Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

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 keep. Unsourced negative material removed per WP:BLP. WjBscribe 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret[edit]

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

This is from an incomplete nom placed incorrectly here by Upsilquitch: "This article fails to meet the "Notability" guideline for Wikipedia: "topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Works referenging Moret or written by her are trivial, unreliable, and not created by independent sources. This is a self-promotional entry for a non-notable person." Sr13 (T|C) 23:18, 8 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 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are thousands of ghits for her interviews, republished in many blogs and forums, apparently all ultimately emanating from here, but there has been no serious discussion in any mainstream source of her work. (The reason can perhaps be seen from the quote I added from her posting on the (reputable) Physics Forum blog.)
She has clearly been noticed, and widely noticed, but not by mainstream sources. I know some here will think therefore she isn't N. I am not sure. Perhaps it is now be possible to say that if her work is widely republished, then she is N. People will want to know who she is and to have some idea of what she is talking about.DGG 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hits are high and lead to multiple sources. I posted a couple on the page. Jeepday 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually the problem with this article is its failure to meet a NPOV style. There are third party references listed - but I note that at least one of them is highly critical of Moret but that information is missing from the content.--VS talk 07:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it offers some valuable information but it does need to be improved. CDMS 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue here is notability and not scientific merit. She appears notable as a participant in the debate about depleted uranium's alleged health risks, which has had wide resonance in the media worldwide. Stammer 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup--ZayZayEM 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Problems with notabality are not high enough to allow deletion. --St.daniel 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep With provisions--there should be a timeframe established for the article to be cleaned up and properly cited. Properly cited would mean EVERY FACT in the article has a verifiable third party source, properly placed. If that can be accomplished (because there's a lot in there to verify independently) I think she's notable enough. Wysdom 14:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep: If, and only if, the author can find reliable, independent sources.  ~Steptrip 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up a lot. — Wenli 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per reasons above. Sr13 (T|C) 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. I love a pile-on. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough for inclusion. --Valley2city₪‽ 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as sources can be found. Nihiltres 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP. This is POV attack page and contains unsourced negative material, a no-no under BLP. I call on the closing admin to consider that this argument trumps numbers. And no, it cannot wait for cleanup if it is an attack page, although there should be no prejudice against recreation of a sourced and NPOV version of the article. Herostratus 02:04, 20 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 majority consensus: keep --Aarktica 21:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Loafers[edit]

Non-notable a cappella group. Article is mainly a list of current members and self-published albums. Only possible claim not notability is appearing on "compilation albums", both of which got deleted because they do not consistitute significant "awards". Savidan 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. "Radio shows and podcasts" aren't exactly difficult to get onto. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC --Lifthra 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As I recall, bands that perform internationally are technically notable. It that's not so, then delete. YechielMan 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see on the talk page that criteria was added without consensus and is still under dispute. Even so, the important part of that criteria is that the "international concert tour" must be "reported in reliable sources" and the guidelines also previously stipulate that trivial mentions like schedules and dates don't count. Savidan 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Yechiel. Savidan 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info has been added by IP addresses originating at the UPENN campus. If it's truly a noteworthy group, someone outside the university should be making the article.Newark777 19:35, 14 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 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I found some articles and posted them as references. would seem to just barely meet notability. If a music expert gives good cause that they do not meet notability, I would be ok with delete. Jeepday 03:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources added, two are internet-only: essentially blogs, and the other two are created by the group itself: basically a cappella myspace. Savidan 18:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They may not be mainstream, but google search turns up a decent number of references. Yes, it is a college group and will most likely never be mainstream but they appear to have a regional following and some respect in the collegiate acapella scene. more information would benefit the article, however. --Entoaggie09 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough for inclusion, 20 years of existence and external references are present. Certainly more notable than many back yard pop bands that started "yesterday" and which wiki has made room for.--VS talk 07:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the things mentioned in the previous two posts are WP:MUSIC criterion. Savidan 22:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, disambig for group and shoe type The sources seem just enough to establish notablitiy, but I do think that Penny Loafters should redirect to a disambig for both the band (like Penny Loafters (band)) and the type of shoe usually associated with this name. Nate 09:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the commenters above, meets WP:MUSIC guidelines now. Yamaguchi先生 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a college a cappella group with NO PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP during its 20 year existence, so I wouldn't say that last year's reviews would count for very much. I believe one reason why we accept going on a national or internation tour would count heavily towards WP:MUSIC is that many bands fall apart whilst on tour, and I would argue that this criterion should not necessarily apply in the case of college groups because a large scale breakup will never happen - the group re-forms every year, by definition, with a new intake of students. If the group had a host of notable alumni, that would be different. The BOCA album is a paid-for (ie vanity) release, and like the majority of college groups, I suspect most of the other albums they have recorded are too (or are self-published). On the Floor, the only one available on Amazon, is ranked in the 785thousandsths. Ohconfucius 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) :Note: Groups are required to pre-purchase 50 CDs at $5 apiece, for a total of $250, in order to appear on BOCA[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as per given reasons. Notability is not clearly established in the article, but the group is somewha notable nevertheless. --queso man 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to article on the shoes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - college acapella group. Almopst every college I know has one, and I do not see a great enough assertion of notability to merit an article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 18 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. Punkmorten 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Pinheiro Lopes[edit]

Sergio Pinheiro Lopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for writer/lyricist/translator in Brazil who fails WP:BIO. No evidence of independent reviews, awards or recognition. (One song reached 4th place in a music festival.) Few Google hits. I left a message for the article's main editor User:Sergio Pinheiro Lopes who didn't reply but did blank the page (reverted by bots). VSerrata 09:15, 9 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 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, most of the claims of notebility are family relations. I did not find anything worth using as a reference on ghits. Jeepday 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete definitely fail WP:BIO at this time and is unsupported by the blogspot reference as its only external source.--VS talk 07:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the material is backed up with sources there is no reason to keep. --St.daniel 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:BIO --Mhking 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and badly written. — Wenli 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:BIO. dcandeto 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO Tamatisk 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per everyone else. Acalamari 18:22, 16 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. WjBscribe 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIAO! Festival[edit]

CIAO! Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable charitable organisation. Google for full name returns 16 results, none from independent reliable sources. [3] Google News returns only the company's annual report, and Factiva returns no results.

The article was proposed for deletion, and the page creator contested this on the talk page with a comment that for all its length does not address the real issue - the (lack of) notability of this organisation. Resurgent insurgent 08:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete barring significant cleanup, notability establishment and article renaming (isn't it better to start from scratch, aye?). Is the entity CIAO! or CIAO! Festival or CIAO! Festivals.--ZayZayEM 12:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be "the Childrens International Arts Organisation", abbreviated "CIAO!", methinks. The article talks about two things: the first two and last paragraphs are about the organisation, while only the middle of the article is about the "festivals" that the article is titled after. Resurgent insurgent 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation gets only 21 ghits, using UK & US spelling. Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).
  • Undecided. Found a bbc.co.uk link about the festival. I'm "guessing" that if bbc.co.uk takes enough interest in the festival, so should we. Undecided, though, as it's the only interesting link I could come up with through Google. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:56, 14 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 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very low ghits are mostly adds, a single notice in the local version of BBC does not make it notable. Jeepday 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my view simply does not meet criteria for Notability.--VS talk 07:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. BBC link not enough to establish notability. Davewild 15:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Its been running three years, I'd imagine it will get a bit more action this summer when it runs again. Some local Berkshire press clippings could add quite a bit, I'd think. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, no reliable sources--Sefringle 04:31, 18 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. WjBscribe 03:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catabatic Automation Technology[edit]

Catabatic Automation Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn company Sooonu 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This company is not notable. The creator of the article (who also rm the prod and contested the speedy) is employed by the company, violating WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO UnitedStatesian 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep+ Comment: There is no guideline about what makes a company notable and what "references" can be treated as "reliable sources" about a company which is not publically traded. Additionally non-publically traded companies can be on the wikipedia. Please help me find these details on wiki, I'll try my best to fulfill the requirements, alternatively, please remove the deletion request. I apologize again for removing the prod request earlier. This was my first article and the message on the article said that I should remove the request and start a discussion page. Thats what I did. I under stand now that as the creator of the article I should not have done that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amitsoni9999 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 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 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very week keep, if there are Indian references, then it would be notable in India, which would be sufficient. The bulk of the article is advertising , but i just removed most of it. DGG 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ghits become Results 21 - 26 of 26 for "Catabatic Automation Technology". (0.08 seconds) when you lose the similar. almost everything found is the company's active search for notability for it's self. Fails WP:N signed Jeepday 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N criteria - despite having had plenty of time to do so. It would need to have a major rewrite - with external references for me to consider changing my point of view.--VS talk 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability very weak and parts read like spam. --St.daniel 12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is not expressed in the article.  ~Steptrip 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a company. <.< Of no particular note or accompishment, Ghits is a bust. Not even press releases. Now this technology they're in partnership about, the websearching thing, THAT might merit a small article (if it could be sourced and fleshed out... But I'm afraid the company would still only merit a footnote in the technology's article. Technology is relevant to people's lives (ergo, to the audience/readers). The companies that provide it, unless they're innovating their little butts off... not so much. Wysdom 04:09, 16 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 to Aquaria (computer game). WjBscribe 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit Blot[edit]

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

nn comapny Sooonu 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 02:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article was speedy deleted. Recreated version asserts notability (award winning). Further discussion seems necessary. WjBscribe 00:03, 15 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 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Aquaria], apparently their sole product. It did win an award, and might be notable. otherwise they aren't. DGG 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merg to Aquaria per DGG, I found a news reference and added it to both articles. Jeepday 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh - not sure what DGG and Jeepday are suggesting - Merge to Aquarium? Also note that articles original editor has not been notified of this AfD>.. But all of that said Delete because without the second sentence (which is WP:Crystal the article is simply a nothing). On second thoughts that may be what my two colleagues above are suggesting - send it to the fishes?--VS talk 07:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links above should have been Aquaria (computer game) not Aquaria, OPPS!Jeepday 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always ok to improve articles and add references. Lots of articles have been sufficiently improved durring AfD for the community to decide to keep them. Jeepday 14:05, 15 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 for deletion, so keeping. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshukai International[edit]

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

nn comapny Sooonu 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is an nn comapny? This is an international karate association, the well-known offshoot of a traditional Japanese Association. It is incidentally incorporated in the US and so is a company. I agree that this is a very minimal article, but more history will eventually be forthcoming.Pkeets 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added some references.Pkeets 15:29, 14 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 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a paragraph into Yoshukai karate. Not notable otherwise. DGG 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's already a paragraph on this in Yoshukai karate. However, Yoshukai has split and is now two different organizations. Yoshukai International and US/World Yoshuaki are different styles just as Shito-Ryu and Chito-Ryu are different styles. If you'll notice, the two Yoshukai organizations settled the use of different titles by means of a lawsuit. US/World Yoshukai is still very rooted in Japan, but Yoshukai International is very Westernized. More history will be forthcoming as I have some good books on this subject; however, I don't have time to do it right now. Pkeets 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as subset of Yoshukai karate; information is not notable enough to warrant its own article. --Mhking 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notice that the Chito-ryu site lists Yoshukai and Yoshukai International as separate entities. [ http://www.chitoryu.com/breakaways.htm] You could make the argument that Yoshukai should be considered Chito-ryu just as well as you could argue that Yoshukai International is the same as Yoshuaki. However, practitioners of the art know they're not the same. There's a considerable difference in philosophy and application. Pkeets 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The court case makes it notable, but not that much info & most is about the split. --Nate 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articel has been vastly expanded, still needs some fact checking but generally imroved --Nate 08:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More references and a bit more information now added. Pkeets 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been poking around a bit. There are articles on less notable branches of Yoshukai existent in Wikipedia. It seems that if these are suitable for their own article, then Yoshukai International should be also. Pkeets 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added a bit more to the article today. Pkeets 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Worked on this article a bit more today. Note that the categories shown at the bottom of this page do not apply. This organization should not be classified as a corporation, product, etc. It is a karate style.Pkeets 23:13, 20 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. WjBscribe 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon City[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. Note: different subject than web-comic below. Seinfreak37 18:56, 9 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 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a "a two storey retail and 10 storey residential tower." which I don't think qualifies under even the liberal practice for malls and the like. I haven't been to Stevens Point, but it is possible that the Wal-Mart there might be more notable than this.DGG 02:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — Wenli 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notabality not established --St.daniel 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable entity --Mhking 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's actually smaller than the Dragon City Mall in Calgary, and that one's not even notable. --Charlene 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Acalamari 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is there a clear statement on shopping centers somewhere, that is, something besides WP:NOT? JodyB 18:28, 16 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. Merge proposal can be discussed further on the talkpage. WjBscribe 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photofeed[edit]

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

No sources. Neologism. Non-notable. Appears to be original research. Pdelongchamp 19:01, 9 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 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with web feed.Mystache 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think the specific aggregators mentioned (& I expect there will be more) are sufficient for this to be worth a separate article --
  • Keep could use a ref, but there's no ambiguity about what a photofeed is. (plus i learned something) the_undertow talk 03:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on condition Notabality is established espically with connection to iphoto and flickr. However without sources this article cannot be kept. --St.daniel 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a notable topic and is not original research. Requires references but number of ghits makes me sure sources can and will be found. Davewild 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it passes WP:OR, WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyTheTiger, could you elaborate on how it passes these guidelines? Thanks. Pdelongchamp 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Media RSS. Neither article has enough content by itself but Photofeed is an RSS media application. It should be a subsection of said article, with a redirect. Wysdom 04:26, 16 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. Rlevse 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Bhatt[edit]

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

Should have been speedied since being a member of a famous family is not a claim of notability, but the speedy tag was removed, so I have brought it here. No sources, nothing to indicate what makes this person notable. Corvus cornix 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No context establishing what makes him notable. Notability is not inherited. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup -- there are two people in film by the name of Mukesh Bhatt -- a producer and an actor. The producer is definitely notable, the actor probably not. It's hard to tell which is meant here, since films from both link to the same article. Needs disambiguation & work. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:05, 10 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 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not support notability. Was the actor a extra in nine movies with out names? Jeepday 04:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The creator or editors interested in keeping this should provide sufficient information and references to make this an entry notable to find a place here. The present contents does not assert notability. --Masterbobo 09:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup per above --St.daniel 12:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything said above.
  • Delete unless information is forthcoming about the roles.DGG 00:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into article of a more famous family member like brother, father or sister etc. Mayank Abhishek 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Anwar 16:20, 20 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 to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Nagar[edit]

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

Smaller area within a town that alone is hardly notable. In short, article just doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability criterion. PeteShanosky 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a large enough neighborhood. DGG 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are amny other Sunder Nagars in India like SunderNagar, and the later can never be spelt as SundarNagar. The page Sunder Nagar should be made a disambiguation page. However, Sunder Nagar may be notable and must be having population of several thousand. We have many pages devoted to villages containing a line and population of few households. --Masterbobo 09:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a person who has lived for 12 years in Mumbai, I believe that this is not notable enough of an area to deserve its own article (or a redirect). I've added salvageable content to Malad (will fix the cut and paste move if the result is delete). utcursch | talk 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not only notability is questioned, the text of the article has been copied from article Malad_(Mumbai_suburb), a second copy is not needed at all. Mayank Abhishek 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Geographical entities are notable no matter how small they are. There is no policy that states otherwise. See for example Dhobitalao. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dhobitalao is not a minor locality -- it a major area that contains villages such as Cavel or Kolwar. It is also of historical importance[4], and is listed as a visitor attraction in most Mumbai travel guides[5]. On the other hand, Sunder Nagar is just a small area in Malad suburb that contains a few housing socities. The place doesn't have a post office of its own, and doesn't seem to be of any administrative/tourist/historical importance either (the article says it was found in 1970s). I'm not sure what do you mean by a "geographical entity" here -- if you mean an administrative unit or an area with its own Post Office, Sunder Nagar is not one of these. If you mean any place that exists, every nook and corner of a city consisting of a few buildings and a garden can be considered as a geographical entity -- not all of these are notable. utcursch | talk 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See comments below> =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering WP:NOTE, there ought to be cut-and-dry cases made for the notability (or lack thereof) for all articles. Aside from utcursch, can anyone else make a valid case for deleting or retaining this article? --Aarktica 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has its own PIN code [6] I hope that notability is finally set. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that pointing to a location code is a valid argument. It might be helpful to review the essay on notability, before making a case – one way or the other. For example, a valid argument should be able to withstand WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE-derived scrutiny. --Aarktica 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. A user might want to research the history of a particular location in a city, how it got it's name and the demographics of the area. I've given a ripe example of Dhobitalao, a location within a larger area in the same city. I don't see how this can be ever classified as indiscriminate information; that assumption would be ludicrous. It is a place, has people, has a history, geography, and probably culture. A rewrite is definately possible, including having a locator map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nichalp, the PIN Code is not for Sunder Nagar. It's the PIN code for Malad (West) and surrounding areas in Kandivali and Goregaon. Check that webpage again -- the PINCode 400064 is same for all the localities mentioned on that page (including places like Adarsh Dugdhalaya, Anand Road, B J Patel Road etc.). I don't know what do you exactly mean by "geographical entities", but not every single locality is notable -- there are practically hundreds of localities in Malad. Sunder Nagar is not a suburb/taluka/village/post office -- it's just a minor locality consisting of few housing blocks, two schools, and a garden. Unless, the place is of some historical/political/administrative importance, such a locality is not notable enough to have its own article. All the information in the article is present in Malad. utcursch | talk 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See comments below =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nichalp.Bakaman 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the really notable Sunder/Sundar Nagar in India is the one in Delhi which was for many years the only privately built colony in New Delhi, and continues to be the area with the second highest land prices per square foot in the city. Delhi locales are under-representede here. Hornplease 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Anwar 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - reply to Utcursh

I'm not sure what parameters are used to ascertain that a place is not notable.

  • Does the location have a history = yes
  • Sizable population = yes
  • Geography = yes
  • Etymology = yes
  • Culture & Demographics = probably (undocumented)

My question is, what parameters does one need to ascertain that it is non notable? Is it because it is too small? (a population of a thousand is anyways notable); The second question is: How is this place different from say Bayswater, Queens? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update I have improved the page. Please have a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment there are neighborhoods, and on the other hand there are housing developments. such developments can under very exceptional circumstances be notable, but usually they are not. The generic name, the fact that the agencies mentioned are apparently much larger in scope than just this district, and the lack of any references , indicates that this is probably among the great majority of non-notable housing developments or tracts. DGG 05:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify what you mean by a housing development vs a neighbourhood? I've added some references. Thanks~ =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Goa Tourism, Bombay Small Scale Industries, and MTNL have offices in a location known as Sunder Nagar. If it were a small housing development, it would not be mentioned by such organizations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Goa tourism doesn't have an office in Sunder Nagar -- the link provided points to existence of a travel agent in the area. The existence of Goregaon MTNL exchange establishes notability of Goregaon, not that of Sunder Nagar; the MTNL exchange is a building -- it has to be in some locality. Again, Bombay Small Scale Industries doesn't have an office in Sunder Nagar -- the link points to address of one "Mr. S. J. Bechal" in a co-operative housing society situated in Sunder Nagar. Every area of a few hundred square meters (even a housing society) will have some "history", geography, sizable population (esp. if it is in a densely populated city like Mumbai), etymology and demography. Existence of an article on Bayswater, Queens is WP:WAX argument -- I don't have much idea about Bayswater, but it is home to a state park (Bayswater Point State Park) and a Google search leads to some non-trivial coverage([7][8] etc.). On the other hand, there are no non-trivial mentions of Sunder Nagar, Malad that can provide suitable references needed for an article. All the current "references" are just a few trivial mentions -- [9] is a mention in a list of around 150 localities in Malad (West), [10] is a daily "City Briefs" column that has one sentence about a one-day free healing camp in the area, and [11] is the address of college situated in Sunder Nagar locality. In absence of any non-trivial sources, the locality doesn't seem to be important enough to have its own article -- a para or two in the Malad article looks just fine. utcursch | talk 10:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, what is the area of this region, in square kms or some other useful measurement? Also, any idea what the population of this region is? John Vandenberg 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This data would be available in the P/North ward municipal office of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The area is around 255m * 150m = 0.03825 sq. km (see Google maps). utcursch | talk 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a temporary kmz roughly outlining the area covered in the Google Maps link. I think both the Google Maps and my Google Earth boundaries are wrong, as the schools that have been mentioned lie outside this boundary. John Vandenberg 01:20, 22 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 per author's request (CSD G7). Phaedriel - 05:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Operator[edit]

A non-notable term used by a non-notable person. Much of unclear but no point in trying to fix. Pleclech 00:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Everything worth mentioning has already been merged. Jeepday 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Should be merged with Richard D. Wyckoff --St.daniel 12:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per St.daniel above --Mhking 14:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep else merge. The article is only a month old. The editor need direction in all likelihood. It should be tagged {{Orphan}}, {{Uncategorized}} and {{wikify}}. If it remains tagged for a while add {{expert-subject}}. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per the request of the article's creator here. He/she saw the writing on the wall and has, it appears, already merged into Wyckoff what they wished to retain. 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So tagged. :) Wysdom 04:37, 16 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz journalism[edit]

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

Seems like a Copyvio, little notability, In desperate need of Wikification, no proper sources. Tellyaddict 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I found no evidence of copyvio on the Internet other than a few sentences taken from several sources. However, it is a notable subject that, once wikified and sourced, could be perfectly fine. I'm up for the job, so if you feel like posting a message on my talk page regarding the outcome of this AFD, I will remake the article. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism not properly supported by the (few) sources. Jazz journalism <> Jazz Age Journalism, for example. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Look's like someone's attempt at original research to go with their coining of the neologism. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google scholar, lexusnexus, etc. give plenty of evidence that this was a neologism in the 1920s. It seems plenty notable. It just needs a wikify and sources tag, give it time. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Smmurphy. Lankiveil 23:41, 8 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, Daniel Bryant 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; seems like potentially important history. Perhaps someone who knows about the topic could judge that it might be better under another name, or merged with some other article like History of Journalism, but that can always be done later. --Allen 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable article needs to be cleaned up and is at stub status but deletion is a bit harsh. --St.daniel 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup; solid and verifiable information, but certainly needs some TLC --Mhking 14:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possible merge: This article meets the notability guidelines, as I have found references for it. Though, perhaps the article could be merged into "Tabloid" under the history section of the article. As for the wikification, I'd be happy to do that, if needed, of course.  ~Steptrip 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean-up per Mhking. Acalamari 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to develop the article as per the commenters above, the subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 01:44, 17 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. soum (0_o) 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Wedding Chapel[edit]

Vegas Wedding Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not persuaded up-front that this is the spam the speedy tag was claiming. An AfD investigation would be warranted given the finishing (unreferenced) sentences. (PS. I've had about nine degrees of trouble trying to make this nom work, so would the first kind soul to see it check that everything is standing upright?) -Splash - tk 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Everything looks ok, it's listed properly everywhere it needs to be. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, no evidence of independent sources, fails WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. Only assertion of notability (Hilton wedding) is unsourced. Currently only promotional. — ERcheck (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only assertion of notability is incidental and unreferenced. Unless references can be found (unfortunately Googling is a little frustrating with a name like this) that indicate something worth saying the article should go. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Las Vegas is full of wedding chapels (God knows why), so what makes this one special? --Calton | Talk 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never heard of it, but now it has some references. It won a local best of and has been covered in several national magazines. So the votes above about the event not being referenced should be reconsidered since the Hilton event was clearly covered by multiple sources. Vegaswikian 23:14, 10 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, Daniel Bryant 00:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (Note: Relisting to clarify the latest keep !vote, as on its' own would probably force a no-consensus close.)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the best of Vegas wedding chapels is not wiki-worthy in my opinion. semper fictilis 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Vegaswikian --St.daniel 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; violates WP:CORP --Mhking 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how it fails WP:CORP. I imagine a long list of celebrity weddings could be obtained for this company. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the fact that a Hilton got hitched at this chapel doesn't really make it notable to me. The references are minimal, and the "best of" win appears to be a reader's choice opt-in poll. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Doesn't even come close to WP:N--as per Tony above, sources do not notability make. Esp. tabloid sources. The crux is this: this place did not exist before Paris Hilton. It will not exist after Paris Hilton. And if every venue in which the celebs du nanosecond did their "I sortas" were WP:N, the center would not hold. If someone REALLY thinks this is worth keeping, then it should be shortened to the footnote in Paris's life that it is, or, better still, be treated as per the guidelines for !WP:N schools:

    Wikipedia:Notability (schools) recommends that individual articles on schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations as appropriate.

