Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 16

< April 15	April 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meroka Machine Gun[edit]

Neologism. Created by the author of the article along with the category - Category:Meroka Firearms. Megapixie 13:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on a Google search (300 hits, nothing serious); not notable. YechielMan 18:14, 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 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question It is claimed to be a German abbreviation, of more general applicability. Is the term used in Germany?DGG 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Somewhat. I for one have never heard it, read it or used it. But it is quite plausible that this exists. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per seems like an adjective. could be a blip on machine gun. the_undertow ^talk 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on a distinct lack of both sources and German Google hits. The Meroka CIWS exists (though I' can't tell why the Spanish gave their weapon a German name), but "Meroka machine guns" seem to be unknown. --Huon 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources to verify that this term has widespread use. Delete both this article and Meroka gun, which it redirects to. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Pittising 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article appears non-notable (based on this google search). ~Step trip 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Sr13 (T|C) 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sleep On It 21:48, 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. --Core desat 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexx Agcaoili[edit]

Fails WP:A and WP:NOT#DIR. This unsourced stub article about a voice actor who may or may not have had parts in a number of anime series. Wikipedia is not Friendster. -Danngarcia 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless notability can be asserted along the lines of Harry Shearer and Dan Castellaneta, delete. --- Tito Pao 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ask the creator to stop creating articles such as these. --Howard the Duck 23:44, 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 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because of poor sourcing. I'm unsure of the notability of dubs. --Alksub 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete. If this article was sourced than I would be weak keep but the lack of sources pushes it over the edge. --St.daniel ^talk 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find evidence of his existence in cast lists online, but I don't see that anyone is writing about him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear lack of notability Thethinredline 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability Sleep On It 21:49, 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, copyvio pushes this over the edge. --Core desat 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitali Mukherjee[edit]

"Mitali Mukherjee" appears to be a self-promotional article. It violates the norms of wikipedia and deserves to be deleted immediately. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a bit difficult to ascertain whether a subject is notable, when the AfD nominator blanks the page before attaching the AfD tag. [1]. I'll WP:AGF and merely restore the article, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep this is one of those tricky borderline ones; the name returns hits in Google, but some appear to be about someone else; a lot of the refs are forums, blogs, etc - however we've kept Western anchors with less experience than she has so I am wary of WP:CSB. The article does need a tidy up at the very least. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JR. For an American I'd vote delete, but in this case I'm not willing to pull the trigger. YechielMan 18:17, 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 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per she could be the indian doppleganger of suze orman. i dont wanna be ethnocentric, and there are discussion/media sites about her, giving her notability. cleanup would help. the_undertow ^talk 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as it's currently a borderline issue. However, the current article is short on references and needs to be brought to Wikipedia standards in order to remain. --Sigma 7 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiable (e.g. official profile here: [2]) but doesn't seem notable due to lack of independent coverage. Tried alternative spellings too (e.g. "Mitali Mukherji" cnbc which gets another 37 GHits [3]), but no reliable sources there. I've "saved" a few South Asia-related articles from deletion processes in the past, but I really don't see anything that could be done to help this one. She reads the news and gets talked about on forums for being pretty. That's it. cab 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i've always voted delete on ones like this. i mean, everyone will have their 15 mins of fame. and its that much easier if you're a newscaster or a blogger or something. but then having articles for everybody who has had their 15 mins of fame is not what an encyclopedia is for. Sarvagnya 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as NN. The small number of GHits contain a large number of references to Mitali Mukherjee (Mitali Mukhopadhyay) the singer. The newscaster isn't notable at all. --Ragib 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable. I am an Indian and there are practically thousands of news readers with new ones popping up everyday. They are hardly notable and don't qualify for an encyclopedia entry, I reckon this was a weak self promotion stunt Correctus 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article, subject's notability is questionable Pittising 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not an expert on Indian pop culture based on the article i doubt this person is notable. Thethinredline 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Pittising Sleep On It 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per eliminator.Baka man 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per Ragib and Correctus. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the ground that the article is improved. The person DOES seem notable, there is no point in deleting the article just because there are more notable "Mitali Mukherjee"s, plus there are many pages for less notable anchors from the west.

