Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep malformed and bad-faith nomination Gwernol 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Borat page.


  • This is an advertisement/spam. This Borat character has a massive publicity machine which spans 90% of cyberspace. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for advertisement/spam, nor does this belong in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia is precise, accurate, and factual. The name "Borat" should never have been used as a title for this advertisement/spam, rather his real name SACHA BARON COHEN . The fact his commercial name WAS used is proof that one of his employees initiated/constructed this page!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 13:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siyang Zhang[edit]

The user is expressing his own views. The info is not even enough to be called as a stub. Very vague and rubbish class article. Sushant gupta 09:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete; no assertion of actual notability - I'm ignoring the claim that "she currently attends the UNSW School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". So tagged. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete early per WP:SNOW. Creator is now indef blocked for vandalism. WjBscribe 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gowinson Mansion[edit]

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

No references, no Google hits for Gowinson Mansion or Jackie Gowison. Very probable hoax, created by someone who did a lot of vandal edits. ReyBrujo 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nom. Unverifiable and apparently a hoax. From an account that has made only vandal edits. WjBscribe 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE delete per nom. Borderline speedy even.--Wizardman 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesn't have any references, apparently a hoax. Daniel5127 | Talk 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article seems to be a hoax, unsourced. Hello32020 01:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On a day when we perpetrate hoaxes, here we should do away with one. Realkyhick 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Cricketgirl 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rulesdoc 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ATT. Morenooso 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect --Bubba hotep 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting[edit]

William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge Non notable character. Could be merged into a list of characters of "Gangs of New York," but that's debatable. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unbiased Keep: It doesn't seem like the character is non-notable; the character is played by an academy award-winning actor, and it seems like it is an important character. Deletion request needs more information to prove the point, if it is true. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every single important character in a movie should have an article. Napoleon Dynamite is a popular movie and his article was deleted. Plus, all this article can do is list a chopped up plot summary of the "Gangs of New York" film and offer barely any biographical information about the character. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No references demonstrating notability outside the context of the film. Merge to film article per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 22,900 Ghits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there is anything worth keeping, otherwise just redirect. He only appears in a single work, and there's nothing to write about him besides a portion of the plot summary for the work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect per Night Gyr. From the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Major characters in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. This character is not covered in the main work (Gangs of New York) at all. --maclean 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main article. Realkyhick 05:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per manual. Metamagician3000 07:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to William Poole- the arguments about his being a fictional character are wrong (Herbert Asbury's "Gangs of New York" is a nonfiction book), and although Scorsese changed his name for the film, Bill the Butcher was a notable character in real life who already has his own article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the article is about the fictional character who was based on him, not the real person. We wouldn't redirect a Shakespearean character to the real-life counterpart, we redirect it to the work whose article would document the character. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abxy[edit]

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

Notability not asserted, established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. I don't even know where to begin. :P --Coredesat 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Miyamoto[edit]

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

Non notable, seems like Fancruft George Leung 01:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add cleanup tag rather than keep or delete. Though I do like him so keep--Wizardman 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joke nomination. WjBscribe 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expletive infixation[edit]

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

De-fucking-lete this non-fucking-notable ar-test-icle. It's hi-fucking-larious that the au-damn-thors think that this in-fuck-sation is so frequently used. ElbridgeGerry t c block 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JSTOR has refs to this but I don't have access. If I ever come across something like this that is article-worthy I pray I have the self-control and patience to submit it on April 1! --killing sparrows 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I never heard of this inco-fucking-herent crap. --Ineffable3000 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously a notable linguistic topic, and it doesn't even mention this hilarious thing, that is linked to from our fuck article. J Milburn 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and in this case, I'm pulling out WP:IAR - there's not very much documentation to hold it up against WP:N or WP:RS, but it's out there enough. First, there is little documentation on this (or, really, any) coloquialism phenom, and most of what's out there is...well, pretty much through word of mouth. The closest you'll get to documentation is, say, a Stephen King novel, for the simple reason that King's books just kind of come out that way. Second, the only really good way to document this is to provide a list of examples with an explanation of the concept - and at the time of my !vote here, that's pretty much what the article does. The side effect is that we hedge on being a primary resource - a little dangerous considering the nature of Wikipedia, but still. --Dennisthe2 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huff. No, keep. No, delete. No, save. Oh, what-fucking-ever, maybe we should delete Jimbo Wales instead? (oh wait, that was a speedy keep...) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the arguments against this article... wait a minute... there are none! Every "delete" vote is merely making fun of the article and/or calling it "ridiculous." Last time I checked the AfD is meant for discussion and arguments for deletion, not mocking the articles at hand. Now, there have been many articles (both newspaper and scholarly) written about the subject, so it easily fulfills both WP:N and WP:RS (see this article in the Toronto Star: [1] and then add that to the already numerous mentions in JSTOR and Google Scholar). Needless to say, I would hope for a more mature discussion in an AfD, especially about a linguistic phenomenon that is both notable and serious. Rockstar915 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comment This was an April Fool's nomi-fucking-ation. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh sh-shit-it. I totally forgot it was April fucking fools. My bad. :) Rockstar915 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete along with Film Noir (Ruse of Fools album). WjBscribe 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruse of Fools[edit]

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

Band yet to release their first album. No members previously belonged to famous bands. Tagged with {{importance}} since August 2006. Don't reach the heights of being one-hit wonders and seem not to meet WP:BAND's suggested guidelines for inclusion. "Still playing local venues". Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing that shows this band meets notability guidelines. And as odd as it looks, this is not an April Fool's-related listing. --Coredesat 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see from the relist that it's not intended as a joke, but the coincidence is funny. Yeah, it's a nn band. YechielMan 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to refrence the day as well (although I've got a few hours before it hits here on the west coast of the US). I can't really find any suitable claim to notability on this one. Darquis 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable local band. Realkyhick 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bruderly[edit]

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

No longer a noteworthy candidate from the 2006 U.S. elections, also article reads somewhat like an advertisement Guroadrunner 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've taken the important basic information about him from his article and added it to the 2006 U.S. House Elections for Florida page. Still support an AFD. Guroadrunner 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a major party candidate for the house, so additional references can certainly be found. DGG 04:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has been the Democrat candidate four times. --FateClub 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perennial candidate, but from a major party. Notable, if for nothing more than futility. Realkyhick 05:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He obviously still is notable. Lakers 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, but certainly cleanup. Daniel Bryant 02:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christa McAuliffe Space Education Center[edit]

Christa McAuliffe Space Education Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, as per another editor's tagging of notability since October 2006 Guroadrunner 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I added 2 articles from the Deseret News of Salt Lake City, which just meets the general requirement of "multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage." That said, it is a pretty impressive operation, with spaceship simulators to teach concepts in science and history to 16000 school children a year from around the U.S and around the world since 1990. The article could use a general rewrite from those and other sources, since it assumes too much familiarity with the subject. Edison 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison Darquis 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This looks awfully copy-and-paste-y. Does it come from another source? Are we looking at copyvio problems? Realkyhick 05:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. I'm sure a reasonable encyclopedia article could be written on this subject, but this one probably isn't it. WarpstarRider 13:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Copyvio! re: Realkyhick -- it appears that most of this article is a copyright violation. Please see the original article here: [2]. Although it is not directly cut-and-pasted, about 90% or so of the sentences are directly plagiarised. Should we go ahead and add a {{copyvio}} tag to the article? Rockstar915 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded some of this article, although mostly to remove mild purple prose. I have also wikified it, so it at least looks professional. I have yet to check out the original article, but I am sure the situation could be remedied. CarrotMan 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, we remove the copyvio passages, as is our obligation. (I'm working on that right now.) Then, if anybody wants to rewrite it properly, they are welcome to do so. In the meantime, if it should be deleted, it can be. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the 'History' section was copyvio, but I couldn't find copyvios in the rest of it. (Although it certainly does look cut and pastey.) --Butseriouslyfolks 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I expect there are sufficient sources to get past WP:N, most of the article fails WP:A. Once those portions are removed, there's not enough left to support an article. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per statement by above user Butseriouslyfolks. Considering the need for a complete rewrite, fixing of copyvio, and lots of other issues, it's hard to see something good come out afterwards ("not enough left"). *Vendetta* (whois talk edits)
  • Delete per Butseriouslyfolks. Rockstar915 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has the potential to become a good article. A cleanup and more references would be a more constructive option. Camaron1 | Chris 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is easy to add references to support the notability of this center. Yes, it needs a cleanup but that is not a valid deletion reason. If kept, consideration should be given to moving this article and making this a dab page. Yes, there apparently are two different facilities with the same name. There is at least sufficient cited material to meet WP:A but a lot more work is needed on this article. Vegaswikian 06:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Its apalling to hear someone say "it's notable, but needs work, so let's delete it". How nauseatingly lazy. We do not delete articles just because thay are not up to our quality standards, that's what the little "edit this page" button is for. Jerry 19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to comment My remark was not "personally targeted", but rather was general in nature. civil <> nice. Jerry 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DD Media Group[edit]

DD Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability, reads like advertisement Guroadrunner 14:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable enough production company. Might need slight cleanup for tone, but nothing major. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Looks notable enough, but the article needs work. Realkyhick 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- the Césars are major, serious awards. Rhinoracer 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article needs a rewrite and expansion, most likely by someone familiar with the subject. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've done what I could to wikify the page, per the Wikification wikiproject. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amielle Lemaire[edit]

Amielle_Lemaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

STRONG DELETE - This is an infant who had a minor role on the show two years ago. Definitely not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character. Infancy does not make one non-notable. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only character (Ashley Thomas) that this person portrayed doesn't appear on the List of Neighbours characters, nor does any other character with the same surname, which implies that this person's Neighbours character was not closely connected with the core characters of the show. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Metrpolitan90. There do seem to be Google mentions, but this may well be forced notability- some relative of this person, or them themselves, have spammed their name. There appears to be three episodes they have appeared on. J Milburn 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radium Eyes[edit]

Radium_Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

♦DELETE Are we going to list every song that was part of every game – movie – TV show – personal liking that anyone ever thought to create as part of Wikipedia. If that is the case, no article should ever be considered for deletion. Shoessss 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tikiwont Darquis 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Realkyhick 05:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I would prefer to redirect to the appropriate album, but there are no articles on them. J Milburn 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band since it already is on there but can't stand by itself at this time. Darthgriz98 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Per nom. Wikipedia is not a list for every song ever recorded.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vignan's Institute of Information Technology[edit]

Vignan's Institute of Information Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable organisation - external links (the only ones currently on the page) point to no reasonable quality, verifiable sources with which to establish notability StuartDouglas 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, also contains pretty severe and unsourced POV material. Realkyhick 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actual content is primarily an attack on the college--not added by a subsequent vandal, but there from the start.DGG 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed the uncited attack material as OR. (It's not a BLP, but I think the same principles apply.) Article fails WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Goldstein[edit]

