuttah68 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless a more objective version (without the cutesy quotations from students in the former case) can be written in order to demonstrate notability. Looking at the articles currently, I don't believe that will be the case, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as individual campus buildings are not usually notable. These aren't even on the National Register of Historic Places. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual buildings tend not to be notable, especially without placement on the National Register of Historic Places.-- danntm ^T _C 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is one of a series of articles mixing archtectural details and faculty minutiae. I suggest they be merged into one for the buildings with the faculty stuff stipped away. -- Beardo 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as I can see from the articles, the buildings are no more notable than the course details. Nuttah68 09:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it's a cool building, I agree it's not particularly notable beyond RPI. I was surprised to see even a page on it. I made some corrections earlier and cleaned it up a little, but I'm still not sure it's WP material. Same with the other campus buildings listed Alec 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These buildings, both today and in the past, are host to symposiums and other academic meetings which are attended by people from around the world. I would agree that an entry on a dormitory is worthless in the context of WP, but these buildings are of interest to those outside the school's community.

Delete Inadequate evidence of notability and importance. Edison 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triumph Brewing Company[edit]

Hi everyone! Someone didn't finish putting this properly up for AfD, so I'm only here finishing their job. I have no opinion on what happens to this article, I only placed it here for the person who didn't finish it. Thanks, Spawn Man 08:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - doesn't really belong here. The PROD nomination said something about NPOV - I didn't see any of that - nothing that can't be worked on anyway. Bubba hot ep 10:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate notable subject, nothing wrong with the article that can't be improved in the normal run of editing. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - matches WP:COMPANY and WP:V so I don't see a reason for deleting this article. Jayden54 16:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Minor cleanup would help, but not a clear POV problem. --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a vanity page made by the owner/former owner of the company. It violates the WP:COMPANY with flying colours ("1.The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself."). Its products also fail the following requirement: "1. The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The subject does not package its products, so they are only available locally (two locations near each other). Having a page for this company is no different than having a page for a local bakery. Mikebe 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most bakeries aren't winners of a national bakery-of-the-year competition.[12] The original author of the piece is of no consequence if the material is NPOV and the subject is notable. And it's not one local business, but a chain with two open locations, a third under construction, and a fourth to open next year. I'm not sure what your personal involvement is, but it seems a bit outsized to the issue at hand. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this place didn't win "national brewery of the year" either. I accept your point about the original author. The fact that it is basically local and does not distribute its products outside of a very limited geographic area would, if it were truly notable, not diminish it. However, since this place is not notable, it just makes it even worse. And my personal involvement: I am trying to improve the beer articles here. This, in my view, detracts from them by telling users: hey, we don't really have any standards here -- we'll write up anybody, whether they have contributed something meaningful to beer or brewing or not. Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that you are misunderstanding the fundamental issue of notability. "Contributing something meaningful" to a field is only one way to measure notability. "Being noticed" for good or for ill is another way. Google results are plentiful, the local profile seems high. In any case, the standards are enforced by consensus, not by one editor such as yourself. Take it from me -- you win some, you lose some, don't lose sleep over it. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could well be right (misunderstanding). I am using "1.The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself" from WG:COMPANY. Which guide are you using?

OK, I did a Google on "Triumph Brewery". I came up with 774 hits. In the first three pages, most were announcements by bands that they are playing there or announcements by local groups that they are having a meeting there. I also found this "unbiased" review of it by a civilian: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/337750. For comparison, I would recommend that you do the same thing for "Gordon Biersch", another brewpub. I came up with 299,000 hits. So, 775 vs. 299,000 -- doesn't that say something? You might also want to look at Gordon_Biersch here. Please notice that in "References" they have four articles and zero reviews. That is what I (and Wikipedia?) mean by "multiple non-trivial published works".

I really do appreciate the win some, lose some advice. And, believe it or not, I don't mind losing. What I mind though is losing when my point has merit, and the other side does not.Mikebe 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or pulling a fast one here. The name isn't "Triumph Brewery", it's "Triumph Brewing Company", which garners 28,500 Google results. You're also disingenous to call Gordon Biersch "another brewpub". It's a brewpub chain with stores in twelve states. As for your assertion that a review fails the "non-trivial published work" criterion, if that were the case it would be in the guideline. Reviews are used to buttress notability all the time -- explicitly so, in the case of artistic works. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The multiple references demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple references that YOU inserted! Mikebe 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it is a bad thing to add references. It's not. While there can be some concerns to bias, two edits don't demonstrate that very clearly. FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply Another reply to Mikebe. The AfD process is a vetting process to establish evidence to decide whether the article should be kept. Any relevent references that point to the notability of this subject SHOULD BE added to the article in question. The AfD notice clearly states that the article can, and should, continue to be improved during this discussion, and any new additions can and should influence our decisions here. --Jayron 32 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this process was to discuss whether the article was worth keeping, not how to improve it. As is probably pretty obvious, I am pretty new to Wikipedia (and pretty shocked at how bad many of the beer articles are!) and the article was clearly in violation of NPOV when I first read it. OK. Now I understand a little more. Now I know about the WG:COMPANY policy. As I said below, adding links to restaurant reviews of a restaurant does not in any way that I understand full-fill the requirement of "multiple non-trivial published works." The fact that there are three reviews in 11 years and that two of the three are less than positive in their opinion also speaks against the notability. Or is just the fact that a restaurant is reviewed enough to meet that requirement? I certainly hope not! Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article is brought to AFD because an editor has a question about whether it fits. There is no requirement that the article be frozen forever -- in fact, an article being improved by its time on AFD is a very common consequence. In either case, by removal or improvement, Wikipedia benefits. Don't get overly concerned with process. As for "reviewed enough", yes, that is the requirement. We don't do it on the basis of whether the reviews were positive or negative. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly what has this brewpub done of any significance that warrants an entry in an ecyclopedia? If this merits a page, then so does every other brewery in the world. Is that the purpose of an encylclopedia, to be a list of all breweries? Would an old fashioned paper work like the Encyclopedia Brittanica have devoted space to a small brewery like this? No, it wouldn't. Neither should wikipedia, if it wants to be taken seriously.Patto1ro 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They've won several national awards. I deem that significant. If that isn't significance, would you explain to me what is? --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This year there were 69 classes at the GABF, with three medals awarded in each class. That's more than 200 medals for this year alone. Does every brewery that has ever won one of these medals deserve an encyclopedia page? Over 10 years how many breweries will that be? Exactly who outside of an incredibly limted area has ever heard of/been able to try the beers of this brewpub? Oh, they have 3 pubs and are expanding to four. Well that makes them a real force in the brewing world. Having an encyclopedia entry for these people is a complete joke and makes wikipedia look ridiculous. I suggest those who support retaining this vanity page take a look at:

How many breweries get an entry in the Encyclopdia Brittanica
How many wineries get their own page in the wikipedia.

Patto1ro 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't any need for sarcasm. I had never heard of this brewpub before this AFD, but a cursory Google search told me that this one is notable. Largest in the state, largest production in the state, notable architecture, expanding brand. I'm not making this a general rule that all brewpubs are automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I will answer you here. The award they "won" are from the Great American Beer Festival. If you look at their site (GABF), you will see that Anheuser-Busch, Coors, Miller, etc. win silver and gold medals almost every year -- far more, in fact, than Triumph brewpub. In only 2005, for example, Anheuser-Busch "won" three golds, one silver and one bronze. If you know beer, you know that these companies produce what is essentially industrial swill. OK, maybe others may think it is just "bad", but the point is how can they win so many medals? I have heard from multiple American beer lovers that it is because they "sponsor" the festival and/or the organisation and the medals are awarded to them as a quid pro quo. After "buying" these medals they proudly proclaim on their site that they have won "prestigous" awards: http://www.anheuser-busch.com/press_room/2005/A-B_Honored_GABF100305.html. So, what exactly is the significance of a medal from the GABF if you can "buy" it? Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review your own need to editorialize about the GABF. According to their own site the awards are determined by a panel of judges.[13] If you have information to the contrary, well, it should be citeable. Your own low opinion of the award isn't sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming, for the sake of discussion, that they are awarding prizes based on sponsorship, you don't really expect them to announce this anywhere, do you? And, it's not just them -- the awards mean income to quite a few companies and it just doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest to publish openly what I've written. But, you only have to look at the facts: an organisation founded to benefit craft brewers is now awarding more medals to Anheuser-Busch than to any of the craft brewers! Source: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:_rjgylVbCs0J:www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php%3FPage%3D532%26Category%3D15+gabf+anheuser-busch&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30 (sorry, but I had to use a Google cache of the site because the actual site is down at the moment). Why would they do that? Are the Anheuser-Busch beers really better than all American craft beers? Well, draw your own conclusion. Mikebe 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, resorting to conspiracy theories doesn't bolster your credibility. These are obviously industry awards, but they are verifiable and reported in reliable sources. If there is similarly V/RS compliant criticism of the awards, I suggest you add it to the GABF article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Perhaps all those awards and stuff make it noteable? =/ However, the article doesn't really say more about why it is noteable, but it seems like it is.--CF90 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see much POV, but it could use more mention of notability. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my LEXIS search turned up 102 references, and TruthbringerToronto has already integrated several references. These sources are sufficient coverage to pass WP:COMPANY and WP:V.-- danntm ^T _C 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviews in the New York Times, Philadelipia Magazine more than establish notability. People outside of wikipedia have written about this brewery. Ergo we can cite that information to write a good article. --Jayron 32 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think you are all overlooking here is that this is a brewpub/restaurant. It is in the nature of restaurants that they will be reviewed by local media -- virtually without exception. So, showing that a particular restaurant has been reviewed is pretty meaningless -- getting bad reviews, OTOH, would be meaningful, but in a different way. What would show notability is that an article has been written about the restaurant -- that they have taken a new and/or different approach or that that they have done something that is perhaps in another way meaningful. There is still not a single article that provides this brewpub with "notability" -- a requirement at Wikipedia. Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there is no such requirement. Reviews are independent, third-party sources and sufficient to establish notability. You want notability to mean something like "national prominence", but it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. If every restaurant gets reviewed, as I noted, what makes one restaurant notable over another, especially if it did not receive very good reviews?Mikebe 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This quote, if verifiable (there's no supporting citation), would clearly get it notability in my book: "In 1993 Governor James Florio signed into law a bill legalizing brewpubs in the State of New Jersey, and the original operating name 'Victory Brewing Company' was chosen to commemorate the successful legalization campaign organized and funded by Triumph's founders" (emphasis added). Combine that with coverage in Philadelphia Magazine, and it passes muster at WP:COMPANY. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is now cited to a print source (at least the campaign part).--Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that citation twice and you must have linked the wrong article. This one is about the marriage of the brewer. Mikebe 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Apparently, I was confusing a citable page with an uncitable page. I don't have NEXIS but this seems like it should have been in news articles, so I'll leave it as needing a citation. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to leave the wrong article. Kind of fills up the page and make it look like it really is notable.Mikebe 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer interested in replying to your passive-aggressive comments, Mikebe. Please assume good faith and refrain from this sort of behavior in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the many mentions above, it does appear to pass WP:CORP. --Oakshade 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solutioneer[edit]