    And be merged into Las Vegas. >.> I need a drink. ;) Wysdom 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you can get drinks here. A merge into Las Vegas, Nevada would not be advisable since that article is rather large. Maybe a Rename to Wedding chapels in Las Vegas to allow for many of these to be listed might be a good way to build consensus. There are numerous wedding chapels in town so putting them in one article would avoid the need to discuss each one. The single article would also allow for a history of wedding chapels to develop which is a notable topic. Vegaswikian 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the other deletes. Acalamari 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TTT. Lemonsawdust 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I Googled "vegas wedding chapel" +celebrity -paris -hilton... a ton of stuff about a Las Vegas wedding chapel, lots of travel promotions, etc... but no lists of celebs who've hitched at this particular one. I mean, I only went through the first three pages of hits before my eyes crossed and I keeled over, but...
Well, for what it's worth, if someone can find a reliable source (preferably sources) that cites this establishment as having hosted the weddings of other (named) notables, I'd change my vote... with the provision that the substantiating info is added, sourced, and the article overall Wikified. Wysdom 03:57, 17 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. WjBscribe 03:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mercer[edit]

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

I'm not sure there is no assertion of note in this (per the speedy tag), so I bring it here. I say this owing to the fact that he appears to have played for a bluelink name and may, pending verification have been good, and maybe resulted in media coverage. Or not, of course, and I'm not qualified to tell the difference. -Splash - tk 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I tagged for speedy, but maybe it isn't speediable. Pretty sure precedent is that fully professional athletes are notable, amateurs are not, and this shows no sign of being an exception. - Aagtbdfoua 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's easily notable. WP:BIO quite specifically includes amateurs who play at the highest level of their sport as likely to be notable. Playing at the University of Georgia is playing in the NCAA Division I and in one of its major conferences (the Southeastern Conference), so it is playing at the highest level of the sport of amateur men's basketball. As such, there is indeed media coverage of him.[12] [13] Mwelch 06:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "Amateur basketball" is not a sport. "Basketball" is a sport, and the highest level of the sport is either one of the professional leagues or, if an amateur, the Olympics or some equivalent international tournament. I don't argue the guy probably has some mentions in the local paper. However, I thought the guidelines in WP:BIO superceded the general WP:N criteria. And I'm pretty sure that precedent was that college athletes are not notable, with the occasional crystal balling permitted for those clearly about to turn pro. - Aagtbdfoua 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mwelch said it all. —Bender235 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has had media coveraged and seems to be notable enough seeing as ESPN have a profile on him. [14] Kyriakos 01:19, 15 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, Daniel Bryant 00:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is already consensus. A mistaken speedy, based on a false assumption about what is considered N. I wonder how many other such people get speedy tags and the articles don't get noticed. DGG 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - he's a starter for a Division I collegiate program - pretty clear guideline for keeping on WP:BIO - "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." College athletics is also definitely the top-level of amateur basketball in the USA, that's why only collegians were allowed on the US Olympic basketball team until the professionals were allowed in the most recent Olympics dating back to the ,90s. --Roswell native 06:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You completely mis-interpeted the statement in WP:BIO - The intent of WP:BIO is to include only those athletes that participate at the highest level of their sport. For some sports, thats either college or the Olympics. But for those sports that have a professional level, then the athlete must have played at that level to qualify. College basketball is certainly not the highest level in the sport, so college basketball players are not automatically notable. This guy seems to be just a un-remarkable journeyman college player, so Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CP, Mercer is a starter (second-leading scorer and one of the top defenders on the team) not a journeyman.[15] For my own edification, would you be able to point me to the guideline or discussion that asserts this amateur/professional clarification of WP:BIO, I just reread it, and I honestly don't infer your point (I understand your point, I just don't see it illustrated in WP:BIO). Thanks. --Roswell native 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - WP:BIO seems to have changed since I read it last. I apologize for my comments, you did indeed read it right. It is unfortunate though - WP:BIO is opening the way for stub articles on all of the 1635+ Division I basketball starters and the 2574+ Division I football starters (not counting special teams) that come about every single year. And thats just the starters - really, anybody who could come up with two verifiable sources that proved they stepped on the field would be immediately notable. And whats really interesting is that sports without professional leagues are further hurt by this guideline - the football player who played 2 minutes of garbage time at the end of a 55-6 blowout is notable, but a swimmer who wins two NCAA championships but failed to make the Olympic team is not? Anyway, I digress - after re-reading WP:BIO, I am now a Strong Keep - all college basketball players are notable. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Little or no concievable reason for deletion. --St.daniel 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was never a valid speedy deletion, so thanks to Splash for identifying this for future cases. Yamaguchi先生 01:21, 17 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Najd[edit]

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

There are literally hundreds of thousands of hadiths, and there are also countless hadiths about this and that country or other. Are we going to have an article for each and every one of them? Slacker 13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article has no degree of notability - at least where the references are concerned. One link appears to be to a punishment page, declaring that Allah will give them what they deserve!? The image is dubious as well, an edited image with the words Najd written across Arabia - it only links to this page. I suggest the image be deleted if the article is as well.LordHarris 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "there is lots of hadith" is not an argument for deleting, there are lots of trains as well, and we have a category:Trains full of them. This particular hadith is notable in that it is often quoted by anti-Whahabi Muslims, both Shi'a and Sunni and that there is controversy over it's meaning as properly demonstrated in the article. --Striver - talk 17:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... the category "Trains" does not list every single train that was in existence, and the fact that a hadith is used in some obscure polemical writings does not make it notable. I agree there are certain hadiths that mark the dividing lines between certain sects or that were used to justify important policies (e.g. Thaqalayn, Ghadir Khomm, 12 Caliphs), but this is not one of them. This hadith is not the reason people object to Wahhabism, and has had ZERO effect on the course of events. There is not a single country from that part of the world that doesn't have a hadith *somewhere* that mentions it, yet including an entire article on its different interpretations is just not encyclopedic. Otherwise, we would have to include "prophecies" about current events from the Bible as well. At most, this hadith could be mentioned in the Nejd article as part of a section on "Nejd in literature" or something of that sort. Slacker 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepeven if it was just historical, it would seem interesting as notable as expression of chauvanism. Given the additional present-day uses, its clearly a valid article, both notable, and sourced.DGG 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what evidence is there that it's notable? If it's been used in some obscure sectarian writings, is that notable enough for Wikipedia? Slacker 10:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep It exists, might be notable, but needs rewriting to be scholarly.--Sefringle 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User:Striver has created a very large number of similar articles, all of which presumably refer to something which exists, but the notability and POV of which are determined by him alone, as they are not sourced to reliable secondary sources. It is easy to say that these articles will be improved over time, but I've seen no evidence that this is the case, as they are created far faster than anyone can clean them up. It is actually better to have no article at all, especially on sensitive topics such as the interpretation of scripture, than one which is unsourced and assumes a particular religious point of view. Take note of the crudely crafted image which accompanies this article; this identifies the nation of Saudi Arabia as the home of the Islamic Antichrist.Proabivouac 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to lack reliable sources. If you want an article created, but do not have access to reliable sources to do so, it would be better to suggest it on a wikiproject talk page.--Sefringle 22:30, 13 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, Daniel Bryant 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sectarian contentions that "Allah will give them what they deserve" are at the core of current events of worldwide significance and hence certainly notable. A Google search suggests that this Hadith is still widely cited and discussed. Personally I find the article quite interesting, as it illustrates how different interpretations of the Hadith correspond to different political and doctrinal groups. There may be a sourcing problem here (I admit I don't know what constitutes a "reliable" source about controversial topics in Islamic theology or jurisprudence or whatever ), as well as a WP:NPOV issue (although different viewpoints are presented in the article), but that's not a reason to delete. Stammer 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article more or less speaks for itself about the notability of this particular hadith. I found a better map, and edited the article to reference it instead. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* How ironic that the map I created gets put on the page that I wanted to delete. I guess this article is here to stay, though just for the record, I'm going to say one more time, just because some obscure polemical writings refer tangentially to some hadith (among countless others they refer to) doesn't mean the hadith is notable. Also, the fact that the article has been here for 15 months yet the only other article that links to it is Striver's own list of hadiths should be enough to cast serious doubts on its alleged notability. Slacker 16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Didn't notice that it was you that made that map. It does do a better job at indicating what area is the Najd/Nejd than the one that was there, that made it seem like it included all of Saudi Arabia. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What we have is an ever-expanding Striverpedia within Wikipedia, expounding upon what for all we know (given the lack of secondary sources) is his personal view of the Sunni-Shi'a divide, and a plainly opinionated one. This is a serious abuse of Wikipedia, and it's being enabled by a relatively weak AfD process - insertion of unencyclopedic and polemic junk into well-trafficked articles will be modified or reverted, but create dozens of your own articles and you have more or less free reign to break all the rules.Proabivouac 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the "if the articles only claim of notability is an uncited statement that it is famous" rule. AKA no reliable sources for notability. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the list of hadiths that Striver and others have created. While, I still think that we should have a relatively high threshold of notability for including hadiths, I see the utility of having a page that discusses a hadith's sources and judgments on its authenticity. However, I suggest that such articles should only be created for important hadiths that are cited by other articles in wikipedia, particularly those that are used to support important legal or theological positions. I don't think that applies to this hadith, however. Slacker 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hadith are inherently notable.--Kirby♥time 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if we were to keep only selected ones, ones with political or historical positions would be among the ones to keep. DGG 07:59, 20 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 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo 5[edit]

Gran Turismo 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Classic WP:CRYSTAL. This game, while surely forthcoming, has not yet been announced. Ergo, the current stub is nothing but unreferenced speculation. (Note: This game should not be confused with Gran Turismo HD) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and Protect until an official annoucnement is made from Sony Rackabello 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]

  • Delete because the "information" section is very short, and probably unconfirmed, as with most other details about the game. Wait for an official announcement.
  • Keep, according to IGN, it has been confirmed by Polyphony. GT5 and some of it's features like Ferraris are also mentioned in www.granturismoworld.com which is an official site, I could not link directly to the news article due to the site being flash. It is also for sale in Amazon. -Lapinmies 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GranTurismoWorld.com is a promotional website established for Gran Turismo HD. It does indeed feature Ferraris, but makes no statements that concern Gran Turismo 5. Amazon would list anything for sale, marketing tactics used to generate pre-sale orders do not a valid source make. According to IGN, GT5 is in development, and it has been for a number of years - this is common knowledge, as is the uncertain nature of the development process. GTHD was also in development to become a full-fledged game, before it was canceled and all the gaming sites were forced to redact their speculation. The fact is there is no conclusive information on when and how the game will be published, or what cars it may or may not contain. This stub is completely unreferenced and is therefore comprised entirely of original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statements about GT5 can be found by clicking GT News and then choosing the article Kazunori Yamauchi and then Learn More. I can't copypaste them or directly link. -Lapinmies 07:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Assuming you are talking about the GTHD website) Using the flash interface, I can't get to the news archive, a dialog stating "coming soong" comes up when I try that option. Are these informative, substantive statements? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to press Latest News and then choose the topic from the bottom of the current article. I admit that the comments aren't very clear, but they state that GT5 will have an online element and it will use the physics model of HD. -Lapinmies 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried it again, but clicking the latest news tab does nothing. (I have the latest version of Flash installed and tried accessing it on two browsers, so not sure what the problem is.) Nonetheless, that would constitute a solid source. Is there enough information to be gleaned to develop anything more than a two sentence stub? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:37, 10 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, Daniel Bryant 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like the nominator says, this is classic WP:CRYSTAL material. Salt until the game is actually released or at the very least formally announced. RFerreira 01:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now The article falls somewhere between being a crystal ball and a billboard. After removing all of the cruft about details, it basically says "A game by this name is going to be made." I would agree with a recreation of the article once more information becomes known. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL Thunderwing 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Needs serious cleanup but the main reasons being cited are that it is not released yet. Neither is Pirates of the Carrabien 3 but we still have a page for it. Unreleased material can still be allowed on Wikipedia as long as it is made clear that it is unreleased and could be entirely incorrect. --St.daniel 13:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Changing to Delete Poor source used for article.--St.daniel 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DBZROCKS 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 (T|C) 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the commenters above until better sources become available. Yamaguchi先生 01:18, 17 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. WjBscribe 03:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springwater Marketplace[edit]

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

Strip mall, not notable, there are many of these all over. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - looks like part of someone's well documented and encyclopedic project to document all the shopping malls in this area. Rgds, - Trident13 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Extremely notable, and also per Trident13  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 00:40, 12 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, Alan.ca 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insignificant mall. semper fictilis 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete makes no assertion of notability whatsoever. NONE WHATSOEVER. Malls are not inherently notable in of themselves, and this one is non notable for a mall. Suggest examination and nomination of all the other malls in the project and contacting the user. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of GLA, so no indication it is more than of local interest. (See WP:MALL, currently labelled as "rejected" for further discussion of notability of malls and definition of terms). Edison 06:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough --St.daniel 13:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' None whatever. Speediable, except that it was sure to be contested.DGG 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the other deletes. Acalamari 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or I start adding my local malls.— JyriL talk 23:42, 17 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 → List of That's So Raven episodes. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Dearest[edit]

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

Nominated as above That's so Raven episodes. Contested prod. Non notable, not sourced, highly fan cruft, most of the article is trivia, and all relevant information is duplicated in List of That's So Raven episodes. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I actually nominated one for deletion and found that the prior AFD consensus was to redirect to the episode guide! so my "as above" comment is now irrelevant. This is what I was going to say: "We don't have individual episodes for Lost, nor Boston Legal. Why should a teen-crufty kids show that is not notable and not prime-time get special treatment?" ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note: 6 of these individual episodes have gone up to AFD and all of them have been consensus to redirect back to the "list". Also, per Centralized Discussion, these pages should be redirected until they actually have notable, sourcable information. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Go ahead and redirect. You won't hear any objection from me. :) YechielMan 19:06, 20 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.--Wizardman 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randford University[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, unnotable diploma mill. Offers Life Experience Degrees, not accredited[16], and lacks media coverage. No WP:RS to write an article beyond saying its an unaccredited degree mill. Arbustoo 02:31, 15 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.--Wizardman 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School of Accounting and Management[edit]

School of Accounting and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. This is not accredited[18] and was started Colinlezama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's only edits involve diploma mills. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:CORP, created as promotion? points to delete. Arbustoo 02:36, 15 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.--Wizardman 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colton University[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, unnotable diploma mill. Offers Life Experience Degrees, not accredited[19], and lacks media coverage. No WP:RS to write an article beyond saying its an unaccredited degree mill. Arbustoo 02:38, 15 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 → Lil Eazy-E and label with un-referenced notation. I was very tempted to follow the advice of the persons weighing in below; I checked to see if major media outlets had not reported on the topic — Lil Eazy has done a couple of interviews that have been reported on hip hop websites, but I was unable to find independent coverage other than these interviews. Further, the label is not found in a search of the Virgin Records corporate site, which I found strange. I will add a citation to one of the interviews mentioned to the target article as minimal support for inclusion of the material. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (p.s. I am not a fan and I've never heard of this artist before)[reply]

Kings of L.A. Entertainment[edit]

Kings of L.A. Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor record label created by a minor rapper. Fails WP:CORP. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Note to nominator: also please nominate for AFD the artist's article ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, and not even a distribution contract. Ouch! - BierHerr 16:29, 21 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 all, a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Bolsheviks[edit]

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

Page itself is a mess, grammar is terrible. Article created by obviously, a member of this random band, therefor violating NPOV. Doesn't cite references, no google hits turn up, and blatant advertising on the page itself. PeteShanosky 02:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't even notice that one. PeteShanosky 02:46, 15 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 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Eros[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. One step too far removed from notability, non-wiki ghits outside of myspace aren't impressive. Contested prod. MER-C 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced claims of notability that can't get any support though Google always make me suspicious. I would probably change my opinion if sources could be located. janejellyroll 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per User:Janejellyroll above. Lankiveil 11:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above --St.daniel 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a probable breach of WP:COPYVIO - see here Ohconfucius 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry, but I don't know what is to be disputed? Yes, I authored the entry; but everything I've written is true. I'm a recording engineer/producer who lives in Ojai, CA and freelance's primarily at a local recording studio called Zircon Skye Production (www.zirconskye.com); I also have a band called Green Man (www.greenmanmusic.com) and between those two things that's how I make my living. I've worked with Ed Kowalczyk (Live), Robben Ford, Red Grammer (whose album "Be Bop Your Best" which I recorded, mixed and co-produced was indeed nominated for a Grammy for Best Musical Album For Children in 2005), Hannah-McEuen, The Electric Prunes, Bauhaus, Daniel Ash, Greg Penny, Bruce Botnick, Malcolm McDowell, ...and the list goes on. Any and all of these people can verify these facts. Hopefully this will suffice as support for "claims of notability." Thanks. Greenmanmusic 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ken[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Unity[edit]

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

Recreated after deleted by prod. Article sites no references, no claim to notability. Mikeblas 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Borderline spam IMO. YechielMan 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be a notable product, and no claim to notability. Lankiveil 11:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Dedlete due to lack of notabality --St.daniel 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Acalamari 18:36, 16 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 10:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SeanSho[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability guidelines; I couldn't find any external coverage per WP:V and WP:RS and there doesn't seem to be enough around about it. Crystallina 03:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as of stunningly negligible significance even if true. -- Hoary 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not-notable "radio" show. Lankiveil 11:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete this is not notable. Acalamari 18:36, 16 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 10:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal exploitation[edit]

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

Original research; severe NPOV violation. YechielMan 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as essay; maybe redirect to animal rights to discourage re-creation. --Allen 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examples of animal exploitation: sex (i.e. bestiality)". Mmhmm. Delete as WP:OR. Lankiveil 11:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not only clear WP:OR, but it also sounds like it was put together by an animal rights extremist. Now, allow me, if you will, to get a nice, thick, juicy steak. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "This instantiates the design process of Bucky Fuller, applied to the sphere of animal exploitation instead of human emancipation"? You've got to be kidding. Delete rather than redirect, as the (spa) creator has thoughtfully put their website in the edit summary - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennis. --Perimosocordiae 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POV and WP:NOR Rackabello 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the subject of this article is an important cultural phenomenon and recognizable neologism that is likely to be well documented. This particular article is biased, uninformative, unclear, and unsourced. Another possible alternative is to redirect the article to domestication, as "exploit" can also mean "harnessing the potential of". If I was feeling up to some research I'd probably rework this article. As the article presently stands, it should be deleted. i kan reed 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This material has been abundantly covered in Animal cruelty, Animal rights, Animal testing... give me ten minutes with a thesaurus and I'm sure I could find half a dozen others. Wysdom 05:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely looks like original research, violating WP:NOR. Dugwiki 19:38, 18 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay By Touch[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. The user who created this has littered us with other COI articles, so I don't care how many employees this company has. Note: I can't prove his COI in this case, but I strongly suspect it. YechielMan 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reason to think notable. Touch sensitive kiosks are not a new invention. DGG 05:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be notable either for their technology or as a business. Lankiveil 11:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. This technology differs from touch-sensitive kiosks because it reads a fingerprint (strictly speaking, the finger itself) reliably enough to allow the scan to substitute for a signature or PIN in authorizing a purchase. This seems like a notable instance of the use of biometrics technology. --Eastmain 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Struck me as Spam --St.daniel 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This technology is very unique and innovative. Pay By Touch is the only company offering tokenless biometric financial transactions and loyalty and holds more than 50 patents on the technology. It does not deal with touch sensitive kiosks, but rather the biometric authentication of a user in-lane, at a kiosk, online, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billtownsend (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete If we want an article for this, it should be about the machines themselves. This reads like an ad. Dragosian 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article covering the technology biometrics, while it in itself needs substantial improvement, exists. Pay By Touch !WP:N since the technology isn't yet widely in use or immediately relevant. They could easily have gone the way of Vonage by the time we're all getting our microchips implanted.