~~And, I think additive Ghits of Mitali Mukherjee CNBC 37 and Mitali Mukherji CNBC 577, should be considered. So, Keep.~~ Speedy Delete copyright violation of this page.Mayank Abhishek 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all anchors are not notable. Anchors in the West who are less notable than this one can certainly be brought to AfD as well. Anchors who make significant editorial intervention - I'm looking at you, Barkha - can certainly be considered notable; others are not. Hornplease 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not notable. Not awardee. Spam. Anwar 16:24, 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 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Beatty Ford Road[edit]

Improperly application of AfD template redirected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Beatty Ford Road.

This article should be deleted as per WP:LOCAL. It is far from being notable enough for Wikipedia, as it is just a road, not even a wide or heavily used one at that. --TinMan 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously nonnotable road. Or maybe merge with Sesame Street. YechielMan 18:19, 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, WjBscribe 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is enough that we accept all numbered roads. There are some older named roads that might be notable., but there is no evidence for this one.DGG 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable road.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the 'lack of highway access' is the key to its notability the_undertow ^talk 06:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notabality --St.daniel ^talk 14:06, 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. --Core desat 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonsina Molinari[edit]

Puerto Rican actress with small starring role 17 years ago, no references killing sparrows 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it stands but am happy to change my mind if any Puerto Rican can provide evidence she's bigger there than the article currently makes her sound. The sentence "Even if she does not have the greatest voice or a charming personality" probably ought to go, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because if she did have a starring role, that in itself is notable. So just reference it. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient verification. The series she is described as having starred in is not listed in the Internet Movie Database. That may be due to the fact that IMDb has insufficient coverage of Puerto Rican television, but in the absence of IMDb verification, one or more other sources will be needed. --Metropolitan90 01:16, 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 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources. No assertion of notablity for actress.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notabality is established and added a source. That covers the main part of the article. Also did some small amounts of cleanup.--St.daniel ^talk 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by St.daniel (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Added source was a Wikipedia mirror of this article; notability is not established. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless stub (needs referencing though) on someone who at leasts exists and has done something of note. If Hero Ba-Ban is allowed his own article, I think we can keep this one too. Pittising 19:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable Thethinredline 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Sleep On It 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. You know people are grasping at straws when they invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --RaiderAspect 03:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Her only IMDB credit is in 2001 in a short TV series; no other sources exist to verify the article's assertions. Might the Keep !voters convinced that references exist direct us to them? Ravenswing 17:48, 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 Keep. fishhead64 04:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piece by Piece (documentary)[edit]

non notable film 789yub 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom, worthy of CSD A7 Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone can find sources for those multiple awards listed at the bottom - I can't see them on a quick skim through the organisations' sites but haven't looked thoroughly - Delete otherwise. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because many people see even seemingly minor films and so there is a potential audience for this. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:01, 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 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per iridescenti, but needs sources.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
week delete - i hate to pull the trigger, but i cant find mention of the films 'awards,' save for the german source, making the article unreliable. imdb+seeing it at Borders makes me hesitant, but without unaffiliated media coverage/publications, it doesnt satify criteria. the_undertow ^talk 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs serious cleanup but not deletion.--St.daniel ^talk 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Berlin source only mentions that the film was shown, but I was unable to find some "award". In Madrid I can't even confirm it was shown, much less that it got an award. I didn't check all the other sources, but expect them to be of like "quality". --Huon 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check out its page on Rotten Tomatoes; it's been reviewed by a few significant sources including Film Threat and Variety. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a good rating at imdb.com. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above, there is no harm in the inclusion of this article. Yamaguchi先生 01:23, 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 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muertas[edit]