While a term created by Nokia for one of its marketing campaigns is certainly going to attract some attention and might win an industry award or two, it nonetheless falls under the domain of made up in the board room one day and is a neologism. Gets a decent number of search hits, but doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic in nature, as there's really no context outside of its internal use at the company. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information seems to apply as well. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made up at Nokia one day. JIP | Talk 09:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable outside of the (very) narrow context of "Information Technology Services Marketing". It got a "Diamond Award" for "Sharpening Competitive Differentiation", which is meaningless advertising-speak. Demiurge 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nom. Arctic-Editor 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You sure you don't have that backwards? --Wafulz 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources (fails WP:V), it's made up (fails WP:NFT)) and it doesn't seem very notable at all, so delete. Jayden54 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ~~Arctic-Editor~~ nominator. Tonywalton | Talk 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term will start to be used as the world needs solutions rather than product push. The play on Engineer and Marketeer is great.(UTC) — Calce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: Being a clever play on words is not one of the criteria for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See our Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and No original research policies for our policies on things that "will start to be used". If you want to make an argument for keeping, you must cite sources to show that the concept of a solutineer has already been researched, documented, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown to pass WP:NEO. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per nominator; borderline spam, and a breathlessly vacuous neologism. The so called "business use" of solution is itself a supremely overconfident neologism, and this only compounds the error. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These Are The Days[edit]

There are two subjects to the article, an Australian TV show and a direct-to-video documentary from the band Estradasphere. The television show appears to be a hoax. I can find no reference to it on Google or IMDB and somehow I think one or the other of those would mention a five-season series that starred Catherine Zeta Jones and Michelle Pfeiffer. The documentary does not appear to be particularly notable and its mention on the band's own page is sufficient without a separate article (assuming the band is itself notable, which isn't immediately clear from its article). Otto4711 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The TV show is most decidedly a hoax (Zeta Jones would have been 15 at the time it began, additionally there's a probably anachronistic reference to an "emo" character in what would have been 1985, the article also seems to contradict itself regarding the filming of the show and even the question of whether the characters are real people). At best, the information on the band's documentary could be merged to the main article, but even then I wonder if that's entirely worth it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the Aussie show can be verified. Sounds like it won't be... Grutness...wha? 09:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this hoax. Unless Stewie Griffin somehow managed to go from being a real person to a cartoon in the interim. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoaxtastic. Lankiveil 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a blatant hoax. (The two character names seem to be members of an Aussie band "The Grills") -- Beardo 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show has been reverted. The rest should be merged into the band's article. -- Beardo 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 02:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove TV show section; keep the part about the documentary. Note that the section about the documentary has been around for over a year while the hoax TV series was added just a few weeks ago. The original article most certainly is real and concerns a band that has an article here on Wikipedia, so I see no reason to delete it. Heimstern Läufer 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody's doubting the existence of the original article subject. The question is one of the usefulness of this specific article by itself, bearing in mind that it basically just explains that the DVD exists. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not a wonderful article, but I don't see it as needing deletion. I could be wrong, but it does look to me like most other contributors to this discussion haven't taken this section into account (note that the reasons given seem to apply only to the hoax section). Heimstern Läufer 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may well be right about the other contributors (hoaxes tend to bring out the best in people, and an article like this is kind of a weird case). Basically, as far as the DVD part of the article goes, I'm not totally convinced that existence alone confers notability. Of course, the fairest possible option would be to delete the hoax and then talk about the DVD later, although that could take a while. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would be fairer, I think, if we handled the discussions of the two parts of this article separately. Mind you, I won't feel bad if both parts are deleted. I just think the earlier part is worth keeping (albeit barely). Heimstern Läufer 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I quite agree, for what its worth. The only way I can think of would be to delete the hoaxiness of the TV show, close the AfD accordingly and then re-open it if people felt that the DVD was perhaps worth another go-round. It mightn't be strictly according to process, since we'd technically be having another AfD just after the first one closed, but it's probably the kind of thing which would be allowed under the circumstances. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Estradasphere appears to be a notable band, and the DVD, as a commercial release on both VHS and DVD, would normally warrant an article. However, I find no trace on Amazon. A wider search reveals 43 unique Ghits for Estradasphere + "Those were the days", none from reliable sources. TV program sections were added by a user with only IP address. The vandal edits have been reversed. Ohconfucius 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the hoax comments - Vicer 10:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDocument icons[edit]

Appears to be a proposal for new icons. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for original ideas. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These icons are indeed not in use by, or sanctioned by, any ODF vendor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TZander (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:NOR. Jayden54 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the designer of the icons from catnip.co.uk and have no objection to their being used on this page.If it is decided not to delete the page, I will upload them under the GFDL. PeteHarlow 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OpenDocument if verified that ~~OpenOffice.org~~ has endorsed these icons as official; otherwise delete per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Barno 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "merge if OpenDocument Fellowship has formally endorsed these, not if they're just somebody's proposal." Still not significant enough for their own article. Barno 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These icons are for the OpenDocument Format - not for OpenOffice.org. They were developed in conjunction with the OpenDocument Fellowship. PeteHarlow 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>These icons are indeed not in use by, or sanctioned by, any ODF vendor

This is not correct, it is used by Mobile Office, an ODF implementation for Symbian smartphones

The OpenDocument Fellowship will endorse these icons - what would you like them to do? PeteHarlow 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just telling us would not be good enough, since it has to be verifiable. I haven't yet dug through the Fellowship's website beyond seeing no mention of the icons on the front page. They should post some notice of endorsement on their website and probably should distribute a press release so other publications (reliable sources, not just blogs and forums) will provide third-party independent coverage. That would lead us to choose between "keep" and "merge" based on editors' judgment of the topic's significance, rather than having us forced by policy to "delete as unverifiable". When a source is available, it should be added to the article (or to the content merged into OpenDocument) so future editors won't delete the information. Barno 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this page. PeteHarlow 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts Insider[edit]

Claims notability, so not a speedy, but still has no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 125,844, if you're into that. —Cryptic 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - notability aside, I think many of their pages probably infringe copyright (example - hi-res cover scans with no assertion of copyright - wouldn't be allowed on here, right?). Bubba hot ep 10:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Maybe in a few years when it's bigger and more known, but at the moment it's not notable enough. Jayden54 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its already huge, and itll get bigger, so might as well keep. And Bubba hotep, eBaums World has tons of copyrighted things on its site, but it still has a wiki, and is in the top 1000.69.150.73.24 17:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the website does not met the notability standards at WP:WEB. And a note to the anon - just because eBaum's World has an article doesn't mean this site gets one, too. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WEB, potential notability does not equal current notability. We can't leave it here expecting it to grow into a large site, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, after all. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only real claims resembling proof of notability are given in terms of member and post count, and the one source given is a link to a thread in the forum itself. Sorry that I'm not interested enough in registering an account there to see what the assertion is, but most viewers wouldn't be either. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems more like an advert (WP:NOT) than an encyclopedia article. The Kinslayer 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete............................. Oh, you wanted a reason ? How about because it's non-notable, and looks like an advert to boot. And it makes me want to staple my nose to the desk. WMMartin 18:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Parker[edit]

Music copyist, assistant to composer, tour consultant per his bio on imdb. Only saving grace seems to be having won a Henry Hewes Design Award for Sound Design in 2003. If it weren't for the award, I would have speedied it. Can anyone help putting this article in its proper context? Ohconfucius 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a vote for the Cathedral of Hope AfD on this AfD; I've moved it to the right page. Please advise if this was the wrong thing to do. --Charlene 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was very probably the right thing to do. Bubba hot ep 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can't put it into context, but his IMdB page is twice as long as some of the people with articles on Wikipedia. I'd say being composer on two films and a TV series of debatable quality is more notable than not. Producer of music on Intolerable Cruelty (haven't seen it) is obviously a plus, but what does that mean anyway? Can't hurt to keep, 'spose. Bubba hot ep 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When he's really notable, rather than just someone doing a job and getting a nomination for an award by his professional organisation, I'll vote the other way. But he's not notable yet. WMMartin 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply not notable. Eusebeus 01:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete that "Henry Hewes Award" doesn't seem to be massively notable. It is awarded by the same people who do the Tony Awards, but it's restricted to New York City only. The Intolerable Cruelty mention could be notable, but it's too vague. Demiurge 13:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firm delete. The individual may meet WP:BIO at some point soon but hasn't yet. Length of IMDB entry is irrelevant when the listings are of minor credits such as "music copyist", and composer of music for a few indie films isn't quite enough. We wouldn't be so forgiving of an actor with the equivalent resume. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rigid As A Rock Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Demiurge. --Arvedui 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Although on individual opinions it was 3 to 6, two of the "keep" opinions were not well argued, as were two "deletes", and one "keep" was "very weak", so it's more like 0.5 to 4. I don't believe a relist would have brought many new arguments, but the generally high level of discussion in this AfD is commendable. The articles can be recreated, of course, if these people do get to play at a more professional level or become otherwise more notable. Sandstein 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Søvik[edit]

This is a nomination for Anders Søvik, Kjetil Berge, Arne Jensen, Espen Grina, Tom Erik Breive, Mostafa Abdellaoui, Fridtjof Seeberg, Simen Røine Johansen, Tom Erik Breive, Andreas Hagen, Tor Einar Leira, Sebastian Harung, Joar Harøy, Mounir El-Masrouri and Jo Andreas Gundersen, players for for Norwegian football team Skeid. For a similar AFD, see here.

Contrary to the beliefs of the article creator, these footballers do not play in a fully professional league. In other words they don't meet WP:BIO guidelines for sportspeople. I would clean up the articles of the team players who actually have played professionally, and whose professional league appearances are verifiable - alas I could see only one notable player in their squad. Punkmorten 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are Skeid really an amateur team? They played in the Norweigian First Division (the second level) until 2005, and will do so again from 2007. I find it rather hard to believe that they are not a professional club; at the very least, some of their best players could be contracted a professional basis. The Skeid article does not make this clear. Qwghlm 10:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines state, though, that a player must play in a fully professional league. So even if some of these players have pro contracts with Skeid, they don't meet the guidelines unless the league Skeid are in is confirmed as fully professional. It's the same situation as Conference players in the UK - some are full-time professionals but the league is not fully professional so they don't qualify unless they have experience at a higher level..... ChrisTheDude 10:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Until I can make any sort of decision I need to know which leagues in Norway are professional. I am assuming the Adeccoligaen (First Division) is fully professional - can anyone confirm this? What about the Second Division? Qwghlm 12:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Punkmorten's in Norway, he should be able to confirm.... ChrisTheDude 12:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Second Division is not professional. Adeccoligaen, on the other hand, well... Løv-Ham for instance, to which I just made a phone call, has a squad composed of part-time footballers only, although they do pay their players. Doesn't sound "fully professional" to me, but... Punkmorten 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep at the moment, since it seems that the Adeccoligaen is professional. Additionally, the fact that the team has contributed national reps would seem to suggest as much. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of all possible keeps until we have clarified the notability guidelines for footballers. The term "fully professional" is flawed IMHO, as for example the Swedish top league team Gefle IF has a few semi-professional players, which would make the top league not "fully professional" and thus deem a lot of players in other teams not notable when in reality they are very notable indeed. Generally, I am of the opinion that most players who has played regularly for at least a season in any of the top two divisions of countries the size (in terms of football interrest and level of football played) of Norway or larger have established notability. Weak keep only as the articles in question are sub-stubs at most. – Elisson • T • C • 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to delete, articles are easy to recreate if we decide later on that the players may indeed be notable. – Elisson • T • C • 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete - my favourite of all subjects - multiple related articles on football. An article each for a player x who plays for team y, and it links back to an article which says team y has player x playing for it. I know it only takes up less than 2kb on the server, but multiply that by how many people have ever kicked a football (including me) and that's a lot. despair Bubba hotep 22:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your rationale for your delete vote? Saying "football player articles use up server resources, deletify them all!" is not a good enough reason. – Elisson • T • C • 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought I made it clear. Maybe I should have put Delete - per nom first. My bad. Bubba hot ep 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable players --Angelo 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep if you receive any money, however little, that makes you at least 'semi-professional' notable enough LazyDaisy 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You can't really be suggesting that semi-professional athletes are inherently notable? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so, if a player gets the bus fare home, he is semi-pro? Interesting. Bubba hot ep 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per LazyDaisy's comments PTIuv777 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even without getting into a debate about the pros and cons of conferring inherent notability on the thousands of semi-pro footballers in the UK alone, the simple fact is that the guidelines clearly state that a player must play in a fully professional league to be notable, and therefore non-professional players by definition cannot be considered to pass the guidelines! ChrisTheDude 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I would much prefer an unambiguous report that these players meet WP:BIO rather than a string of "um, maybe" reports. Thus I don't think WP:BIO has been established. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep all~~ (or redirect to Skeid Fotball); WP:BIO actually says:
Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable
Since the Adeccoligaen is the second highest league in Norwegian footy, which seems to me to fall within the sense of "the highest level", I would think that these would merit inclusion. Semi-professional footballers, just like professional ones, may or may not be notable depending on the circumstances. Norway, India, Iceland, &c, &c, rely mainly on semi-pro or amateur players for even senior leagues and sometimes for their international teams. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two mistakes here. The point about "highest level" pertains to non-league sports. For league sports which are mainly professional, such as football, we have the guideline "fully professional". These players fail this guideline. And why group Norway with C-class leagues like Iceland and D-class leagues like India? The Premier League and national team in Norway are composed of fully professional players, right there is more than enough for Wikipedia to cover with the current guidelines. Punkmorten 21:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not exactly how I read it, but I'll bow to your better knowledge of the subject. So there's no !vote from me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung and Johan Elisson. Here, I have a list of footballers that do deserve an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChaChaFut#Articles_to_create. Employ your energies on those instead. Cheers. --ChaChaFut 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Opabinia regalis 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Star PBBFG[edit]