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources. This is the "running mate" of presidential candidate David Koch, whose article has already been deleted per discussion here. PubliusFL 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no idea why the header of this page isn't showing up right. If someone could help me fix it, I'd appreciate it. PubliusFL 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's good for the top of the ticket is good for the bottom. Realkyhick 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable, subject is also a user here (User:Kenrg, who has also edited the article) created by the same single purpose account that also created the David Koch article. Thethinredline 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename, which has already been done by Witty lama (thanks for that). Daniel Bryant 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of pocket sandwich[edit]

Types of pocket sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Created in response to this CfD, unverifiable, no inbound links, no edits since creation, no page for pocket sandwich (nor have I ever heard the term before), is unencycolpaedia as it can at best be a very short list and at worst be filled with linkspam for products Witty lama 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not because pocket sandwiches don't exist (pita bread covers what I know of as a pocket sandwich), but because this is very broad and poorly-defined. It also doesn't have any references, so it basically relies on the author's original research of what constitutes a pocket sandwich. Leebo T/C 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename the article to Pocket sandwich with a redirect. I found the term being used by several nutrition and cooking websites.--Ng.j 15:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Ng.j, and label as a disambiguation. Most often applied to pitas but lots of e.g. microwave food falls under this name. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It explains what a "pocket sandwich" is, but the definition is hard to understand. But it does provide a list, but there is no current entry for "pocket sandwich". A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is only one sentence explaining, along with a list of things that maybe - maybe - can be called a "pocket sandwich", and likewise contains things that aren't sandwiches unto themselves - they're things you put into a sandwich, and in one case (Al pastor), is not even a sandwich, but a method of cooking meat. --Dennisthe2 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tacos al Pastor is a better link to the sandwich made with meat cooked by the Al pastor method. Your argument for removing sandwich examples because they are ingredients is illogical. "Peanut Butter and Jelly" is a kind of sandwich. This is known as Synecdoche, where a part becomes used to describe the whole in popular useage. I have updated the article to reflect this. Jerry 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel Bryant 03:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WSVG[edit]

WSVG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • delete - non-verifiable information. not notable. article contains very little research beyond the organizations own website. see no encyclopedic value to it remaining on Wikipedia. ZBrannigan 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Google around a bit, view the sources. The WSVG, although only one year old, is one of the largest professional video gaming circuits around, most notably in Counter-Strike and Quake 4 competitions. It is home to very notable competitors, such as Manuel Schenkhuizen, Jonathan Wendel, and Johan Quick. The upcoming season features $750,000 in prize money, which is more than for instance the World Cyber Games, the Cyberathlete Professional League, and the Electronic Sports World Cup have to offer. The notability seems clear to me. -- Laurens Hoek 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - Articles here are written to be encyclopedic, not to inspire others to research the subject further on Google. Furthermore, the original sources cited were barely grammatically correct let alone reputable or journalistic in nature. ZBrannigan 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Naturally, the article needs some work, that's why it is a stub. However, this has nothing to do with notability (which this AfD was started for). Rather than being deletionist, maybe take some effort to improve the article instead.. -- Laurens Hoek 11:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Naturally, what you're saying is that totally baseless and untrue facts can be presented as fact on Wikipedia. I know you're probably upset that something you created should be deleted. Pick a substantiated topic that can be proven outside of its own domain and I'm sure you won't have a problem creating wikis in the future. -- Chemten 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment No, that's not what I'm saying. All the facts presented are in fact true and based. The WSVG finals were aired on MTV [3] and CSTV [4]. WSVG 2006 received major coverage from both e-Sports websites and mainstream press [5] [6] [7] [8]. The prize money for the upcoming season will be $750,000 [9]. In comparison, prize money for other prestigious tournaments is $500,000 (ESWC) [10], and $462,000 (WCG) [11]. The notability is obvious. None of that has anything to do with me originally creating the article. -- Laurens Hoek 10:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - This article meets all standards for deletion under 2.1 of WP:N. I'm not sure what I could do to convince anyone here of that. - Who is this?


  • comment I vote to delete - these 'esports' organizations are often fly by night operations that have a maximum shelf life of no more than a few months to a year. If we listed every operation that sprung up as "notable", then we'd have to include joe bob's truck shop down the street too. Also, if we put articles on every flash in the pan org, we'd also have to put an article on Cyber X Games. Google it ;) Troymaclure 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - Do you see a article about CXG? It's a non argument that because there have been failed competitive gaming organisations that succesful ones should not be included. Most humans are pretty un-notable as well, but I can think of a few of them that have articles. - Zerter 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not enough independent sources. Game over. Realkyhick 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - I've expanded the article and included a number of additional sources mostly from various respected competitive gaming media. The WSVG is a notable organisation and effort should be put into improving the article not into deleting it. - Zerter 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As noted in discussion above, subject does seem to have quite a bit of news coverage. Meets WP:ORG. Danski14(talk) 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many other sources to attribute claims to besides "sk-gamming.com". Those links seem to not be working right now for some reason, and may need to be replaced. Danski14(talk) 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable and verifiable --Wedderkop 06:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources are authentic, and subject meets WP:ORG notability requirements. Jerry 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Beccari[edit]

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

Non-notable, no WP:RS to indicate passing WP:BIO. Leuko 02:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possible self promotion. Lakers 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, few google hits.--Paloma Walker 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are added, per Leuko. Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says he was inducted into the "Photoshop Hall of Fame" in 2006. The site [12] doesn't list him. Non-notable, and dubious. Realkyhick 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likely self promotion guiltyspark 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like self promotion to me, and even if not is not notable enough/at all to justify a WP article. Poeloq 08:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Your Heroes[edit]

Kill Your Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I apologize in advance for the long explanation. As much as I’m pained to do this (I’m a huge fan of both Danger Mouse’s and Jemini’s), I have to say that since the original announcement from Lex Records, there has been no further information released about this album. It originally had a release date for October of last year, which was later pushed back to March 19, 2007. However, that date passed without the release of the album, and neither party has made any announcement since. HMV (the sole site that carried any info to the album) had the release date at March 19, but now says that the album has been completely removed from the site and the title deleted (see release date and the line below on the site) [13]. Amazon.com, allmusic.com, and Danger Mouse’s website all have no info on the album, or any notion that it even exists. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the album might be released next week, next month, or in ten years – there is no source citing an official date. Because of this information, this article should be deleted until further, verifiable information is given. Rockstar915 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless reliable sources appear. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, not verified. Realkyhick 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all the above. If the album should re-surface then this article can be re-created. Until then the article is crystal balling. A1octopus 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice (comics)[edit]

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

I didn't think there needed to be a second disambiguation page for Justice linked from the first Justice disambig page, so I moved the 3 non-included links to the main Justice disambig Darquis 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - already merged, no need for redirect. Artw 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Hohenberg 12:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page's job (however dubious) is done. Realkyhick 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good nomination. - Denny 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. IrishGuy talk 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Davis (boxing)[edit]

Non-notable, as far as I can see. mcr616 Speak! 02:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete - CSD A7 ^demon[omg plz] 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nickabocka[edit]

Dr. Nickabocka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no WP:RS for WP:A, possible WP:HOAX Leuko 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Taucher[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NN by not asserting relevance. Gilliam 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


attempted to improve it by categorizing and referencing. Freestyleflava42 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would need a lot more than that. She's a non-notable schoolteacher. My vote stands. Realkyhick 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red And White Night[edit]

Red And White Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school event. Leuko 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per Leuko. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeanMD80 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Totally non-notable. What next, the Fungus Creek Middle School Second Annual Pie Fight? Realkyhick 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Richard 04:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation of Deseret[edit]

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

I am proposing this for deletion as it is a poorly sourced essay and appears to contain much WP:OR. I notified several related pages so that they could salvage something if possible. I know little about the topic but did read a few related articles and believe all the information is covered well in existing articles. --killing sparrows 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as OR. It looks like we're looking at someone's term paper posted directly here. Little or nothing salvageable for the main article. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, very very term-paperish as BPMullins said. Realkyhick 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nowhere in the text is the title of this "article" even mentioned! BankyEdwards 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and rename --Bubba hotep 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten exorphine[edit]

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

I was trying to find sources for this and no results came up on PubMed. Did a Google search and found only one none-Wikipedia clone site featuring this term. I suspect it's a hoax. Article has been around since 2005. Oldak Quill 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete while this site suggests its a real term, I don't know how verifiable the info in the article is. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources whatsoever, can't be verified, looks like something sold on late-night cable TV. Realkyhick 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reason for gluten intolerance given by The Penguin Dictionary of Biology (10th ed., M. Thain & M. Hickman, Penguin, 2000) is an allergic reaction, leading to coeliac disease and subsequent malabsorption of nutrients (i.e. starvation with a full belly). In scanning Mr.Z-man's linkEsseh 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC), they describe the symptoms of starvation (weakness, neuropathy, headaches...) combined with an excess of unabsorbed food in the GI tract and colon irritation (flatulence, diarrhea). Purple ergot of rye, some mushrooms, toads, and bad fugu may cause halucinations, but gluten? Naw, this is a hoax, though perpetrated by someone with at least a minimal knowledge of oligopeptide structure. Esseh 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick check on Pub Med and came up with the following refs and links to abstracts: "Delta opioid peptides derived from plant proteins. (Yoshikawa M, Takahashi M, Yang S, Curr Pharm Des. 2003;9(16):1325-30.)", "Behavioral and pharmacological studies on gluten exorphin A5, a newly isolated bioactive food protein fragment, in mice. (Takahashi M, Fukunaga H, Kaneto H, Fukudome S, Yoshikawa M., Jpn J Pharmacol. 2000 Nov;84(3):259-65.)", "Gluten exorphin C. A novel opioid peptide derived from wheat gluten. (Fukudome S, Yoshikawa M, FEBS Lett. 1993 Jan 18;316(1):17-9.)", and "Opioid peptides derived from wheat gluten: their isolation and characterization. (Fukudome S, Yoshikawa M, FEBS Lett. 1992 Jan 13;296(1):107-11.)". Good catch by Collabi. Looks like someone was trying to do a British spelling of "exorphin". Teach me to be too quick about yelling Delete! Esseh 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep! Article's title is mispelled. Do a paper search on "Exorphin" -- no trailing E -- and you will find dozens of papers on the topic from reputable institutions, which at least demonstrates that exorphines exist and are documented science. Too bad none of these citations are in the article. What I am less sure of is the conclusions at the top of the article -- a quick browse of the research didn't immediately turn up any empirical link to the diseases mentioned -- but the article should be cited and supported, not struck. Collabi 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You appear to have some knowledge of the subject. Could you possibly do some work to fix this article? Realkyhick 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no molecular biologist, but I can try. Unfortunately I lack access to a university research library these days so I will be mostly trying to glean information from abstracts. Collabi 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per collabi RogueNinja 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Gluten exorphin. Nature seems to have at least one article on this, though they also called it an "exorphin" not "exorphine" [14]. Someguy1221 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above.Biophys 02:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Jerry 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased songs by Ace of Base[edit]

Unreleased songs by Ace of Base (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not very sourced; however, this is not a reason for deletion. I believe that it is not "sourceable". If this article comes from documentation of unreleased songs that this band has released, then that should be referenced. This list is indiscriminate, because this band may not always indicate which songs they won't release, and this information probably won't come from a reliable source. GracenotesT § 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless someone can actually prove all this, in which case, merge somewhere. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They forgot to add "The Star Spangled Banner," "Theme from 'Rawhide,'" and "Love Song from 'The Gong Show.'" None of those were released by Ace of Base, either. Seriously, unless this can be reliably proved, it should go. Realkyhick 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free State of Montzoar Palatinate[edit]