No assertion of notability for this short film. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete pending Evidence of notability/Reliable sources. It had some minor stars; this may just be a bad article about a decent film. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete?- The IMdB listing gives a running time of only 8mins, meaning this was one of those short films shown at film festivals and probably nowhere else. During a quick Google search I could not find any independent sources. This is a good of example of why mention on IMdB is not always criteria for inclusion. Danski14^(talk) 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the America Ferrera article, it seems that the director (not the Ryan Williams linked in the article) of this movie met and began dating Ferrera in the making of a student film (perhaps this one?) while he was (or they were?) at USC. Perhaps their association lends this movie notability. For now, however, I'd say that the director of the movie might be notable enough for an article, and most of the information here could be in that article. But unless this film was shown at more than a couple galleries, and the galleries were of note, I don't think the film is notable enough for its own article. I guess that makes me in the weak delete category. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:00, 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 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Wiki is not the IMDB and there is no assertion of notability.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per all above. No indication of notability, no reliable sources cited, no content but a plot summary and publication info. out! DES ^(talk) 04:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a DB-empty --St.daniel ^talk 14:23, 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 Move to Samsung (disambiguation). fishhead64 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung(Name)[edit]

Dictionary definition of Korean word. NawlinWiki 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary, let alone a Korean one, in our case. JRHorse 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. --Dariusk 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Samsung (disambiguation). Almost 120 articles have Samsung in the title. While glancing through I see that most of them are just divisions of Samsung Group, some of them are no longer connected at all (like Samsung Motors) and would be somewhat hard to find from the main article. This is probably a common problem with the Korean chaebols. So I think a disambig would be useful here and it'd be fine to note the definition at the top of a disambiguation page. --JayHenry 17:38, 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, WjBscribe 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Samsung (disambiguation), delete the redirect from Samsung(Name), format it per WP:MOSDAB, and put an {{otheruses}} hatnote on Samsung. cab 01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the obvious links to Samsung, Samsung Motors, etc., I guess the best link for the third definition would be Samdhinirmocanasutra, which discusses the doctrine of the "three dharmalakshanas" (三性). cab 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per JRHorse.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and disambiguate, like cab said. This fairly obviously needs to be rewritten for clarity and English style, but the several meanings of "Samsung" may well inspire curiosity. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and disambiguate. Per several people above. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Qwertyca 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move: Per CaliforniaAliBaba. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 17:01, 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 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screwtaping[edit]

Unsourced original research about a neologism with only 1100 google hits (even after almost 1 year of article creation.) Abu badali ^(talk) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A5 (transwiki), since the article has been put on Wiktionary already per a tag on the article. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per Dennithe2. Cremepuff 222 (talk, review me!) 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending expansion. I think there is possibly much wider use of this concept, and it impinges on questions of scientific method. If I write several different articles about the effect of global warming by the year 2010, all with different numbers, and manage to get them published in various obscure places, i can then write a single article in 2010 referring to the one that happened to be right, and showing how close I came. DGG 05:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unfortunately the scientific method also refers to the journal used. So obscure magazines are entirely ignored by the scientific community, although even there we might find valid articles. More to the point, if the scientific method really works you are unable to write the same article with changing numbers and still get it published.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 05:59, 16 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 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per too much OR and speculation. the_undertow ^talk 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete - Per Dennis The Tiger.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced dictdef of a neologism. Strong delete unless useful, reliable sources are cited that clearly establish use widespread enough to imply notability. DES ^(talk) 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced neologism and transwikied anyway. Delete --Alksub 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism.Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:35, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMAT Zone[edit]

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. Majorly (hot!) 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Combat[edit]

Deprodded. Howto guide about a class in WoW. No mergeable content. This may qualify for speedy but I'm not sure Darksun 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way this could qualify for Speedy deletion is CSD A1: Very short articles without context. So I'll say Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OR. This is a discriminate collection of information, Original Research, and a game guide. SuperDT 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Un-sourced, fails WP:NOR.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has content, though the content is certainly NN. DGG 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, unsourceable original research. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice that Rogue (Ragnarok Online) appears to be related to this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOT and OR. Metamagician3000 10:49, 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 and protect from recreation per A7 and G11 - self-promotion for a forum with no assertion of notability. --Core desat 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffy Board (IMDb)[edit]