Wysdom 06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge (provisional) Per results of dialog w/SmokeyJoe (below)--in summary: merge into biometrics as content for a section on "Commercial applications" or something of that nature; no marketing language (POV), this is to be about the technology; no links to Pay By Touch's website (unless there is content !=press release/sales collateral, i.e. strictly supporting some understanding of the technology itself). Best Regards, Wysdom 07:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM Ohconfucius 04:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Eastmain. Is sufficiently referenced. SmokeyJoe 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to biometrics. Sources are not sufficiently independent of the subject. SmokeyJoe 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Referenced? The single (in my mind) legitimate reference is the little news-cast blurb--which hinges more on the technology than the company. The second reference is a two-line come-on from a research company that wants you to buy a report about how how Pay By Touch bought another company. Companies buy other companies all the time--it doesn't make them notable. If that were the case, I could write a Wiki article about the architect firm I share office space with--they just bought someone. It's unremarkable. The other two references are press releases hosted at affiliates of Pay by Touch--actually, they're the SAME press release [20] just ever so slightly re-worded in the second version. These aren't references--they're advertising. I'm not saying that was Eastmain's intention at all--they look legit at first blush, and I'm willing to bet a lot of well-intentioned researchers have mistaken a press release for a legitimate news item... but they're not. These were written by Pay By Touch... and I'm willing to bet dimes to donuts that a critical evaluation of any other 'articles' found out there on the 'net will have their source in the Pay By Touch Press Release Archive. Wysdom 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Comment Referenced? The single (in my mind) legitimate reference is the little news-cast blurb--which hinges more on the technology than the company. Ref 1. "Channel 3's Paul Thomas shows us how this unique process works" Independent source asserts notability.
    • The second reference is a two-line come-on from a research company that wants you to buy a report about how how Pay By Touch bought another company. Companies buy other companies all the time--it doesn't make them notable. Ref 2. "Pay by Touch plans to acquire chief rival BioPay for $82M in cash and stock to become the largest provider of biometric technology for retailers" Source is independent, asserts notability.
      • I submit that a commercially offered report such as the once cited does not assert the notability of Pay By Touch but of the biometrics industry, in which investors and competitors are willing to pony up money for information about what companies/competitors are doing. This is not an independently-written/researched article in a newspaper or magazine--not that all sources need to be, but I would, personally, find such a source far more compelling. It could, of course, be argued that the research company's reason for offering this information=they believe there are people who want it=notability. Again, I think any/all biometrics compan(y/ies) is/are 'notable' in that sense... but not notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. Perhaps, if someone were willing to expand further on Pay By Touch's product, it could be included as a "Retail Applications" subsection of the biometrics article? Wysdom 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were the case, I could write a Wiki article about the architect firm I share office space with--they just bought someone. It's unremarkable.
      • Reasoning by analogy is not logically valid.
    • The other two references are press releases hosted at affiliates of Pay by Touch--actually, they're the SAME press release [1] just ever so slightly re-worded in the second version. These aren't references--they're advertising. Ref 3. "Pay By Touch is an innovative payment service." Ref 4. "This is the first UK implementation by Pay By Touch, the global leader in biometric authentication, personalised rewards, membership and payment solutions."
      • Can you verify your assertion of advertising? The sources don’t look like advertisements to me. The fact that they reproduce from a press release just proves that the press release was notable.
        • Press releases are advertising--or more accurately, "public releations"--inherently biased, despite being deceptively journalistic in style. They're written by (or for, when a PR agency writes them) companies/organizations about themselves or, somewhat less often, to assert a POV beneficial to them. In essence, they're autobiographical--how can they be considered reliable sources?
        • The purpose of a press release is to get the company in the press, as such exposure generates name/brand recognition. They assert the importance of the "author" by announcing charitable donations/works, revenues, product launches, etc. If you don't know the source, it looks like journalism--but since the source isn't independent, the facts aren't checked, and the author gets to sneak in marketing buzz like "innovative" and "global leader"... it's very much not journalism. Even if a respected, independent news organization chooses to reprint it (which in this case they have not).
        • I wouldn't have immediately pegged these for PR myself if the first source given [21] hadn't left the tell-tale "bio" appended to the bottom. "About Pay By Touch: Pay By Touch is the global leader of biometric authentication, personalised rewards and payment solutions..." etc. It's a press release signature. And then there's who you're to contact for more information--Caroline Powell at jd marketing.
        • And, finally, the first reference, Midcounties Cooperative, is the self-referenced site of the "first UK implementation"--they're Pay By Touch's client. Even if their primary source weren't a press release written by a marketing company, doesn't a business relationship between the source and the subject represent COI?
        • Based on this, and the fact that the second reference is a gently-edited mirror of the first, I submit that both references are invalid--and the assertion that the press release of a commercial cooperative promoting their business partner (and themselves for offering the Pay By Touch service) proves Pay By Touch 'notable', equally so. Respectfully, Wysdom 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe you are right. If the sources are not independent of the subject, then they are not sufficient. If so, I still would not want to delete, I would still like to see the material in wikipedia. I agree with the comments that the article would be better focused more on the product than the company, but that it an editing issue. Would a merge be acceptable? SmokeyJoe 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was sort of leaning that way myself, but since you asked so nicely... ;D I'd like to see it merged into the biometrics article, which desperately needs some sourced, relevant content addressing applications other than immigration/security--provided the content is revised to sustantially illustrate the use of biometrics in commerce and steers clear of marketing language touting Pay By Touch, the company. It would be relevant, I think, to mention Pay By Touch as a major player in this segment of the biometrics market, but that would need to be balanced (if included) with mention of at least a couple competitive companies and their offerings. And links to the main Pay By Touch website--I think we can all agree that they're not an acceptable reference/source for citation. Wysdom 08:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I think the notability test is useful. The article is very well referenced to secondary sources. SmokeyJoe 01:54, 19 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 - defaults to keep. It is unlikely that a consensus on this matter will ever be achieved. I have had significant difficulty in trying to sort out references to JTF vs. generic 'Jewish task forces' that relate to political activities. For instance, consider the article [22] which obviously refers to a different 'task force' as it is 'newly created' in 2006 as opposed to the creation year of 1991 listed in the article; nonetheless, those who below cite many Google hits would without inspecting the content consider this a valid hit supporting the claim of notability. However, I was able to verify that JTF broadcasts a radio program on QPTV in New York; see [23]. There is a great deal of work that should be done to provide valid, reliable source support for the content of this article and I am concerned at how polarized the views are over it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Task Force[edit]

Jewish Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no citations, no reliable sources, fails WP:WEB, as notability is not established through secondary sources, and seems to have POV problems. Sefringle 04:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that there is this big debate, and numerous individuals who continually butcher the JTF article is all the proof I need that they're legit, influential, and the article deserves to stay. Some of the folks here must be sad individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.66.173 (talk • contribs)
  • We should definately keep this article, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.128 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I don't know if this deserves to be kept or not, but I do notice that some editors have really gutted the article lately... a day or two ago it had a lot more info. *Dan T.* 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll restore the origional unsourced version for the duration of the Afd. It still does not add any sources though.--Sefringle 04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Y not? 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Y not? 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there ought to be sources, since condemnation by mainstream organizations is asserted in the article. Any group such as this broadcasting in NYC would be N, and the sources given at least prove its real existence. Let's see if sources appear to show that other have noticed the nonsense. DGG 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to some other Kahanism-related article. I searched Google and found practically nothing to suggest that this group is notable. Specifically "Jewish task force" -Wikipedia gets 900 hits, but most of them are other task forces. Keep in mind that Kahanism in general is a fringe group in the Jewish community, like the Neturei Karta, and is not taken seriously by most Jews. YechielMan 06:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge/redirect For the same reasons as YechielMan - "Jewish Task Force" appears to be non-existent other than their website and public cable tv show. Doing a Google Search and News Search shows no suitable sourceable material outside of their own jtf.org website. Lothey 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Jewcruft? Extremistcruft? Whatever, but this notability doesn't seem to be notable outside of riling up the naïve, in much the same way as GNAA. Lankiveil 11:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a notable group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to pass WP:N. I would like to see proper inline citation, however, TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, I could not find any via google either in hebrew or in english. Of interest is that this article was deleted from the hebrew wikipedia here; while the hebrew wikipedia does tend to have a stricter deltionist stance than the english in this instance I completely agree. I am also nominating the related article on the organizations founder Chaim Ben Pesach. Jon513 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am nominating the article Chaim Ben Pesach for speedy deletion as it was already the subject of an AFD debate resulting in delete. Jon513 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Although the lack of WP:RS is troubling. If this is not resolved I would not object to renominating. Google has 25.500 hits[24] so somebody must be able to find the needed references.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and Redirect) this article (after serious edits and trimmings) with the Kahanism article. IZAK 09:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A radio program and television show surely passes WP:N--Gerash77 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other Kahanist articles. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and un-lock. 72.92.124.149 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge, or modify The page reads like the JTF advertisement. They are not paying Wikipedia for it, so... --Doom777 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , yeah this does read like a advertisement for an extremist website. Lets get rid of it as soon as possible. I urge wiki mods to delete this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flash Virus (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEP! JTF is one of two primary Kahanist organizations in the USA. Their chairman is the former chairman of the Jewish Defense League and I have never seen a book about Meir Kahane that does not mention him also, often in depth. They have had a public television program in Queens for over ten years and have had an internet presence nearly as long. Suck, the Village Voice, and other New York-based media have done in-depth articles on JTF and Chaim Ben Pesach (aka Vincent Vancier). A great deal of work has gone into this article, as the history of revisions shows. Let's not throw all that work out, regardless of how we might feel about the group's political viewpoints. Afabbro 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP "Jewish Task Force" produces 25,400 google hits. That may indicate that it is more notable than some might otherwise believe. However, the google count may include some hits that are unrelated to the organization. Certainly the article can be improved, but I see no advantage to deleting or merging it. If anyone can point out exactly how deleting or merging it will improve Wikipedia, I will certainly consider changing my vote.Doright 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge, or rewrite for the same reasons as Doom777. --Nupractor 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'd like to point out that this article has been on Wikipedia for almost 3 years (since 2004). Why are we suddenly deleting it? Revise it if you feel that's appropriate, but do not delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge or Delete: Is not important to stand on own merits --Miamite 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP You're all a bunch of politically correct COWARDS. I dare one of you little WIMPS to vote on a deletion of the New Black Panther Party article. Whether you like it or not, JTF is a noteworthy organization. They're financing the classes for the Jerusalem Talmud [25]. They have a forum that is growing exponentially [26]. They're a significant organization that deserves a stand alone article. If you want to be "fair" and "objective" why don't you consider deleting the Stormfront article? You'll set quite a precedent if the JTF article is deleted from Wikipedia. That being of a bunch of hypocritical fascists who delete something they deem to be "extreme". You're all full of it. 24.46.114.229 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find more sources about JTF (that aren't links to it's own webstite; Arutz Sheva is a borderline new source but that is fine) I would consider changing my opinion. The link to israelnationalnews you provide above mentions JTF only in passing. Jon513 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - "seems to be notable" and "one guy from Village Voice mentioned them, according to their own website" don't persuade me. What would persuade me to vote keep would be real articles from real news organizations which talk about JTF in detail. Or heck, even books. If the article's been there for 3 years, shouldn't there be some verifiable external sources? If you think the article should be kept, add some real sources! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:26, 21 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 non-notable with no reliable sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amati Foundation[edit]

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

Nonnotable charity with 500 ghits. I also have strong reason to suspect that User:Bill townsend had a COI in writing the article. YechielMan 04:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment' The one reference given is a totally general one to a magazine. Keep if there are more exact ones forthcoming. DGG 05:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable charity, by the looks of it. Lankiveil 11:01, 15 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 - spam, no claim of notablility. - Mike Rosoft 08:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Online[edit]

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

Crystal balling, speculation, maybe even advertising. Morenoodles 04:22, 15 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 - this makes no real assertion of notability, is close to nonsensical, cannot possibly survive AfD. Metamagician3000 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Stevens[edit]

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

NN "thinker." Main claim to "notability" seems to be a so-far unsuccessful musical career and the founding of several high school clubs. Speedy tag removed by an IP editor. Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete obvious CSD A7. representative excerpt from article, "At the age of 15 he wrote a short essay by the title of "The Illogicability of Mathematics as Pertainging[sic] to Algebraic Expressions."". Total absence of supporting sources, reliable or otherwise. Pete.Hurd 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not as A7, as nonsense. DGG 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm sure this violates the notability guidelines, just like it violated my brain when I attempted to read the whole thing. Lankiveil 11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS, though I wouldn't have objected if someone had applied a CSD A7 tag to it. With a fine-tooth comb I don't actually see a claim to notability in there. EdJohnston 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article as utterly failing WP:SURREAL Ohconfucius 04:28, 17 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 10:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzhambulat Khatokhov[edit]

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

For crying out loud, he is a fat seven year old. There's nothing watsoever notable about this person, no matter how many panicked news stories about childhood obesity feature him. -- Y not? 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Times story is based on the one in the Sun, not on independent reportage.DGG 05:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. Is this person a world record holder in relation to their weight? If so then that might make them notable but as it stands this biography doesn't rise to notability. (aeropagitica) 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a large child does not lead to large notability. Lankiveil 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete - there was an hour-long documentary on him on Britain's gift to world culture, Channel 4 (I saw it) so I guess technically he does satisfy WP:BIO, but I think this is a reasonable occasion to WP:IAR and delete it anyway; when all's said and done, he's just a fat kid. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure I created this article because I thought it would be notable, on reflection I'm still not sure. I'm still new at the wiki, so still in the learning curve. DavidMcKenzie 09:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete A kid who's apparently famous in Russia, has been on tv lots, has been the subject of an hour-long documentary on Channel 4, I think deserves his own Wikipedia page!! I saw the repeat programme again tonight, and I bet very many of the 1-3 million that viewed the programme will want to know how the kid is doing now. What better way than by a constantly updated Wikipedia entry? To not include this guy is to lessen the appeal and relevance of Wikipedia. He may not be the fattest or heaviest kid in the world for his age, but it is he that has gained notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.244.134 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete unanimously. Xoloz 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony gancarski[edit]

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

Nonnotable person, fails WP:BIO. Article was nominated for CSD A7, correctly in my opinion, but the admin recommended AFD instead. YechielMan 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete from the article "He has one book, Unfortunate Incidents: Poems and Stories 1996-2000, which sold to practically no one", claim to notability is that, in 2004, he changed from being "opposed" to the Iraq invasion to "for" it. I just don't think that's really what WP:N notability is about. Pete.Hurd 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced, unreferenced non-notable biography, whose claims as to notability aren't verified at all. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 08:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet notability requirements. Lankiveil 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; article is also quite possibly a vanity article. dcandeto 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article on 28 year-old book reviewer created by single use account. Ohconfucius 04:31, 17 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 per consensus PeaceNT 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoaki Saibara[edit]

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

Concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline, article has been tagged since January 2007. No expansion of the article to establish its notability has taken place. Masterpedia 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 05:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this character in Dragon Quest? In Dragonlance? In Dragonbollocks? Which dungeon is he in? Is he a pokemon? Does he run on Playstation? Is he big in Something Awful forums? Are untold thousands of kids and retards fascinated by him? Well, there you are then: zero notability by conventional WP standards. This chap seems moderately notable to me, IFF the claims made for him are verifiable. But are they verifiable? -- Hoary 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. I've expanded and added some sources to the article. Lankiveil 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, though it's a bit thin. -- Hoary 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs to be copyedited so it reads better, but the dude's got one of them thar historical marker thingies with his name on it. I've never heard of him, but I believe the article meets its burden of proof. In fact, I think WP:N should be expanded to include "People with their names on civic, state, or federal historical markers". I think that's a gimme. :) Wysdom 15:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per notability of the historical marker added to the article. Neier 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As above. MightyAtom 03:36, 17 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 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Brkan[edit]

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

Non-notable person fails WP:BIO. Valrith 04:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note that the last sentence is a NPOV violation. YechielMan 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced and unreferenced non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if sources attesting to his fame in Yugoslavia can be located and added to the article. Lankiveil 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. In fact, the part that says "However, he will always be remmembered as great singer, whose appearance, unique voice and evergreen songs made him a true member of Ex-Yugoslav music antology." is misleading; the article says he's a living person, yet that sentence makes it sound like he died. Acalamari 18:39, 16 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 per sourcing and improvements. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Serrell[edit]

Orlando Serrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete for lack of either verification or notability. Doczilla 06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a biographical article that makes no claims as to the notability of its subject, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 08:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I added a source. Acquired savant abilities (as opposed to innate savant abilities) are rather rare, and as such I believe that this makes Serrell notable. Lankiveil 10:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment- is there anyother sources avaliable- I think multiple reliable sources would be beneficial and may infulence more keep agreements? Thunderwing 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being an acquired savant, I think, makes one notable enough--but I do think there should be an article written, or an addition to savant, about acquired savants, so that Orlando and others (like Daniel Tammet [27]) have some context within Wikipedia itself. Anyhow, I think if Orlando's properly sourced (pretty easy) and categorized so that people can find him, he merits a mention. Wysdom 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this brings up a rather glaring deficiency in the current entry for Savant which goes to a disambiguation page (all good so far) that channels Savant Syndrome (the umbrella category for both autistic and acquired savantism (is that even a word?)) into Autistic Savant... BUT (you're all still with me right?) Savant Syndrome should be the main article, comprised of two sub-parts describing the autistic and acquired savant. <.< Let me sleep on this before I volunteer... >.> >.< Wysdom 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone were to write an article about "savant (acquired)" then perhaps Serrell could be cited on that page as an example, but an article specifically about Serrell is not justified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianlucas (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep but unsure. I added two links - one is an episode summary from the TV documentary series "Beautiful Minds", and the episode summary itself mentions this person. So he was on an episode of a TV documentary about savants, which has aired in 20 countries. I also tend to think, if true, being an acquired savant is notable enough, per Wysdom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I removed the OR and unreferenced tags, as all the content is now covered by the sources. Feel free to fact-tag what you feel is still in dispute, however. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:51, 21 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 relevant information into Apple. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional information about the apple[edit]

Nutritional information about the apple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a chart of facts and statistics that are a direct copy/paste from the source. Any relevant nutritional information on the apple should be on the Apple article. Blueaster 06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, informative and well-presented, but not notable enough on its own. Merge some of it into apple and then discard/link to the rest. Lankiveil 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - it'd be nice to have this kind of info on every bit of food on wikipedia, but if there's not a project, it's just taking up space. The relevant info is already on the apple page, adding all the micronutrients found here would make the nutritional info box way too long. --WLU 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information seems suitable enough to merge into Apple. DBZROCKS 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a Wikifood and transwiki. No, I'm kidding, merge relevant inofmation to the main article on apples. Rackabello 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xomment There's probably either a science, nutrition, or foods Wikia now... Blueaster 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any of the more significant facts to apple. -- Whpq 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete this is very in depth information JayKeaton 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And my god, it's such a beautiful list. It's all evenly places, everything has been wikified and linked, it's a work of art!JayKeaton 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copy/paste job of a table from a chemical analysis of an apple. Chemical analyses are done on foods all the time. Blueaster 22:50, 16 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 10:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy (Lindsay Lohan album)[edit]

Ecstasy (Lindsay Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be another hoax article about an upcoming album. I have been unable to find any reference to it online - there is nothing at any of Lohan's official sites and searching Google for various combinations of "Lindsay Lohan", "Ecstasy", "third album", "new album", "album" comes up with nothing relevant. Even the links provided in the article itself mention nothing other than that Lohan is planning a new album at some point. Also, infobox image appears to be user-created from magazine scan or similar (note the attempt at airbrushing out the text at the top right of the image). Kurt Shaped Box 07:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced and unsubstantiated speculation about a future project. The links provided say nothing about the actualities of a future album other than Lohan may record one. Until something official is released on Lohan's offical websites or a press release by her record company this article should be removed as a hoax. (aeropagitica) 08:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, etc etc. Lankiveil 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Could have been speedied, to be honest. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- appears to be a hoax again Thunderwing 12:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 08:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant crystal-ballism, as well as a hoax. Acalamari 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a hoax Lemonflash (talk · contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touched (single)[edit]