Free State of Montzoar Palatinate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Coat of arms of Montzoar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flag of Montzoar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Probable WP:HOAX. Absolutely 0 GHits on both English and German Google. References section cites book with fake ISBN. Leuko 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Free State of Montzoar Palatinate is surprisingly well put together though, if the author can provide some valid citations I'll say keep. Interesting find Leuko. Vaniac 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all as an elaborate hoax. A Google search for "Montzoar" only turns up a few pages, and all refer to Buels Gore, Vermont and how the man it was named for wanted to name it "Montzoar". In addition, the image used to point out the supposed location of "Montzoar Palatinate" is just a copy of the map of Warner's Grant, Vermont, a gore which is completely uninhabited. WarpstarRider 13:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly preserve somewhere - thi is very high quality April 1st hoax. (frex having correct German terminology). Pavel Vozenilek 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Tis a pity it's a hoax. It would make a darn good featured article. :) Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Did you see the feature article for April 1? This would have topped it, maybe. Realkyhick 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yeah, I saw the George Washington article ;O). Both great articles. Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Could we keep this article and just replace "Montzoar" with the name of a real place? Vaniac 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A good hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Maybe the foundation for a Saturday Night Live skit. Realkyhick 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from mainspace, but keep it alive somewhere on Wikipedia.. Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand I haven't even got around to an article on their national anthem yet, Cone'on PLEEEZZE!CApitol3 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I would not normally close an AfD with only one argument, but this article is an advert. --Coredesat 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoluxury[edit]

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

As lede suggests, seems to be little more than a neologism coined by the Finnish fashion designer mentioned and linked to. Few relevant Google hits; most were links to her page or scrapes of this one Daniel Case 04:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like an ad agency came up with this. Not notable, neologism. Realkyhick 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game plot and universe clichés[edit]

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

Inherent problems with verifiability and original research. Cleanup is not a feasible option. Deltabeignet 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Marulanda[edit]

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

This is an article about a voice actor who does Spanish dubs. I don't know if this is notable on the English Wikipedia. We have a lot of articles about Japanese voice actors, but they're not notable for their dubbing roles (although a few of them have dub roles listed). I'm not entirely sure if the article should be here. At least, it's worth debating. My vote is Neutral for now. JuJube 05:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is wriiten, with the email address etc makes it look like an advertisment. If it is to stay it needs a serious re-write including refernced to establish notability. If no then it must be Deleted--Greatestrowerever 11:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an article, it's a solicitation for work. And in looking, I see no evidence she has notability that justifies re-writing it into actual article. I don't see any non-trivial secondary sources about her. (Disclaimer: I consider any reference that simply lists her name as a voice credit in something, but provides no actual information about her to be trivial coverage.) Mwelch 23:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE, Google only turns up 63 hits HornandsoccerTalk 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Orderinchaos 03:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widdess lecture[edit]

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

Non-notable annual lecture held at an Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Google comes up with only six hits, the first of which is Wikipedia. My vote is either to delete the article entirely or merge/redirect to Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Rockstar915 05:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Royal College article. Realkyhick 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. --Conmalone 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per nom. Jerry 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Money Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label whose existence is not even clear. A Google search finds two record labels by the same name; one of them is German and the other has none of the artists mentioned on the page. The page, as it stands, has no references, citations, or even external links that might help fulfill WP:N. Furthermore, Universal Records does not distribute the music, and the founder Rated R is not signed to Universal.[15]. Smells of WP:HOAX, or at least a non-notable vanity article, and could even be speedied at this point. Rockstar915 05:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like a vanity article to me, as per nominator. Poeloq 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, spam, non-notable label. Realkyhick 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 12:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan José Mesado (El Sardinilla)[edit]

Juan José Mesado (El Sardinilla) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible a hoax, or very few information. Matthew_hk tc 05:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Google search on both names brings up nothing relevant, seems to be a hoax ChrisTheDude 07:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified, probable hoax. Qwghlm 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Matthew_hk and Qwghlm. aLii 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same as above. Tangerines 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Ligon[edit]

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

Probably an WP:AUTOBIO. This is a well-crafted article, but I do not beleive mention in a few news sources meets WP:BIO in this case. Reads like a resume. Danski14(talk) 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep -- It is well sourced with many different sources. The references are not just from a non-notable "local newspaper" but papers like the Los Angeles Times. I think it should be kept but only after someone rewrites the entire article so it isn't like a resume. -- Hdt83 Chat 06:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, sorry to say I did not notice that. However, unfortunately I can not find his name in what I can read of the article to make any judgment. But assuming it is correct, is mention in the LA times and a few smaller papers enough? I am not sure. I would like to hear what other editors think. If they think the subject is notable and that the article can be fixed up somehow, I will retract this AfD. Danski14(talk) 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, many sources are used. I have seen this young man on TV several times, on the City Channel. Although I'm not one for Public Access, I believe the man is legitimate in having an article. However, the neutrality could be disputed. In my opinion it is enough to be kept alive. Lady luck knows all 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above comment was left by a sockpuppet account just created by Hunter.ligon (talk · contribs). Danski14(talk) 07:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Despite the sock-puppeting --- this article seems sourced and while I don't know of him --- there seems to be enough information available on him from various sources so that someone ELSE could redo his article and make it read less like a resumé. That to me seems like enough to keep the article. A quick glance around the internet and his named popped up a few times in major media outlets, and many times in his local outlets. It's a rather weak keep, but if we delete it now --- I'm sure it'll be back later (and rightfully so.) --NeptuneMan 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come on now guys. The cites from actual sources don't discuss him, they're peripheral and do not support a biography. From WP:BIO: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The others that mention him only do so in passing or are not reliable sources. Ligon was pretty creative in trying to game the system but it doesn't change the fact that this article dosn't meet the bio criteria for notability. It is also a clear conflict of interest and vanity. After all that the sockpuppets just illustrate that this is a dishonest effort to game. NeoFreak 16:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - self written bio, need I say more? Also, sources are poor and resultantly fails WP:BIO. Rgds, - Trident13 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepVery weak keep the sources are real, and support the article in spite of the obvious COI. Like anyone who see New Articles, I have a certain amount of prejudice against articles about high school students, but I think this one counts as N and V. The list of miscellaneous accomplishments is however unsourced, and has just been removed.DGG 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After actually removing all of them, and looking at the sources, which either do not support his involvement or are incidental mentions, it turns out there is not much else left. There does seem to be a real core. DGG 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:NeoFreak Baristarim 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. If the subject is genuinely notable someone other than him will be along with an indepednently written article soon enough. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete conflict of interest, fails to even assert notability. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not notable, autobigraphical, and fails to assert notability--Ng.j 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Autobiographical, and though he's apparently on the path to notability, he's not there yet. Realkyhick 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Realkyhick. The article is autobiographical, and I don't think he's quite reached the point of notability yet. --- The Bethling(Talk) 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:N. Need third-party commentary to justify keeping it. EdJohnston 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan christoffel[edit]

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

Contested prod, no reason given for contesting the prod. No evidence of notability provided in article. Mattinbgn/ talk 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- he can't even be bothered to create a detailed page (and is non-noteable) The globetrotter 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, I suspect he contested the prod because he had no other recourse. Realkyhick 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Almost no information on subject of article. Manik Raina

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masks from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Masks from The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

This article violates several of Wikipedia's policies. First, it violates WP:NOT because it is an indiscriminate list of information (every mask is included here, including a few details on how to obtain some of them, which violates the gameguide aspect of WP:NOT as well). There is no out of universe information (which is against WP:ATT) and likely no chance for this (I doubt there are developer interviews geared solely toward the masks seen in two Zelda games). Additionally, the page violates WP:ATT; there are no sources attributed, and a couple cases of OR where speculation or suspected allusions are noted.

I'm certain this information is already in the Zelda Wikia; if not, and there is an agreement to transwiki and redirect to preserve edit history, then I'm fine with that. However, I posted a comment on the main article of Zelda items (Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series) which yielded no response, so I assume that means nobody is interested in turning this part of Wikipedia into a section of an encyclopedia, not a walkthrough or overly detailed database. I appreciate the effort people placed into this article, so again, if someone wants to transwiki and redirect the article (if mask info is not already in the Zelda Wikia), then that would be even better than pure deletion. — Deckiller 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding this article to the AfD for the same reasons: Masks, weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. We don't normally have subarticles for all the items in a game (look at the Final Fantasy FAs for a good example), not to mention the policy issues previously explained. Because the main page is already detailed enough in terms of gameplay, a merger is unnecessary. — Deckiller 06:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both (or, per nom, transwiki if appropriate), a pretty clear-cut case of Wikipedia is not a game guide. Krimpet (talk/review) 07:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Don't forget to delete the fair use images too. MER-C 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The nom pretty much said it all. If a home can be found in another wiki or at wikia then that is always better than just getting rid of it though. Regarles, it doesn't belong here NeoFreak 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are nice work, but they belong in a better place like StrategyWiki, not Wikipedia. And it's not like there are millions of other sites out there that will give even more details on them. ~Entegy 02:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge/redirect/transwiki). Pretty much unsalvageable game guide stuff. I think anything of any merge-value has probably already been extensively written about in the earlier histories of the other Zelda articles, so I doubt there is any unique content here. Note that there was a previous discussion regarding the Majora's Mask article. --- RockMFR 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Orderinchaos 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Waddell[edit]

Alan Waddell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

While I have heard of this gentleman, his treks through Sydney and his website, I don't see him as important enough to justify an article (certainly not this paen to him anyway). The fact that one of the article's editors may well be related to him doesn't help either. --Roisterer 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Splintercellguy 08:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to vote Keep until I saw the article. It reads like a press release. While I'm a fan of Alan's, and believe he may be notable enough for an article (although perhaps not, as it's unlikely many people outside of Sydney would know who he is...), I think what is here has no real value. --ozzmosis 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article not usable in current format. --Mattinbgn/ talk 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Wikify certainly passes WP:BIO, but its a very, very poor article and yes, more like a press release at present. Somone with some knowledge and a little bit of time could make an interesting article with all the hits I got from a quick search on Google. Rgds, - Trident13 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'll change to keep if someone does a rewrite. I suspect the gentleman is notable, but this article isn't. Realkyhick 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of just talking about how bad the page was I went ahead and improved it a bit. It's easy to criticise an article, but I would encourage everyone to go ahead and do something about it.--Ng.j 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My nomination for this article (see above) was based on the issue of whether he was notable enough for an article, not on the quality of the article. --Roisterer 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject has been disussed in over 100 media articles, including the SF Chron. Jerry 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It appears there may be content issues - these should be addressed using normal cleanup processes and application of Wikipedia's core policies. Orderinchaos 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian Works[edit]