A copy of an older version of the Survivor: Cook Islands article. Redundant and serves no purpose. - Tutmosis 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy, it appears PBBFG was working for a new article based on Survivor:Cook Island as a template. The article creator however needs to be poked until they finish the article. hateless 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new article for what - we already have Pinoy Big Brother, Pinoy Big Brother (season 1) etc. -- Beardo 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Pinoy BigBrother Fantasy Game be added to the deletion nomination? I'd vote delete or userfy for both. --Howard the Duck 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both So very, very non-notable. -- Kicking222 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a mess. -- Beardo 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to Ecological niche. Agent 86 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive zone[edit]

This is a definition, and although it has been proposed to be merged, nothing has happened for the last month. This should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Diez2 20:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) to Ecological niche (per proposal). This is a scientific concept that is present in many palaeontology and evolutionary sciences texts. However, it is to stubbish to remain in its current form. If the section grows, it can be moved back to a standalone article. Caknuck 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Ecological niche. Not worthy of its own article in its current state. Demiurge 13:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Best to be bold and merge this kind of stuff, without worrying with an AfD, when it's just a stub.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy's[edit]

Does not assert notability standard of WP:CORP ~ BigrTex 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but WP:CORP isn't the standard of notability that is being asserted in the article. According to the article, The store has become something of a San Francisco cult success. which would indicate that WP:LOCAL would be more appropriate. However, no sources are cited to back up any of that information. -- Whpq 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability by WP:CORP or WP:LOCAL, so much as a newspaper article would suffice to change my vote. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seem to be mentions of the store in RS profiles of the SOMA neighborhood e.g. but nothing where the store is the primary topic outside of some blog entries or user-editable websites. Seems to fail WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as local spam. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Opabinia regalis 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Star PBBFG[edit]

A copy of an older version of the Survivor: Cook Islands article. Redundant and serves no purpose. - Tutmosis 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy, it appears PBBFG was working for a new article based on Survivor:Cook Island as a template. The article creator however needs to be poked until they finish the article. hateless 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new article for what - we already have Pinoy Big Brother, Pinoy Big Brother (season 1) etc. -- Beardo 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Pinoy BigBrother Fantasy Game be added to the deletion nomination? I'd vote delete or userfy for both. --Howard the Duck 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both So very, very non-notable. -- Kicking222 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a mess. -- Beardo 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walthamstone[edit]

I am adding Ulf Sigfusson to this AfD as fictional Ulf apparently drinks his fictional bitter at the Ruskin Arms in Walthamstone. Tubezone 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any such place CiaranG 12:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Watch the B-word ;) RichMac (Talk) 12:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me rephrase. There is no such place. There is also no such place as Butlerscone, mentioned in the article. The only pub named The Ruskin Arms is in London, and no reference to the author Ulf Sigfusson (claimed to have retired to Walthamstone by the same user)) or his books can be found. CiaranG 12:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, may wish to put some notices on the user's talk page though. RichMac (Talk) 12:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Walthamstone is also a badly written article. User:Sd31415/Sig 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax, and speedy or nominate all the nonexistent links as well. Newyorkbrad 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tubezone 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such place. No such person. Ringbark 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these villages exist, they've been built in the last 30 years, because when I lived near Harrogate they weren't there.--Anthony.bradbury 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't exist. Not even notable as a fictional place. --Oakshade 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 10 miles west of Harrogate looks like Blubberhouses to me. And the Ruskin Arms in London is, perhaps by pure coincidence, not that far from Walthamstow [14]. I hate these damn' Northerners come to live Down South (Declaration of interest: I was brought up in North Yorkshire and now live in North London). Tonywalton | Talk 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure hoax. -- Beardo 06:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one please looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fields[edit]

No assertion of notability, no references. Appears to be a self-serving piece. Article has been written by two people (or possibly one) with no other contributions apart from this article. Google gives over 11,000 hits, but the vast majority are for an Australian sports field; an admittedly brief perusal found nothing on this character. Links from Wikipedia to this article are from Victorian Football League and 2006 VFL Season & TAC Cup Season, both mistaken links to the stadium and I have corrected them). External links are to personal webspace, a holding page and a religious organisation, but nothing to attest to Casey Fields' need to be included in Wikipedia. Basically, he's a non-notable teacher and part time priest. Emeraude 12:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RichMac (Talk) 12:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Jayden54 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanispamcruft... Also, I think we should give him a special award for mutilating the English language further than any decent human being should. Oh, and if he comes back, delete it again immediately and sow the field with salt. WMMartin 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Lunisolar Calendar[edit]

The author of this proposed calendar reform, Dr. Irv Bomberg, requested that this article be deleted as original, unpublished, research in Talk:Modern Lunisolar Calendar, where discussion from the original proposed deletion resides. The prod was contested by the anonymous editor 172.200.190.7 who did not give a reason for his objection. When he removed the prod, he made minor edits, citing another discussion in the same e-mail list where Bomberg's original proposal first appeared (also cited in the article). This article still constitutes original research as discussed in What Wikipeda is not. Citing an e-mail list does not satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The article should be deleted for those reasons. Joe Kress 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD listing completed by placing on log page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, original research. I'm also placing Irvember up for deletion under the same logic, though under a separate AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unpublished original research. By the way, Symmetry454 seems to be part of the same system of OR. Demiurge 13:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Completely NN, completely OR, completely outta here. -- Kicking222 13:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as self-confessed original research. Bucketsofg 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V, fails WP:OR, WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, intersting concept, but it's still original research. -- Whpq 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irvember[edit]

Original research. Article itself asserts that month was made up "as a joke." The related calendar is up for deletion here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(All the new templates faked me out, and I missed that this didn't make it to the log. Finished the posting, so it's in the 25 November log.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unpublished original research. Only google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or blog/forum posts — no sign of any published papers. Demiurge 13:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable, totally OR, 100% unencyclopedic, and wholly garbage. -- Kicking222 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per C.Fred. User:Sd31415/Sig 14:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Bucketsofg 14:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if that school is the University of Toronto. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:BOLLOCKS and tagged as such. MartinDK 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the speedy tag because this ~~is at least semi-scholarly crap, instead of outright crap. It also~~ falls short of the hurdle set forward in the criteria for speedy deletion for patent nonsense, in that there is salvageable text in the article, and it presents a cohesive argument—and specifically, "[CSD G1] does not include...implausible theories." Yes, this is the least useful of the articles in the sequence of them on the Symmetry454 calendar and related proposals, yes, but I still think it deserves a full discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK. I won't get into a discussion on how to value exactly how crappy an argument/discussion is so I'll accept that. I'm not quite sure what you want to discuss about the article though? MartinDK 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. On the one hand, I think an argument can be made under WP:SNOW to go ahead and speedily delete the article. On the other, I see the speedy delete criteria of G1 as being intended for articles where no content can be salvaged at all from them: in other words, if it reads like the string of nonsense in a spam email, it's G1 and speedyable. If you can at least make out what the author is saying, then it goes the Prod/AfD route. So, using G1 here to speedy the article would be bad precedent. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Seeing it that way I fully understand your objection to using G1 on this one. It's borderline so for our own future sake let's not cross the line. MartinDK 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V, fails WP:OR, WP:NFT. "Lousy Smarch weather!" --Kinu ^t/_c 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a lot of academic hoohah to veil the fact that this is dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Love[edit]

This song hasn't been confirmed for release as a single; I looked for sources suggesting otherwise but couldn't find any. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm nominating With Love (song) for the same reason. Extraordinary Machine 13:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (songs) (proposed notability guidelines for songs), and violates the crystal ball clause. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Arctic-Editor 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball Jayden54 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to agree to delete as well. For all we know it could've been a song she made just for the With Love commercial. It does'nt neccessarily mean it's going to be on her next album. Quasyboy 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokemon Nice Cards[edit]

This page is a list/guide of collectible items in one Pokémon game. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- T H L^CCD 14:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Arctic-Editor 15:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly Merge with the Pokémon Channel article (the only article that links to this list). Jayden54 15:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, poorly written original research.--Hús ö nd 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. The early delete opinions, in particular, were given before sources were added. Note that the content has since been forked to Electronic journal; this will have to be addressed. Sandstein 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic article[edit]

I am posting this for deletion at the request of User:DGG. An attempt has previously been made to merge this with Scientific paper in October 2004, but been reverted by said user, and he/she has been behaving proprietorial over the article when I recently tried to boldly redirect it to Electronic document. There is absolutely "Sweet FA" in the title which could even hint at it having the very specific meaning which is attributed to it by User:DGG, and certainly no sources to back up "his/her" definition. Therefore I move to delete this a either is a non-notable neologism or as otherwise failing WP:V. Ohconfucius 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because we already have the Electronic document and Scientific paper articles, so there's no need for this article. Doesn't contain any sources either. Jayden54 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stebbins 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jayden. -- Kicking222 00:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the more recent of the significant authors. The content of this is different from electronic document, because which is a very general article indeed, not even discussing electronic journal articles, and [scientific paper]] is also more general by far--this could be considered their intersection.
Move to Electronic journal. This is a widely used term for which there is no article, and would enable discussion of the publication of and subscription to these journals as well as the articles within. GUllman 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I appeared to act in a proprietary manner. I was somewhat surprised that the article was converted into a redirect without any preliminary discussion on the article's talk page. I asked Ohconfucius to instead propose it for deletion in the customary manner if he thought that was appropriate so it could be discussed properly, and he quite correctly did so. Would anyone care to comment on the protocol & courtesy for replacing an article with a redirect?

And it was not I who was involved in the 2004 discussion--I had not yet started at WP

There are also a number of ways to remind people who have neglected to insert sources that they should do so, including a comment on the article talk page, which is there for such purposes.