This article in not notable and has been speedy deleted a number of times under different names (including IMDb Buffy board and IMDb Buffy Board). Absolutely not notable. Alabamaboy 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. per above.--Alabamaboy 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, no reliable third-party sources. Delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not fair what kind of sources do you want? Its all true. I mean I can't link you to the threads you have to be signed up. What do I need to do to keep the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buffylove (talk • contribs).
- Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. This means that there has to be reliable sources. For instance, if your message board was reviewed by a notable website, that would probably count; so would a mention of it in a newspaper, magazine, or TV show. These are what is known as secondary sources. The problem is that you don't have any sources for this article except the message board itself, and, unfortunately, that doesn't meet Wikipedia policies. By the way, you can sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~ after them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. In other words, zero mentions in newspapers, magazines, or the like. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 01:12Z
Delete per above. I can't find anything on google about this. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Sorry, people, I'm sure you have great fun, and I hope you do, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, interested in encyclopedic topics. You may wish to see what Wikipedia is not. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:54, 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. --Core desat 03:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Tyler[edit]

I came across this article in response to a request for copyediting. I looked for more info on the subejct with a Google search and found only the subject's my space page, from which this article is substantially copied. I can find no indication of notability or verifiable info outside of the said page. killing sparrows 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as a blatent copyright infringment, adn so tagged. If not speedy deleted, delete as not notable. DES ^(talk) 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Myspace pages are almost always written by the subject of the article, and are intended as personal publicity. I would not delete an article copied from one a a speedy without first asking if there was permission. DGG 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I also doubt that copying from a Myspace profile really counts as copyvio (is it even copyrighted in the first place?). Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response There is no assertion of permission, and no indication that the uploader is the subject. If the editor who created this can obtain permission (which would need to include a full GFDL release, and communicate it to teh foundation's permissions departmetn, s/he is free to recreate. Current WP:CSD says delete in such a case. And yes, myspece pages are copyrighted, jsut as almost all written work is, unless the author specifically and explicitly relases to the public domain. No copyright notice is needed. See WP:Copyright and Copyright. DES ^(talk) 06:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per our copyvio policy, shouldn't the copyrighted material be removed and a {{copyvio}} template added? Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought it was blatent enough for a speedy instead. Since that was reverted, i have tagged as a copyvio and listed on the copyright problems page. DES ^(talk) 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Note that our policy says:"Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is a violation of applicable law and of Wikipedia policy." (my bold). we don't assume permisison or leave a copyvio in place while we ask if there is permisison, we either speedy or hide the infringing text behind a copyvio tag first. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I know. That's what I said and that's what you did. I'm confused about what the problem is... Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think there is one, now. i tag the article for speedy-delete as a copyvio. Someone else removed that tag, apparently because this AfD was in progress, buit without butting on the {{copyvio}} tag. I saw this, and, rather than fight over the speedy tag, put on the copyvio tag. No further problem. Earlier your thought that "I also doubt that copying from a Myspace profile really counts as copyvio" could have been a problem, but wasn't after the policy was explained. Now we must either decide to delete, or decide to keep and rewrite the article so it isn't a copyvio, or decide to keep and get permission from the author of the text on the myspacepage to release it unde the GFDL. Whether we keep or not will depend largely on notability I would think, guided by WP:MUSIC. DES ^(talk) 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ha! I see the issue now. My bad, I forgot to respond to my own comment. I did some research, only to learn that anything written is copyrighted. So what you did is good (though I don't know why someone removed the db tag, as article can still be speedied if an AfD is going on), and I'm adding my vote below. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. If it's true that he had a song on The Real World: Austin, then he might satisfy WP:MUSIC under criteria #9. However, even if the song occurred, per criteria #9, I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough for his own article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability and sourcing. --RaiderAspect 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and the discussion above. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:11, 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. --Core desat 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Ruth[edit]

Campus lake; one article about its being cleared of duckweed, and another about how it was named after the college president's wife, are two sources, but they are sources that do not attest to notability. Removing the weeds is NN no matter how many articles attest to it. DGG 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Non-notable lake.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per i cant see what makes this lake stand out. the_undertow ^talk 06:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here to detail notability.Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable and oversized puddle. MER-C 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into Western Illinois University (perhaps the photo for example) Thunderwing 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable. EagleFan 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Western Illinois University as WP:LOCAL guidelines suggest. Yamaguchi先生 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pond. Herostratus 03:47, 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. --Core desat 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Square Shopping Centre[edit]

NN mall--Largest, but in a very small city of 50,000 DGG 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Non-notable mall.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a very typical, non-notable mall. DES ^(talk) 04:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable shopping mall. Thunderwing 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regional mall of 474,000 sq ft GLA per article. Edison 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WIkipedia is not a [shopping mall] directory. Ohconfucius 01:49, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park Visitors Center[edit]