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

Unreliably sourced. Based entirely on original research. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Many of the votes on this page seem to assume that there is content on the page that is "worth keeping". However, we cannot keep anything on this page that is unreliably sourced. I have requested sources over and over since the last AfD (two months ago) and got absolutely nothing. It's as if we have made a page about some guy who lives in New York who everyone is making big claims about that nobody can back up with evidence ("Oh, I talked to him last week and he told me he was a tenured professor"). Isn't this exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia is trying to stamp out? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This article is perhaps a little too verbose in the Loveshade-connected areas, but it is overall worth keeping. DenisMoskowitz 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RS does not make an exception for minor subjects. There are no sources for this article. The unsourced claims need to be removed from Wikipedia. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything sourced/sourceable with the book on the subject and immediatly and without remorse delete the rest. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources elsewhere and delete the rest. Primary - and biased - sources are entirely worthless in helping us decide on article inclusion. As it stands, the article consists of original research and original synthesis and unattributed material, which is not acceptable. If the article is cleaned up by the provision of reliable secondary sources that actually back up some of the claims made, then I will happily change my opinion to keep. As of now, though, delete. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are we going through all this again? Shii formerly Ashibaka tried this same thing before for the same reasons just a couple of months ago. That's before over a dozen sources were added. These include a commentary by a candidate for the U. S. Senate, Steve Jackson Games which published the most popular edition of Principia Discordia and popularized the name Apocrypha Discordia which led to both that work and Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, etc. The decision back then was Keep. Shii formerly Ashibaka then threatened to ignore that decision and redirect it anyway. Also I intend no offense to J.smith, but I'm unclear on what your statement means. IamthatIam 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no reliable sources for the claim that any of the books in the article belong under the heading of "Discordian Works". Therefore, all the titles under the article should be removed; and it should be deleted. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I am getting the impression this is more a content issue than a deletion debate. But, importantly, a keep result does certainly not prohibit another editor to merge and redirect this article with another, that is a misunderstanding of what AfD is for. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous AfD was used as justification against a merge. Shiiformerly Ashibaka 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can understand that, but technically a merge should be discussed on the talk page of the article, not on AfD. That is meant for discussion about deletion of articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like this one deleted entirely because there is no sourced information in it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is Ashibaka alias Shii doing the same thing all over again? He already nominated it for delete and the result was Keep. Then he threatened to redirect it which would really mean deleting it in spite of the decision. Now he's doing it again! And how can we do anything to the article when it's protected anyway? This all started when Ashibaka alias Shii made some edits to the article that were reverted. Right after that he put it for delete. This article was created because before there was a separate article on Apocrypha Discordia, Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht, A Discordian Coloring Book, etc. Should we go back to having a separate article on each one of these, which is how it was before? Or should we keep this article? I say for the third time keep! Binky The WonderSkull 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment appears to be one big ad hominem which does not address the lack of sources but rather accuses me of nominating the article in bad faith. Hopefully the closing admin will disregard it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Discordianism/Principia DIscordia. This article seems to be poorly sourced fancruft and unclear about whether any of itself is fact. Several of these books barely exist; self-published books, especially via cafepress, are probably not notable in any way. Apocrypha Discordia, apparently a real book, doesn't seem to have enough material for an article. MrVacBob 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many times are we going through this same debate? There were separate articles on all these works and they were combined into one article. Do we want to have separate articles all over again? And there are more Discordian works than just Principia Discordia. MRN 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are NO RELIABLE SOURCES attesting to the fact of ANY Discordian works other than the Principia Discordia. Any unreliably sourced, controversial claims on Wikipedia need to be removed! Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There aren't enough sources for each of these to have their own article. That's what we had before. Some of the sources are original sites but not all. There are surely enough for this combined article. Rev. Bootie 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, this vote casts a false dilemma. If there are no sources, that doesn't mean we split the article up into multiple articles. It means we delete the article. Also, if there is a single source for this article please point it out for me. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an innappropriate afd given the article is currently fully protected and there is no way for non-admin to edit it (i.e improve it). John Reaves (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can post sources here if you actually have some. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, I'm not taking sides on this third version of the debate about keeping or deleting this article due to my obvious bias. But as usual I can't resist throwing in a comment or two. Based on John Reaves' comment, I did read through the procedures that Wikipedia policy suggests be followed before this stage. I would imagine that these policies existed the last time this article was put up for deletion by Shiiformerly Ashibaka.

I would suggest that those involved in this discussion might want to look through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion to see what is the recommended procedure, and if this was followed either this time or the first time Shiiformerly Ashibaka nominated this article for deletion. If you want more backgroup, you might want to check this user's previous attempt at deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discordian_Works_(2nd_nomination) or the request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Discordian_Works.

As a side note that people can very easily say is inappropriate for this page, I also plan to add a little section to my User talk page where I'll collect some of Shiiformerly Ashibaka comments about me. Reverend Loveshade 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern American[edit]

Middle Eastern American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • "Middle Eastern American" is not an ethnic group. Just because one author (Joe Feagin) claims it is, does not make it so!
  • "Middle Eastern American" is not an official classification in the US, the US census doesn't use it, and vast majority of publications in the US do not use it.
  • No sources have been provided here that show Iranians, Turks, and other non-Arabs of the region identify overwhelmingly as "Middle Eastern American". That is because most Iranians, Turks, other non-Arabs do not identify with this British invention of a term.
  • No sources have been provided which show that "Middle Eastern" refers to anything except a geographic territory. In fact, almost all legitimate sources use "Middle East" purely as geographic marker, thats all! Its not the same as "European" or "Iranian" (which includes peoples who speak Iranian languages in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc!)
  • Iranian is not an ethnic group but a nationality and linguistic umbrella!
  • Only the southwestern portion of Iran is in the geography of the Middle East. The north is in the Caucasus and the east is in Central Asia.
  • Half of Turkey is in Europe! Turkey is looking to joining the European Union!
  • The article excludes Armenians, Azeris, Afghans, who are all culturally and historically related to Persians and Iran! They should not be included for the same reasons here, but also Iranians and Turks should not be included for the same reasons.
  • It goes without saying that there is no evidence whatsoever, none, to show that Iranians, Turks, Arabs, and whoever else some bigoted author wants to throw in, all share a common identity and culture! I mean, what the hell?! That is insane. Not even Arabs share the same culture or identity - they only share the same language.

There are many other reasons that I can list, but overall it is purely WP:OR and borderline racism by the focus on racial classification. We are not in Nazi Germany and this is not the 1930s. And I stress again and again that the American government does not use this classication and does not lump all people from "Middle Eastern" countries into one category! Khorshid 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Middle Eastern is not an ethnicity.--Mardavich 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This was discussed before, and there has been disputes in the article because of this: The concept is vague, and since Middle East is a vague geographical marker nobody has been able to produce a clear-cut definition of "Middle Eastern". Continents and nationalities (European-American, German-American etc) are clearly defined and depend on solid academic concensus. Even if we reduced the content of the article to this debate over its definition, than it is better off being transferred to Wikitionary. Baristarim 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would have said keep but considering the article is written in a horribly fashion so its definite no. Lakers 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a very well-argued nomination. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even with the nom's breaking of Godwin's Law right out of the gate. NeoFreak 16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Neutral until I can finish looking into this a little more. I don't think the problem is having an article with this term but is instead a problem with how this article is shaped right now. NeoFreak 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally know some people of Middle Eastern descent who chafe at having to check the Caucasian box on US government forms. And the presence of various "Middle Eastern Student Associations" indicates that it's not an overtly problematic label. But, that said, while I think the concept of the Middle Eastern experience in the US might warrant some sort of article, probably with a different title, there's just no salvaging what's currently here. --JayHenry 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • One cannot be of "Middle Eastern descent" since there is no Middle Eastern "race". There are tens of dozens of ethnic groups in the Middle East: many are White/Caucasian, many are not (in Iran for example we have people - the Turkmen - who are of Turkic-Mongol descent and thus look completely Asian), many are somewhere in-between. Many people in the West make the mistake of thinking that there is some kind of Middle Eastern "race" but its nonsense. Whatever "shared experience" there is, as you put it, is due to such prejudices, but even then you have a problem. For instance, after 9/11, many Hindus and Sikhs and Pakistanis were attacked and harassed, even though people descended from India and Pakistan cannot be considered "Middle Eastern" because of the geography. I have heard some Greeks and Greek Cypriots describe themselves as "Middle Eastern", but again this is due to prejudice at people scoffing at the notion that Greece is a truly European country. In the end it's nonsense and WP:OR to entertain such ideas here at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Khorshid 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not an ethnicity. I was blown away and amazed by the nomination to come to this decision... Tohru Honda13 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and what a nom it is! Realkyhick 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Khoikhoi 09:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Márcio dos Santos Gaia[edit]

Márcio dos Santos Gaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Conference player is far from being notable. MaxSem 08:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per current guidelines, played English league football with Exeter. Punkmorten 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he played in Exeter's last season in the football league. ArtVandelay13 20:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep played in The Football League so is notable. -- Mattythewhite 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has played in the English Football League perfectly notable. Tangerines 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soccerbase reference in the article shows 33 Football League appearances in 2002-03, easily satisying WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 07:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Exeter stint is enough. Realkyhick 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He played in The Football League, so he is notable. --Carioca 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, played in FL thus notable. Englishrose 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he has played in The Football League Kingjamie 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bleach story arcs[edit]

List of Bleach story arcs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an attempt at creating a list of the story arcs in the Bleach (manga) franchise. However, it is harmful to for several reasons:

  • Firstly, the "arcs" of the Bleach storyline are very ill-defined and unattributable, making this page an exercise in original research.
  • Secondly, this page is utterly redundant to the existing pages List of Bleach manga chapters and List of Bleach episodes.
  • Thirdly, it is an attempt at a plot summary, which has been repeatedly ruled against on Talk:Bleach (manga) by the subject editors because it is not only absolutely unnecessary and engenders policy violation, but that it actually takes less time to find the manga online than it does to read a prose summary of the events.
  • Fourthly and finally, it will reduce our ability to properly cover Bleach on Wikipedia by splitting the coverage across an even wider array of pages, resulting in more confusion for readers and more work for editors attempting to bring the pages into line with policy and consistency with each other.