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

Appears to be another hoax article, or crystalballery at the very least. No mention of a new single at any of Lohan's official pages and I have been unable to find any mention of a new single entitled "Touched" using Google. See also the AFD for the supposed upcoming LL album, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecstasy (Lindsay Lohan album). Kurt Shaped Box 07:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speculation based on very flimsy evidence. WP:CRYSTAL, etc etc. Lankiveil 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like the article about Lindsay Lohan's upcoming third album, it's blatant crystal-ballism and a hoax. Acalamari 18:42, 16 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 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QXS Philosophy[edit]

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

This is corporate promotion dressed up as a philosophy article. The sources cited are the company's website, two press releases, and a profile of the company founder that says very little about the "philosophy". Prodded by Motorneuron, but the prod was removed. —Celithemis 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a notable "philosophy". Lankiveil 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
WorkACE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm also nominating the company's software product, WorkACE. After Jayvdb tagged this with {{primarysources}}, the creator responded with such citations as a promotional forum post by the same person and a partial reprint of a press release on Collaboration Loop; these do not establish notability. —Celithemis 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unencyclopedic, non-notable WP:CORP, not a philosophical topic. Delete WorkACE too, non-notable software. Also, someone should look into the copyright status of the Image WA Matrix.jpg "QXSystems has full copyright of this image" seems at odd with the public domain claim stated by the uploader. Also, the image Qxs.jpg is "copyrighted and trademarked by the creator (QXSystems)" and yet released into the public domain by the uploader, who claims to be it's creator. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, original research, and complete bollocks. "The whole philosophy is based around the three letter (Q, X and S). The QXS-formula says that the level of success that any person or organization can achieve at any specific moment is set by the level of his/her Q, X and S multiplied by each other." "The holistic flow between the three magic symbols of Q , X and S creates another mathematical magic symbol: ∞ = Infinity." (snicker) - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone's pet project. In this case, A, F and D multiplied by each other the end-result (level of success) will be zero. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - nn company. Possibly speedy delete per A7 (does not assert notability in WP sense).--Ioannes Pragensis 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear All, If articles on various software solutions are present, why not WorkACE ? How can someone say thats it not noteable solution? Its an innovation of its own. I would be more than happy to share the copyright facts with you guys. You are invited to the facilities anytime. Rgds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sushantmadhab (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Acalamari 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and definitely not a "philosophy". Also delete the software product. It is also not notable. Madhava 1947 (talk) 06:34, 19 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 10:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hawkes[edit]

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

youth player. Matthew_hk tc 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers; "...has not made an appearance for either club." Perhaps when he is selected for the A squad of a Premier League team his biography will then start to become notable, but not at this time. (aeropagitica) 08:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable at this time. Lankiveil 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete looks like a hoax anyway. ArtVandelay13 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably a hoax, not made any senior apps anyway. GiantSnowman 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if he has a pro career of significance in the future. Oldelpaso 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite delete. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:26, 19 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. WjBscribe 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hunter (trader)[edit]

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

Subject may be non-notable. Apparently there are sources in the Canadian Financial Post, but these are not currently linked from the article. Procedural nomination from a contested speedy. I have no opinion. — coelacan — 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems to be plenty of material on Google, which would indicate notability. Lankiveil 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep A better search term is <"Brian Hunter" hedge>, but that still gives 33,000 hits, which is more than enough. Put a cleanup tag on and keep it. YechielMan 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the amount of damage makes him notable. GregorB 18:24, 15 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 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double vaginal, double anal[edit]

Double vaginal, double anal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Still doesn't seem notable enough for an article to me. No references to establish any sort of factual accuracy. Daniel Bryant 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See first nomination
  • It's an invalid act but somewhat of a valid term, but it does indeed require much better sources (read: any) if it is to stay. --Golbez 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable to be here. --Masterbobo 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've had drunken conversations about this with my mates, which gives some anecdotal notability. Seems like a notable enough term, if more sources can be found. Lankiveil 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. and Lankiveil. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The act described is physically impossible in the real world, and thus oloks to me like not notable unless it becomes common in fiction. Anthony Appleyard 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Physically impossible in the real world"? I don't think you're watching the right kind of - er - specialist movies. (not work safe!) Still Transwiki & delete as a dicdef. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double Delete Impossible nonnotable sex act, until such time as five legless contortionists in zero G achieve it verifiably. Edison 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DMB - an unusual solution, perhaps, but though there is insufficient material for an encyclopaedic article there are two uses of this abbreviation. TerriersFan 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep -- since there were movies purporting to show it , it is N, though we need good refs. to them. it does not have to be possible in order to be notable: Superman, etc etc . for hundreds of thousands of WP articles. DGG 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's non-notable; and likely to be impossible (as other users said), unless the woman was big and the four men were very small (however, that point does not make the article any more notable). Acalamari 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge into Orgazmo or DVDA_(band); as a single joke, article will never be more than a stub. --LeflymanTalk 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are stupider things that are kept on wikipedia. Besides what do you care, you aren't paying for the bandwidth.--68.192.22.48 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable third party sources exist to support this article. Burntsauce 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the commenters above unless reliable sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we really have to discuss about this? Do not transwiki as it doesn't seem to be a widely used term.— JyriL talk 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Gillyweed 13:51, 19 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 by majority consensus. --Aarktica 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Was a Red[edit]

  • Delete minor text, not notable, does not pass notability for book or play Buridan 09:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Randcruft. Not notable enough as a play or a work of literature. Lankiveil 10:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Properly sourced and informative article about a minor but quirky and revealing work by an outstanding personality. Stammer 10:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary author. First, not sure if anything Rothbard pens can accurately be described as "not notable." Second, covered rather well in a major history book about the libertarian movement, plus a number of columns. Is performed on more than a few occasions. Finally, this was not created as some sort of Randian purpose - I'm not an objectivist, and don't typically edit libertarian/objectivism topics, but simply something noteworthy read in a book. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then it should be merged into that books article? or is that book not notable enough to have an independent article? this content also might be put on mr. rothbard's page. --Buridan 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a completely nonsensical merge to the book. A merge to Rothbard might be appropriate if the subject itself wasn't worthy of treatment, which it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but your argument above is that anything written by rothbard is notable, I don't think that is the case, as most of his works do not have pages, but this minor work does. while i grant rothbard is notable enough to have an article, few if any of his works are notable in regards to wikipedia standards, this one is not notable according to the notability standards Wikipedia:Notability. Currently you have one chapter in a book and that book likely fails the independent criteria. --Buridan 13:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then that means we have a lot of work to catch up on, doesn't it? Actually, this likely would fall under notability for books, which this meets: "The book's author is historically significant enough for his or her works to be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." This just happens to have secondary sources as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, this is not a book, it is and unpublished, one act play. --Buridan 14:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the closest guideline we have in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It fails general notability with non-independent sources. The sources are not establishing notability either. what makes this unpublished play notable? I'd argue the only thing that might is its author, therefore, it alone is not notable, and should be deleted, or merged. --Buridan 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The play is worthy of note in a number of reliable publications, and because of who authored it. You can disagree, that's fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there does seem to be a reliable secondary source. If not kept, it could be merged and/or redirected to Murray Rothbard. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added another source, which can be perused online at [28]. Stammer 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is more what an encyclopedia entry is /supposed/ to look like--there are way too many aspiring Wikibooks masquerading as encyclopedic and they're a nightmare. It's obviously relevant enough to Libertarians and to the subject of Ayn Rand that it's been keep alive by the former and used as a source for commentary on the latter. And the author is well noted. Wysdom 17:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was previously unfamiliar with both the play and its author. However, I skimmed through the article on Rothbard, and he seems to be quite a notable figure. Minor works—even unpublished works—of important people are worth noting. The article is brief and it links to a copy of the play. This article may not draw any major traffic, but it seems notable enough (and well constructed enough) to remain on the site.Fixer1234 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, out-and-out libertariancruft, presumably supported by those who seek to give the pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism more credit and import than it's worth. If Rothbard was even a professional playwriter (which he was not), this unpublished work would be of questionable notability. It would sort of be like having articles on dirty limericks written by Winston Churchill. While the author of this play is notable, the play itself is not. MichelleG 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Verrry Intrresting! I did not know that Winston Churchill wrote dirty limericks, which by analogy I assume exemplify his geopolitical strategy. Can you provide a reference? I would like to write a Wikipedia article about them. Stammer 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was poking around and saw a page which struck me somehow as having a similar condition to this one. Let's see if I can conjure up some logic for my reasoning here. If Objectivism is (more?) to Rand than what Synchronicity was to Jung, then this is (more than?) Rand's Littlewood's law, a tucked away creation by a contemporary from a different profession which as a contribution is of yet a third guild, and yet, somehow, it caught hold and is remembered today. Yet, just like that law, WP has plenty of space for oddities that are notable through the persistence of their memory and their association with notable people. It doesn't matter if Objectivism is nonsense or not, this has almost already passed the 50 years test, and I have a hard time believing that the Rand-ites will disappear in the next 50. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment the difference is that jungs idea and littlewoods law are both notable ideas, this is an unpublished text. it isn't notable, those are. --Buridan 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was stretching a bit, and my comment seems a bit like WP:WAX (those are stricken now, for clarity). I do believe this is notable per others' arguments, and based on what I didn't strike out. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points: (1) This debate is not about the “pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism” or about Ms. Rand, as some writers above have attempted to make it. Let me be clear--I myself am not-at-all a fan of Rand or Objectivism, but any sentiments about the importance or legitimacy of Rand or her philosophy are barely relevant, if at all relevant, to this conversation. (2) Many writers here seem to assume that because something is unpublished or of limited interest, it is automatically non-notable. While this might be somewhat true for paper encyclopedias that need to make decisions based on what they can practically print, Wikipedia is able to include a wider range of information. For instance, it includes information on other unpublished works (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unpublished_novels) and articles that are clearly aimed at a specific community of informed individuals (see Completely distributive lattice which contains mathematical formulas that many people, including myself, could not understand). It also bears mentioning that Wikipedia is full of page after page of minutia about pop culture that would not be interesting (or notable) to non-fans. A topic need not be of wide interest to be notable. (3) If anyone is unconvinced, they might take a look at Love's Labour's Won. This article about Shakespeare's lost play is really able to say little more than the play was lost. The text of Rothbard's play is available and linked to from the article up for AfD. Since the text is available, I can conceive that someone might choose study the play. (*) As I said in my first post, since Rothbard is notable, this work—though unpublished—is also worthy of note. I say again keep Fixer1234 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in what sense is an unpublished play that appears in reference of two books... notable according to wikipedia standards? if it is merely because of the author, then shouldn't it be merged to his page? this guy is not shakespeare.--Buridan 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off I personally wouldn't mind a merge, but the material should stay on Wikipedia in some form. Secondly, in reply to your comments: No, Rothbard is not Shakespeare, but neither are the authors of Bet on the Saint or Per Fine Ounce, but these unpublished novels have Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's “notability standards” are guidelines—they are not set in stone. This play was written by an important figure; it lampoons Ayn Rand, who is quite a notable figure; and it has been the referenced in a number of published text. Though these characteristics don't meet any of the bullet point guidelines for notability, taken together they point to notability. Fixer1234 01:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought Let's define "unpublished" if we're going to keep using it as evidence vs notability? Does a work being unpublished in the sense that no one owns the copyright and or is profiting financially make a work inherently less notable? The play has obviously been read widely enough to be mentioned in more than a few independent (at least one book, a few scholarly essays/articles from just a cursory Google) sources and has been performed on stage. Or do we draw the notability-depleting state of "unpublished" from the fact that it was not published (and, so, presumably little/lesser known?) in the author's lifetime? The first definition of "unpublished" would argue against the notability of works created prior 1440 (The Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, The Divine Comedy, The Bible) and modern works in the public domain (all 1,744,000+ articles on Wikipedia). The second definition would make inherently less notable Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank, and virtually everything ever written by Emily Dickinson. Please note: These aren't arguements FOR the notability of MWaR; rather, they're intended to illustrate that "unpublished" != not notable, de facto. This being the case, I submit that "unpublished" is not valid criteria by which to determine the notability of a creative work; however, the reasons a work was/is unpublished (e.g., it's self-insertion, Mary Sue, Good Charlotte fanfic) may be closer to the heart of why it's not notable. "Unpublished" by itself, however, is a red herring. Cheers! Wysdom 07:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Strong Merge. If it isn't enough for its own page, a merge into Murray Rothbard seems most appropriate. But I think it holds up well enough on its own. Lemonsawdust 02:17, 20 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 consensus was keep --Aarktica 16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schwartz (writer)[edit]

  • delete not notable, fails wpbio, minor author at best, but not encyclopedia worth, perhaps merge into the ari article Buridan 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Randcruft essentially, not really notable outside of objectivist circles, and even then I wonder. Lankiveil 10:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep; Schwartz is Leonard Peikoff's second-in-command and considered likely to succeed Peikoff as pope of objectivism once the latter dies. The article does need better sourcing, though. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found his book Objectivist Epistemology highly influential. "Peter Schwartz objectivist -wikipedia" on google gets 33k hits.--Otheus 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken in thinking he had a hand in editing Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I probably came across his name in trying to discern the differences between the Libertarian movement/party and the Objectivist movement. Otheus 11:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Essential to the founding of the modern Objectivist movement through ARI and his magazine. Central figure in Objectivist movement controversies. Appears on television and radio, has op-eds published in major newspapers. Very notable within Objectivits movement. Endlessmike 888 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Schwartz is am important figure in the ARI, and it is likely that he will be more important in the future. I suggest to add more beff to the article from, for instance, these sources [29][30][31][32][33][34] Randroide 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment the question is not whether you want to keep him, but whether he passes WP:BIO...., he does not and is not by definition notable, being possibly notable in the future when he replaces someone else who is notable because of wp:org is not being notable now, what if there is a change?--Buridan 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Taking the above comments that he's a big shot in Randian circles at face value. Writing a scholarly book and being founding editor of a bluelinked journal doesn't hurt his case either. Herostratus 15:36, 21 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. WjBscribe 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Howard[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, winning some AFI awards as well as producing/directing a few programmes shown nationally makes him notable enough in my view. Lankiveil 10:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as autobiographical, plus I don't think he won the awards, I think the awards wenyt to shows he worked on in some capacity. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The heading says "Directed," but the actual roles according to the article were "location director" which is much less significant. DGG 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as autobiographical. Completely self-promotional. --Evb-wiki 14:46, 16 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 NawlinWiki. MER-C 03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To imagination[edit]

WP:NOT - not a free web host, the author should get a blog. Fredrick day 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Speedy Which? the faults mentioned (OR, essay) are not speedy criteria. DGG 01:33, 16 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. 1netwothree... 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Dion awards and accomplishments[edit]

Celine Dion awards and accomplishments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's fancruft pure and simple, completely unencyclopædic; some of the material might be mentioned in the article on her, but most of it belongs only on a fansite or her cv. In A previous Afd on a page like these, the result was merging the article to the artist's main page. I am also nominating the following related pages which are in the same category:

List of 50 Cent awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ciara awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Johnny Depp's awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jennifer Lopez awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beyoncé Knowles awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alicia Keys' awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George Michael awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As this AfD has been restarted (to allow discussion on the bundled articles), I've informed all those who had already contributed to the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For some reason, some people here are defending the articles against the accusation that they're PoV. That isn't part of the reason for deletion, so is a straw man. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I know that I'm the nominator, but I thought that I should make my position clear. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improvements needed-Noteable enough, the main Celine Dion article is too long to hold all of this infomation.Dalejenkins 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But how much of that information is encyclopædic? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Natural to create sub-articles of a crowded page. Whether it needs improvements is hardly the point here. User:Dimadick
    I don't say that the problem is that it's a sub-article, nor that it needs improvement; I say that it's unecyclopædic list/fancruft. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. This information is indeed more suited to a fansite or the like, having an article on every single award a performer has recieved is going overboard. It is sufficient to have a short list of significant awards on the main article, no reason to fork out an exhaustive list. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject may be notable due to Celine Dion's wide influence, but I think having a huge list like this for one singer is potentially WP:NPOV. Notable information is already covered in Celine Dion anyways, which is a featured article. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything worthwhile into Celine Dion.Ezratrumpet 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete worthwhile information into the appropriate page for each artist, respectively.Ezratrumpet 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, Celinecruft. Lankiveil 10:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- there is too much information to merge into the main article- I don't think it is POV since most of the information is sourceable, the only reason she may have her own page is due to the number of awards she has received. Thunderwing 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, per nom--OR merge into articles. No room? Make room. The celeb bios do NOT have to be biographies. It would probably do all of them good to be trimmed down. A LOT of good. Wysdom 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ahem* Allow me to ammend myself--they DO have to be BIOGRAPHICAL, Wiki living persons, yadda. But not FULL-FLEDGED 300 pg scholarly accounts of a life under the microscope biographies. To be clear. ;) Wysdom 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The accolades that an artist has received is relevant to their biography. Merging would be fine only if the awards are few but the above articles would simply be too long to merge. I don't see how the WP:NOT page alludes to awards. Awards are clearly not as trivial as the things listed on there such as quotations, phonebooks, TV guides etc. Plus, I'm interested to know why the nominator selected the above articles out of all the musicians in the "Lists of awards by musician" category. Also, "it's not encylopedic" is a rather vague argument as said in WP:ATA. Spellcast 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Thunderwing said above, it's not POV if the awards are sourced. For example, literally every award on the 50 Cent and No Doubt award pages are sourced. Spellcast 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not a single one of the actual awards are, on the Celine list. And there's only one source--the artist's "homepage". Not only would someone have to source them all, they'd need to diversify. That's a lot or work--do you really see it happening? I'm just trying to be realistic. Wysdom 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per seems a natural tangent to the parent article. also per 'now we gotta nominate all athletes and their corresponding lists.' the_undertow talk 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't looked at the other ones included, but Celine Dion awards and accomplishments certainly needs cleanup. An artist of her caliber doesn't need awards as minor as the "Yamaha World Popular Song Festival" in a list. A lot of this amounts to fancruft and needs to be removed. Or take a look at the nightmare that is List of awards and achievements for Madonna. There are galleries of single covers throughout. "For its 20th Anniversary, MTV ran a 100 Best Videos Poll..." Stuff like this is unimportant and needs to be purged from these articles if they are kept. ShadowHalo 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if these "awards and accomplishments" are not important enough to be in the biography they are trivial; if they are, put them there. Either way, delete. If the bio gets too long, pare down the list, I would not want to see the bio of Elizabeth II or Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower have every award, honorary degree, magazine cover listed because its trivial. Carlossuarez46 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already voted keep above but I want to make the point that WP:NOT does not allude to award lists. It says "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." So the statement that it violates 'Wikipedia is not a directory' is just false. Also, I'd like to know why the nominator only chose those pages out of all the musicians in the "Lists of awards by musician" category. Spellcast 07:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I cam across them when I was searching on "awards"; these are the only ones that came up in the first ten pages or so. All the others of the same type should be included here too. (I've just looked at Category:Lists of awards by musician; good grief. I'll try adding them all either if I can, but it's a huge job. Does anyone know a quicker way of AfDing such a large number of related articles?) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just add it to the above list? It's not like those who voted delete are going to suddenly change their minds when they see more award lists; although that would be cool if it happened. Spellcast 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that category listing was brought up to AfD once before, see here. The result was speedy keep, which I'd agree with, as commented below. --Ataricodfish 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I'd like to point out that you have edited the List of awards won by Christina Aguilera article (not nominated above) 7 times =). Goes to show that our standards can change overtime. Spellcast 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all; keeping summaries of major accomplishments in originating articles. This material is best suited for fan sites or Wikia, not here. --LeflymanTalk 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could merge it but she has many awards -Lemonflash (talk · contribs)

Delete - who cares? A handful of hardcore fans, maybe. Totally non-notable and unencyclopaedic. As the original poster says, this sort of thing is suitable for a fansite, not Wiki. Gatoclass 12:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- On second thoughts, maybe not. While such articles wouldn't be appropriate in a conventional encyclopedia, Wiki is not paper. "List of awards and accomplishments" seems to be quite a common category for artists on Wiki, and people have obviously put a lot of work into these pages. I suppose they might be of use to researchers. In any case, there's no point in singling this one out in particular for deletion. I think I will have to change my vote ATM to

Weak Keep Gatoclass 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • One isn't singled out; there are eight listed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know but I suspect there are a lot of similar pages, so why just pick on these guys? I really think that the Wiki is not paper guideline should be taken into account. Gatoclass 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just came here from the articles for AfD deletion, and I must insist that the Buffy the Vampire Slayer list is unbundled, if not all of the other ones. Numerous votes have been given on the merits of the Celine Dion article quite aside from all the other ones, and there are some convincing arguments against not throwing out award lists en masse. Further, the Buffy list (and I never watch the show) is reasonably short and restricted to major accomplishments. Keep. --Kizor 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The globetrotter 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I can not speak for the quality of the above articles, but I believe they should be kept. Having written a music related FA and, in fact, created the category of "Lists of awards by musician", I'll try to explain myself. One of the items which disqualifies an article from becoming a Featured Article are having a list feel to the main article itself. When I began work on the Phil Collins article, over half the article was lists (discographies, awards lists, etc.). Awards lists -- at least for major awards -- are necessary and encyclopedic, but large lists distract from the quality of an article. A separate page is beneficial not only to fans, but to music history buffs such as myself who don't want to go searching through many volumes to see how many Grammies and which ones an artist was nominated for. I'm not saying that every page of awards lists are beneficial -- I noticed some mainly contain awards for hottest star, etc. -- but as someone who loves music, I personally feel these lists can offer insight while not distracting the main article for those who aren't concerned. If anything, more such lists should be created to ensure main article quality and interest to awards buffs, not deleted and merged. Also, a Comment, that some of these lists were up for AfD before, and the result was speedy keep.--Ataricodfish 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, because lists of this nature our handy to researchers and they are all of well-known people and shows. --164.107.223.217 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but watch - As long as these pages unburden what are already crowded mainpages then they are fine, but we must ensure that (a) they don't become fancruft by listing (eg) third form school prizes for latin given when the people concerned were twelve years old and (c) that there are enough awards to warrant the page. A1octopus 13:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fancruft material simply must be removed such as coming first in a poll or listing non-notable awards. Although my view is subject to change, I don't think awards like Grammys (supposedly the most prestigious music award) need to removed. Spellcast 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but watch Agree with A1octopus - they help reduce clutter on the artist's page. As long as standards are maintained, the page need not be deleted. Also, as noted right at the top, merging back into the main page would make it massive. xC | ☎ 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of all other singers have their awards articles --Max24 12:37, 21 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 10:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamsha[edit]