There does seem to be a recommendation at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion that an article should be improved, or improvements suggested as an alternative. A simple Google search would show that the term is standard in a library context: the first page alone has 4 relevant hits, so it is clearly not a personal neologism. .

As an example of what can & should have been done, I have edited the article to put in a few of the many references at the bottom. Not having an article I've been interested in go through this process before, I am unsure about the etiquette and have therefor put them in a separate section at the end, not inline, I appreciate the effort made to induce me to do this, but going directly to AfD seems somewhat drastic.DGG 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I have now done so. There are 3 refs, 2 general external links, and 7 links to notable specific services, many of which already have WP articles. I think that shows notability, specific meaning, and sources. Revised: DGG 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologise for being a bit fast in sending it to AfD instead of asking you to justify your stance, but AfD is only a debate. Please refer to WP:BOLD for editing protocol. After looking at the references supplied as well as of my own searches, I'm still unsure about the specificity of the term "electronic article" because of its generic use. Although you have clearly demonstrated that it has been employed to refer to a library for scientific articles NEAR [15], but AFAICT it also covers other non-scientific journals. Less specific uses I have found on searches include BEARS at Brown University uses it to refer to catalogue of articles on Moral and political philosophy, whereas the Columbia Law review invites contributors to submit their articles electronically for publication, and other prominent hits refer to the electronic article surveillance - protection afforded to shops agains shoplifting. Ohconfucius 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the use for Electronic article surveillance is a different use in a different field, since 2005 a separate WP article & I'm adding a disambig. note on both pages. -- I never knew about it till it came up on Google. As for Electronic article, is does indeed refer to articles in any and all subjects, which is why it doesn't fit well under scientific paper. I will clarify that. You are right that discussions such as this are helpful, wherever held. DGG 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was db-author --humblefool ® 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Raphael[edit]

Non-notable person. Article's subject is also its creator and sole editor; certainly violates Wikipedia:Autobiography guidelines, and notability is not established at all by this article. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - academic who does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Robertissimo 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may pass the (proposed) professor test, but if so, that's not apparent from the article, which also lists no third-party sources. And autohagiographies such as this are generally not worth the research effort to try and find out, anyway. I'd say userfy, but the fact that WP:NOT a free web host also applies to user pages. Sandstein 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiki Bujutsu[edit]

Delete This entry is nonsensical. The topics are covered in Koryu, Gendai Budo and aikijujutsu. Historically there was never an AikiBujutsu - does this refer to a club? If so no case for notability. I feel kind today but this might even be worth a speedy delete Peter Rehse 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there are ghits which refer to a derivative of aikido (founded in the US) and also a derivative of Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu - we have no way of knowing that the article is refering to them.Peter Rehse 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I understand [[16]] The entry is a direct copy and non-notable advertisement.Peter Rehse 06:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the person who found the copyvio.--Rmky87 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per either WP:NOR or WP:V—take your pick because in its current form at least one or the other applies. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Conservatism[edit]

This article borders on patent nonsense. Google pops up only 832 results for the term "Constitutional Conservatism," so it is not a widely-used term. The term, "Constitutional Conservative" pops up 77,000 results, but again, this is either a term used in political rhetoric (not a scholarly term) or it's used to describe Originalism or Textualism in interpreting the Constitution. Since both are also advocated by some Liberal scholars, the term, "Constitutional Conservatism," is a contentious term and not particularly widely-used. The claim that the Founding Fathers were "pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-fair trade, pro-gun rights, and are almost universally strong supporters of private property rights," is an unscholarly, uncited, highly controversial, and wholly unfounded claim. Robocracy 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails WP:V since there are no sources at all, except a single link to latterdayconservative.com, which doesn't seem very official to me. Jayden54 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term does seem to be in some usage, but as it stands there isn't enough WP:NOR and WP:V material around to support even a stub. Possibly this is meant to advertise for the only external link in the article, which has no apparent bearing on the meaning of the term "constitutional conservatism". Sandstein 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Even though this is actually a redundant term because the essence of Conservatism includes a belief in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, it should be retained. In fact, this article should be expanded because the aspect of "Constitutionalism" in Conservatism is often taken for granted. Since the underlying principles upon which Conservatives base their belief system is the U.S. Constitution, and the current article on "Conservatism" lacks a detailed analysis of this aspect of Conservatism, this article should not only be retained but also should be expanded upon. Either that, or someone needs to undertake the task of adding a "Constitutional" description to the article on "Conservatism". Anyone who has read the "Federalist Papers" and related documents will easily find that the Founding Fathers were in fact, pro-States Rights, pro-religious freedom, pro-free market, pro-private property ownership, pro-Second Amendment to the extent that this included private ownership of weapons deemed basic to a people's-based militia, and the argument can be made that the Founding Fathers left matters like "abortion" as a matter for the States to determine legality. Since true "Constitutional Conservativism" is not something that is supported by true liberalism, it is a belief system that needs better clarification either as a stand-alone article or incorporated strongly into the article of "Conservatism". Even a small yet well-defined political party in the U.S. exists that is almost a perfect adherent to "Constitutional Conservatism". Check out: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php. The "U.S. Constitution Party" prides itself on following the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. So, in summary, this topic, whether it remains a separate article or is incorporated into Conservatism must be included as a basis for Conservatism. Jtpaladin 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that our articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and not be original research. This means we can't just have an article say, "this is constitutional conservativism because that's how one should read the Federalist Papers". Rather, an article on this topic would be along the lines of "Constitutional Conservatism in the U.S. is understood by a) this notable organisation to mean its political position, which is XYZ, as reported by this reliable source, b) a term used by notable theorist J. Doe to mean ABC, as reported by this reliable source, etc." Do you see what I mean? Oh, and another thing to keep in mind: Wikipedia is an international project. There are constitutions and conservatives in other countries than the U.S., too. Sandstein 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up and source. It is an actual term, although in all reality it is a political neologism for a traditional or paleoconservative. Considering the vast usage of political neologisms in academic and jounalistic work their use, once about anyone with a published medium does so, is impossible to erase as a historical label. A member of the Constitution Party of the US, amoung others, are Constitutional Conservatives. Serge Trifkovic and Antonin Scalia can be described as Constitutional Conservatives. NeoFreak 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if there were enough sourced information in this article to support even a one-sentence stub - but there isn't. And since I guess you're talking about the U.S., I suppose no U.S. Conservative would call themselves an "unconstitutional conservative", so this article would get rather unwieldy rather fast. Sandstein 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just like no one is going to be anti-choice or pro-death? There are plenty of examples [17], [18], [19], [20] of the phrase being used although I do hate to make exceptions to the neologism guildline. Honestly. NeoFreak 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpaladin and Neofreak, as noted above, I recognize that the term is used in political discourse, and the term is a broad generalization about Conservatives' views of the Constitution. Well, being so, there's not enough to say about that to maintain an article. The entire article, if properly sourced, would contain one sentence only: "Conservatives in America tend to assert a belief in textualism, as a basis for their beliefs." Not exactly a lot of content. Also, as I also said, the term is ambiguous because there are people who agree the Constitution should be upheld literally as the text plainly says, yet share liberal views. And so, the article on textualism is sufficient, covering the topic in a politically neutral manner. In fact, in hindsight, I think it would've been better to simply edit the article and send a re-direct to textualism. Robocracy 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionDo you believe that the term is not used or unique enough to warrant a stub or do you think it is just a misused neologism that has a POV slant? Honest question. NeoFreak 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Robocracy 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without the actual citations to sufficient independent and reliable sources, this neologism can not be adequately verified.-- danntm ^T _C 22:24, 25 November

2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, please do not remove or edit my comments, as it is considered a form of vandalism. If you have a comment about a comment of mine, please place it at the bottom. Also, please do not attempt to vote more than once. Thank you. Robocracy 14:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robocracy, I did not remove any of your comments. I find that untrue and insulting. I only responded to your comments directly under where you made them. If you don't want direct answers, simply state it and I will not do it. Your claim to vandalism is inappropriate considering the meaning of "Vandalism" in Wikipedia. If you have a more direct reference to vandalism and the method which I chose to respond, please direct me to it. Nevertheless, all your objections simple fly in the face of fact as I demonstrated in my responses. Jtpaladin 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpaladin, again, please stop trying to vote more than once. You originally put your comments above within my comments and beyond that, you deleted some of my own original comments. If this was an accident, then okay. But you can take a look at the edits you made right here. Robocracy 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I deleted any of your comments, it was certainly by accident. Surely though, even though I appreciate your removal of the word "Retain" from more than one comment I made, you removed other comments that were not in your authority to remove. I restate them: "since there are numerous citations to verify the standing of this topic. Without objection, I would be happy to start filling this topic with statements and citations." Jtpaladin 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in spite of Jtpaladin's assurances that xe "would be happy to start filling this topic with statements and citations", xe hasn't. Apart from the inexplicable failure to mention that "Constitutional Conservatism" favours Mom's apple pie, blue skies, sunshine, and fluffy bunnies, it could hardly be clearer that this is an unnecessary neologistic fork of the {{globalize}}-needing Textualism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 2 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 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Schelske[edit]

There is nothing notable about this person, other than being the unemployed ex-partner of country singer}} Princess Tiswas 12:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Jayden54 16:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Wizardman 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for inclusion. VegaDark 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is a failed Congressional candidate, but since he lost big in the election, until he achieves something more notable than running a political organization in his own right, redirect to Sara Evans. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it even though he may be unnotable, his soon to be ex-wife is very notable plus Craig operations a PAC known as Craig's List which may play a role in future elections.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.15.180 (talk • contribs) User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If, in the future, he does play a role in future elections, then he can have an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards[edit]