Therefore, I believe that it should be deleted. --tjstrf talk 08:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I just want to head people off at the pass. Please do not just simply cite WP:NOT#IINFO point 7 and vote. This is article is obviously meant as an aspect of the larger Bleach (manga) subject, so it does not instantly qualify for deletion under this clause. That said, please review the conversation here: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Needs a plot summary. The contributors to the Bleach series of articles (myself included) have thusfar avoided the need for plot details, and when asked, no one could state a strong reason for including any at this point in time. –Gunslinger47 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A few reasons.
  1. So far, consensus seems to be in favour of not having a comprehensive summary.
  2. Plot summaries are tricky things. Anyone who's read the series doesn't need it, anyone who doesn't care about the series doesn't need it, and anyone who wants to know it would, in the case of Bleach, probably find it easier to read the manga or watch the anime themselves, rather than read a bunch of prose. It's also more satisfying and much easier to understand the story when you see it for yourself.
  3. The series is available in four different ways: Japanese manga, which is released weekly and scanslations are available; English manga, which volumes are released every couple of months; Japanese anime, which is again released weekly and fansubs are available; or English anime, which airs weekly. Which plot should we follow? They're all at VERY different places in the storyline. And if we did follow one specific storyline, what about the differences between the anime and the manga, i.e. the Bount arc?
  4. A less solid reason, but since the story is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping, I feel that, especially since the plot is already available between other pages about the Bleach universe, and being updated weekly with the new Japanese chapters' information, a plot page would be extremely unwieldy and, as stated by tjstrf, redundant, causing even more hassle to keep all the pages consistent.
Nique talk 15:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In essence a five-entry list. So short as to be unnecessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. // DecaimientoPoético 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, redundant. And I doubt Average Joe #27 would care about plot summaries. Jezebel Parks 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Redundant list. If it's kept it will be extremely hard to keep it up to date. Then you have to summarize both the anime and manga. It's just going to be a load of hassle from the bleach editors. As well as consensus was reached against plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - content duplicated in List of Bleach episodes and List of Bleach chapters, and with more content on those pages. --Pentasyllabic 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Pentasyllabic. I never knew the summaries on the episode list had expanded so greatly. –Gunslinger47 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - List of Bleach episodes offers episode summaries grouped by story arcs so this page would be redundant--88wolfmaster 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Horribly redundant with List of Bleach episodes. There aren't even enough arcs to merit such a page. Suitable amounts would be like that present in List of Naruto story arcs. Sephiroth BCR 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this page's content by default violates WP:NOR, because the arcs are not clearly defined. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. --Coredesat 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Lakers[edit]

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

Contested prod, no reason for removing prod tag stated. Non-notable social basketball club in an amateur social competition Mattinbgn/ talk 08:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:COPYVIO via this site HornandsoccerTalk 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angerbot[edit]

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

Looks like band vanity to me. Splintercellguy 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The existence of statements like "Cope... nearly hit Godrich, before curling up in a ball on the floor sobbing, whilst scratching lyrics onto his hand with a compass." lead me to suspect this is a hoax. (Remember, it's April 1, hoax articles will be at an all-time high.) --tjstrf talk 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely. No grounds for a speedy though. J Milburn 10:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More band vanity. Realkyhick 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Clambake[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet radio station per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 16:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 08:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like a cool radio station, but fails to assert notability. --Dennisthe2 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, it does sounds cool, but it ain't notable yet. I still might check it out, though. Realkyhick 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have copied the LGAQ mention to the Jondaryan article as the claim ascribes added notability to the body. Orderinchaos 04:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Taylor (Mayor)[edit]

Peter Taylor (Mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable Mayor of beautiful but otherwise unremarkable Local Government Area of Queensland, Australia Mattinbgn/ talk 09:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a mayor of a shire he does not meet notability requirements at WP:BIO.Garrie 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd say that Jondaryan is significant enough to make it's mayor notable. The shire includes a fair percentage of the suburbs of Toowoomba. Lankiveil 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge with Jondaryan Shire Council or Delete. He needs media coverage to be notable under BIO, and none is cited. The article says very little more than he is mayor, which is already noted in the Shire Council article. However, that article is short enough that it would not hurt to add the little bit of extra info that is here.--Kubigula (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In spite of the flood of single purpose accounts arguing to keep the article, no evidence of the subject meeting WP:BIO was presented. Lincolnite's responses are valid, and the article reads as a promotion. --Coredesat 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Liles[edit]

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

Unsuccessful congressional candidate from 2004. Received under 4% of the Democratic primary vote (placing last) and raised just $179. Googling him returns few results apart from Wikipedia and mirror sites. He does not appear to have "been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BIO. Does not appear to have ever held any elected office. Insufficiently notable. Lincolnite 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Unsuccessful candidates running in one of the primaries but not getting the party nomination are not notable, even by my somewhat latitudinarian standards for politicians.DGG 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable--Ng.j 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete Anyone who has put the time forth to run and who is still active in politics should be active on the Wikipedia site. Travis could decide to run again and possibly win, the article should stay. 161.7.2.160Montana Man
  • Comment: I'm afraid that's not the basis on which decisions on deleting articles are made. Take a look at WP:BIO, which explains Wikipedia's policies on deleting biographical articles. If you think the Travis Liles article meets the criteria for inclusion, then leave a message here explaining why. However, the fact that someone's put in the time to run for office is not, in and of itself, enough. Nor is the possibility (evidenced where?) that they may run again. -- Lincolnite 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete Candidate running for a party nomination in a public election in the USA is sufficiently notable. This person is very active in politics and is constantly mentioned as a candidate again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.14.65 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: See my reply to the previous comment. Precedent has it, though, that "running for a party nomination in a public election in the USA" is not enough to confer notability. -- Lincolnite 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete While openly gay candidates are not without precedent, they are still rare in this age and should be held in the high esteem that history will one day provide to them. His courage should maintain his place here. .....Caskey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.0.245.226 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • do not delete Whats the point of having wikipedia if were going to censor entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.49.97 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Note also that this user deleted the AfD tag from the Travis Liles article.[reply]
  • Comment: Here at Wikipedia, we don't censor entries but we do establish minimum standards for how much notability is required to merit an article. Take a look at WP:BIO. -- Lincolnite 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the subject of the article is not notable. The list of accomplishments are no more extraordinary then the typical person that volunteers for political campaigns. I once stayed at a Holiday Inn, and I have $180.00 in my pocket. This doesn't mean I should have my own Wikipedia page.72.160.13.13 00:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Critical Reviewer of Information[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Miller (architect)[edit]

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

Was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I do not agree that this article is CSD, since notability has been asserted. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources whatever. An architect who puts up big buildings should be able to locate some press coverage. As it stands, this article is a resume or an advertisement. Notability can't be shown on this data. Posting your own biography violates WP:AUTO and WP:COI. EdJohnston 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. only source is his own website. Claims cannot be substaniated, and appear to be false. Rimmeraj 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability requirements of WP:BIO (independent published work).Garrie 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge Orderinchaos 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warden Ackerman[edit]

Warden Ackerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Red Dwarf characters. Copied text of article into section under the heading "Miscellaneous characters". Orderinchaos 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Yates[edit]

Lisa Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Minor character from one episode of Red Dwarf (see also nom. for Warden Ackerman) Lugnuts 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor charachter appearing in a single episode. Furthermore, all the information in this article is included in Thanks for the Memory (Red Dwarf episode). Dr bab 07:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Red Dwarf characters and retain as redirect (as with the Warden Ackerman nomination). --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Interesting stub, shouldn't be thrown away.--Ng.j 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment good idea to merge/redirect. And shouldn't it be Lise Yates and not Lisa? Lugnuts 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. A1octopus 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Lim[edit]

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

Autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, coi/spam/non-notable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:COI and the subject does not seem notable. Darthgriz98 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blantant conflict of intererest, blatant lack of NPOV, worthy of Speedy Deletion. Edward321 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete. It is not of appropriateness to be praising self in this way in the Wikipedia Project, consider importance of neutrality. Please be more notable, then you may entry to the WIkipedia Project.Wen Hsing 05:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Larry, you should provide some outside reviews (published in reliable sources) which claim that you or your work are notable. Another way around is to write articles about your enterprise, not about yourself (but again you should provide some outside newspaper articles claiming that enterprise is notable).Biophys 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Knightian uncertainty.. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrovian uncertainty[edit]

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

Nonstandard term, Google produces only mirrors JQ 12:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to be occasionally used. Google scholar gives, while Google Books gives a result that mentions Knightian uncertainty, and thus might be the source the author used. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like at least two of the Google Scholar hits are the result of the Wikipedia listing - a good reason to delete this before it establishes itself in the wild. I'd say the term has been used once in a book. As an expert in this field (really!) I can say confidently that while "Knightian uncertainty" is a standard term, Arrovian uncertainty is not - the usual terms here would be "risk" or "unambiguous/crisp uncertainty". JQ 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Late last night I was awake enough to put in GS and GB links, but not awake enough to explain why. Anyway, since it is used occasionally and thus might be a search term, it seems that it might be useful to put a redirect here. That way if someone is reading The Economic Impact of Knowledge and isn't paying much attention, WP will know where to send them, perhaps to uncertainty or even as a part of developing Knightian uncertainty or something similar into an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Knightian uncertainty sounds good. I could probably add a sentence there.JQ 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, you can probably go ahead and do the redirect and close this AfD. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Soldier's House[edit]

  • Delete Nonstandard Term
    • Personal research (i.e. Asking a relative who fought in WW2) seems to indicate that the Term "Soldatenhäuser" was never in use in Germany for institutions as described in the article.
    • Google only points to WP clones for either "German Soldier's House" or "Deutsches Soldatenhaus".
    • Yad Vashem's database does not know any such institutions.
    • References point to literature that is at least controversial in matters of historic correctness.

--Hohenberg 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as I'm willing to accept the sources but I'm not sure this is a notable name (at least, it isn't recorded widely). It is well known that the Wehrmacht was obsessed with STDs and operated its own brothel system but in France apparently they usually took over existing brothels, checked the women for disease, and then made them exclusively for the troops. That doesn't jibe with this story. They may have been part of this system, but better we have a full article on the cooptation of prostitution than this stub. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep For background, see The House of Dolls. However, though this name has been used, I do not think it necessarily was the standard name; I agree there should be a stronger article on the more general subject, but I think this is a suitable start. Hohenberg, what does your personal source indicate was the name used? DGG
The House of Dolls is literature, not a source which encyclopaedic articles should be based on... --Hohenberg 10:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an anti-German attack article, solely to slander German WWII veterans. incredibly POV and is absolutely unreferenceable, this seems to be made up.--Jadger 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the article could do with more sources and ATM I can't dig out more. I wrote it as a stub and stub it is, but it definitely is an encyclopaedic material. As to specific arguments listed above: original research is not the best way to confirm or deny anything in WP; Yad Vashem might not have anything about it since it doesn't seem related to the Holocaust; references are references, like them or not. Do we have any references disputing the ones we have? If not, the claim that such a thing did not exist would have to be proven first. Finally, as to Jadger's arguments - well, not every Nazi WWII crime was committed to slander Germans after WWII. The Nazis did not kill millions of people and rob millions of others to make them more prone to anti-German sentiments. And, contrary to what Jadger states, there are at least two sources cited in the article and two additional at the talk page. If four sources make an article "unreferenceable", then how many would do? //Halibutt 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a second thought - I'd change my vote to strong keep. So far we have four sources, more will follow. That's more than enough for a tiny stub. //Halibutt
if you will look on the talk page, you will notice that those "references" are highly doubtful. --Jadger 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you will look at the article, you notice that I added plenty more. //Halibutt 10:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the two that are unreliable still are the only ones that back up the controversial points that are under contention. --Jadger 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. //Halibutt
  • I started a rename discussion at the talk page, feel free to join it. //Halibutt
  • Keep and rename. Organized (and sometimes forced) prostitution for German soldiers and Nazis seems to be a real phenomenon. --Ioannes Pragensis 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to no opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where do you get this idea from? this is the only article on wikipedia that states such a thing, and the cited books in question are more questionable than David Irving's work --Jadger 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good question. I have no sources available here and it is possible that it were only rumors/half-truths. Nevertheless the question of war prostitution deserves an article, of course a well sourced article, possibily stating that there were nothing like this. I am only not sure whether to keep this article and rewrite it or to start from scratch. Therefore neutral vote. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jadger is wrong. There is a plethora of sources now and not only the two Jadger mentioned. //Halibutt
then why have none been cited? there are new citations added, but they do not cite anything on the supposed German soldier's houses, but cite things mentioned in this article that link to the relevant article to those. --Jadger 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary (cited) even uses the name (or in fact uses two names: Deutsches Soldatenhaus and Deutsches Soldatenheim). //Halibutt 09:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is highly doubtful, and please move this to the discussion page as I have done.--Jadger 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it is written and "titled", it is nonsense. Dr. Dan 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable topic, not unlike comfort women. Questions about references should be resolved on talk. Appleseed (Talk) 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't merely questions about references, it is questioning whether it actually existed or not.--Jadger 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of references that the phomenena was widespread, the only issue is what is the best name for it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename: Several references look trustworthy (e.g. Instytut Pamieci Narodowej and german sources). Name looks like an off-the-cuff translation, though. Barring better ideas in english, the raw German term is much preferable. Deuar 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you do realise the Instytut Pamieci Narodowej is often criticized as a political weapon used in modern Polish political witch-hunts?--Jadger 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the best name would be the German term. It makes it clear that it was the Germans who gave it that innocuous-sounding name. DGG 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no standard German term, there is no evidence that they actually existed in as much organization is claimed in the article.--Jadger 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename: Looks notable and reasonably well-referenced. The title could be problematic, though. Biruitorul 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Empty article. -- RHaworth 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musicvictim[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB. Prod was removed Alex Bakharev 12:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Eleven[edit]