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

Neologism. WP:NOT a dictionary, or for publicising neologisms. Mr Stephen 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's too incoherent for a neologism, I'd almost classify this as patent nonsense. No Google references to indicate that this is in widespread usage. Lankiveil 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete agree with Lankiveil. Note that Hussam1987 is vandal-only account. --Bear and Dragon 11:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search found 14500 finds, mostly as a surname, nothing about Arabic. Likeliest a hoax. Anthony Appleyard 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination--Shrike 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unintelligible/Original research. --Infrangible 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible, not original research, but nonsense and hoax.— JyriL talk 23:48, 17 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 10:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efencing[edit]

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

Neologism, google showed a relatively insignificant result, with the first one being a fencing company. The article is also short and unsourced, and has no real basis. The idea also seems like original research. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a definite sense of neologismism pervades this article. Oh yeah, it seems to be WP:OR too. Lankiveil 10:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Google search for efencing -wikipedia just now got 1340 entries, all or mostly about the crime, not garden fences etc. Anthony Appleyard 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like this term will gain some credence in the future, but not yet. Article seems to have been created to get someones website on wiki... could be wrong though. The globetrotter 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A real topic but not important enough to warrant a page. Added section on Fence (criminal), should cover it. MDSNYDER 18:22, 18 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 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Sheehan[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the Creative professionals criteria in WP:BIO. The Fodder for a Small Fireplace stories are some short stories on a website (follow the official website link on the page). His novel The Newest American doesn't show up on the web anywhere, so doesn't appear to me to have been published yet. Jll 11:30, 15 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. "Merge" is an editorial decision that is a variant of "keep", and I will leave it to interested editors to work out more of a consensus as to keep a standalone or merge into Linux, but consensus to keep in one form or another is clear. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Linux[edit]

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

The page is inherently biased and is mostly sourced to Microsoft, a biased source in this area. What little useful information should be merged into the Linux article, but not as a section. See things to avoid and Wikipedia:Criticism for arguments against this form of article. Localzuk(talk) 11:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Linux- agree it is POV to have a criticism article mostly sourced to a competitors website. Thunderwing 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how we can have Criticism of Microsoft and not this... both would have to be inherently biased. --W.marsh 13:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think the article is biased – each criticism is balanced with a response. It is a worthy subject for an article, as is Criticism of Windows XP. Jll 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see any horrendous bias problems in the article that warrant deletion. MichelleG 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wow, Linux looks like it's owned by Linux fans... any criticism is apparently quickly removed. --W.marsh 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bias is based on whether an article is one sided or not. Having an article entirely based on criticism makes that into a bias. If information can be well sourced then it should be included in the Linux article, if not then it has no place on this site. Also, how can you say that this is not biased? Most of its sources are Microsoft! I also think we should be rid of the Criticism of Microsoft article, but calling for that to be deleted would have a snowballs chance. Localzuk(talk) 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Criticism of ..." articles are not encyclopedic and magnet of trolling, fanboism, not-sourced info, and POV. -- AdrianTM 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the criticism has to be of encyclopedic amplitude, I don't think this qualify, for Windows which is used in 90% of computer a widespread criticism can be considered of encyclopedic nature, but for an OS that's used by less than 3% of people I don't think its criticism is of encyclopedic nature, it's just a marginal issue... -- AdrianTM 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It still feels like propaganda. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to keep. Looks better now - it simply analyzes the criticism. Much better. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I'm generally pro-Linux and I don't see this as especially biased. There is much room for improvement in the LInux desktops, so a little criticism is warranted. References 4-9 are from the Microsoft perspective, but then the single section they are referencing is specific about that. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all "Criticism of..." articles back into their main articles; left on their own, they are likely to become POV forks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't believe that the removal of factual information is warranted due to baseless POV concerns, so far I have not seen any evidence (other then claims) that the article contains any at all. (Disclaimer: I have contributed significantly to this article.) — H.7004.Vx (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update. I don't object to a merger, provided that the article retains its own section and that a significant amount of the material remains. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to neutral. Localzuk and AdrianTM, I have good news for you. After the excellent release of Ubuntu 6.10, I am extremely disappointed with today's 7.04 release, so much so in fact that I don't even want to contribute to any article related to Linux anymore. Thus as of now I will be completely indifferent in regards to which direction this article goes. Congratulations in regard to your victories on this subject. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after reading Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history). --SLi 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that it's our fault, but a merge vote is basically a delete vote here, as the editors of Linux will not allow a criticism section in that article (see its talk page). --W.marsh 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, that's a separate (and in my opinion very real) issue that needs to be dealt with separately. It cannot be a rationale for doing things for one article that there are disputes on how another article needs to be written. --SLi 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Please note that I have removed content that some claimed to be unverifiable and added new material with citations from news organizations such as CNN and ZDNet. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed quite a few of these new sources due to them being from between 3 and 9 years old. Sorry but Linux changes so rapidly, an article a year old is out of date let alone a 9 year old one!-Localzuk(talk) 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...And I have added them back. If Linux "changed so much" over the past years (you haven't proved this, by the way) then why are many of the citations on the main Linux article "between 3 and 9 years old" as well? — H.7004.Vx (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...And I removed them again, no need to use obsolete info. Also removed complains about GNOME, GNOME is a Desktop environment that can be used in other OSes is not specific to Linux and in Linux there are many other choices therefore criticism against GNOME is not criticism against Linux by any measure. -- AdrianTM 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I vehemently disagree that the structure in this article implies a point of view. "Israeli terrorism" (see words to avoid/article structure) is of course not suitable as an article title because it implies that something disputed occurred. This is what that guideline is for. Criticism on the other hand, does not imply anything, except that criticism of Linux exists, which is a fact. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment W. Marsh is right - there is some serious article ownership going on over at Linux. But the answer isn't a criticism POV fork... the answer is fighting to ensure a balanced main article, taking the owners to dispute resolution if needed. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you substantiate your claim? All I have seen is a series of poorly sourced edits criticising Linux being given undue weight and them being removed. I have yet to see a valid criticism be added by someone. However, if I am wrong, please show me.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When Microsoft – the world's largest IT company – criticizes Linux, that's notable. Obviously their criticisms ought to be taken with a grain of salt, since they are a competitor (and no doubt there are sources pointing this fact out). But such prominent criticism should be mentioned. Virtually every article on a subject as notable as Linux has a "criticism of" section. Here, it had to be improperly forked due to article ownership. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like you to substantiate some claims of your own, including how such a short article has given "undue weight". — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say that this is a subject area which requires minimal coverage, within the main article itself. Giving it an article on its own - with such poor sourcing is giving it undue weight. It is like saying that the criticism is of as much importance as the artile itself.-Localzuk(talk) 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless more attribution/reference was put in. While on the surface it seems that it is balanced, many of the critism is originate from Microsoft. If you condensed all of those into Microsoft, then there is only 1 article on ZDNet, one refute from GNU foundation, and one critized on linux by microsoft. Thus, it fails WP:ATT. However, there must be plenty other attribution, but until then it definitley violates WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep since well, the criticism of almost any large subject is somewhat notable, and in this case is clearly valid enough as an encyclopedic subject. If nothing else, the numerous news articles I've seen either containing the criticism or refuting it are more than enough for me to say it's notable. [35],[36],[37] The concerns expressed in the nomination are content disputes, or essays that have not attracted widespread support. I also note the current good article, Criticism of Wal-Mart, which was nominated for deletion back in September. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then put those URL in! My only complain is not enough Attribution from multiple sources, that's all. Geez, do I have to do this myself?! Personally speaking, I do not think any article should be deleted if it has enough attribution. If you have references, from multiple source, put it in yourself—don't expect a Wikignome to know every single reference out there.George Leung 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I might have, except it looked like a bit of an edit war was occurring above, and I didn't want to cloud the issue further. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above.I seem to remember reading about some kind of fork.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge: A writer above brings up a good point when he says, “criticism of almost any large subject is somewhat notable.” The problem here is that the article is not very strong right now. Unlike the articles on Microsoft and Walmart that were mentioned by others (both of which have over 100 sources) this article is brief and poorly sourced. (The Microsoft and Walmart articles, on the other hand, are well sourced and detailed.) A refined of this text should find a home in the Linux article until it grows up enough to be out on its own. I'm a Linux user myself (I'm typing in it right now) and I see no problem with this information being merged. Fixer1234 08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem is that any criticism will be removed from Linux due to article ownership by Linux advocates, so it will have no real chance to grow into something well-sourced and comprehensive. I realize that makes it sound like this is a POV fork, but it's really a NPOV fork. --W.marsh 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That said, this criticism article has improved and I will try to merge some content over later. I suspect I'll get reverted obviously, but we'll see. --W.marsh 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try to merge in sections where the criticism belongs, not in a separate category. -- AdrianTM 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many articles have criticism sections... just because a few editors of Linux don't want one doesn't mean it can't have one. --W.marsh 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The fact that many articles are bad is not an argument for criticism sections. -- AdrianTM 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that it's in many articles (including featured articles) is an argument that you're not correct in saying it's bad in the first place. --W.marsh 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have previously stated that separate criticism sections are are "POV and troll attracting" (see Talk:Linux#Criticisms). I don't believe this should be of concern, and I certainly don't believe that this makes an article "bad". As I've said before, if a vandal attempts to troll, his or her edits will be reverted. This applies to any article. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think this article (section) is the best example, it tried to pass forum posts as "reliable source" anyone can check Talk:Linux and my fight against this people who promote forums as sources for an encyclopedia... I'm also not sure how Microsoft could be considered reliable source either... but I'll let that slide for now. -- AdrianTM 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is no longer an issue. I have removed the forum citations. Edit: Actually, Localzuk did, but I have also removed the information cited from the forums entirely. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm posting from an Ubuntu machine right now, and I have to say that I don't see any big problems with this article. Keep it, and it will grow into a beautiful, reference-bearing flower. Lankiveil 13:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
                • Comment as to Microsoft as a source. It's not whether they are reliable or not, in the sense of the truth to whatever they may say, but whether or not they can be sourced as what they are saying. If whatever they are saying is disputed by other reliable sources, then that should itself be part of the criticism. To put it another way, Gimble's can say Macy's is a horrible store. If the New York Times reported that, then the inclusion of such would be valid, as would the hypothetical response of saying it's just sour grapes. FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I agree with this as long it is sourced from some reliable source not from Microsoft ads/"research" is fine by me. -- AdrianTM 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep

1) the argument to delete it because it's a certain TYPE of article is bogus. One would have to delete all such articles. Of which there are many 2) I'm an ubuntu user, I love linux, I started this article 3) There is a "criticism of" article for every Windows release, and Microsoft product. we need this kind of thing to maintain the overall neutrality of wikipedia as a whole. 4) instead of deleting articles, try putting your energy into how to improve them.  :-) Hendrixski 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is why I think all 'criticism of' articles should be deleted and the information put within the subject articles and those split out according to their large sections. Why should the positive and negative information about a subject be split? It makes no sense. Also, your argument #4 is silly to be blunt. In my opinion, criticism articles can't be improved as they will always be biased and NPOV.-Localzuk(talk) 15:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree. If you saw a section entitled "Negative reactions to the Vietnam War" in a history textbook, would you object to that as well? — H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it depends on what the purpose of that history textbook was. Most books like that don't pretend to be unbiased whereas we (wikipedia) are supposed to be striving for a NPOV. That is the difference between most sources and this site.-Localzuk(talk) 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You give this example with Vietnam because you (or people in general) are comfortable with that opinion, personally I don't think we should have a "Criticism of McDonalds" section or page where we quote Wendy's or Burger King ads or "research". -- AdrianTM 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just for your information, here are four featured articles I could find quite easily with criticism sections (there are most likely others as well):
Anarcho-capitalism#Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism
Tony Blair#Criticism
Microsoft#Criticism
Windows XP#Common criticisms
— H.7004.Vx (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me guess, they don't use blog and forum posts as sources, right? -- AdrianTM 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Like I said before, this is no longer an issue. I have removed all information cited from the threads and will not cite threads again. Let's keep the discussion focused on relevant topics. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it looks like a valid subject and is handled in an encyclopedic context. Yamaguchi先生 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Clearly a valid topic, and with good clean up, quite an extensive one also. --Jimmi Hugh 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those who vote to keep here. Do you disagree with Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article of Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history)? To me the wording seems quite clearly opposed to exactly this kind of articles. --SLi 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I didn't vote, I shared my thoughts, and no, I don't agree with that essay. And note, it's just an essay, which represents some people's thoughts on a subject. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true. I thought I was referring to a guideline. Thanks for pointing that out :) --SLi 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AdrianTM, an owner of the Linux article, is censoring references to the Microsoft studies on Criticism of Linux. 74.15.52.3 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't refer to people as 'owners' without substantial evidence. I support the removal of information sourced directly to Microsoft as they are not a reliable source of info on the subject of Linux - in the same way that Communist Russia wouldn't have been a reliable direct source with regards to the USA - both have something major to gain from providing information that is detrimental to the opposition. However, if a secondary/tertiary source can be provided which analyses the MS sources and are themselves a reliable source then I would be happy for the information to be included.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 Droenz[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; does not meet WP:BAND requirements.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  11:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

played on rock radio locally. Alienbabyboy 12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)alienbabyboy[reply]

hey, blue cool deleted my comment earlier so i deleted this. don't delete mine if you want to be fair.Alienbabyboy 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I originally PROD'd this article. Currently no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC guideline. JRHorse 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete talked to him and said he may find more sources. Scepterhelder 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: user has not edited any other page except for this one, as confirmed here Acalamari 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete pretty sure they can meet the standards. just not enough info at the moment205.241.9.3 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete 202.128.25.222 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)— 202.128.25.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete this article on grounds of zero notabilty as per WP:Music. If they were a properly signed band, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere in their management would have avoided the inevitable lawsuit by telling them that the name T-Rex is already copyrighted! I'm surprised renowned critic Beanie didn't spot this. A1octopus 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rodney Roque, a musician of this band has been reposted despite being previously CSD'd (following an AfD) so I've CSD-G4 tagged it. A1octopus 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment T-Rex is a given nickname. Therefore, lawsuit can't be filed against the individual. Alienbabyboy 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be if he used that name commercially in the music business. If you're saying the band hasn't reached this stage yet then you're arguing for the deletion of your own article. A1octopus 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the band just saw this page a few minutes ago and they want it to be deleted. their reasons were that they don't feel like they deserve this acknowledgement and even if they did deserve it, they wouldn't want this because they didn't put together this band to be famous. they just wanted to send out good message... so you win. Alienbabyboy 11:10, 18 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prizm Project[edit]

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

Non-notable charity, somewhat betrayed by their extremely weak google presence. Third party sources are trivial. Contested prod. MER-C 11:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Doesn't exactly fail anything. I'm going to have to say cleanup, however. I'm going to have to ask, however, that other users disregard the google presence, as WP:GHITS is a violation of concensus and doesn't prove anything. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a proof of non-notablity, it is an indicator. For a notable organisation, I'd be expecting more. MER-C 12:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still a violation of WP:GHITS, and the number of hits doesn't mean anything, as the issue has to be resolved without ghits. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having well-attended retreats across two continents, as well as partnerships and ongoing charity work makes this organisation notable enough to my mind. Lankiveil 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, I suspect that many of the sources that would exist if this were a charity in the West do not exist because of the nature of the places where this organisation does most of its work. In this case, the lack of a Google presence does not indicate non-notability. MichelleG 13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Very thin sourcing. If they are notable, one would expect published 3rd party commentary on the impact of their work. Holding meetings, having partnerships and being charitable do not establish notability. EdJohnston 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Work in Africa probably explains Google hits. It's work across several countries establishes enough notability to keep. Davewild 18:02, 15 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Monk[edit]

Richard Monk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some high government official, obviously making himself sound good. Fails WP:BIO. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is stuff for website of his employer. Pavel Vozenilek 12:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this text dump as unusable for Wikipedia, but without prejudice against recreation of the article as this guy might actually be notable [38] (yes I know some results aren't him, but many are) --W.marsh 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As head of the United Nations police in Kosovo, almost certainly notable. I added some references. --Eastmain 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. His career is far less impressive than the creator-subject makes himself sound ("Commander" in the MPS isn't the big boss but a midranking post, fifth of the 11 ranks), but the UN stuff could potentially be notable. Those references aren't valid, though; one's a straightforward personnel-department announcement that he's taken up a new job, and the other's an article on something that happened in Bosnia after he left which happens to include a quote from him. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure the UK roles are important, but the international ones are. DGG 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other deletes. Acalamari 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as resume and COI conflict. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Where do you get that from? I agree it should be a weak delete for other reasons, but an autobio isn't even a reason for deletion, let alone for a speedy, so long as it satisfies WP:N & NPOV - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:17, 21 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 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puma Swede[edit]

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

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not familiar with this subject (God doesn't approve), but reading the article I'm not convinced that she's notable beyond the standard for her profession. YechielMan 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only five movies and I've never heard of any of them. Does anyone else get the impression that they're running out of porn names? "Puma Swede" sounds like a breed of poodle. I suspect that photo's a copyvio, too. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. On one hand, I knew that she had appeared in SCORE stuff and BangBros, plus Brazzers and a few others. unfortunately, I would have to say that, as she is mainly of North American MILF porn market—which can definitley use WP:PORNBIO— I would say that she's a bit player. George Leung 23:36, 15 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 to McDermott. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mcdermotts[edit]

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

The article was proposed for speedy deletion as non-notable but this was removed. It seems the main editor is copying the text from a book, which was admitted on the articles disscusion page: Im reading a book about the family, and do beleive they played a big part in irish history, please hold on, im not a fast typer, and im picking out the most needed information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eire Family Corp. (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also belive there is little verifiable content (I have done some research), and this seems to be more a family genealogy page - where someone is writing about the history of their own family with all the family myths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamatisk (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion under WP:V.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  12:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a logical contradiction to assert that the article is unverifiable and to assert that the article is based upon a book in the same breath. If the article is based upon a published book on the subject, then it is verifiable. If the article is unverifiable, then it is false to state that the author is taking the information from a book. The two cannot both be true. Uncle G 13:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator has said that the artcile is from a book (for which he gives no referance) but I can find no referance online or in the British Library catalogue of any book or article on the family. Tamatisk 13:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work on attempting to find sources. That's what we want more of. Uncle G 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thus it is unverifiable, which would be my reason to endorse deletion of the article. But I think I said that.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you didn't say anything like that. You wrote 3 words and a link. I've had to prod you into actually writing down some of the reasoning leading up to those three words. But you still haven't supplied it all. Did you actually look in the British Library, too? If not, where did you look for sources? Uncle G 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And your evidence for accusing me of expressing an opinion without research would be...?   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have the burden of proof backwards. There is no justification for assuming that you did anything, in the absence of your saying anything at all about what you did. If I were to state that you did the research, that would need proof. In contrast, a statement that you wrote 3 words and a link (which is what I actually wrote, notice — not anything else) needs no more proof than this diff. I see that you haven't answered either of the questions, or supplied the rest of what your reasoning was. Once again: Where did you look for sources? Uncle G 10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. i can't find anything that verifies the differences between the Mcdérímotts mentioned here, and other instances of the surname. this would need better sourcing. i see an assertion of notability with the tie in to a book, but how? as it stands, it seems more appropriate for a genealogy site. the_undertow talk 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There are notable McDermott's and articles about them individually would be appropriate. So might one on the family, but this one isn't much of a start. I don't think it can be done as a summary of one particular book. the only book I can indentify on the family as a whole is: "The Kennedys-MacDiarmids, McDermids-Munros, and other Glengarry-Stormont pioneers / by R.B. (Bob) Campbell and Douglas McDermid. Belleville, Ont. : Mika, 1986. but this will be a genealogy about their role in Canada. DGG 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per DGG. The McDermotts/MacDiarmuids were a prominent Connacht family, but this ain't the article that should be here about them. MacDermot already has a reasonable start on that article, though - this title isn't even a particularly promising redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into McDermott, the info can serve as disambig, and makes more sense where people can source it from a greater, less-biased interest base. Chris 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and redirect per Grutness sounds quite reasonable. The author of this article under AfD can then contribute to that article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:44, 21 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 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolo Tomassi[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, Google seems to provide only Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and incidental coverage for this band. MichelleG 13:09, 15 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 per consensus. Good sources added. PeaceNT 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar (band)[edit]

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

No clear assertion of notability; does not meet WP:BAND requirements.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added reference to an article about a live show. The entry now meets WP:BAND requirements. --Lotta Lindgard 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor/contributor is a new Wikipedian and needs some time to bring the article up to speed, but I just checked on the notability thing and I think they may be notable enough: Google "Cougar" +skogen (drummer's last name) and you'll find they've got a couple thousand mentions out there. Far more to the WP:BAND point, though, Skogen is in another band called "Youngblood Brass Band" which has toured internationally and signed a contract with Warner Bros. WP:BAND allows for notability to be inherited from a group member who has "more notable" ties. Just my $0.02 :) Wysdom 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per references added by Lotta. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They toured on national and international tours. Royalbroil 01:14, 16 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 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (heroclix)[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic list of stuff; violates WP:NOT; Delete --Mhking 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a gamer, I thought that maybe there was enough material out there to write a good article about this, but I just couldn't find anything. Every Heroclix set has a list like this, too.Chunky Rice 04:36, 17 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Mainwaring[edit]