Mostly original research. We don't need an article on every event that ever took place on TV. It was a kiss... 3 years ago... I hardly think anyone cares anymore. MartinDK 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if need be smerge verifiable bits to the various singers' articles and the awards article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast with the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy this didn't have any wider impact or changes to FCC rules, and has no notability outside the actual event itself. Delete as celebritycruft. (It's already mentioned in Madonna so nothing to smerge.) Demiurge 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly. That's why I don't think in retrospect that this belongs in Wikipedia as a seperate article and as you rightly point out it is already mentioned in the relevant article. MartinDK 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure what "smerge" means but if there's any "smerging" to be done then it should probably be done to Madonna's controversies. Otto4711 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge == summary merge (i.e. don't try to merge everything, just add a brief mention to the target article and then redirect). — Haeleth Talk 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and non-notable; it was an event that got a tiny bit of publicity because it was two female celebrities kissing for two seconds, but it wasn't an event that was in any way significant, nor was it one that will be remembered for any period of time by anyone. -- Kicking222 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether people care now is irrelevant. It got a whole bunch of attention at the time. Definitely notable. Everyking 12:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me also remind everyone that this article was the featured article of the day recently. It is certainly a notable subject, but based on my recollections the kiss got much more attention than the satire. How, then, could we justify deleting this? Everyking 12:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can justify it by remembering that the existence of one article is not a decent argument for the existence of another. Otto4711 14:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The famous Pokemon fallacy. X stays so Y gets to stay too. It is that exact fallacy that makes people say Wikipedia is an indiscriminate endless list of unreviewed original research. Sorry but we have to draw the line somewhere. And a kiss on TV is hardly notable several years later. MartinDK 20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ridiculous. I point out that this is more notable than something that is a FA and you call it a "fallacy". Yes, we have to draw the line somewhere, I suppose: we could draw the line at, let's say, the many, many performances at MTV awards shows that nobody cared much about. We certainly should not draw the line at something that got this level of attention. Dismissing it as "a kiss on TV" misrepresents the argument; the argument is not based on what it was, but on what people made of it. Everyking 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning toward delete. For a subject that got so much attention, the article cites just one source, a celebrity interview of the other person invoved which mentions the incident only in passing with no real journalistic coverage. Already mentioned sufficiently in the Madonna article; if it weren't, I would suggest merge. As Demiurge mentioned, the incident didn't have any lasting effects such as FCC rule changes or a wave of lesbian on-air kissing. Everyking, if people made so much of the incident, you should be able to add several reliable-source citations. Prove it rather than asserting it. Frankly, the media that covered it would all fail my interpretation of "non-trivial", although I'm sure there was some that met WP consensus standards. Barno 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems silly to have to prove this, but I did a Google news search you can look at here. Seems pretty decisive. Everyking 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a former administrator could figure out how to talk decently to people rather than resort to words like silly and ridiculous when defending your arguments I'll tell you why I think this article should be deleted. It had no lasting impact. It created some attention especially around people who think two girls kissing was a national sensation. The Aniston/Pitt breakup created headlines as well. Do you want an article full of speculation and redundant details on that too? This is an encyclopedia, not a teen magazine or a gossip magazine. It is this kind of article that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. MartinDK 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are trying to extend the definition of notability to mean things of long-term importance. It's a big leap. According to this definition, apparently, no amount of press coverage, no amount of public attention is sufficient to warrant keeping it, because it did not have what you consider a long-term impact. Everyking 10:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excellent! You just found the core of the problem. How do you define notable news? Is it the murder case with the missing child that is all over the news for about a week until the body is found and the press moves on to other stories because news like this sadly happens so often? Or is it the "accident" involving two of music's biggest stars and one of if not the biggest tv event of the year? Not as easy a call as it may sound like. That is why I think the criteria should be long term effects. Whatever stories don't have long term effects should be handled inside the relevant biography articles just like this one already is. If someone had suggested that this should not even be mentioned in the Madonna article I would have protested. We need some kind of criteria here. MartinDK 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh and about the article you mentioned above have you read this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents.27_Association_Dinner? It seems that the main reason it is being kept is that it was a FA. MartinDK 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        All right, good that we're clear on where you stand; you reject the conventional understanding of notability. I don't, and we'll leave it at that. Everyking 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For same reasons as Everyking (Whether people care now is irrelevant. It got a whole bunch of attention at the time. Definitely notable.) - King Ivan 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as nominator retracted AfD. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter holiday season[edit]

Delete/merge. This article violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as per this section of that policy: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner". In accordance with Wikipedia policy this article should be deleted, but reference to the term can remain alive by adding "also known as winter holiday season" at the beginning of the Christmas season article, and by the already existing "Winter holiday season" section of the Holiday article Holiday#The_American_winter_holiday_season.
To further merit deletion/merging, the fact that the "winter holiday season" does not include such popular late–winter holidays as Chinese New Year, St. Patrick's Day or St. Valentine's Day, offers strong suggestion that this term is merely a status quo politically-correct euphemism for the worldwide-notable "Christmas season". Other examples of such incidences would include use of the terms "holiday tree", "holiday decorations", "holiday spirit" and other US–originating terms that use the word "holiday" in replacement of the otherwise notably-used "Christmas".— OL P 1999 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See last debate here Ansell 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Merge~~ - changed to Keep - see below. I fail to see the point of deleting the article. It has some interesting bits of (sourced!) information - why should we delete them?

Another question is, under which name? WP:NAME clearly supports user:OLP1999’s argument for "Christmas season": "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". On the other hand, WP:BIAS and maybe even WP:NPOV could be interpreted as favoring the neutral name. — Sebastian (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The two are not the same thing, as can be seen from the articles and the sources. See below. Uncle G 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia does not imply that it is a politically correct organisation, nor should it. If the term "Winter holiday season" is actually used by people to mean the set of western christian holidays, then it is fine. Bringing a personal POV onto wikipedia goes against the Neutrality policy. Ansell 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Could the nominator explain why they made an edit with the summary "I will not accept Canada as being a part of this garbage" [21] Ansell 10:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- That was during a few edit wars concerning the text "In the Northern Hemisphere" versus "In the United States". Since this PC terminology doesn't exist in any other area of the Northern Hemisphere other than the United States (including my country, Canada), I found it offensive to suggest this term is in usage in any other country. Yes, I'm biased against the usage of this term, but clearly WP:NAME and WP:NEO suggest this article should be merged (it already has prominent display in the article "Holiday")— OLP 1999 17:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Government of Ontario, The City of Richmond, and The Asthma Society of Canada belie that claim, as any reasonable amount of research would have done, also. Uncle G 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is quite widely used in the media. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Christmas season. This article was loads better than I expected, and better than Christmas season as well, but that's the most common name in English. "Winter holiday season" is not something that even individual Americans say to each other, it's an official euphemism used by schools, newspapers, and retailers. I'm perfectly willing to accept it as a secondary definition, but it isn't something different. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. See below. Uncle G 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of a Winter Holiday season is certainly valid, even if not a widely used phrase, people do recognize and understand it. I don't think anybody here is arguing this doesn't exist. If they are then enjoy [22] [23] and [24]. So far as it goes, I don't see that we should merge Christmas season and Winter holiday season. The Christmas aspects are a seperate part, and if anything, Christmas season should be merged to Christmas. However, there are several aspects of the Holiday season that should be broken off from an article about Christmas. I might be convinced that holiday season (currently a redirect to WHS) should be the name of the main article, if only because there should be content on this time of year in the Southern Hemisphere, where it is summer. However, I am deeply troubled by the arguments that this is "PC Garbage". That is uncivil, and borderline ad homineum, so it should be avoided. Since I don't want to endorse taking actions for such reasons, I'm going to oppose deletion and say keep. FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Please don't dismiss an option because of the way it has been put forward. Before this (second) request was written, the article already was tagged with a merge request, added by someone else (me), for quite different reasons. As far as I'm concerned, while I appreciate your three helpful exhibits, I'm not convinced that they describe something different from what has been traditionally called Christmas season. Please therefore consider allowing a merge. Thanks! — Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm afraid I can't support a deletion with even the suspicion of misconduct on it. Being above reproach is highly important, especially here, where in my experience, there is a great deal of contention. For me to even consider this article, it would have to be propsed by someone who is neutral on the subject. In any case, I think a merge to Christmas season would actually be disadvantegous. If anything, I would say Christmas season should be merged to Christmas instead, and this article kept to reflect that the holidays at this particular time of year are about more than just Christmas. But I would the Christmas season has enough potential for content as a seperate subject in itself that I don't feel it needs to be merged or deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of one editor's personal bias disagreeing with what a large swathe of sources actually say. Wikipedia should go with what the sources say, not with what OLP1999 (repeatedly) wants Wikipedia not to mention solely because of xyr personal bias. As for merger: As Holiday#The_American_winter_holiday_season (which is mis-named, note) clearly states, this is a main article and that is a Wikipedia:Summary style summary. This should not be merged there. Nor should it be merged to Christmas season, which is part of the Christian liturgical year. The Winter holiday season is, as the sources clearly say, not specific to Christianity, and not a liturgical concept at all. As per the last discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter holiday season, all of the citations given above, and the references section of the article, keep. Uncle G 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, that was an eye opener! We're actually talking about two entirely different things here.
- The Holiday (shopping) season from around Thanksgiving to December 24
- Christmastide, which runs from December 25 to January 6.
We should keep these apart, and I am therefore changing my vote to keep. As a consequence, I also think we should:
- change "Christmas season" into a disambiguation between the two meanings (and Advent),
- make "Christmastide" the title for the page on the liturgical meaning, and
- move the first half of Christmas season to Winter holiday season. — Sebastian (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the assertion that Americans don't actually use this term. I live and work in an incredibly religiously diverse area and use the term all the time (in addition to being inundated by it in the media).I also use "holiday season" and "the winter holidays". It's not PC, it is an accurate description of reality (ie. many people celebrating holidays during the winter are not, in fact, celebrating Christmas.) I concur that a better name for the article might be "holiday season". But if anything Christmas season should either be merged into this article, or Christmas. To merge an article with information about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa into one called Christmas season would be misleading & unencyclopedic, regardless of one's personal opinions. Dina 14:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Cool Guy[edit]

No notability, no legitimate citibale sources, seems to be written by band members itself to honor them. Payneos 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know a band isn't notable when it's fans are listed in the article. Stebbins 00:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am I the only one who thinks its funny that this article includes the phrase "at the height of their popularity"?--Dmz5 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Laughable. WMMartin 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some work, but One Cool Guy was important in the development of third-wave ska. Amphytrite 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G4 delete by User:Rama's Arrow. [procedural close by non-admin] (|-- UlTiMuS 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Cool Guy[edit]

Again, fails to meet policy standards in WP:MUSIC, no legitimate citable sources, and is not notable in any fashion. Continues to stand to simply honor the band. Payneos 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. ObtuseAngle 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair High School[edit]

This was originally speedy deleted as CSD A7. A DRV consensus overturned this deletion as out-of-process and unwarranted. The matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a reasonably well-written article that meets our content policies. JYolkowski // talk 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity schoolcruft that fails WP:SCHOOL per WP:N. Fails to put forth any notability and is mainly original research. The precedent has been set for deletion. NeoFreak 20:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. NeoFreak 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep Currently lacks independent references to verify its claims. Mentioned in passing in a couple of news stories, along the lines of "Joe, a senior at Mayfair High School, won first place in the art competition." California Distinguished School is hardly a notable award -- lots of California schools get one, including over 300 in 2006 alone. Blue Ribbon, as a national award, might be an argument, though thousands of schools in the US have achieved one of those. A better, more developed case for its noteworthiness needs to be made. Shimeru 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote, since case has been developed to what I feel is an acceptable level. Shimeru 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to republish schools' annual reports. — Haeleth Talk 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a fairly large high school and Blue Ribbon winner, there is almost certainly non-trivial media coverage of the school. Try harder to find references. --- RockMFR 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The burden of proof is on the editor that wants inclusion not the challenger. The nom and his/her supports have no obligation to "try harder" to find proof of notability of something that fails WP:N at face value. Oops, Fram beat me to it. NeoFreak 22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Try harder to find references" is the duty of those wanting to keep it. No claims to real notability (too many schools get the Blue Ribbon or the other award to be notable), no independent coverage given (so the current article does not meet our content policies, i.e. WP:V). This school is not remarkable in any way, so why do we need an article on it? Fram 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak keep. I appreciate the work done by those wanting to keep it to make it verifiable, and there are at least some claims to notability here. While I still don't feel the need to have this article, it is now at least enough to meet our policies and to give some interesting info to the casual reader, contrary to many other school articles (compare e.g. to Andros Karperos Middle School, another AfD for today). Thanks! Fram 09:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ per Shimeru. There are claims of notability, but not strong ones. -- Kicking222 00:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per alterations. -- Kicking222 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precedent regarding secondary schools and the school is a large one at that (3,500 students). --Oakshade 02:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on awards received, championships won and notable alumni, all of which are sourced in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V, the school meets and exceeds the standards set by WP:SCHOOL and deserves to be retained. Alansohn 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What? It doesn't meet any on of the standards of WP:SCHOOL and I'm wondering what precedent you're talkin about. NeoFreak 05:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response While I'm not Alansohn, I will say it appears to satisfy most of the standards of WP:SCHOOL. Point 1 "subject of non-trivial public works" (several Long Beach Press Telegram articles). Point 2: "participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities and has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities, or holds a verifiable record in such an activity." (Won several state championships.) Point 4:"Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school."(recognized as a California Distinguished School) Point 5:"The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)." (Josh Childress,Jay Gibbons and yes, Geri Reischl). Looks like Alansohn was correct. --Oakshade 06:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I completely failed to notcied the pro sports players that are alumni (don't ask me how). I would debate the real notability of the other portions but in conjunction with the alumni I would have to agree and will change my vote accordingly. NeoFreak 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn --Rob 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Edison 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above args. — RJH (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this one please it is a large and notable high school with famous alumni too Yuckfoo 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Accurizer 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above statements. If anything, all high schools should be given an article, especially high schools with data and well-sourced information. Nominations of deletions should occur, if at all, first with high school articles with poorly written prose and/or no citations before getting to ones like these. Plus, you never know if the next president might come from Mayfair High School. AManSac 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the next president comes from a school we can worry about it then. It isn't like merging or even deletion throws edits into a bottomless pit. JoshuaZ 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: note that at the time of deletion, the article had only one citation, which did not give any notability / importance: good sources were only added after the AfD started. So it was perfectly allright to start an AfD for this article (just like it is for most school articles). Fram 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. N. --JJay 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable school. Article mentions an award, but it's not a particularly significant one. It's a state award and there were about 400 recipients in 2006. —ptk✰fgs 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The devaluing of the awards received by this school is unfounded. The article passes WP:SCHOOLS with flying colors. Silensor 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but an award given to around 5% of all schools in the state every year, and awarded for 4 years, meaning some 20% of schools have the award at any one time, is hardly an indicator of excellence. The two news articles cites don't appear to be non-trivial, since they seem to be short-ish, and of primarily local interest. Notable alumni are pretty worthless too, since the school had no part in the process that got them their own articles. There's still nothing in this article which sets it apart from any other similar school. The references are all trivial mentions and purely local interest stories. Doesn't quite pass WP:V still. Chris cheese whine 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Blue Ribbon and having multiple notable alumni at least one of whom (Josh Childress) has his notability arguably connected to the school. JoshuaZ 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as spam. Opabinia regalis 04:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moddin.net[edit]