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

Unsourced crystal balling. Contested prod. MER-C 13:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication of the significance of the author and no sources for the book's even being scheduled. —Celithemis 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BK. Could be reconsidered once published and with several reviews in major newspapers or magazines.-gadfium 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Garcia[edit]

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

Delete, This article has already been deleted twice. First time on a speedy A7, the second time on a speedy G7 after the crreator blanked the page when I prod'ed it and warned them. The article is a hoax bio copy of Allyson Swan, which the editor also vandalised at one point to make it misinformative along with this edit to Miss Idaho USA. --After Midnight 0001 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Author has removed the AfD notice. I have replaced it and warned accordingly. --After Midnight 0001 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gillyweed 13:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reasons already stated WikiMan53 (talk • contribs • count) | Can I have your autograph? 15:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all reasons have been given, for sure a bad hoax. Poeloq 08:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Author has blanked the article again today. Another editor replaced it and issued a warning. --After Midnight 0001 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Mailer diablo as WP:CSD G11. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Tatu[edit]

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

Self-written biography - no assertion of notability and unsourced. Robotman1974 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Ali's second studio album[edit]

Tatyana Ali's second studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have been unable to verify any of the information in this article, other than that Tatyana Ali is planning to record a new album at some point. The tracklisting and list of producers seems to be pure speculation - a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL as far as I'm concerned. Also to be noted is that the article was created and primarily edited by (now banned for adding false information and factual errors to the encyclopedia) User:JJonathan and his various alternate accounts. Kurt Shaped Box 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as crystalballery. Wait till it's confirmed. --Dennisthe2 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; another speculation- and crystalballery-filled article on a forthcoming album. Extraordinary Machine 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystalballery and it is unlikely that Ali will release a second album anyway. Rhythmnation2004 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless future release of this album is confirmed by Ms Ali's record company before the end of this AfD debate. Otherwise we do not crystal ball on wikipedia. A1octopus 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Man[edit]

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

disputed PROD for non-notable YouTube video, no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete! it's excellent!

  • Delete - it was funny, but it doesn't belong here really. However, I'm fine with it staying up ("keep" consensus) as it is fairly harmless. Guroadrunner 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would recommend the deletion of an article about a simple online short. However, as it deals directly with Wikipedia and Wiki-culture, I request that the article be left intact. 

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe jarling[edit]

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

Self-promotion. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth 15:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, hoax begone. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain alex giarrusso[edit]

looks like a hoax. Never ghits Alex Bakharev 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No ghits, no notability, and doesn't seem to be a major "character". Squeak
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless an expert looks at it and proves us wrong. Abeg92contribs 09:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You gotta be kidding me. I agree with JuJube, this is Hoaxalicious (is that trademarked?) TenPoundHammer 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Next time, tag pages like this with {{db-g6}}. --Coredesat 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesochori[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page that links to no article. I propose that, before any of these articles are created, this page should be deleted; for it is of no use. Squeak

  • delete Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 05:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Disambig page to no article.  ~Steptrip 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (META: AfD notice was missing in article) Keep, interestingly in this case notable information is provided in the disambig (different romanisations, translation, and the list itself). I'd fear wehn the first geo-stub for one of these villages is created, it would miss some of this. --Pjacobi 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete none of those kinds of information meet WP:N. Potatoswatter 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Goldfinger[edit]

Probable April Fools hoax, likely speedy, but anyway: fails WP:N, self-published author. The Cedarhurst Tattler, quoted as a source, does not appear to exist. — BillC talk 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of him or his pseudonym being an actual published writer. Google hasn't heard of any of this, including the newspaper that is claimed as a source. Weregerbil 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from talk page) Please do not delete this article about me. I am in fact an author and comic book creator. I have a fairly broad following for someone of my age. I affirm that every fact is true. This article was written by a fan please have the heart to leave it up. (Yes i have selfish wishes of publicity as well, but i also care about the work that was put into this.)Thank you, Matthew B. Goldfinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.85.219 (talk • contribs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillC (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete - aprt from all the reasons stated on the articles main page itself, I suspect this to be a self-written bio. Rgds, - Trident13 21:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issaquah Middle School[edit]

Issaquah Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As a local to the region, I'm not surprised the school exists, but that it exists is not notable. Someone wanna change my mind as to why some middle school in Issaquah is notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • ...really should sign my own stuff. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 17:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. janejellyroll 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Per request by author and subject. IrishGuy talk 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sen Smith[edit]

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

The article is a mess, and seems to be written by a fan. More importantly, the subject doesn't seem to qualify for notability under WP:MUSIC. Its talk page has more details on my little adventures with the article. Tozoku 16:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hte subject [Sen Smith] has requested this page be deleted. But i would like to keep it and make it proper. what do i need to do to do that? 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)willow007

  • Delete non-notable person (the only proof I've seen that he's even a DJ is one photo of a guy putting a needle on a record). All "proof" of notability has only been a lot of smoke. Closenplay 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject (Sen Smith) has emailed me many times requesting I delete this page. Please delete this page as he says much information is incorrect and does not wish to be included on wikipedia and im frankly just tired of his emails. Willow007 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)willow007[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pars Society[edit]

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

Effectively I am nominating on behalf of User:Huw_Powell who identified this as a deletion candidate but was unsure about how to nominate an article for deletion. His argument essentially ran that an organisation of only 40 people on whom the sole available source is a website last updated 2004 is ripe material for deletion. That certainly sounds like a reasonable assertion to me, so I'll give his proposal a chance in this forum, and slip him a message to let him know how to nominate articles in future. TheGrappler 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete They do seem to exist, based on the blogs. But I would have expected someone to have actually done an article on them if they had actually been noticed.DGG 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi, thanks for setting this up for me, Grappler. Most of my reasons are at the talk page, I will try to remember them and list them here, since I guess my entry is technically the nomination for deletion. One, the article is unsourced. Two, the web site of the subject organization consists of one file with no links, and was last updated (with an anniversary announcement!) several years ago. A google search yields one more file, a member listing. Three, lack of notability. This is related to #1, in that there does not appear to be any "activity" in the public sphere by the group. That is, it basically appears to be a private club. Also (not a real "reason for deletion"), the only WP file that links to it is the one on High IQ Societies. I would, of course, fully support the page if it could be sourced to even a single article in a newspaper or journal about the organization. I hope I have explained myself clearly, and thank you all for your time in considering this issue. Huw Powell 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG ... I cannot find any Reliable Sources for citations about their activities ... the organization's website has absolutely no navigation to any other pages on the site, although Google shows a very out-of-date membership page ... can't find any information about how to join! —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprouse Bros. Code[edit]

Delete -- As it is an unreleased magazine, which may or may not become notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball per WP:NOT. -- Blue520 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

  • Delete, advert. Stifle 22:52, 3 April 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 a7, lawyer bio, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Denis[edit]

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

I did not nominate, I am merely fixing the template Ng.j 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Having read the article, it does not assert notability. --Ng.j 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piles of dirt (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, only "independent review" is from an internet newsgroup, probable WP:COI. Leuko 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only one independent source cited, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. Also reads like an advert. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This entry should definitely NOT be deleted. This short film recently debuted at an independent film festival in Los Angeles to rave reviews, and I understand it is slated to be shown at more festivals in the States and Europe later this year. Furthermore, there are some very well-known people from the art world who appear in the film, making it more noteworthy than most short films. The artworks by Julian Scaff that are featured in the film have been included in major art exhibitions in Beirut and Amsterdam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taye talbot (talk • contribs). — Taye talbot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This is a legitimate film produced by a legitimate filmmaker and production company with a track record. Furthermore it just premiered at a film festival in Los Angeles that has been around for more than 10 years. Since this is a new film that just premiered there are not many sources yet, but there will be more as the film is screened at more festivals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscaff (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC). — Jscaff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: Please note that the film festival mentioned as an indication of notability is under discussion at its own AfD for not being notable itself. Leuko 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First and foremost, that a film is going to appear in a festival does not mean it is notable, it means it's going to appear in a festival - so declarations of future notability become crystal ballisms. User Jscaff above even notes that there aren't many sources yet - which brings me to point the second, notability. A lack of sources is a lack of sources - and regardless of who makes it and who is in the film, the film is still required to meet the notability guidelines. Third and finally, there is probably conflict of interest in the article. I'm inclined to believe that the article may be a means of promotion of this film - which is one of the things that WP is not for. I have no prejudice against recreation in the future, but it must meet the guidelines. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, googling "piles of dirt scaff" gives one (1) result, unrelated, and nothing at all on Google News Archive. Non-notable, and who appears in something is not relevant as notability is not generally transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lack of an Internet Movie Database for this film implies that it has not yet attained notability. --Metropolitan90 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I completely agree with your reasoning, just as an aside, the converse is not necessarily true. Since IMDB allows anyone to create new entries, the existence of an IMDB listing is not a good indicator of notability, since it is not necessarily "independent." Leuko 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for clarity, I consider an IMDb entry a minimum requirement for a film to have a Wikipedia article; I'm not saying that all films listed in IMDb are sufficiently notable to warrant articles in Wikipedia. However, IMDb is not a wiki; they have editors who confirm the eligibility of submitted titles before they appear on the web site. I've submitted a few films for listing in IMDb myself, and while most were accepted, one was not because the staff could not verify its eligibility. IMDb is an independent source and reasonably reliable, but listing in it does not automatically prove notability because they accept any film that has been commercially released to theaters or on home video, among other criteria. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool, thanks for the explanation. In case an IMDB entry appears before the end of the AfD, I didn't want someone to think that such an entry was some sort of defacto indicator of notability. (As I have seen on other AfD's). Leuko 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin "Cool Cat" Chalek[edit]