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

The subject of this page is a character never seen on the show (Dad's Army) and who exists only through the character of her husband (who, incidentally, has more written about him in this article than she does), and is of minor importance to the plot; hence is not notable. The article is not sourced in any way (and so fails WP:V). It is also, essentially, a plot summary (which is against WP:NOT), and also contains some editorial opinion which probably violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). I have mooted the topic of deletion before (see Talk:Elizabeth Mainwaring) where I got little response, but I'm quite sure of my convictions and have decided to go ahead with this. John24601 14:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a well-written, informative article which, unless I'm missing something has quite a few references, so easily passes WP:A. As for notability, if you have seen the programme, she is quite important in explaining much of Mainwaring's character development, despite being unseen. If the article is to be deleted, please make sure before deletion that its content is merged with the Captain Mainwaring article. Bob talk 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that she's important as far as Captain Mainwaring goes, but she's not important in her own right: for that reason I'm happy for her to be mentioned at length in Captain Mainwaring, as she infact is, but she does not deserve her own article. I mis-typed above, I meant "not sourced in any meaningful way": most of the (few) sources are to episodes and other in-universe material, there is no external referencing (say, to a review of the show), and many of the claims are not referenced at all: whilst you and I know they're true, a reader has no way of verifying this; and because third party sources are so scarce on this character, there's no way they ever will. --John24601 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the original research aspect - it's frustrating when you know something, and you know everybody else knows it as well, and yet it's never written down anywhere. Perhaps it would be better to integrate some of the content from this into the Mainwaring article, with a separate 'relationships' section similar to the Maurice Yeatman article. Bob talk 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although no-one ever saw her she was referenced enough to be considered a character in her own right. Personally, I think we need a similar article on Er Indoors as well if anyone feels the urge. If you'll forgive a torrent of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, no-one would think of nominating Maris Crane, Bob Sacamano or Ugly Naked Guy, who contributed far less to their respective plots. I don't get the WP:OR argument in this case at all — there's no more OR involved in citing a script than there is in providing the plot summary to a book. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The OR argument isn't really central to my case here, it's just an add-on, another problem with the article. You're quite right that there is no OR in citing the script, but there is in interpreting it, e.g. That Mainwaring was starved of affection was well illustrated when, having established a women’s section of the platoon, his took a fancy to one of his new recruits, the elegant Mrs Fiona Grey (Carmen Silvera), with whom, out of character it seemed, he embarked upon a platonic affair - that is a referenced comment, but the reference only applies to the fact (Mainwaring had a platonic affair), not to the opinion that Mainwaring was starved of affection (which is not explicitly stated: the person writing that has drawn an inference from the screenplay, and hence has created original analysis, or research. I, like you, agree with the writer's interpretation, but that does not mean we are right and others may have entirely different interpretations). Do you see what I'm getting at? --John24601 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hunch, but probably someone somewhere (possibly even Croft & Perry) will have written some kind of analysis that can be cited. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Captain Mainwaring. There was no actress credited with playing the role unlike say Mrs Pyke. People searching for information would be best served if it was included in the main article. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 16 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 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headsets.com[edit]

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

violates WP:SPAM;

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Looking Glass (Lost)[edit]

Through the Looking Glass (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only sourced element is the writers of the episode Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of the episode pages linked to in Category:Lost (TV series) episodes are a fair length. This question seems to want to expand to: "Keep them all, or delete them all?" Anthony Appleyard 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rampant Lostcruft. It has a trivia section? Wrong. It is a trivia section. Take it to LostWiki. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete but advise creator to userify first, given that it will be (legitimately) re-created as soon as the programme airs. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me ask something: what is the point of deleting this article if everyone acknowledges it will soon be re-created, and rightfully so? We know the episode is going to air, and several sources have confirmed its title and centric character. What is inherently wrong with this article? Shikino 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Shikino, this article will be recreated in a month, it's not like we can delete and salt the earth. This page will exist, maybe the editor's time is not going to be available then and they have created it a couple of weeks early so they will save time in the future. If the AFD is successful then the victory will be short. Why not AFD the previous three episodes. If the AFD is successful then the nominator should recreate it when the episode airs. On a separate point, editors use their free time to edit and one has created a page a few weeks early for an event that is inevitable then why punish them with an AFD for being bold. Darrenhusted 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Policy. SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, no point to deletion to be recreated.. {{trivia}} should also be added (which I'll do). Matthew 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. I'm not sure if the nominator is trying to set another precedent re: not allowing the writers of the episode to be the sources, however I do believe WP:SOURCE (or one of those related policies) does actually allow this. In any event, this is an article based upon an episode of a notable TV series for which other episode articles exist. The "policy" quoted by SergeantBolt makes no prohibition on creating articles on upcoming episodes. 23skidoo 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a waste of time and effort with this nomination given that the episode will air in only a month and will most likely be recreated in half that time with more information. It is also notable in that it is the season finale. I agree with 23skidoo there is no policy prohibiting this article's creation. Additionally, this so called "policy" mentioned by SergeantBolt is not even a policy. It's a guideline by a Wikiproject and even that does not support what he advocates. K1Bond007 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the other keeps. Acalamari 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles will be re-created soon enough anyway, so you'll only be wasting time in deleting it. Manipe 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

    — Wikipedia:Attribution
    Whether or not the episode airs in a month's time isn't the point. The point is, nothing in that article is sourced apart from who is writing the episode. The air date isn't confirmed, the title isn't confirmed. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The air date is confirmed. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I was being a bit over the top. This is barring any accidents causing ABC to reschedule (as BBC almost had to shift Doctor Who back a week for the football. It's unlikely, but something could happen). Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's frustrating that this even needs discussing. The episode will be broadcast, American network television is nothing like the BBC. Politicalwatchmen 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are defiantely going to broadcast it88.111.204.41 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Season finales of major television series should be notable enough for inclusion, but please please remove any original research and synthesized material not obtained from published third party sources. Burntsauce 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: No official confirmation - speculation. - SilvaStorm
  • Delete but with no objection to recreation when sourced info is available At this point, there isn't even a source for the episode title - if it stays it needs a big CITIATION NEEDED on the article title. --Minderbinder 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - if the episode is going to air in a month. I also think it's worth pointing out that the article was only created April 14 and was nominated for AfD 21 hours later. Was it tagged "unreferenced" first? It's quite obviously a stub, why the rush? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:38, 21 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Live and Die in these Towns[edit]

We'll Live and Die in these Towns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As a future album of a the band The Enemy (unknown notability per WP:MUSIC) it looks like any eventual reliable secondary sources will be absent for quite some time, and this article should fall under WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Ødipussic 15:12, 15 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, there was a large variety of suggested decisions that I cannot find one which everyone agrees with. Cbrown1023 talk 14:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer types[edit]

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

Canonical original research, unencyclopaedic tone. Is it worth a redirect, if so where to? Guy (Help!) 15:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well intentioned article and probably an important concept to explain to readers, this is Computer Science 101. I think the Computer article does this, but could be made a bit more accessible to people who are very new to the topic. I think this current article could be useful to specifically explain the types of computers... but the current incarnation has a lot of problems obviously. --W.marsh 16:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is of dubious quality, but is in no way an essay. It neither advocates a position, or makes an argument for any particular cause. It might have some unreferenced and POV statements in it, but those don't make an article an essay. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not a POV essay, but...well, The globetrotter (comment below) explains it better, but gets the idea across that I was trying to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's just that this article as done is the work of someone who is perhaps, unfamiliar with writing an article. That's a problem, but one that can be fixed with a cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Computer. People will likely search in this title, and It is by no means WP:OR or essay. George Leung 23:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "i shall now explain all of these computer types one by one"... was this a school project? It seems as if the material is already included in other pages anyway... The globetrotter 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up. I found no other article that actually explained the distinctions well and was in a position to give an outiside view of the computers many forms. Perhaps if cleaned up and linked to the computer/history of computing hardware articles it would be useful. Otherwise Delete, cleary an original piece of work. --Jimmi Hugh 15:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - this is potentially a good article. It should either be cleaned up, kept and expanded or merged with computer. Articles of this kind serve a useful purpose in directing readers to appropriate detailed articles. Peterkingiron 13:14, 22 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 per WP:CSD#G7 by Enochlau. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erkan Umut[edit]

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

Not an A7 speedy because the subject has helpfully bolded the supposed claim to notability. Sorry, did I say subject? I meant author. Or are they in facte separate? Maybe not, looking at it. Unsourced, WP:COI, promotional in tone. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 15 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. Herostratus 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PanelWhiz[edit]

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

Some resistance to speedy deletion, but equally there is no claim to notability and no evidence of independent coverage. So: a spammy article on a charityware software product. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless evidence can be found that this is more important than any other statistical-analysis software. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I lack sufficient expertise to judge this article but for future reference, the notability guideline in question is WP:SOFTWARE i kan reed 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This software tool (which I've used) will not meet WP's criteria of demonstrated notability and independent coverage. It probably never will. In this case, however, I'd argue for WP:IAR. For new economics researchers this software will save them months of work coming to grips with the complexity of the world's largest panel surveys, where many thousands of variables are stored in hundred of files. Choosing the right variables in the right files and making CPI adjustments and ensuring that variations in question administration have been fixed and setting up the panel data in a long longitudinal file and applying the appropriate population weight is not straightforward. So this is a niche piece of software which would only interest economists and social scientists working on one or more of the world's largest panel surveys (German, British, USA, Canadian and Australian). Keeping this page does not decrement Wikipedia's quality. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 09:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite failing policy and never likely to meet it? Cute :-) Guy (Help!) 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Working with panel datasets is usualy very complex. For example the GSOEP survey is running now for 23 waves and includes more than 30000 variables. PanelWhiz offers features to build items of corresponding variables over the years. This a large assistance for researchers. But the ambitious effort/idea of PanelWhiz is to integrate several importent panel studies. So it can help to make research questions and results internationaly comparable. That is why PanelWhiz is more important than any other statistical-analysis software. Isieber
  • Delete This isn't a case for WP:IAR. If the darned software is so useful, then surely it will get independent media coverage and we can start an article when that happens. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite more calls for deletion, please reconsider Dear Fellow Editors, there have been several suggestions that it is "just another stats package". please be aware that there is nothing with similar functionality in the world. it is unique. it's main function is to provide a user firendly standardized platform for data extraction from very complicated household paneldata sets. it enhances the command set of Stata with several hundreds of new commands (indeed with plugins, this is more like several 1000s of new commands). these are simply the facts. Sincerely, John Haisken-DeNew 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sincerely, DeNew 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link to German panel data provider SOEP: [SOEP News] See second entry.

Sincerely, DeNew 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if this is a notable product you can direct us to some multiple non-trivial independant sources? I don't see them in the article so delete until provided. Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to all involved. Unfortunate that PanelWhiz could not be included. Best wishes to all. Cheers, John Haisken-DeNew 07:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being, thus far, insufficiently notable. Article can be recreated if and when subject recieves non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I throw suspicion even to the links provided by DeNew. Both refer to a Dr John Haisken-DeNew which is User:DeNew The links seem to be directly impacted by your personal effort for publication on the product, rather than independent coverage. While I cannot deny that there is a definite possiblity that this is a worthwhile and useful program, verifiability isn't established. In fact, the program only works for two data sets: The German SOEP from 1984-2005 and the Australian HILDA from 2001-2004.[39], which happen to be the the source of the two links DeNew has provided. Kevin_b_er 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment before I sign off: I'm not sure if "suspicion" is the right word here. just to clarify, the program now works with 6 data sets. three more are being prepared now. the three american data sets that PanelWhiz additionally supports, CPS-NBER, CPS-CEPR and SIPP have yet to be added to the contract but they are there. they are new. i simply have to update the contract. i haven't done that yet unfortunately. one addiitonal german data set is ready and will be announced by the data provider within days, i expect. Like I said, three further data sets are under development here. I can and do understand your issues with the entry and can and do understand that you would like / will delete it. However, please do understand, it was added "with the best of intentions", which is what we are all supposed to be assuming here. i just started in Wiki, with something i knew a lot about. it was not an exercise in self-agrandisement. it was a genuine attempt to help people. i understand your issues and i know/accept that you will delete the PanelWhiz entry. I thank you all for your time and wish you luck on your Wiki project. cheers, Dr. John P. Haisken-DeNew 08:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (User DeNew)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mean information[edit]

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

A strange personal essay. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Meandering nonsense. I know something about probability as a result of my work. Anthony Appleyard 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's improved very soon.. I do realise Gregor Kjellström knows more about the subject than I do, but (especially in light of this article's sister page at Gaussian adaptation) this in its present form looks like one mathematician's pet project to rewrite the rules of information theory. While IMO this isn't in itself grounds for deletion, there's no evidence at present that anyone other than Kjellström takes it seriously. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When other people start to take it seriously, and produce independent reports on the subject, we can have an article. This may be a good or even brilliant topic, but we have WP:OR and WP:COI. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first sentence, that the article is meant to give "alternate views" raises POV converns. Additionally, it make no claim of notability that I can see. --EMS | Talk 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you read through an entire article and the only thing you get form it is, "Huh?" then you have problems. I think "pop-scientific" may translate into "original research," too. Realkyhick 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wouldn't it be appropriate to inform the author that his article has been nominated for deletion? While he appears to be taking a wikibreak here, he is embroiled in a discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia on Social Darwinism.[40]  --LambiamTalk 05:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't User:Kjells's perspective already included in the article on Information entropy, when in its lead it says "Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content the recipient is missing when they do not know the value of the random variable" ? I would like to hear from User:Kjells as to why he was moved to create a separate article. Jheald 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author is citing his own work on a non-notable topic, probably for self-promotion. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:43, 16 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 by consensus. --Aarktica 17:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic 105 (Northern Ireland)[edit]

Unsourced article on a radio station apparently written by one of its presenters, helpfully namechecked in the article. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but needs a bit of a cleanup & sourcing; despite the crappy website this isn't a blokes-in-a-shed operation but part of EMAP, and I think it's NI's biggest commercial station - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Errr, I don't think it is part of EMAP. Just going by what's in the article, especially where it says that they are broadcasting from Monaghan, the station is technically a Republic of Ireland station and it definitely isn't licensed by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, the Irish equivalent of Ofcom or the FCC, so that would put its status as (searching for a polite term) other-than-legal. To be fair, that in itself doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't meet notablity requirements, as a lot of pirate stations do. From what I gather from other sources, such as this, the station did apply for a licence to broadcast in Northern Ireland from Ofcom, but didn't get one.Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mea culpa - EMAP own another Magic 105 on the mainland. Still think it just about warrants a a weak keep as there are so few NI commercial stations (legal or otherwise), but much more weakly than before. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I could see your reasoning based on the name (:)). I have to go with a weak keep myself as it does seem to satisfy notability, although with reservations about some of the article itself. (BTW, EMAP do have two stations in Northern Ireland. No Magic stations, but they do have a Cool FM.)Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: all (semi-)independent radio stations are notable, whether in the U.S. or not. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless they don't have non-trivial independent sources, of course :-) Guy (Help!) 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Seems to meet notability criteria, although the article needs a lot of cleaning and referencing. Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 20:19, 18 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 established WP:PROF, note that there are four seperate articles by Heiser used as references in L4 microkernel family. Gnangarra 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gernot Heiser[edit]

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

Spammy autobiography. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I removed from the "publications of note" section several items that were clearly not publications of note, but two were left, both papers having more than 50 cites each in Google scholar. To me this seems a borderline case for WP:PROF — he's clearly a successful academic, but I don't see the evidence for him being a star of his field. But I'd rather err on the side of keeping. —David Eppstein 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as per user above me. Seems notable enough, but only barely. Lankiveil 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Gernot's one of the main guys behind the L4 microkernel family, he organises a significant share of the funding for Computer Science research in Australia[41] [42], he runs a medium size technology research company of about 20 employees, a university research team and an Australian government research team both with about 10 employees or PhD students. These teams are extremely active and churn out a huge amount of research and code in relation to microkernels, power management, virtualisation, distributed systems and ia64 Linux. He's an outspoken senior member of the large school of computer science and engineering at UNSW and is frequently the guy consulted by Australian newspapers about operating systems, even when it's a little outside his subject area. He also frequently speaks at operating systems conferences worldwide. I have no idea what possessed him to write an article about himself, but if one is interested in experimental operating systems he probably fits into the picture somewhere.Scarlet 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scarlet's findings. Notable in his field. --Oakshade 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with David Eppstein, but I prefer to err the other way. This ("However, he is not among the University's "Scientia Professors", and so is not considered by UNSW to be of "true international eminence in research") is an odd sentence for a WP bio. Pete.Hurd 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Gernot frequently serves in program committees of international (IEEE, ACM, USENIX, etc.) conferences on operating systems, computer architecture, embedded, real-time and distributed systems and thereby clearly meets criterion 2 of WP:PROF. Uwe Dannowski 07:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) — Uwe Dannowski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yannismarou 08:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satan Disciples[edit]

Satan Disciples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Weak delete and rewrite: This article has a long history. It was speedy deleted in January because it looked like nonsense. It was recreated recently but was made up mostly of a quote from some book. Then it was tagged for speedy but declined (I was also going to decline it but then got nervous that it was nothing but copyvio anyway so I left it). Then it was changed to look like the same nonsense that was speedy deleted in January so it was tagged for speedy again! It's hard to tell if this is noteworthy because the article is in such terrible shape but I'll vote to delete since it needs a total rewrite. (I've restored the previously deleted history so everyone can see). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While sources like this FBI press release and some related news articles suggest this is a significant Chicago gang, the article is just absolute unsourced crap. I have no reason to believe that the current authors have any intention of improving it. Still, as a decent article could be written, I am against salting the page (If that's ever suggested here). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as copyvio (tagged as such) per the URL provided. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reverted to non-copyvio (I hope?) version. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete I may have been a bit too hasty in tagging. this older revision does not appear to be a copyvio (at least not the page provided) I still stand by my original opinion though, changed to strong delete as this version of the page is even worse. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even in its current worked-over state, it's plainly and blatantly copied from here [43] ...Even if the main contributor is the autor of the piece from whence the Wiki version is copied, or had a release, the source itself makes a plea for sources on its main page [44]. When the SOURCE (sole source) isn't sourced and knows it... it's pretty much hopeless. Wysdom 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - unless someone can change my mind by referencing the Wikipedia notability guidelines for street gangs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:44, 21 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 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piss-up[edit]

A slang dictionary definiton stub that has been transwikied to Wiktionary, with one reference. Delete.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:42, 15 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 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100on100 Heart of Vermont Relay[edit]

Not sure how this is any different than all of the other long distance articles already posted on Wikipedia. Can you provide me with some concrete pieces that are not in keeping with other posts?