This is a rediculously unnotable article, which by the way was only created on March 11, so obviously it wasn't important if it was only created then. But if this article had to be created, then it could have atleast have been about the entire fictional universe of Jurassic park island where the film is set,that would have been more reasonable and notable Rodrigue 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to disagree with your logic here. Just because an article wasn't written several months ago doesn't mean that it isn't important. Every Wikipedia article was new at some point. There are numerous articles about the fictional world of Jurassic Park, and the Visitors Center is a significant setting in the book and movie. --Wasted Sapience 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou know your right,I know realize that there is an article about the island of Jurassic Park.But I kind of stand by my other statement, that isn't necceseraly a reason why it should go, but it is a good argument.
Delete: This is totally pointless! What is notabl about a fictional building put inn a couple of scenes in the first two movies?
Note. This nomination was incomplete; I have completed it and listed it. I have no strong opinion on the matter itself, although I would note that the article has existed for well over a year (March 11 of 2006), and that notability is not a criterion for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional building.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the nominator's reasoning, it doesn't matter when an article about a notable topic is created. But as per WP:FICT we don't need separate articles on each trivial detail of a work of fiction. This is such a trivial, non-notable detail. Strong delete. DES ^(talk) 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as an important plot element and setting in the series of films. But obviously an encyclopedia had to be built up and we are nowhere near getting all the notable things and people in the world. DGG 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the worst arguments I've seen in an afd, but ironically Rodrigue made a decent point somewhere - material like this would be justified if it existed as a small part of an article about the entire Jurassic Park world, but not in its own article, and with this excessive amount of trivial detail. Saikokira 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there is precedent for such articles on fictional settings- eg Sunnydale High School for example. I think the Visitor's centre is sufficiently notable within the context of this fictional work to warrant an article. Thunderwing 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an "impotant place" in a notable film is not a reason for inclusion in and of itself. Any particularly important information already exists in the plot summaries of the respective articles for the movies/novel. This level of hyperintimate detail of a fictional location in a fictional series is inappropriate for a general knowledge encyclopedia. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the movie is notable and important events are related to this location in the movie, that doesn't make this location notable of itself. -- Whpq 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thethinredline 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was initially going with delete, but the connection to Jurassic Park Discovery Center seems to add credence to its real-world notability. However, I'd strongly suggest clean-up and sourcing beyond just descriptive. (See, for example, this material)--Leflyman^Talk 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *ridiculously Sleep On It 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and per WP:FICT, if its sooooooo important put it in the movie's article, if it doesn't fit, then it isn't soooooo important. What's next The women's lavatories in the Jurassic Park Visitors Center, I mean where are the women expected to go? Carlossuarez46 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any good reason to keep it. — JyriL ^talk 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established real world notability (see Leflyman), the topic justifies its own article and furthermore Wikipedia is not paper, this subject is perfectly within the boundaries of Wikipedia. Matthew 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears in multiple media. If we ever want a good page on this subject, this is the start. Pers: WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 07:26, 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. fishhead64 00:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, this Philippine-related AfD has no known precedent of its kind, so I hope this opens a lot of good inputs from Filipino editors. As with the TfD for Template:Santa Maria, Bulacan, I think there should be a fine line between what place-names deserve their own WP article. Creating an article about Philippine barangays (that would be something similar to a municipal district for non-Filipinos) is taking it too far, as not all barangays are notable, and some are too small to deserve their own place on WP. We might as well write articles about every purok (place) or kanto (street corner) in the Philippines, in the same flawed logic that just because a street such as EDSA or Mendiola has its article, then some unknown private alley should also get its article just because the article's writer lives there. Addenda I might as well include the redirect to this article under the name Pulong Buhangin. --- Tito Pao 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were some previous barangay-related AFDs, and most of them were to keep. However, I still believe a barangay is by default unnotable. Either one is notable or all are unnotable. So delete for me. --Howard the Duck 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have changed my mind into merge or redirect but this has no real information to