Kevin "Cool Cat" Chalek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band member. -- Cat chi? 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. (As a side point, strange that he has the same nickname as the nominator...) Walton Vivat Regina! 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When typing Kevin "Cool Cat" Chalek in Google, I could only find five results. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Per above, unless sources can be found, the article should be deleted. Squirepants101 17:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above; very few hits even after using multiple search engines. Nn. Seed 2.0 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, unless notability can be established. --DanielCD 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical differences[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be enough verifiable information here to warrant an entire article. Doesn't quite fit Wiktionary either. Crystallina 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as an obvious violation of WP:NOT#CBALL. --Coredesat 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Return (Cassie album)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; all that's been confirmed is that Cassie will be recording a second album in the near future, and a short mention of that in the main Cassie article is sufficient. No official information on release date, title, producers or anything else. Extraordinary Machine 18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plus, the brief lil paragraph that is there is contradictory. It says the album will be released in June 07 & July 07. Which is it? DELETE! Lilkunta 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrie Rose[edit]

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

Non-notable porn star. Epbr123 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cherrie Who?? delete George Leung 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now... hasn't been in the business long enough to be notable. Tabercil 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! Isnt there a wiki policy against vulgarity?Lilkunta 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nope. In fact there is a clear Wikipedia policy on the topic: Wikipedia is not censored. To quote from it: "(S)ome articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." Tabercil 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to head crash. Cúchullain t/c 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz of death[edit]

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

Article not appropriate for encyclopedic entry. Phrase is not notable or widely known. Stoic atarian 18:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Head crash or Click of death. The reaosn buzz of death occur is due to head crash, which actually also include floppy due to the use of magnetic head. George Leung 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally, I've never heard of the term but the way the article is written, it sounds like it only applies to floppy discs. Integrating it into an existing article might very well work though. Seed 2.0 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Head crash per above. This is a real phenomenon, already covered elsewhere in the wikipedia. Collabi 10:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, particularly given that the same person argued to keep twice. Discrediting Wikipedia for the loss of one article isn't a reason to keep one. --Coredesat 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salad shots[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, very dubious, could well be a prank older ≠ wiser 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep Due to salad shots just recently being created there is no possible way to cite sources other than by way of pictures or by video. When I looked in WP:Aunder the Citing Yourself section it states "You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's". Our own publications happens to be our website which is located at myspace.com (which you can click on in the main salad shots page). This website gives a full description of what Salad Shots are, the history of them, and future plans for it. What more of a reliable source is there than that? We are not trying to patronize wikipedia or make it look bad, I'm just trying to establish an article that talks about a real thing in the real world. If you delete this article it wont effect the world but it shows that wikipedia in all honesty is a dictatorship that is not open to any new ideas.
This argument is usually considered invalid -refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Addhoc 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding your two cents, why don't you add your two cents to everything on this page instead of everything against.

  • Keep Everytime we try to post proof of salad shots, Bkonrad removes it.Patches McEvans 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning would appear to misunderstand WP:A- citations to reliable sources are required. Addhoc 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Salad shots are real and to address Smmurphy everyone has a different definition of what is offensive so I don't see that as being grounds for deletion.Patches McEvans 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you don't appear to fully understand WP:A - citations to reliable sources are required. A subject not having any reliable sources is a valid deletion reason. Also, you have 'voted' twice. Addhoc 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a real thing and we have photographic/video evidence which will be uploaded in the coming week —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.165.152.4 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Citations are required to reliable sources - photographs are not a substitute. Addhoc 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, citations, citations, there's no book, even if they made a website and listed everything and made a book and referenced it i'm sure someone would still find it as garbage and nonsense. I'm going to find every article on wikipedia that does not cite it's references and consider it for deletion.

  • Delete per above nom and searches. Addhoc 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total nonsense. IrishGuy talk 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense and as needlessly offensive (see Lewensky bomb and Nigga Bomb). Smmurphy(Talk) 04:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense at its worst, but still a decent article. I wish these people would use their talent for proper articles aswell. Poeloq 08:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I attend penn state and i have witnessed people consuming salad shots and i myself have also been a part of these activites. Salad shots are extremely popular due to their flavor, viscosity and soothing qualities. I am ashamed anyone would wish to delete such an influential part of college life.
First hand eye witness testimony from editors is not a substitute for citations to reliable sources. Addhoc 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure out of the 6 billion people in the world that a majority knows about salad shots, it's a brand new thing and I'm sure there's not many people outside of the editors that when they think of salad shots, they go, oh hey, let's go on wikipedia.

  • Delete I get a grand total of 116 Google hits for "salad shots" - and some of those are photographers talking about taking pictures of their romaine. If salad shots are a big thing, it is funny that no one is even talking about them in their blogs, let alone in reliable sources. Out!! Brianyoumans 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rewrite. Due to concerns brought up about WP:COI editors involved directly with the subject should consider abstaining from major edits in the cleanup process. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowyze[edit]

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

nn artist, also COI. Has no major albums, has won no major awards - precedent has established that nominations ar not the same as wins. Moreover, the COI Lojah, who records under the same name (see here, apparently wrote this article (his name is at the end of it), and is an artist involved with Shadowyze on at least one album as noted in the discography. MSJapan 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

__

Yes, I wrote the bio. I was not aware that being personally familiar with a subject barred me from editing an entry. You don't know your facts about Shadowyze. That artist has won the Native American Music Award in 2005, I believe it says that in the article. The Native American Music Awards is a NATIONAL event and determines who gets nominated for the Grammy in the Native American Music category. The Artist has also featured in multiple publications including Rolling Stone Magazine, the New York Times and the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune, Source Magazine and Native Peoples, just to name a few. Shadowyze has been recognized nationally and internationally and is even featured in an Encyclodpedia on Contemporary Native American Music which will be used as a resource on this article in the future. How is this not notable? As you can see there are countless resources online and in print that note Shadowyze even if you are ignorant of the subject. Lojah

- I thought it was an important post as I am interested in Hip Hop history. Curvedtalk

Keep and tag as needing complete rewrite just to get around WP:COI. Monni 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---There's really no need to tag as a re-write, by the time that happens it will be ready to come down as I am and have been actively rewriting this article to bring it up to academic standards. The article was a stub when I found it, and being an expert as well as a primary resource on the subject I took it upon myself to cut and past his bio, with intention of returning and updating and reworking the article as I learned better how to do so on Wikipedia (which I am still doing). Since I am the author of the bio, I gave myself permission to do this. It was a fallacy to recommend this article for deletion as Ms. Japan assumed that since she had not heard of the Subject that he was not noteworthy. I’ve carried on a dialogue with Ms. Japan that you can read on our talk pages. She did not bother to do adequate research on the subject of which she is ignorant, assumed BAD faith and she never even bothered to open a dialogue with the editors about our resources which I was in the process of organizing before she wantonly through up a recommendation for deletion. Since that time I’ve posted resources that more than fit Wikipedia standards of notable persons and have begun a rewrite of the article. There really is no conflict of interest in the matter, simply because I happen to have been fortunate to work with Shadowyze—that’s what makes me a primary resource. I am also a trained anthropologist and I am involved in the Wikipedia Indigenous Peoples project and this article falls within that domain. Now if I could just figure out how to make footnotes in the article, all my edits in all subjects would benefit. Lojah

  • Keep with caveats. Obviously notable enough if nom'd for a Grammy. However it does sound like the article may need a complete rewrite based on COI (see noticeboard also). If Lojah is personally involved in the ways that it is said, then he needs to be restricted from editing the article. I would have no prob with him putting reference links, etc on the talk page for others to then interpret and condense. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 10:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite, only if the WP:COI issue can be resolved. The article is hopelessly mis-formatted and POV, but Shadowyze responds to search on All Music Guide and gets some 800 google-hits. If the articles/interviews listed as sources can be confirmed and preferable linked, this should meet WP:MUSIC requirements. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep and rewrite - and deal with COI / article ownership issues. Tearlach 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I can understand the concern over COI, however I am not paid to write this article.. As I've said before I found the stub, with nearly no information in it. Since there seems to be no one else knowledgeable enough or interested enough, with access to as many resources as I am, restricting me from editing this article will only result in another limp and stagnant article. Believe me, if there was someone on Wikipedia more qualified or even AS qualified to write about the subject please send them this way. I certainly would appreciate the help. And if anybody want's to check my resources and lives in Pensacola, Florida I'll gladly show them to you. Lojah 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should take it up at the Shadowyze entry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, after reading WP:COI and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. They won't advise you any differently; your situation is a very clear and major COI, and you shouldn't be directly editing an article about a colleague, whatever your knowledge. Wikipedia's no original research policy will explain why your final suggestion isn't on. (No-one, by the way, is stopping you acting as an expert adviser on the Talk page). Anyhow, here is the place to discuss all that. Tearlach 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After assessing the COI guidelines I can understand the why some people may have concerns over COI, however knowing the limits of my affiliation with the subject I’d have to profess that I fall into one of the “grey areas” the COI article talks about. I see nothing that firmly and bindingly restricts me from editing the article Shadowyze, based solely on having worked with the man. The only thing that seems to be a BINDING rule is Neutrality. I am not paid to write this article. And I expect to receive absolutely nothing from Shadowyze or affiliated companies for this task. I also receive no monetary benefit for the sale of any Shadowyze merchandise, and I receive no royalties from Shadowyze music. I merely know the man and have been fortunate enough to work with him from time to time. My music company and his are not affiliated and our musical styles are nearly incompatible. I see nothing in the guidelines that >>requires<< that I be restricted even if was an employee of Shadowyze, simply that it is discouraged (not the same thing as forbidden) and those people who may appear to have a COI should be cautious about editing and if there is someone else who can do the job, to defer to them. I AGREE, but where are they?

It does say “As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first.” And that is why I chose to sign up here to provide better information on subjects particularly in the Native American categories that were lacking. I just got lucky enough to find an article that I have direct knowledge about and direct access to archived resources as part of my personal collection on Southeastern Indians that apparently few if any one else on Wikipedia has. I did not create the Shadowyze article and it has not even been my priority since I joined Wikipedia maybe two-weeks ago until someone ignorant of the significance of the man (particularly to Native Americans) tried to have it deleted. I’ve been more concerned with Stomp Dance and Green Corn Ceremony. Those two and Shadowyze are subjects I have a heap of knowledge and resources about that were just crying for attention when I showed up. Clearly I did not come here to advertise for Shadowyze but somebody who cared enough about the subject needed to pay some attention to it.

If you read the article, it may be poorly formatted, but it’s fairly straight forward and talks mostly about facts and dates. As I've said before I found the stub, with nearly no information in it save for an incomplete discography (it’s still incomplete, but I’ve been sitting on adding too much that I don’t have immediate access to the reference material even though I KNOW the facts—that’s actually pretty neutral wouldn’t you agree?). It was originally written as part of a college journalism project and I attend to rewrite it as the time and source material presents itself.