100on100 Heart of Vermont Relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced promotional article on a local amateur sporting event. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. YechielMan 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Alabamaboy 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "first long distance relay race in the state" makes it notable? It seems that it would have some cultural significance in Vermont and in the athletics world SGGH 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-trivial independent sources, please. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 16 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. WjBscribe 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of the date of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Significance of the date of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is Original Research with a capital O. The speculation on why 9/11 happened on 9/11 is ingeniously written, but it violates a core policy. YechielMan 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Its interesting, but its pure OR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mr.Z. Interesting, but belongs in a blog. Wysdom 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not really interesting, but it is well written. Blog it! Sell it! Put it in a book! But it doesn't belong here. WP:OR. Sigh... Goldfritter 18:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amusing, but in the end fails core policy. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, this is blatant WP:OR. Additionally, you can probably connect just about any event in history to something else, if you dig hard enough. The ideas brought forth on this article are totally without merit, unsourced, and completely unneccessary. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR--Sefringle 04:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relationship of 9/11 and 911 is not one that I've heard before but the rest of it sounds familiar. I would say it should be kept if it can be sourced. It's only OR if it can't be sourced. --Richard 04:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do a Google search on "September 11 Battle of Vienna". The correlation between 9/11 and the Battle of Vienna is mentioned a number of times. The best sources require a paid subscription, alas. But here's a blog entry which makes the point.
9/12/2006 was the 323rd anniversary of the Battle of Vienna, in which the Polish King Jan III Sobieski led the Holy League forces in victory over the Ottoman army, which had beseiged Vienna that July. (The battle actually began on 9/11/1683, a fact which has been noted by numerous commentators in the wake of the events of 9/11/2001.)
--Richard 05:09, 19 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 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikayla Miles[edit]

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

The pastel templates on the article tell much of the story. The article fails WP:NOT#BLOG among other things. YechielMan 18:33, 15 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 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Powell (author)[edit]

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

Apparent hoax. No such name correlates to these claims. No evidence of "Squashed Frog Ltd" as company; no such reference in Vanity Fair; no documented connection to Element Children's Books, etc. For a purported bestselling author, it is surprising that a search of Amazon produces mostly books on the director Michael Powell. P L E A T H E R talk 18:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Original author has responded to this AfD by blanking the page; blanking reverted pending outcome of this review. P L E A T H E R talk 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No relevant listings on IMDb for either "Michael Bradley" or "Michael Powell" in the timeframe specified in the article. If this guy is a "bestsellng author", then what has he written? Author Toobes3 hasn't contributed to any other articles. Nothing is sourced, likely hoax. Caknuck 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally lacking sources to address hoax concerns. Pete.Hurd 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above hoax concerns. It's always odd when the apparently notable leave no trace on the internet. janejellyroll 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 21:09, 16 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 by consensus. --Aarktica 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Quay Terminal[edit]

non notable mallcruft. Makes no assertion of notability. Not inherently notable by itself, unlike some of the other more famous malls in toronto ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added claim of importance, keep per that and [45]. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an upscale office building with a shopping area rather than a pure mall, and it is an important part of the revitalization of Toronto's Harbourfront area. --Eastmain 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Eastmain 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Eastmain 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per [46] the mall apparently has only 503,000 sq ft of GLA, making it less than a super-regional mall. Absent multiple reliable indendent references with non-trivial coverage, it does not appear to merit an article. Edison 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W Marsh's finding and article asserts "notablity" now. Important Toronto Harbor revitalization project.--Oakshade 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does seem to assert notability and provide multiple sources. Granted, the sources are organised and included shit-assed backwards, but that just means the article needs a cleanup and copyedit. WilyD 21:20, 19 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 12:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmartMap[edit]

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

Student project, notability not demonstrated Kernel Saunters 19:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable college project. Likely violation of WP:COI as original author is Narmi79 (derived from a backwards spelling of "Imran"), who is probably the Muhammad Imran Shahid mentioned in the article. Caknuck 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hard to count ghits since there are so many more notable things called "smartmap", but I think Caknuck says it: non-notable student project. No reliable secondary sources, and I'm finding it difficult to locate even a primary source. Possible speedy deletion via WP:CSD #A7. —David Eppstein 04:31, 19 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 14:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfield Mall[edit]

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

non notable mall. little to no information, and only one source: the malls home page, which is used to cite research, which seems to be a WP:RS problem. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:17, 15 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 --Aarktica 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Park Mall[edit]

non notable mall, no assertion of notability. More mall cruft, no sources other than official site. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable mall [47] --W.marsh 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Malls at or larger than 800,000 square feet are considered "super-regional malls" per the ISCA. This one falls just under at 746,000, and lacks multiple reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of the mall or other claims to notability other than being the biggest in town. Better sourcing from regil=onal or national papers could possible tip the balance toward notability. Edison 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing notable about this mall and none of the secondary sources identifed are sufficiently significant. TerriersFan 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the largest mall in Waterloo Region so it is definetly a notable mall. --JayzRaptorz 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as the largest mall in the Waterloo region, that it falls short of the super regional definition by just a few feet is rather inconsequential. Yamaguchi先生 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largest mall for miles, largest mall for a region, media coverage due to its size... thats notability.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, large mall and important part of the local community. There seems to be a decent amount of media coverage also. bbx 11:05, 18 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 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Mall (St. Catharines)[edit]

Fairview Mall (St. Catharines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable mall, just like the others above. No sources, no link to official website, no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Per the article, not the largest mall in its area. No statement of GLA. Fails WP:ATT by not having multiple independent sources with substantial coverage. Edison 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notable features and lacks the necessary secondary sources. TerriersFan 23:04, 15 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 12:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakuza[edit]

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

Dicdef which for some reason has survived two years. Not a hoax — 500+ Ghits excluding mirrors - but I can't see any reason for it to stay on Wikipedia. It was transwikied two years ago with the comment "the second paragraph looks encyclopedic enough", but I can't see it myself; however, since User:Zzyzx11 obviously did see it, bringing it over for discussion instead of prodding. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Uncited dicdef of a neologism. Already transwikied. Caknuck 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I created the article originally, at the time under the impression that another editor I knew here was going to expand it. Unfortunately, she no longer edit on Wikipedia, and I don't have the references for the original. I'd argue with Caknuck's comment about it being a neologism, though - it's about 25 years old and is widely used as pointed out in iridescenti's nomination. Wiktionary is probably the better place for it, though. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 16 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 08:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrogoth[edit]

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

newly coined neologism + I can't find any reliable sources to define it. none are given by the article TheDarknessVisible 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Electroclash, as everyone (except the writer of this article, apparently) has called it for the last five years (bracing myself for 200 messages from aggrieved teenagers as to why the two are completely and totally different and I couldn't possibly understand) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Electroclash isn't Electrogoth! It's an established term for a techno-inspired music style blended with a modern gothic attitude. You should to listen to Blutengel, Cephalgy, Das Ich, Tristesse de la Lune, Mondsucht, L'âme Immortelle, ASP etc.. All these music groups are neither Goth Rock nor Dark Wave. --~Menorrhea 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"modern gothic" also seems like a neologism. we can not listen to these bands and make a judgement, that would constitute original research. I've been looking through music magazines and online and I can't find a reliable source describing what electrogoth music is. Online I find all kinds of references pointing back to the wiki article. But nothing independant of wiki. this seems like the very reason wiki does not allow newly coined neologisms.TheDarknessVisible 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion the gothy end of the electroclash spectrum - Ju Ju Babies, Mechanical Cabaret and all the other pies Misty Woods has had her fingers in over the years - are indistinguishable from electrogoth - the only difference I can see is that one lot play their gigs at the Devonshire Arms and the other goes across the road to the Underworld. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is electrogoth, ugly and techno-inspired: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uzm9d2l_B4
Most of these music groups come from Germany and Austria. Maybe you're living on the dark side of the moon... --~Menorrhea 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe we're living in a world where all kinds of music from almost all parts of the world get circulated, and where even the "ugly" varieties grow a small fan base, but where music genres still require multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources to get their articles kept in Wikipedia. Delete or redirect per research cited by TheDarknessVisible not showing anything closer to the reliable sources policy than fanzines. Barno 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scene magazines like "Orkus", "Sonic Seducer" and "Zillo" covering Electrogoth bands do not count? It's an established genre and it is not the same as Electroclash - they sound quite different and the latter has absolutely no connection to the Goth subculture, does it? Luckz 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't cite a single one of them (or anything else) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have an orkus magazine. Issue #3. It covers the bands. Okus has interviews with both Terminal Choice and Diary of Dreams. it doesn't call them electrogoth and the word is notable by its absense. the alleged connection to goth subculture is irrelevant. We are not debating the merits of the label. We are debating the notability of it, whether its a neologism, and whether this article meets wiki guidelines.TheDarknessVisible 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But no need to redirect to Electroclash. Electroclash is the standard form for the type of music being (badly) described here, but nobody else uses the term Electrogoth so a redirect from a page nobody would look up is not necessary. Worth bearing in mind that Neogoth is up for deletion under similar circumstances. A1octopus 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote Delete by the way. I didn't know if that is obvious from the fact that I nominated it. Online I find contradictory uses of the term by only unreliable sources. I haven't found a single reliable independant source to define it. This is a non-notable neologism (basically slang) which seems to have a very ambiguous meaning, which chages from person to person. I've seen it applied to switchblade symphony, wumpscut and then also to bands which seem to be literally techno such as the one in the video Menorrhea pointed us to. I dont see how this could be a music genre, and I personally believe wumscut and switchblade fans would find that electroclash video quite outside their musical tastes. The only REMOTELY reliable reference I've seen said that electrogoth is a pseudonym for darkwave. but said darkwave is the proper term (and even said to ignore people who insist electrogoth isn't darkwave). this source is ishkurs guide to electronic music. (but he also denies being reliable).. to me its a descriptive term which kids around the world are hearing on the grape vine and just applying to whatever electronic music they encounter which happens to seem 'goth' to them, and they assume that it must have been what that word "electrogoth" was a reference to. journalists and researchers dont seem to feel any inclination to use this term TheDarknessVisible 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. Dark Wave described the music of the 1980s, and in the 1980s there was not techno or trance sound. I don't like this electrogoth music, but in Germany "goth"-bands with a strong techno influence used the term. This music is made by so-called "goth" people. But the main problem is that this music bears no relation to the gothic roots. It's a strange development. No redirect please. --~Menorrhea 21:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some band using a term merely makes it a neologism. multiple reliable and independant authors must write about it and describe what it is.TheDarknessVisible 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per TheDarknessVisible, who puts it quite well. It is indeed a word, it is indeed used to describe bands, and I'd hold you will actually see the word used in the press, but it doesn't seem to have a solid referent right now - people will use it to describe anything. I'd gladly spend an hour finding references for the article if it had a meaning, but right now I don't think it does. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, "ELECTROGOTH" IS IN NO WAY "ELECTROCLASH". DO NOT MERGE. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:21, 21 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 per WP:CSD#A7 by The JPS. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turcrosoft[edit]

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

Largely unknown corp. (google hits mostly on blogs), removed from the Turkish wikipedia, company created by Ilker Girit, article by IlkerGx (:Julien:) 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Author is IlkerGx, which is probably the company's founder Ilker Girit. Violation of WP:COI. Also, article makes little assertion of notability, seeming fails WP:CORP. Caknuck 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability not asserted. Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Ohconfucius 04:51, 17 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 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip the Switch[edit]

Flip the Switch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The album in question is an unofficial album and an unofficial remix project. It's not by the Chemical Brothers and it's not endorsed by them or Virgin music. Douglasr007 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Checked the background, this is an amateur remix. Aside from not being an official album, there's no notability. Article is a bit spammy, but not so much for a speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amateur remix with no notable sources. Article is mostly spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaymac407 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 21:01, 16 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 by consensus. --Aarktica 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie (Star Trek)[edit]

So unnotable it barely needs explanation. Philip Stevens 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the amount of interesting information present (i.e. the multiple roles filled throughout the series) constitutes an argument for keeping as a major character per WP:FICT --Eyrian 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needed wikifying by linking to other articles which proved it's notability. I have done this. Nardman1 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. More links to other articles to prove it's notability a bit more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymac407 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually most of what I did was link TO this article from the appropriate articles. This one already links to Star Trek, redshirt, and the actor who plays Leslie. Nardman1 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He was apparently in more episodes than a few main characters. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect/Merge to Redshirt Fancruft. George Leung 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge to List of Star Trek characters, or create Minor characters in Star Trek and 'merge to that article, per WP:FICT. Sixty trivial appearances by a minor character does not make one a major character. No reliable sources showing independent notability for this character are cited in the article nor were found in my quick search. The little sliding knobs on the transporter console appeared in almost every ST:TOS episode, but that does not make them a major character nor meet the WP:ATT requirement. By the way, "More links to other articles" would not "prove its notability"; we need multiple non-trivial coverage by fact-checked sources, not fan pages. Barno 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Star Trek characters or even the article on Eddie Paskey, unless some coverage of him can be found, such as in a magazine devoted to science fiction television, or some such. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this guy didn't have a single line in most of the episodes he was in. He's little more than an extra. I'm amazed that only one person has voted delete. If this page is kept then that's just inviting all the trekies to start creating pages for That ensign who stood next to Data in Encounter at Farpoint. --Philip Stevens 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. An interesting article. May be a minor character, but clearly one recurring frequently enough to be of note. Grutness...wha? 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per george leung reasonsOo7565 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - less than a minor character, he was a recurring background character. -- Whpq 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.He was apparently in more episodes than a few main characters-- doesn't the discussion end here? Mdiamante 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the door to the bridge was also in more episodes than a few main characters but that doesn't mean anything in terms of notability. He was a background redshirt. -- Whpq 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about notability, it's about importance. Notability is established by appearance in popular media. Importance determines whether or not he gets his own article. I think the number of episodes, and role as off-screen gag, qualifies for that level of importance. --Eyrian 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't just a background redshirt...he was THE redshirt. The term comes FROM HIM. Nardman1 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has a whole website [48] devoted just to him. Also, if you review the aformentioned site, you'll see he plays a semi-important role in several episodes, some being: "The Enemy Within," "The Naked Time," "The Alternative Factor," "Return of the Archons," "Space Seed"(kind of), "This Side of Paradise," "The Trouble with Tribbles"(and, therefore, "Trials and Tribble-ations,") "Obsession," & "And the Children Shall Lead." Ye Olde Luke 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde Luke[reply]

Dangit. The link doesn't work. Anyway, it's the Lt. Leslie Archives, and the link works on Leslie's page. If you want to, use the link on there.68.111.167.39 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde Luke[reply]

It's a website in the AOL member space. That's not reliable, third-party coverage. That's somebody's web page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the website is rather Leslie-biased. Nevertheless, you can see that Leslie does play a role in several Star Trek episodes, a role larger than just a background hallway-crosser.Ye Olde Luke 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde Luke[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because Leslie defines the importance of "supporting-extras" in the Star Trek series. While he obviously was not a lead character, his presence in many of the shows provided important transistion or turning points that made the story flow. Richard W. Halsey 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leslie might define the importance, but the key question is, who defines Leslie as that kind of importance? You need a source. FrozenPurpleCube 03:44, 19 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 10:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Communists in Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

List of Communists in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally unworkable list. If this were ever to be complete it would have hundreds if not thousands of entries; we don't have similar lists for any other town in the US (even List of Communists in New York or List of Communists in San Francisco, where the party were active - Omaha was hardly a hotbed of world revolution. Plus, even the five entries on there are extremely dubious - I've heard Malcolm X called lots of things, but "Communist" isn't generally one of them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Ridiculous article. How can you make a list of every comunist in a town? McCarthy already tried that. --Mars2035 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a violation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no real value to this: each person on the list is either not notable or has a bio mentioning both Omaha and Communism. Also, no references. Callix 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the reason I haven't prodded this (I don't think it warrants a speedy) is that the creator, Freechild has a history of valid edits (although possibly a multiple-user account of The Freechild Project) so I thought it seemed fair to give him/her/them a chance to defend it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. I have been a particularly prolific WPedian in the last few months, but I am only one person. - Freechild 02:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I wanted to see how many names this list could gather, but I'm not committed to it being encyclopedic content. - Freechild 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy. The nom is right - Omaha, NE is more the home to good (but expensive) beef. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary, indiscriminate (rather like List of Illinois Nazis). --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must admit that I chortled when I saw the article title - one hardly would have taken Omaha as a hot-bed of communism - but after reading the article (a pretty short list), I think it has to go per nom. Carlossuarez46 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a particularily notable or useful classification on which to base a list. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else, including the creator. Punkmorten 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an indiscriminate list of information. Acalamari 20:59, 16 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. Punkmorten 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scavar[edit]

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

Hoax. No relevant Google hits; had an image attached (deleted CSD-I3) that was also obviously faked; only related hit online I could find after 10 minutes of searching was Urban Dictionary and even that entry would be deleted on Wikipedia.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable and highly un-encyclopedic. Looks like a hoax and as REDVERS said there is no relevant google hits. Jaymac407 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax, one might suspect from here. Tearlach 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • first post here sorry, but this is a topic in refrance to a anime god, not a true greek god, sevral anime's i have seen/downloaded use "scavar" or a name that sounds like it as a god with the attributes of a greek god and an animal god...i would say move it to anime section, since i know its not really a fake. - unsigned first-time edit by AshenSugar (talk · contribs) (a user name that interestingly appears to be in communication with the aforementioned Scavar in the techPowerUp! forums). Tearlach 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and a hoax. Acalamari 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhh I have no idea what im doing, but I just made this account because people seem to think I made this. I didn't, no idea who did, though I did enjoy it. I was hoping it would stay up and some elementary school kid would right a report, but I don't have the time or energy to make it even remotely legit. And i am tired of it sitting here wounded like an animal taking forever to die, so umm just delete it? By Scavar April 19th —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scavar (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northern Irish flags[edit]

List of Northern Irish flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is POV pushing, this issue is already dealt with in List of British flags, Flag of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland flags issue, this article should be deleted padraig3uk 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no reason why this article shouldn't exist; it just requires a more comprehensive collection of flags. I've started the ball rolling by adding the UK and RoI flags, but there's a long way to go, particularly in the addition of flags used within Northern Ireland but not necessarily to represent Northern Ireland (like, say, GAA county colours, the rugby union and cricket flags, military and paramilitary flags, and so on). Northern Ireland flags issue discusses issues of flags that represent Northern Ireland itself, and is not for all flags used in Northern Ireland, which is what List of Northern Irish flags should be. Bastin 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Requires more flags thats all. The template expand should have been placed instead of a Articles Of Deletion Request! Jaymac407 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it just need the POV removing.--Vintagekits 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In line with List of English flags, List of Scottish flags and List of Welsh flags. No POV existed. I wonder why an editor who proposed the article's deletion would make several subsequent edits to it. Presumably we can safely remove the afd proposal and consider it withdrawn..? --Mal 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I made edits to remove POV.--padraig3uk 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no - I made edits to remove POV, and to stop a mere rehashing of an article that already exists (Northern Ireland flags issue). See the article's talk page. --Mal 10:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, You removed the only offical flag the Union Banner, and edited the article to say the Ulster Banner was the Flag of Northern Ireland, when you know that this flag has no offical status since 1972, you also removed other flags used by the nationalist community, yet leave a Loyalist Ulster Nation flag used by loyalist seperatists, and you claim that is removing POV.--padraig3uk 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That loyalist flag is used by some to represent Northern Ireland, as distinct from the nationalist point of view that the Irish tricolour represents the whole of Ireland and also as distinct from the fact that the Union Jack represents the whole of the United Kingdom. Its logic Padraig. Politics is irrelevant. --Mal 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Show me a nationalist flag that represents Northern Ireland, and I will gladly support its inclusion in this article. --Mal 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the Ulster Nation flag represents Northern Ireland because some Loyalists use it, and by your logic can be included, but by the same token flags used by Nationalist/Republicans to represent N Ireland as part of the whole of Ireland can't be included.--padraig3uk 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Informative and in keeping with the wikipedia. Not POV at all. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, correct it is not POV now, however, if you look at some of the edits be the creator (how you recently awarded a Barnstar) of the article you will see that he has attempted to introduce POV - there has been signficiant work undertaken to dePOV this article.--Vintagekits 09:37, 18 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 close because the article was boldly redirected to Carrabba's Italian Grill. Sr13 (T|C) 04:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Bryan[edit]

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

It is about a non-notable topic, written in a biased tone, and there is already a main article for this restaurant. It should be deleted and the info should be added into the main article. Mars2035 20:46, 15 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. Cbrown1023 talk 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast orgasm[edit]

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

unencyclopedic and not much more than a definition Nardman1 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic, non-notable and by the looks of it spam. Jaymac407 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Doczilla 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 3 references presented do not seem to satisfy WP:A as reliable sources of information. There are under 600 Google hits for the term, and most are just clusters of term to gain Google hits from porn sites. Needs references from more reliable sources such as medical books, journal articles something like the Kinsey report. What it has is random websites and Howard Stern. Edison 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because I think I will find some better sources. DGG 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.Of course if somebody can provide a source from medical literature the article need not be deleted.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the commenters above unless better sources can be found, appears to be nonsense. Yamaguchi先生 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit... nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Orgasm article? Provided some citations can be found. -- JediLofty User | Talk 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but give more information and sources nuff said... make more info available, Andariel Halo
  • Keep, if breast orgasms actually exist (needs to be labeled a stub); if they don't exist then Delete it.Ye Olde Luke 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • embarassed keep - um... either they do exist or my ex-gf is a liar. (Aren't you happy you came to AfD today?) Seriously, there do seem to be a couple sources at the bottom of the article now, though I can understand wanting a medical source since it seems contentious. (Funny how 100 years ago, we'd be having the same argument as to whether the clitoris exists.) (Now you must be happy you came to AfD today.) But merge with orgasm is okay too, since there's not much here right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMGzorz, I just used the term "merge with orgasm" in a sentence. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course medical literature was also needed to show (whlie everybody could have suspected already) that all these enlightened people claiming all kinds of cures are nothing more than a fraud.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per weak refs and my opine: this is arbitrary as whatever a women percieves to be an erogenous zone could possibly result in orgasm. do we really need an article for shoulder blade orgasm? okay, dont answer that. the_undertow talk 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes, it seems you know the answer: if people were to write about it, either in reality or a fantasy, yes we would. Just like everything else. It doesnt have to be real to be notable. If we eliminated fantasy of all sorts from WP, half of it would go. DGG 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply you are unfortunately right, which is evidenced by allowing ludicrous articles like this one and this one.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → Orgasm. A comment on the three citations: Men's Health is pretty much the male equivalent of Cosmo; MSN Lifestyle would be equivalent to the Life section of USA Today or the Weekend section of a national newspaper; the sexuality.com site isn't a fly-by-night operation, but one that is associated (albeit in a mix of education and promotion) with an edutainment operation that has actively toured colleges in the United States. Each citation individually would be too weak; together, owing to their independence from one another and national (American) scope, they establish notability sufficient to support inclusion of the material in the Orgasm article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 22 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. WjBscribe 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironbox[edit]

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

Delete, Non-Encyclopedic and Non-Notable Jaymac407 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless independent sources are cited to establish notability per WP:N. EALacey 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notabililty not even claimed, let alone established. Let's see some independent reviews & references. - Tiswas(t/c) 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since when did notability become synonymous with popularity? Read the talk threads on notability -- there is no consensus. If something exists, and it's real, and can be shown to be real, who cares how popular or known it is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.110.205.5 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - it goes without saying that notability and popularity are distinct and separate. However, this AfD addresses the notability of the subject, which is neither claimed, nor established. The whole point of notablity is that mere existence is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Its popularity is moot. - Tiswas(t/c)
  • Comment - we also cannot take this comment, from someone who has caused so much vandalism on Wikipedia seriously. See the users talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaymac407 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JChat[edit]

JChat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic and Non-Notable Software. Links of notablity should be added to prevent deletion. Jaymac407 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The software is not finished, so it's hard to finish the article. Software is notable because it is the only Joomla! software that uses IRC to chat. All the other ones use a different method. --Andrew Hampe Talk 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Article being created by same person who made it doesn't help things. JuJube 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, but could i move it into my user pages so i can work on it when i finish it? --Andrew Hampe Talk 03:36, 17 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 10:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Education jargon[edit]

Landmark Education jargon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


Please see the following entry from the Landmark Education site.