Promotional article for a website. The article author has the same username as the founder of the site. Alexa rank of 564,451. Not being familiar with the casemod community, though, I thought there was a chance that this might actually be a notable site. FreplySpang 17:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. (If it was notable, the founder wouldn't need to create the article himself.)Demiurge 17:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moddin' is a leading... is really all that needed to be read. Danny Lilithborne 00:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant spam, and tagged as such for speedy execution. Ohconfucius 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutty Blocc Compton Crips[edit]

Stub about non-notable faction of the Crips. Sounds mostly like WP:OR. I was unable to find sources to this article and I don't believe that Wikipedia is a directory of every gang out there. MartinDK 17:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't sufficiently assert notability. Heimstern Läufer 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Utterly non-notable. Stebbins 00:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gangcruft (I always wanted to say that ^_^) Danny Lilithborne 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There are a large number of unreferenced gang articles that read mostly like Original research, and they should all be deleted. Let this be the first of many. ^Blank ^Verse 11:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan (fictional)[edit]

Not needed, superfluous with both Borat and Kazakhstan. humblefool ® 18:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Borat's Kazakhstan is simply a parody of what ignorant Westerners imagine Central Asia might be, and was never meant to be a fully-developed fictional country in its own right. —Psychonaut 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also, POV problems, as though someone had been insulted by Borat's movie and wanted to use Wikipedia as a soapbox: see WP:NOT. In addition, the country is not fictional (in the same way that Genovia is), but merely a satire. It could be Merged sans POV into an article noted by nom, although without POV and generalizations, I'm not sure what would be left. Gracenotes ^T § 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research from start to finish. While there is potential for a properly verified article on this topic (that stupid film's been all over the press) I don't see the need given the main article on the film itself. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally superfluous. This "fictional Kazakhstan" isn't a fictional country (it's just a series of fake stories made up about the real Kazahkstan). Also it has no existence independent of the character Borat and that's where we should cover it. Demiurge 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. The point has been made: it's not a fictional Kazakhstan in itself, it's fictional and satirical information about the real Kazakhstan. This doesn't need its own article. "Boratcruft" seems appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would vote Delete for this without a second thought if it weren't for the existence of the Stephen Colbert (character) article. Can someone explain to me why that is okay and this isn't? Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the discussion on the Colbert character talk page, people seem to think that Colbert's character merits an article as he's the main character on a tv show (rather than say, a collection of recurring gags bound up in a persona). I've no opinion on this, but I guess its safe to say that Kazakhstan (fictional) can't use this argument Bwithh 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Colbert article would seem to be more the equivalent of the Borat article — it's an article about the fictional character split off from the film and TV show it appears in, complicated slightly by the fact that the fictional character has the same identity as the actor who plays him. The equivalent of the article in this AfD would be creating an article about "Bears (fictional)" debunking the Colbert character's fear of bears and arguing that they're just cuddly nice creatures. Still, it's kind of borderline fancruft. Demiurge 10:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. I suppose the info could be merged into Borat if its not already there, and if its referenced. Bwithh 01:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worth saving, and nothing not already covered in Borat. Yankee Rajput 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --humblefool ® 19:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Hanging[edit]

Notable essay but this mostly sounds like original research. Reads like someone copied their homework. Delete and start over or merge into George Orwell. MartinDK 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; needs cleanup, not deletion. You yourself said it was a notable essay, and it's true. The George Orwell article looks very long so I think it's a good idea for articles pertaining to the guy not be merged. It's good that other articles are branching out of the "main article" in this case. —EdGl 18:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but only as a stub. This is just someone's high school English homework and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article update: I removed the original research (which happened to be most of the article). If someone could write a better summary of the essay that would be great. —EdGl 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. Based on that I will withdraw my nomination as I have no further issues with this being an article here. MartinDK 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to The Terminal. TigerShark 01:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krakozhia[edit]

This article is about a fictional country in a movie. However, the country is not notable outside the movie in which it appeared. Furthermore the country wasn't particularly well established inside the movie, either; all the action takes place in an American airport. I recommend that the article be deleted; establish a redirect to The Terminal if desired. —Psychonaut 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of it into The Terminal#Plot and redirect to The Terminal. —EdGl 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge whatever isn't speculation (by which I mean the stuff about Krakow and the Albanian national anthem). Demiurge 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with the movie, The Terminal. It is clearly a fictional country that has been referenced in a major hit movie. Redkane 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge what is not speculation per above. Sandstein 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — CharlotteWebb 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Gregg[edit]

Looks like self-promotion of a non-established artist. Almost an A7 - but let's see what others think. -Doc^g 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gr8pop ltd, the label who has licensed Indiana Gregg's material asked for the page to be deleted. We were not involved in the postings of biographical information on the Wikipedia site, nor was the artist. It was brought to our attention that the page was being tampered with from an IP address in Sulzbach/Ts., Germany. Gr8pop has asked that this page be removed and has taken appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.57.43 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 November 2006
Keep, not "almost an A7", as mention of touring is an assertion of notability. She meets criterion #3 of WP:MUSIC because she has toured the United Kingdom. —EdGl 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Edit: Change to weak keep due to the fact that she hasn't released any albums to date. —EdGl 20:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did say almost. It isn't an A7. But 'touring' covers a multitude of sins (it could mean busking with a bike), that's why I sent it here.--Doc^g 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must've read it wrong. I assumed she had a couple albums out or something, but since touring is the only notability criteria she passes, I changed my vote to weak keep. I could go either way really. —EdGl 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ed. The hagiography needs trimming, but meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The article now reads she has been touring the Northern UK (Bars, Coffee Shops) and trying to release her first CD. There is no evidence that it has ever been more that that. Think about it!--Doc^g 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, come on... she has over 14,000 MySpace friends though; that's saying something! Just kidding. Doc's arguments are pretty convincing, and that combined with my deletionist tendencies have swayed me from my keep vote. I'm neutral for now. —EdGl 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana Gregg was an Indie artist on our site Artistopia.com for a good while and recently asked for her indie profile to be closed as it conflicted with her management, pending new material to be released. She has moved far beyond "undiscovered talent". Thus for us, it moves her into Pro account status. Yippee 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources--in fact, half the article is copied verbatim from a message board post and the rest of it looks like it might be copied from Myspace or somewhere. In fact, with the links scattered throughout it looks like an advertisement. The article was started more than a year by an IP stating "Does anyone know anything about Indiana Gregg" and now it has reached its ultimate evolution of a copy-paste unwikified vanity piece. —Centrx→talk • 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was Indiana Gregg just deleted out of process? Check its deletion log. —EdGl 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jargonym[edit]

Contested ProD. POV unverified/OR neologism dictionary definition. The talk page is full of laughable sockpuppetry. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sockpuppetry. Term returns 26 hits on Google. Chubbles 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced neologism. I'd expect to this to turn up on Google given the nature of the term, but nothing apart from a few meaningless blog/mailing list hits. Demiurge 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The blatantly awful sockpuppetry on the articles talk page is eerily similar to sockpuppetry seen about a week or two ago on a number of other AfD articles surrounding made-up sports (I believe 'footbasket' was one...) --The Way 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The talk page seems to have some hilariously inept ventriloquism going on. "Gottle o' geer!"--Folantin 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless dreck. Moreschi 13:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark 01:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxed Thoughts[edit]

Looks almost like spam for this website. I was tempted to delete it for being a non-notable website, but the assertion that it was featured on a TV show could provide some notability for it. It does, despite that, seem pretty non-notable and unverifiable, though. Metros232 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be generous and count the TV show as one external source, but I've waded through 8 pages of google results and everything is a blog. Pity because it's more interesting than 99% of the websites that turn up on AfD but I'm not going to resort to WP:ILIKEIT. Demiurge 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Article is in it's early stages. I'm still working on creating more content which will link it to it's sources better aswell as adding a more in-depth history section among controversy, and the social experiment that has been based off this website. This is only a day old and i would very much appreciate a chance to prove this can be a suitable article. I still have to change the context to be in the Third Person. The article will also be mentioning the use of BT for therapeutic uses (but also mention that this is a claim by users, which has *yet* to undergo scientific review). BT may be the base for a Standford social experiment on the effects of expressive writing. I think this wiki is worth while and will expand and prove itself. Thank You. YeahWho 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — you are welcome to improve the article during this deletion discussion, but before you start writing, you might want to review our content policies, which include Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks. Demiurge 09:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Website seems non-notable; only external reference is one TV show comment; digg.com entry (external link from the article) has only had 129 diggs in 579 days (compare with any current news article racking up hundreds in just a few hours). I agree that the idea seems cool, but let's wait until there are more independent references for it to endorse it. -- dockingman^talk 06:25, 2 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.. Aksi_great (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Beeso[edit]

Contested prod. Prodded as hoax. Article claims he's an associate of Nick Cannon. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's the prod text: "Likely hoax. Actor under this and his stage name has no IMDB entry, neither does the movie he supposedly starred in. Record label has no Google hits." The original author has no edits other than this article. eaolson 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fake fake fake. The author should be slapped on the wrist for contesting this garbage. --Jemiller226 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons cited above. --CJ 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Linuxaurus 15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Abdul Qayyum[edit]

Copyvio from http://www.pasban.org/article-abdulqayyum-eng.html Only thing is all the important stuff from that article was left out when copied so the article fails to explain why this is a notable case. Previous AfD failed to notice the copyvio problem. Sent here because I don't want to speedy something that previously survived AfD.MartinDK 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable murderer with a non-notable victim. Stebbins 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO.--John Lake 00:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Opabinia regalis 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Varbanov/art name Johnny BULGARO[edit]