Since there seems to be no one else knowledgeable enough or interested enough, with access to as many resources as I, restricting me from editing this article will only result in another limp and stagnant article which only harms it and does nothing to better Wikipedia. I can provide facts and resources that other people won’t have access to or inclination to research themselves. If there is someone on Wikipedia more qualified or even AS qualified to write about the subject please send them this way. I certainly would appreciate the help. And if anybody wants to check my resources and lives in Pensacola, Florida I'll gladly show them to you. I can even introduce you to the man and then other people can say that YOU should be restricted from editing the article. In the meantime if you or anyone else who is willing to take the time to assist in this article and is not just trying to cause me grief, I will welcome the advice and edits. Lojah 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 apples high (2nd nomination)[edit]

3 apples high (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article lacks the basic requirements of notability and lacks any sources whatsoever. The page was deleted before, but not salted; its author was told if he or she did not clarify why the page's content was notable and included sources as well that the page would likely be deleted again. If consensus favor's deletion, I am requesting that this page be salted as well.  ~Steptrip 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete A minor review in the Pittsburgh paper and a review in a student paper hardly work to establish notability and they aren't used to cite the article. Will change my decesion if it can be proven to meet WP:ATT Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability criteria. Rgds, - Trident13 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the author can provide references and do a fair amount of cleanup, I see no reason for this to be deleted. Since the author was also asked to work on it but hasn't, it should be, though. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails MUSIC notability. - Denny 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability... band has disbanded, no significant lasting contribution. --Auto(talk / contribs) 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, also note that it proves Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band in that Lack of capitalization: People making articles about their garage bands generally forget that capitalization of proper nouns is one of the underlying principles of the English language, and will thus forget to capitalize the name of their band in the article's title (i.e., "Bringers of Darkness" will appear as "Bringers of darkness" -Mask? 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Haynes[edit]

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

Non-noteable nonsense based on a South Park episode --Ichabod 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - This doesn't assert its significance and is nonsense, as far as I can tell. The only reference to Brad Haynes that I can see is a member of a band called the Mountainaires. As for the Ginger Kids, it's not notable. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Um.... I just don't get it. Looks like unsourced nonsense to me. Dosn't meet WP:BIO or any other requirements as far as I can tell. Danski14(talk) 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, this is a repost of previously deleted speedied material. Suggest immediate deletion. Danski14(talk) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damage Earl[edit]

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

Apparent hoax – or, more generously, April Fools' Day joke. The article reads very oddly, and despite Mr. Earl's claims to fame, there are no relevant hits for "Damage Earl" or "Rombroid" on Google, Google News or LexisNexis. The article was initially unreferenced; after I noted this omission, some references were added that aren't precise enough to be verifiable. EALacey 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notablily asserted. Hoax. IrishGuy talk 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely nothing in this article asserts notability, and nothing appears in any search engines, so delete this. --sunstar nettalk 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Minnuto[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate Mr. Minnuto's notability using reliable sources. See the AfD talk page for details. --A. B. (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Irishguy. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bream Street Crew[edit]

Bream Street Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a gang as claimed in the article, but a non notable social group of friends Mattinbgn/ talk 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted all pages and blocked vandal account. These pages were all copy-paste jobs of other existing articles with just "Columbia" pasted in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures)[edit]

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

Very weird articles created by User:Columbia Pictures (all of them today) - no notability presented or proven, external links given are false, and I advise everyone to read the articles and see if they can make a sense of it. It seems like some April Fool's Day joke of some sorts and there are bizarre sentences - apparently it is about a person named "Columbia Pictures", not the corporation. I have also listed other articles created by this user for deletion. Watch it carefully, the articles seem notable, but the joke, imo, is subtle - check the links etc.. If I am missing something (maybe I am) please let me know. Baristarim 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the grounds that there are starving children in China. --Dennisthe2 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Just a facet of the imagination of someone who is in need of serious help. I put speedy and hoax tags on most of these articles. 70.226.79.137 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Addhoc 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can an admin block this account? Since the start of the AfD he has created two more articles which I added above. Baristarim 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be noted that the "Columbia Pictures (TV Series)" article was just speedied, if that means anything. 70.226.79.137 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GBA TV Tuner[edit]

GBA TV Tuner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly written, non-notable. Computerjoe's talk 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe Speedy Delete It reads like an advertisement, so it could be speedy deleted. TJ Spyke 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the tuner get channel G11? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selvidge Middle School[edit]

Selvidge Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anon-removed Prod. At least this demonstrates that Prodding schools rather than CSDing them gets results. This particular school makes absolutely no claims on notability, has no sources and may well have a copyvio in the mission statement to boot (this last not being a reason to delete the entire article, by any means). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability, basically just a directory. TJ Spyke 22:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Alessi[edit]

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

non notable christian contemporary musician. a few EPs on an indie label, and never toured outside of florida. Page also serves as an advertisement for their ministry. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was able to find a couple of independent references to her in regards to the release of one of her albums. She is the twin sister of an apparently major star, but I don't see how a bio can be sourced from real sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love the entry under the "Film Appearances" subheading ("None.") Bobanny 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found that disturbing too. I removed it. I bet it was copied from her sister's article. Royalbroil T : C 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - She is well known in the Contemporary Christian music scene as a performer who's music appeals to a diverse musical audience (see Gospel music for information on cross cultural gospel music. BTW the WP: BAND states that "the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." With four released albums (even on an independent label) she has accomplished more that many other musical artist with major label distribution deals.
    Absolon S. Kent 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has chart success on Billboard charts, including the Top Heatseekers. Her current album is probably on the charts right now. I have added the ranking with citation from All Music Guide. Also notice that her bio is on a UK website, which means that she most likely is known internationally. Royalbroil T : C 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the information found (and added to the article) by Royalbroil. -- Black Falcon 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE ARTICLE: Mary Alessi is a well known artist both in the USA and Europe and people who are interested in her music and ministry would probably like to be able to find out more info about her from websites such as wikipedia.

  • Keep seems to have had a modest amount of genre music chart success. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her records are stocked in Christian bookshops here in London and has chart positions in the charts relevant to her genre. Therefore meets WP:Music. A1octopus 12:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safe teen driving club[edit]

Safe teen driving club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about non-notable buisness and a little unencyclopedic in tone. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I abstain from vote. Please edit to the article as it is too advertising. Is the business of notability? I cannot say. We must emphasize safety of driver is very important.Wen Hsing 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SPAM, and I agree that it is in an "unencyclopedic tone". Poeloq 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company as per criteria set out in WP:CORP. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Wafulz 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moloya Goswami[edit]

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

Actress who has appeared in one movie according to IMDB. Virtually no content in article either. Delete exolon 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mauldin[edit]

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

The article is actually a self advertisement by an entity claiming to be an investment advising business whose principal is "John Mauldin". The text is copied from the biography page at "John Mauldin's" Web site. This company has been spamming me for a month now. It spams me from multiple email addresses: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and others. My stupid email provider can't seem to block these emails even though I've marked them as spam and the company uses the same four or five addresses. I never contacted any of "John Mauldin's" Websites (self named Website and Investor's Insight Publications), I never contacted any investment advisers. The article bears category tags like "biography of American writers", "financial writers". Hurmata 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination was incomplete. Listed now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There is nothing in the nom's statement that, after some brief investigation, can be substantiated, with the exception of the categories. No ties to investorawareness in the article or the page (or to iipub.com). If this is an AFJ, it's not a very good one. --Dennisthe2 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation was brief indeed. www.investorsinsight.com redirects to www.iipub.com. In the I.I. Publications's navigation bar, John Mauldin is listed under IIP Authors. Changing the subject, you say "AFJ" and I don't know what AFJ means. I'm finding Wikipedia to be too clubby. It's hard to find my way through the Commons and the policies and procedures, and hard to find out the meaning of acronyms. Hurmata 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Powerful Delete. Unless improvement of reference source origins is occurring, this page is unacceptable. Person may create personal website of lies and propaganda, should not be used as reliable source, perhaps if sentences preface "person claiming to be name John Maudlin alleges...." it is OK but not in this Wikipedia Project.Wen Hsing 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete based on the fact that there appears to be a dearth of sources out there on the man (although I'm willing to be proven wrong here). The reasons given by the nominator are almost entirely invalid (aside from the advertising claims), since removing an article from Wikipedia will not stop spammers from spamming. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The reasons given by the nominator are invalid. But one should provide references to the books by John Mauldin.Biophys 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Powerful Delete. As the nominator, I must say I am surprised that I haven't found a statement in the Wikipedia rules that commercial promotions are forbidden or at least discouraged. I see now that I should have invoked "not notable". Nevertheless, nobody is going to flatly say that commercial promotion or self promotion *are* OK for Wikipedia articles, am I right? Hurmata 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, you're automatically assumed to be advocating deletion, so there's no need to preface your remarks with "Delete". In terms of commercial promotions et al, if it's unequivocally an ad then it's actually a Speedy Deletion criterion. In this particular case, however, it's not unequivocally an ad - although it's certainly more laudatory of the subject than the available references would suggest. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, poorly sourced.Aleksi Peltola 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form, and unless an objective and unbiased source can be found to verify notability outside the investment community (and, possibly, the World Club of Spammers and 419-ers), continue deleting it for as long as it keeps being reposted. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete - per Simoncursitor, to the letter. Checking the web is giving little in the way of stuff that might satisfy WP:ATT and WP:N. Seemingly just another businessman with half-decent PR. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar's fall[edit]

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

non-notable YouTube video. Only references are YouTube itself and the creator's website. IrishGuy talk 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It apparently had a lot of media coverage in Mexico. Epbr123 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment the article makes this claim but provides no references to verify the claim. IrishGuy talk 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you see the links to the interview and news program? Epbr123 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but find sources. Indeed the video had a lot of media coverage in México and it's catchfrase ("ya we...") has become somewhat popular and most people would know what you're talking about (even those who don't use Internet that often). Vicco Lizcano 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)[reply]
After watching the Star Wars kid article, I'd like to add Keep, Find sources and Expand. Vicco Lizcano 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, borderline copyvio and perhaps OR. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory report[edit]

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

The current article is clearly unacceptable (it is completely original research on how a lab report should be formatted!). So I was going to stubify it to something decent until I started to wonder what exactly an encyclopedic article about "lab report" could be. I can't see it being anything other than a dictionary definition. Pascal.Tesson 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We are not a how-to guide. Perhaps put this on Wikihow? --Dennisthe2 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not wikihow... they are direct competition to Wikimedia! transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • merge any information deemed useful or relevant to Scientific paper. i don't see any problems with the article except its format and lack of sources. It seems legitimate that the topic of formal scientific papers and analyses be covered in Wikipedia rather than transwikied, so this should not be an issue. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concerns can be solved by rewritting, no need to delete it as a whole. The theme itself is real and important.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just realized that the article is a copyright violation of [19] to boot. Pascal.Tesson 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - copyvio or not, this is never going to be anything more than a dicdef. There is no reason for us to keep essays like this for even a second. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_1&oldid=1116722456"