This is the last change before the recent additions by Smee. It is made by Jossi who is an admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education_jargon&oldid=93960772

This content was decided buy consensus on the Landmark Education page. None of the citations are particularly notable or say anything. The latest changes are an attempt by an editor to re-insert mateiral that was decided to be non-notable on the main page. Alex Jackl 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted, added to today's debate log. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The material is not coherent. The second of its two terms is not a definition, but a use of the term in a sentence.DGG 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an incoherent mess. It should be deleted. Triplejumper 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article seems quite garbled. Perhaps move to userspace and repost as an article after it's been made more coherent and encyclopedia-worthy? --AgentCDE 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Much of the article's content already exists in expanded form in Landmark Education. The subject matter doesn't warrant a whole separate article. =Axlq 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is overflow from the main Landmark Education article. Sm1969 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The content is not suitable for an encyclodepia and is designed as an attack page.Simplyfabulous 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The material is backed up by (7) highly reputable citations, and is noteworthy as having been reported in such. Please see similar notable article that has remained on the project, Scientology terminology. Smee 06:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - This article seems odd for an encylopedia. Are there jargon pages for other organizations? Disney? Walmart? AT&T? If there are common terms that make a company unique, they might be included on a page about the company, but no a separate entry. Spacefarer 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing Admin -- Sm1969 (talk • contribs), Spacefarer (talk • contribs), Simplyfabulous (talk • contribs), and Triplejumper (talk • contribs) have not made significant contributions to the project, outside of the one article Landmark Education. Smee 06:00, 20 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. WjBscribe 04:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Emancipation of Jonny[edit]

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

Deleted through WP:PROD and recreated. This is a future film--no IMDB entry, no sources cited, article is vague. Probably too early for an article on this one. Chick Bowen 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, also violates WP:NOR -- Monty845 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystalbalism. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - This film has been credited on the Imdb.com site, and even though the information is currently limited, there is so need to delete it. Wikipedia holds several hundreds of articles based on forthcoming films, what's the point of deleting this one if it is indeed correct????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.142.59.181 (talk • contribs).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 04:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when it's being publicised so you have some sources.Garrie 04:33, 20 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 per consensus. PeaceNT 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Technical Manuals[edit]

List of Star Trek Technical Manuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft/Fancruft; violates WP:NOT/WP:N; Delete --Mhking 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup, remove entries from list without their own wikipedia articles. Nardman1 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I don't see why entries without articles should be removed. It's fairly comprehensive, which is a good thing for a list IMO. Does Memory Alpha have a copy of this? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I find the nominator's use of Listcruf/Fancruft a reason for concern, as that kind of speech is borderline uncivil and offensive, and is not actually the best way to express a problem, I don't know that they are mistaken in objecting to this page, as it's only a listing of books, which may make for a directory problem. There are thousands of subjects which have numerous non-fiction books on them, but do they all need entries on Wikipedia? Fictional novels is one thing, non-fiction is another. I am not quite saying to delete, but I do think there is merit to the concern. FrozenPurpleCube 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this amounts to a sub-genre of its own, and is appropriate for an article. To me, a fascinating list. To an outsider, every article on the whole general topic would classify as fancruft. DGG 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To answer the question asked above, Memory Alpha does indeed have a copy of this. JavaTenor 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. However I would prefer to see any fan-made books removed and the list restricted to officially licensed works, otherwise I do believe this would violate the "only write about canon" guidelines of the Star Trek WikiProject. As I think that would result in a very short list, perhaps the ultimate solution would be to merge this and create a list of non-fiction works related to Star Trek, if one doesn't already exist. 23skidoo 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I believe it was a well-written article that would most likely have a wide appeal to Star Trek fans. As we all know, but not agree on, Star Trek has a fan base that goes into the millions. Not only in the English speaking population but extends into all countries and cultures. That in and of itself lends the article to be included in Wikipedia. More so, in the fact that it finds an audience that surpasses just a limited number of individual, but has in fact the ability to cross cultural lines. A definite ‘’’KEEP’’’ considering many of our other articles that are included here. Shoessss 22:35, 16 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 to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Cbrown1023 talk 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Harrisburg[edit]

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

I am also nominating:

List of AM stations in Harrisburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of FM stations in Harrisburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TV stations in Harrisburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These lists are small, non-notable and fundamentally unimportant, and most of the information within is duplicated in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. They might be viable as part of a theoretical article List of media in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; however, it would probably be best to merge all unique information in the articles into Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest merging into Harrisburg, Pennsylvania as the nom indicates. Most cities will only have a few of each media type existent, so a list like this would never be very large. Links from the main article are probably a far better idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tony Fox. Coverage on the media in a location is certainly valid, but I am unconvinced that these short lists need seperate articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Subset of Harrisburg (population was 643,820) is arguably too small, thus small and sparse list with little scope of development. Lists for each and every town would be in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or just delete All the information in all nominated articles appears already to be part of the Harisburg article. This makes the list redundant. Peterkingiron 13:21, 22 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. Non-admin closure per the deletion policy, because this case is not particularly controversial. Some of the material should be pruned, but he passes the notability standard for academics by having published many scientific papers, including one in Nature. YechielMan 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Rauch[edit]

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

does not appear to be notable enough Errabee 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think that his publications and his accomplishments add up to notability. --Eastmain 23:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some high quality and widely cited papers plus Metacarta make the cut to notability. The latter may actually deserve an article on its own. Stammer 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Most professors have more papers widely cited in their respective profession. Yet they are all subject to WP:PROF, which I believe Rauch does not meet. Errabee 09:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs development, and I have started developing it. There are 10 major scientific papers in his main field, in a range of the most prestigious journals. If the details of his remarkable career are examined, I think he can be shown to be one of the rare cases of a postdoctoral fellow who had done truly important work in his scientific speciality--in addition to his notability in other fields of interests. He died too early to actually become a professor. (COI--I was associated with his Department at Princeton, but not while he was there). DGG 07:42, 17 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 08:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmagnetic[edit]

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

This appears to be the work of a self-publisher hoping to enhance the plausibility of this "theory" (also known as publishing a pet theory for "vanity"). Deletion is warranted per not a publisher of original thought. (→Netscott) 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Though this particular name is the company's private invention, its not an altogether fantastic theory, though whether it will have a workable practical application is not yet clear. if it does, then will be the time for the article; it does not sound like the more typical example of fringe science.DGG 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. plasmagnetic -wikipedia -hovertech.com -answers -allexperts scored all of 28 GHits. Ohconfucius 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The diagram on this Hovertech page website shows how the technology works. Electromagnetic induction, the Lorentz force, and Photoionisation are all accepted scientific concepts. Plasmagnetic Levitation just combines them to create a device that creates a plasma and pushes it away. Newton's third law states that when aimed down, this will produce an upward thrust to the device, just like a helicopter creates an upward force by pushing air down. PS, I'm not a sockpuppet of the inventor. IanTheMacFan 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stub. No secondary source. Only primary source is a commercial web site. Appears to be speculation at this stage, not even prototype, much less of encyclopedic significance. A reliable source would include something about achievable thrust and energy efficiency. --Art Carlson 12:16, 21 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 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering[edit]

High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity article describing a technique documented solely by the author and his research assoicates. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, indeed - appears to be the primary editor on the article. (→Netscott) 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, there are several papers (Google Scholar turns up 29) from researchers at Linköping University, Sheffield Hallam University, the University of Iceland, Uppsala University, and the Université de Mons-Hainaut, published in journals such as the Journal of Applied Physics, Surface and Coatings Technology, and Thin Solid Films documenting this subject, and the only actual problem is that Arutiun (talk · contribs) appears to be one of those researchers (the one from Sheffield Hallam University who is due to be giving a conference presentation on the subject in a fortnight), citing xyr own published journal articles as sources. Yes, there is a conflict of interest here. However, conflicts of interest don't exclude content that is verifiable, neutral, and not original research. This content is verifiable, Arutiun having supplied citations in response to the {{unreferenced}} tag; and there are several mentions of the process in other papers from people other than Ehiasarian (such as this) to indicate that the idea has been acknowledged beyond its creators and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Keep. Uncle G 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be more than one group involved, and the article seems to be a straightforward description by one of the workers. According to Scopus, there are 16 published papers using the exact phrase in the title, 10 with his name and 6 elsewhere. I wonder if the contents is a little oriented towards his own work, but that can be taken care of by editing. DGG 03:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. JoshuaZ 02:56, 20 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 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Intermediate School[edit]

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

A seemingly unremarkable middle school. Disclosure: I removed all but the bare facts, as the article was an unencyclopedic mess. Please check the history if you wish to see the previous version(s). kingboyk 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Looking for anything which might argue for its notability, I found only that it is in the top 20% on tests in its state, a popular actor Andrew McCarthy[49] is an alumnus, and some students there in 2003 were written up in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory newsletter[50] for setting out to build a supercomputer out of a cluster of PCs. I could not find a writeup of how that turned out. A good school apparently doing a good job, but middle schools articles have generally not been kept. Edison 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Top 20% of anything is a pretty large group, and i think Oak Ridge set up that program with numerous schools. The program might be worth an article.DGG 03:44, 16 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 Michael Legge (filmmaker) and Sideshow Cinema, no consensus as to Sick Time, Potential Sins, and Braindrainer, as these specific films have not received adequate discussion in this AFD, and redirect Working Stiffs to Michael Legge (filmmaker) per Wikipedia:Verifiability, as Working Stiffs is entirely unreferenced. John254 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Legge (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. In the last two years this article has not asserted its importance. This person has some self-produced, self-starred movies, none assert WP:NOTE. According to this, he is a United States postal employee. Of the two sources mentioned they do not prove notability, and in fact aren't even widely accessible (see: ISBN 0787690422 or enter it in google to see this article come up as the first hit) His only claim is winning an award from a film festival, which appears to be nothing great; its an undistinguished festival. According to its website, currently the festival is hosting Syracuse Teen Idol for $5 a ticket, and anyone can submit their films as long as they pay $30-40.00.

WP:BIO reads:

  • Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities
    • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. (No sources to prove this for Legge)
    • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (No sources to prove this for Legge)
    • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (No sources to prove this for Legge)

Previous AFDs:

I came across this when I noticed some really nasty things said to the afd nominator of his films: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Glaze (2) (currently ongoing.)

Also up for this nom is his films: Working Stiffs, Sick Time, Potential Sins, and Braindrainer. Plus his company Sideshow Cinema (closed as no consensus last time).

Includes Sideshow Cinema redirects (includes previously deleted material)

Note: Having an Internet Movie Database entry does not make one notable it is user-submitted. As anyone can submit material. Also these enteries are made by a few select accounts. He is a non-notable United States postal worker. Arbustoo 23:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sideshow Cinema (and all redirects to it), as a collection of mini-bios on amateur "actors" (or redirect it to Legge if he survives this AFD. No merge, beyond the intro). No opinion on the others. -R. fiend 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated vote: Redirect all fims and Sideshow Cinema to Legge, with only the very slightest hint of a smerge of anything within the articles. Delete all redirects for the actors; as the films have been deleted for lack of notability, the actors have to follow. -R. fiend 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It would seem one article for the producer of the films would be warranted, though probably not the individual films. However, I am not comfortable with 1/ trying to put down (twice) the subject as "a postal employee"--one expects even a notable amateur filmmaker to have a regular job. 2/ Referring to nasty comments in a different Afd--we're supposed to be judging the notability of the subject of the article 3/ mass nominations. I would expect some of his films to be more important than others, and it would seem reasonable to nominate them for deletion first. This goes even more so for the actors. To the extent that this is a walled garden, break down the wall of the least notable stuff. 4/I know this is not intended as a vendetta because I know the eds. involved, but if I were just coming to WP, I might possibly get the wrong impression. DGG 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What WP:RS show the subject(s) as notable? As for his occupation, I'll quote the Internet Movie Database in full (this is its ENTIRE biography) about this "director": "Michael Legge, Birth 12 June 1953, Massachusetts, USA, He made a spoof of 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' (1957) while in high school. When not acting, writing or making film he works as a United States postal employee."[51] How is someone who made a "spoof" of a movie wikiworthy? Self-producing movies is enough for a "weak keep"?Arbustoo 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legge, and the films listed here, no opinion on the actors. I suggest listing the actors separately for the sake of discussion, because the guy who makes the films is a different can of worms. Regardless, Legge undoubtedly meets our standards, the article is very well sourced and there's no issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for Legge himself It's very borderline, but I think he's just about notable on the basis that he does unarguably have a following of sorts and some recognition.. Delete all films and actors listed here for these are not notable (no non trivial coverage) and therefore deserve no more than a note on "work by this person" on Legge's page. A1octopus 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What following? How do you know? I haven't found anything that shows he has a cult following. No one in any of the afds (view their histoiries) has ever given proof. Its been two years. This has remained on wikipedia because of "weak keep votes" and no consensus. Its time to either show how this person has a following or delete. Arbustoo 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No notability demonstrated for any of the people or films. If we consider articles with sources this trivial to pass notability, we'd have articles on every person on earth who ever made their own film regardless of whether it was ever released anywhere. --Minderbinder 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MIXED. I have written my recommendation on the fate of the articles, along with supporting arguments, below:
    • Weak keep for Michael Legge (filmmaker) per coverage in "Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, Volume 46. Gale Group, 2003." and "Making Movies on Your Own: Practical Talk from Independent Filmmakers, Kevin J. Lindenmuth, MacFarland & Company", as described in the references. Given how well-sourced the article is, I feel we should err on the side of caution.
    • Delete the 4 films (Working Stiffs, Sick Time, Potential Sins, and Braindrainer) as containing too little content, without prejduice to proper recreation (if possible) or to redirecting the pages somewhere.
    • Keep Sideshow Cinema per the previous AfD a month ago. Consensus can change, but I see no reason why it should have.
    • Conditionally keep the 5 actor redirects per GFDL iff Sideshow Cinema is kept. Content was merged from all 5 pages and GFDL requires that the edit histories of the redirects be preserved. -- Black Falcon 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its worth pointing out that all these articles have been kept on the basis of no consensus, including the Sideshow Cinema AFD last month, which have been influenced by possible role accounts that have voted in favor of JUST these pages for the last two years. Arbustoo 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • One of my reasons for suggesting keep for Sideshow Cinema is that it might be a good candidate to merge into Michael Legge (filmmaker), following discussion on the talk page. So, I suppose, my recommendation to keep "Sideshow Cinema" is, as with the redirects, conditional on the Legge article being kept. -- Black Falcon 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely you don't want to merge several dozen mini-bios into a single article on Legge? I agree that a few sentences on Sideshow Cinema would work, but a cut and paste merge would be a disaster. -R. fiend 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, of course not. Any merge of Sideshow Cinema inthe the article on Legge would involve only the two introductory paragraphs of the former. I still think its appropriate to mention the "stable of actors", but a single sentence or two listing the more notable/more involved ones would probably suffice. -- Black Falcon 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on those references. --JJay 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Using a AFD started by me for WP:POINT instead of dealing with your ongoing RfC? Explain how ANYTHING meets WP:BIO or WP:CORP. This not a vote, but a discussion. Arbustoo 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 3 awards at the B-Movie Film Festival indicates he is a notable figure in that genre. One could be debatable, 3 is strong. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm afraid no one has shown the importance of the B-Movie Film Festival. A local film festival DOES NOT establish this person as "a notable figure in that genre." Feel free to offer proof. Arbustoo 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - if the above-mentioned 3 awards at the B-Movie Film Festival establish his notability as a b-movie maker. As for the movies, if people want to delete the individual articles, may I suggest they could all be merged into the Michael Legge article? Same for his Sideshow Cinema article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - by the way, since he's (supposedly) a filmmaker, shouldn't the criterion under which he is judged be "creative professionals", and not "entertainers"? And, regarding the B-Movie Film Festival charging $40 for entry - yes, but they are still judged. It may not be at all notable for him to enter, but for him to get 3 awards out of it, maybe. I'd like to point out to the readers here that an awful lot of "very notable" events (such as NXNE, SXSW, and all sorts of other music events and even awards organizations) charge you money to enter an item for judging or for public display. It's not analogous at all to vanity publishing, for example. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Who are the videos judged by? Some guy collecting $40.00 in New York or some expert in the field? Arbustoo 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you look this up at their website? In 2006 the judges were: Ron Bonk (organizer of the festival); Yvette Petit (event planner, morning air personality at Syracuse radio station); Phil Hall (contributing editor for Film Threat, the author of "The Encyclopedia of Underground Movies" and "Independent Film Distribution" and a member of the Governing Committee of the Online Film Critics Society. His film journalism has appeared in the New York Times, Wired Magazine and American Movie Classics Magazine); Cristina Stacia (PhD canditate at U Syracuse studying film theory); Tim Ferlito (some sort of local media guy). Is the judges' panel of insufficient quality to demonstrate notability? If so, maybe we should AfD that page too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I did look it up. Is Ron Bonk notable? He is a "local filmmaker" who acts in Legge's films! His wikipedia article redirects to Sideshow Cinema (nominated here)! Anyway, what makes his film festival important that it gives Legge notability? Arbustoo 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that even being nominated for such an award gets you notice, investors willing to give you money to make more films, "like heaven to the world of independent filmmaking", is, I believe, what the cited third party quote at the top of the [B-Movie Film Festival]] article says. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, deleted yesterday. While, less selectively, the AfD on his other movie Honey Glaze resulted in no consensus, also yesterday. I think neither matter, if Wikipedia policy is for each article to be judged on its own merits. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective in the sense that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (film) was deleted and was the movie that he won the award for. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Glaze (2), with on consensus, had at least 2 WP:SPA, and had no awards, and has no press mentions. Arbustoo 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective in the sense that you pick and choose what precedent you propose we should all follow, or even tell us about. And you keep writing about "the award", even though it says all over the place -- this discussion, the article, and the film festival article -- that he has won several, specifically three. That's pretty selective too, so much that you're verging on actual dishonesty. Please, let's not go that far for this simple decision. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep making one or two direct-to-video feature-length moves would be borderline. Making a 20-year career out of doing so, with a troupe of regular actors, is pretty notable in my opinion. the repeated nominatorion and re-nomination of this is just bizarre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit of a stretch, methinks. Calling it a "20-year career" (particularly the "career" bit) makes it sound as if this is his living, when it's really just a hobby. He doesn't make money off these (if he did he'd probably have the budget to buy a second sword [52]). And his "troupe of regular actors" just shows that when you find a couple dozen people willing to work for free you use them again and again. I'll admit this guy's opus is of greater significance greater than some of those movies friends of mine used to make (also using the same troupe of actors, like Legge: friends), and he may just be notable enough for an article, what I (and I think many others) have an issue with is the chain-rule of notability, wherein everything associated with Mr. Just-clears-the-notability-bar somehow warrants an article. Keep Legge is we must, but redirect everything else to him. If we can confine the entire Legge/Borgman promotional machine to a single article, I'll be satisfied. -R. fiend 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on, now. Whether Legge makes big bucks from his movies is totally irrelevant: quite a few great and famous artists, writers, musicians, etc were not financially successful at what they did, and many of them held other jobs their whole lives. Is Einstein remembered as a patent-office worker? Is Van Gogh remembered as a preacher? Is Sidis remembered as an office clerk? (well, perhaps.) In any case, I don't necessarily object to merging all Legge-related articles into one, but I cannot say I wholly support it either, simply because it's rather a bizarre solution and out of step with the rest of our film coverage, where it's highly uncommon to see films merged in with their makers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're arguments are made up of pure speculation and outright lies. Dwain
        • Woah, major WP:NPA alert. I agree with you about keeping, but let's keep this civil, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Despite what the gameshow loser, the bike junkie and the possible sockpuppet nominator has to say Michael Legge, his films and his production company are notable entities. Legge's films have had a few distributors over the years it looks like. The latest is Sub Rosa. Legge's plays are printed by authentic publishers and his films over the years have won awards and been distributed on television such as The Lemon Man. Arbustoo neglected to mention that Sideshow Cinema survived deletion less than a month ago! And I am really tired of the paranoid rants of walled-gradens and promotions too! I have contributed a lot of editing and started a lot of articles on Wikipedia am I the PR agent for every person whose article I haved edited?! Don't think so! Oh, and the IMDB is not like Wikipedia, information that is added by users is verified by IMDB staff. It is difficult to get things added to IMDB! Dwain 23:58, 20 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 all 16 redirects to it). WjBscribe 04:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AERO97ONE[edit]

AERO97ONE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced spam. ➪HiDrNick! 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think even a small and probably unimaginative radio network is notable. As for the article, I removed the two-thirds of it which was pure advertising and unjustified detail.DGG 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. DGG's edits appear to have been undone (and the AfD tag removed, which I have replaced). A1octopus 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worth the trouble and edit wars -Docg 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I speedied it once already: no assertion of notability, no evidence of same, promotional in tone. Read: spam. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 20 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 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMAT Zone[edit]

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

No links, not notable, no substantive content mitcho/芳貴 00:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable school.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just as non-notable no matter where it is. DGG 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable, as per above. DES (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --St.daniel talk 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be notable... but without sources, we'll never know. And I'm not finding any.-FisherQueen (Talk) 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Acalamari 20:48, 16 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. Veinor (talk to me) 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Roberts[edit]

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

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - is not notable in porn and I belive the page is self-publicity Tamatisk 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - she has thousands of fans on myspace and shes in several porn videos. she is gaining a reputation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thriley (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • SO how well known does an adult actress have to be to have an article?Thriley 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:PORNBIO. Herostratus 01:55, 20 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_15&oldid=1081098218"