Self-promotion of non-notable person (Ivan varbanov (talk · contribs), a.k.a. Tatko ivan (talk · contribs) and 84.238.130.80 (talk · contribs)). Also listed for deletion on Bulgarian Wikipedia Goldie (tell me) 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Blatant self-promotion. Stebbins 00:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this guy's cv per Wikipedia is not a directory. Speedy if I could find a relevant category. Ohconfucius 03:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an exercise in masturbation. NN. WMMartin 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - not contested here. Yomangani ^talk 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Homewood[edit]

Contested speedy. Article on a camp that offers no indication of notability Nuttah68 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another camp. Vegaswikian 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. WMMartin 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete UE Main Library, no consensus (default to keep) for University of the East Library. Sandstein 15:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of the East Library[edit]

also including UE Main Library in the nomination. Contested prod. Library of no notability or distinction to justify one, let alone two, seperate articles to be split out of the university article Nuttah68 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both are daughter articles of University of the East. To delete them would defeat the purpose of these type articles. In addition, a quick look at Category:Academic libraries shows precedent for such articles. As academic libraries, they are inherently notable. -- AuburnPilot ^talk 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment some academic libraries are notable, but the existence of a category does not mean all are anymore than Category:People from Toronto makes everyone in Toronto notable. Nuttah68 10:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, a category doesn't make it notable. It is merely an example of how many other similar articles are here on Wikipedia. If you read my comment, it says this shows precedent. -- AuburnPilot ^talk 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete UE Main Library and Weak Keep University of the East Library. Given the size of the main article, a merge doesn't seem like a good option, and I'm willing to buy that the library is important enough to the university to deserve some coverage (although I do think that the library article is rather bloated, as it stands, and it needs independent sources to fully establish notability). However, the nominator is correct in that there's no reason for two articles to exist here, especially since UE Main is basically cut and pasted from the other article. I would recommend a severe edit of the University of the East Library article, but that falls under cleanup. Shimeru 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UE Main Library and Conditional Keep University of the East Library as per Shimeru. Wikipedia is not a campus information directory - besides the duplication issue that Shimeru raises, I also agree with the need for a severe cutting down of the University of the East Library article, which has much unencyclopedic and redundantly obvious content e.g."The primary mission of the University Library is to support the teaching, research, learning, extension service, and cultural endeavors of the University community. The general objective is to provide adequate, timely, and relevant information resources and innovative services that support the full spectrum of teaching, learning and research needs of the University.";"The Computer Science Library allows students access to the growing collection of computer science materials, at the same time allowing them to charge out materials for home use.";"Another special feature is a browsing area where clients can relax on comfortable seats with any of a large collection of well-selected and attractive books.". Most of the article has this content style/tone. Bwithh 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Come on now, they're just university libraries. Are we going to have articles on every college library? They have books and other academic materials for students to use for research. They probably are partially funded by endowments. This is common sense and does not require an article. What's next, articles for each dormitory of every college? These libraries don't appear to be notable as far as libraries are concerned. They function like any other college library, therefore they don't need to have an article. --The Way 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm with you on this. The main University of the East already mentions that the university has academic libraries at x, y and z (with picture). There is nothing in these two articles that requires merging so deletion will not cause the main article to grow. Nuttah68 10:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a campus directory. Not enough independent evidence of its notability. Edison 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete M a rtinp23 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumrali(l)[edit]

Article does not provide sources - and for a family that is claimed to be one of the biggest in the U.S. Mafia, they don't have any relevant Google hits. sumrali mafia turns up nothing, while sumrall mafia turns up only unrelated results. I strongly suspect this is a hoax by someone who wants to promote/insult himself/a friend. FreplySpang 20:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like hoaxy nonsense to me. Awkwardly titled, uncited, and the word "sumrali" gets 19 google hits by itself, none related at all. You'll also have a hard time convincing me that a major Italian crime family in the US goes by "Sumrall". Opabinia regalis 00:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No external sources; Google search does not consider it a common last name, lest Italian; article is full of nonsense: "European spelling", "Sumrali(l)" (title with a lower case "L" in brackets???), "Since their appearance" (does a family just "appear" as a mafia, or do they develop an organized crime through the years?)... could be a hoax or a bad joke to someone -- dockingman^talk 06:51, 2 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 Opabinia regalis 06:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dollard[edit]

This is a vanity page written by some talentless hack (a trainee production journalist). Rugbyball 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment uhh...wow, yeah, can we possibly get a nomination that doesn't attack the article's subject? Metros232 21:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, just to clarify; hack as in journalist, talentless as in he has no claim to fame other than his love of Guinness. Rugbyball 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or the fact that he's a presenter and reporter on television? That's not a claim to fame? Metros232 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's only cat stuck up a tree local television, and besides which he obviously wrote it himself. Rugbyball 21:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination for Royal Television Society's award for newcomer of the year [25]. I think that shows a decent amount of notability. Metros232 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with the amount of citation needed tags Rugbyball just added to the article, I'm really beginning to wonder about a bad faith nomination. Metros232 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what is the source for this information? I'm beginning to think this you are a bad faith editor. Rugbyball 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - he is a talentless (and vain) hack. Rugbyball 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no intention of intruding into a private war - I just feel that the article asserts and demonstrates adequate notability.--Anthony.bradbury 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metros232 (given that it was Border TV, it was more likely sheep stuck up mountains than cats up trees). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metros 232. Edison 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More or less NN. Come back when you're actually done something significant or won something significant. WMMartin 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied, A7. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuzanni[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the two characters' apparent connection and because both articles have the same creator:

Rouge student

Both are nonexistent Naruto characters. Unusually, the articles' creator has made attempts to link other articles to them, though most have been reverted due to the fictionality of the fictional characters. Qualify at the very least as WP:OR and WP:CRUFT. ~Snapper T o 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. If they do exist, merge onto a single page of minor Naruto characters. Stebbins 00:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Asquimm 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per previous deletions of other Naruto fanfic characters (see here, here, here and here). Wikipedia is not for things you write up in fanfiction one day. Both characters, as fan characters, fail WP:FICT. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, fan-created characters without any verification whatsoever. ColourBurst 04:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both Fan made / fanfiction characters are not notable. A7: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. -Kunzite 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both As above.MightyAtom 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - it can be recreated if and when some information surfaces that isn't just speculation. Yomangani ^talk 08:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic III[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article itself states that this game isn't even being planned, just something a company "wants to do" or some such. Find a press announcement about it actually being worked on, and perhaps an article could be made then. -Markeer 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT clearly confirms the "not a crystal ball" collective. Also, this article is sort of fan-oriented, n'est-ce pas? David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a uk gaming magazine printed a list of forthcoming Xbox 360 titles, including KOTOR III, i added more info and the gaming chart thing Bazel 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The screen shot was actually from KOTOR II. Alec 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely it cannot be notable until, and unless, it exists?--Anthony.bradbury 23:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only because we might as well blank and start over. The quality of the article is relatively poor. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that we should keep it. I agree that it doesn't have much information yet, but it should stay there so we can add more info to it as it comes out. Also, People might want to know a bit about it, such as if KOTOR III is even being talked about. Even if it doesn't say much about the plot. Yet. Aero Flame 00:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at this: (I didn't find/type it, it was posted on the KOTOR page).

"Hope for the series has been renewed with a statement made by Nancy MacIntyre, VP of global sales and marketing for LucasArts, who recently said that neither the KOTOR series, nor the Star Wars: Battlefront series will be left behind. [1]"

Keep I think we should keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.131.151 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 November 2006
Keep I have improved the page a lot. (I also, wasn't the one who added the extra bit typed in the KOTOR page). Also, I did not add the External links section, and some of the content above it. Aero Flame 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A game that is only rumored to exist isn't notable. If and when there is an official announcement then maybe it would be worth of an article. --Micpp 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball. IF this game gets officially announced, then the page can be recreated. TJ Spyke 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that there is a rather clear precedent here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we rarely keep articles on upcoming games/movies/books/albums unless there is a substantial amount of information already available on them. Even if one can verify that the game is in production, there still shouldn't be an article until there is a significant amount of info about it. --The Way 06:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take a look at this!

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/star-wars-knights-of-the-old-republic-iii-97/kotor-iii-rumour-news-thread-66175.html And this!: http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/star-wars-knights-of-the-old-republic-iii-97/ I think we should keep it. '

Delete all the sources state it's a rumour, nothing more. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative at best, with no substantiated information from reliable sources. A single quote from a PR rep who is covering his bases is no basis for an article. Fails WP:V and WP:RS in addition to all the crystal balling.-- Whpq 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whisp e ring 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real official confirmation of its existence, only teasing from executives. The quotes mentioned would fit in with the KOTOR I and KOTOR II pages. Having a separate page for the speculation adds nothing. Alec 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:CRYSTAL. An article can be created if/when the title is officially announced by a developer or publisher. --Muchness 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wookieepedia. -LtNOWIS 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There aren't reliable sources for this and the title has not been announced officially. Canderous Ordo 15:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Markeer.--Kross ^Talk 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the point of this article except saying it might exist. Lets wait until there is an official announcement. User:Nightjim
Keep Video game is likely to reach release. There are a number of reports from credible sources out there. This article needs to be tagged. Not deleted. The Filmaker 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it is very likely KOTOR III will indeed be released, however there has been no official announcement (that I am aware of), aside from the constantly reiterated comment from Nancy MacIntyre which has spawned what is still in essence just a rumor. Alec 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not an official announcement? It is not a formal announcement. But it is straight from the mouth of someone from Lucasarts. It is considered to be highly unlikely that the game will not be made and it has had an announcement of sorts. I think that's grounds for this article to be kept. The Filmaker 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't say that KOTOR III was in the works, only that they want to continue the franchise. A simple statement on the KOTOR/KOTOR II pages about the probability of a sequel is sufficient for now, since there is no information publicly known about the game. Alec 04:15, 1 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 - Yomangani ^talk 08:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naill Coll[edit]

Fails WP:VAIN. Gives no indication of why subject should be deemed notable. Name of subject is misspelt anyway! Pathlessdesert 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A google search shows he is in fact an author of a couple of books, but then I have no idea if those books have ever been bought outside his own family from the information in this article. It's horribly NPOV (e.g. "A esteemed recounteur, he is in much demand socially; he is known to have the ability to brighten up otherwise dull situations" which screams out WP:VAIN per nom), but that could be cleaned up if someone can give evidence of notability. -Markeer 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's a university lecturer, so I reckon this is a joke article written by one of his students and not a case of vanity (I doubt a university professor would spell his own name wrong!). He has written two books, Amazon rank 381,052 and amazon rank 1,788,627 and there are no Google hits outside of bookshops selling those (not even newspaper reviews) so doesn't appear to be notable. Delete. Demiurge 21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and fails WP:V. Jayden54 22:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also, the article contains three other spelling mistakes, which I feel an educationalist would not make.--Anthony.bradbury 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - consensus is that she doesn't met the notability guidelines at the moment. Article copied to userspace as requested. Yomangani ^talk 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Åkerberg[edit]

Swedish scholar, article makes no claim of notability, but was probably created because of the subject's links to the conspiracy theory movement. No articles link here. The subject has no notable publications and clearly fails the Professor test. A google search turns up exactly 339 hits of which only about 130 are unique [26], Google scholar gets about 10 hits.[27], but nothing stands out that would speak to notability, a search of Amazon.com turns up nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF (talk • contribs)

Weak delete, but somebody should get hold of her dissertation to expand the Wikipedia article on London Zoo. (What is the "conspiracy theory movement"? Just to prevent any misunderstandings, it looks from her bibliography like she has written a couple of things about conspiracy theories, not contributed to promulgating them.) Uppland 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no notability asserted. - Crockspot 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing that makes her stand out as notable, lots of published journal stuff, but that is not notable or unusual for a professor either. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is indeed sad that i that i need to bring it up, but i will: she speeks ill of CT's, so you can take it easy on the "DETELE DELETE DELETE 911 POV". She had a large article on Svenska Dagbladet and was used as the only source ("Källor") [28]. Also, keep in mind that Sweden is a small country, 9 million people, so she is notable in that context. This is a world-wide covering encyclopedia, and not only a USA covering one, right? --Striver 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here [29] is she prominently displayed at Umeå University.--Striver 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It makes sense to have a lower quantitative threshold for things like sales for poets writing in small languages, but for academics there is a given hierarchy and career which is similar all over the world, even though the titles may vary. Åkerberg is not a professor, not even a docent yet, and her main work so far, her dissertation, is published in English on an English and general historical topic, so there is no reason to include her on some kind of "national" quota, as might be done for scholars whose research may be of importance despite little international recognition. (Her page at the university is nothing special; a lot of junior academics, including graduate students, have pages like that presenting their research.) And this comes from someone who usually defends notable but little known academics on AFD. Upp◦land 22:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC). Revised. Upp◦land 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Seems notable See here and should :Knoha:ve a Wikipedia entry RaveenS
RaveenS - your google search doesn't put the name in quotations, if you look at it carefully, the majority of the results are irrelevant. Searching again with the name in quotations yields only a few hundred results. GabrielF 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sandy (Talk) 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Tbeatty 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment in case the resutl is "delete", i would request to have the article userfied. Thanks. --Striver 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, article seems to only exist to buoy the notability of David Icke.--Rosicrucian 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, how did you arrive to that conclusion? The article is not even linked from there. --Striver 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-a-mungo as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:06, 1 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 - Yomangani ^talk 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wembley's egg[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and concerns a distinctly non-notable subject. John254 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes, which says that there first should be an episode list article with some extended information, so this individual episode article can be deleted for now. Jayden54 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh man -- I remember watching this episode when I was about 6. When will there be a Fraggle Rock Wiki????--Dmz5 06:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holy crap, I remember it too. But it just doesn't work as an article, at least not without a proper cental listing of episodes. Heimstern Läufer 03:30, 1 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. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fecal Matter[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Band fails notability guidelines - only notablity is that it was Cobain's first "real" band. Band recorded one home demo (Illiteracy Will Prevail) and played very few shows. Content might be better served with a two-sentence mention in Kurt Cobain. ChrisB 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both, it barely passes WP:MUSIC (point 6), but the important fact about the band (that it was Kurt Cobain's first and that he was proud of the demo tape) is already covered in Kurt Cobain, so there's no real reason to keep this article. Jayden54 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fecal Matter to Feces. Readro 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one, merge the other - the Cobaon article seems to have little detail. -- Beardo 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Illiteracy Will Prevail into Fecal Matter, then keep that. --keepsleeping slack off! 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per badlydrawnjeff. —EdGl 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep FireSpike Editor Review! 07:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron, redirect per Readro. Degenerate bandcruft. The Crying Orc 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Meets WP:MUSIC for the Cobain connection. --Oakshade 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. Nominator is exactly right. WMMartin 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democrats of Clark University[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable student organization. Article gives no assertion of notability, and 15 distinct Google hits aren't promising either...[30] Fram 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have had contact, per the article, with many notable people, but that does not make the organization itself notable. They do not claim notable people as members.--Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single-campus political organizations in and of themselves are generally non-notable. If they're a member of a national organization, redirect to the national organization article. If they're independent, they clearly fail notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student groups at individual schools are generally not notable. Opabinia regalis 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. We don't need this. --Oakshade 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Clark University. Yankee Rajput 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - crz crztalk 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amadia and Akra[edit]

Both places already have existing articles. This is a contested speedy, so bringing it here. D e nni ^talk 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a number of reasons. Firstly the nomination is incorrect, the sees don't have their own individual entries, they are recently created redirects to the general region. Even if they did the dioceses could be seperately noted from the towns. Secondly dioceses (IMO) have inherent notability, and this goes double for dioceses that are not titular. Finally, they are listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia which gives them notability even if it isn't accepted that dioceses have. Wikipedia can't be regarded as comprehensive if it excludes subjects of significant articles in major encyclopedias. JASpencer 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JASpencer. Nomination is mistaken, as they do not have articles on their own. I agree with JASpencer that dioceses are notable enough to have articles of their own, and these have already been included in another encyclopedia. Uppland 07:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both - crz crztalk 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Accomplished (novel)[edit]

This novel is non-notable, failing the "has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" test from the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The "publisher" (Dog Ear) is a self-publishing company, not an actual publishing company. It also fails the Google test, and it is likely that most, if not all, of the results were in fact posted by the author. Essentially, it is questionable whether anyone has actually read this book besides the author, and its inclusion here is basically for advertising and was posted by the author himself, Patrick S. Johnston. Bobanny 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for deletion because it is the author's page and this book is his only claim to notability:[reply]

Patrick S. Johnston

Bobanny 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, self-promotion, puffery. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:BK. The book doesn't even show up on worldcat. Pascal.Tesson 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - it looks like a singularly terrible idea for a novel.--Dmz5 06:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmz5's post was subjective and therefore irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. User: Zoe's "self-promotion, puffery", ok, but so is every one of you all's user pages. Dog Ear is a self-publishing company and an actual publishing company, they have buildings and employees and everything. I would be willing to see the author page go for the time being, but I want to discuss the book page. So it doesn't show up on worldcat, if it did like Jesse Izzard's Mission Accomplished! by Athena Press, which isn't an "actual" publishing company, could the book page stay then? What if other users posted details about the book, would that suffice the idea that no one has read the book but the author standard? Basically, what is the minimum standard here for posting an article about a novel? Can the article be reposted if after deletion it clears notability hurdles? pjohn13 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article and user page are not the same thing. Your book was published because you paid Dog Ear to publish it (it's ~~usually~~ the other way around for notable books - buildings and employees are irrelevant). Other users haven't posted anything about the book, which is the point, and no it doesn't count if you get your roomate or mom to say something nice, or "forget" to log in so it looks like a different user is saying something nice. Good luck to you on your book, but right now, it's not notable and Wikipedia is not for advertising, period, which most Wikipedians feel strongly about. Try MySpace or Blogspot instead of trying to negotiate your way to success here - that's exactly what those websites are for. If the book becomes notable in the future, someone else will gladly do up an article here about it without being asked, prompted, paid, related to you or an acquaintance of yours.Bobanny 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a reliable nor acceptable academic resource unlike an actual encyclopedia. It will remain this way as long as unqualified persons are allowed to post on the site and manage it. Which is fine if that is the route you all are interested in, but any kind of claims to integrity are ridiculous when one looks up other articles for so-called notable novels that give away the plot and gives lazy people an opportunity to speak about the book as if they read it. If you want to do something commendable, go delete all the spoilers that exist. Also, do not pretend for an instant that an article about a form of entertainment does not contribute to commerce. Wikipedia is a form of advertising. It matters very little whom posts on the site about it, if the consumer can find more information on this site than on a commercial site, it may influence the sale. And please don't pretend that notability is anything more than subjectivity. As you yourself suggest, someone will post an article if the novel becomes notable, as in if they read it and LIKE it and take the time to post the article. I would hope they would not ruin or cheapen the story by putting it on this site where anyone can look at it and judge a book they have not read by information that could be inaccurate. So you want to remove this article, fine, just make sure you go around the site and take down the spoilers that contribute to intellectual laziness (you have plenty of work to do). If you do not, then you have no reason to take down the article about my novel which gives away nothing. If my novel fit your norm of notability, which is skewed toward big corporations in this case, we would not be having this dialogue. Which is certainly reasonable, it is not as if they publish things like the OJ book. Oh wait, they did. With the enforcement of norms comes power and responsibility, so use it. Not to mention there are articles that show their bias toward the book they read, here's an article for you to start on: When Patty Went to College, Which contains this gem: "Dear Enemy is an excellent read." pjohn13 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you read Wikipedia:Spoiler warning? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read the spoiler warning and I am well aware of pages that fulfill the letter of the idea of spreading information, but are totally disrespectful of the author and their work. Take the page on Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five for example, if not for the spoilers, the page would have no more information than is needed for someone to decide if they want to read the book or not while giving that person reading the article a sense of what the novel is about. If Vonnegut wanted to write down everything someone needed to know about the novel without having to read the novel, he would not have written a novel. It would be impossible. Vonnegut would be instead writing a study guide. This is because a study guide is not a narrative. A study guide is thought to be authoritative, as giving one the "facts" so one can say that one knows what is important about that work. When an author writes a novel to tell us something through the use of narrative, the reader brings their subjectivity to the reading and will interpret what is important. The spoiler, one who posts their interpretation as fact, has not done anyone a service by providing information, but has colonized the process of critical reading. One can choose to avoid the "information" of the spoiler, but not everyone will. A narrative is not created to be static and closed to thoughts about meaning and allowing anyone to impose a particular meaning on a narrative is dangerous because it can make thought become dogmatic instead of dynamic. pjohn13 8:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WANT INFORMATION< PUT DATA PUT BACK UP! Well I take it im one of the few who ordered this from amazon. good book. now i want some background info and all i get is a debate. lame. can someone redirect me to an information source?gotro33current UTC time is 8:33

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Splits are an editorial matter. Sandstein 15:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese people[edit]

There were/are so many famous Chinese people that a list is largely useless and cannot be at all comprehensive. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split, to corresponding lists, such as List of Chinese warlords or List of Chinese actors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Note that the title doesn't reflect that it's "famous" Chinese people. Needs to be more specific to be workable and valuable for an encyclopedic entry.Bobanny 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the nature of the subject, this list must be either so incomplete as to be valueless or to large to be accessible.--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split Then change this to Lists of Chinese people in line with Lists of Roman Catholics.--T. Anthony 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely unmaintainable listcruft. Think about the precedent this sets, too... I'd just love to see an AfD for a List of White people. Finally, as far as the actual article title is concerned, it'll take more than a billion names simply to complete it. --The Way 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Category:Lists of people by nationality and none of them are intended to be exhaustive. They're supposed to be limited to people of encyclopedic value limited to those nations. Still it's bizarre we have a whole Category:Lists of Hong Kong people yet tried to make mainland Chinese just one list. I'd prefer there be a Category:Lists of Chinese people.--T. Anthony 16:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split by occupation, reason for notability, etc. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split by occupation, there are so many notable Chinese in history and the list is too huge. We have so many Chinese people to list, several lists is needed. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split. A list of Chinese people is just asking for trouble. There are a billion of them after all. DrKiernan 18:07, 1 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 - Yomangani ^talk 08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolce far niente[edit]

Dicdef which has been transwikied to Wiktionary. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's already found a new home. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiktionary entry -- Cate 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per the guidelines presented. If he plays on a tier1 club, an article is notable for inclusion. Tawker 07:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hamann[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as he has not played 1st team football see here and is in the Chelsea reserve squad here. Delete. TerriersFan 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. TerriersFan 23:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable player. --Angelo 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO for now, with no prejudice against recreation if he becomes a first-team player at a professional club in the future. Qwghlm 12:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - he is a highly rated youth player, will break into first team squad eventually, if not with Chelsea then elsewhere. GiantSnowman 13:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this has been discussed many times on here. "Highly rated youth players" do not get articles; they get an article when/if their potential is realised and they meet WP:BIO. TerriersFan 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - does not fit WP:BIO. GiantSnowman 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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