be merged into Sta. Maria, Bulacan so I'd still say delete. --Howard the Duck 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Howard the Duck, please only bold your vote once. --Oakshade 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shouldn't really matter since I put my new comment under my old comment. --Howard the Duck 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A real place. A barangay is a Phillipine version of a small government district, usually that of a town or village and sometimes a district of a larger city (like a borough). Towns are inherently notable. --Oakshade 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not exactly towns... towns are the municipalities... barangays are neighborhoods or French communes. --Howard the Duck 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless a barangay is notable should it have its own article. And even then, information about barangays - and there are about 42,000 of them - would probably be best kept in the municipality or city's article. --Chris S. 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC). I change my vote to Neutral. --Chris S. 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are around 42,000 of them - They are actual towns, villages and districts where people live in in a very populous Asian nation, that's why Wikipedia considers municipalities inherently notable. Even more imporatant than city neighborhoods (ie:Larchmont, Los Angeles, California) because, unlike city neibhborhoods, barangays are actual governments that administer the services in them. --Oakshade 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: about how many people live here? We are relatively strict about city neighborhoods; many are home to 50 or 100,000 people, and not all of them are included. It seems "neighborhood" is the nearest comparison.DGG 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's an actualy govenment district with governing body made up of a legislative council and committees, then it's much more than a simple neighborhood that doesn't have such entities. --Oakshade 04:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has a population of 23,069. This is much larger than the usual population of a barangay, by the way (usually under 5000). TheCoffee 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate Oakshade's attempt to save the article. However, I believe having a lot of barangay articles would be too unwieldy. Given the way provinces split as fast as an amoeba and cities pop up like mushrooms in the Philippines, it would be hard to manage changes to the affected barangays. I live here but I already lost count how many new ones sprung up during the last decade. I suggest we cut this in the bud before it overwhelms wikipedia. As Chris S. suggested, let's add a barangay if it is notable enough.--Lenticel 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Barangays are the smallest unit of government (subdivisions of towns) in the Philippines, so small that most of them don't have any verifiable information aside from census data and government officials. I note Oakshade's view, but I still think barangays should be dealt on a case-to-case basis. In this case, there does seem to be enough Google hits and references for it to be notable. TheCoffee 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. Per DGG, I would agree that a barangay can also be compared to a neighborhood, except that for historical and administrative reasons, barangays are incorporated as a limited version of a local government unit (LGU) like a city, province and region (AFAIK, there is a so-called law titled Barangay Code in the Philippines). However, it isn't exactly sa powerful as, say, a city government in that most of the functions of a barangay involve minor administrative functions (such as the issuance of a residence tax certificate and arbitration of very minor neighborhood disputes); in addition, barangays are essentially dependent on their municipal or city government, fiscally and administratively. Also, it's very, very rare for a single barangay to be as notable as the town/city, if not more so. So, yes, on these points, not all neighborhoods can be notable enough for a WP article, even if it's a large barangay. Which is my contention as a resident of the province of Bulacan. Pulong Buhangin is one of many barangays that I know of, but I'm not sure it's notable enough to be on WP.

I took a look at the borough article, and I'll have to disagree with the comparison because a barangay is too small and too weak, administratively and legally, to be considered as a borough or town or city. In Manila, yes, there are some districts which can be considered as the historical barangays that made up Manila (e.g. Sta. Ana, Tondo, Sampaloc...these used to be considered as the principal Manila barangays), but as far as the government and the law is concerned, these barangays do not exist anymore because they have been subdivided into their proper barangays ("Barangay 74, Zone 1, Purok 3" anyone?). And there are potentially hundreds of these in Metro Manila, which on their own might not be notable enough.

In Pulong Buhangin's case, this is the same barangay as it was historically and administratively. Having said that, I'd want to contest the article's notability on its own merit, not just on the basis of its population. Most of the Google hits for "Pulong Buhangin" return sites for directories and classified ads, but very little (if any) material that could be used for a WP article. --- Tito Pao 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first inclination here was to !vote keep per WP:LOCAL, as the general consensus is that inhabited towns/cities etc are inherently notable, and the fact that a barangay has an elected government would lead me to believe that is good enough for inclusion. However I must admit that it's hard to find a comparison to make in terms of municipal/local government here in the United States, as to whether a barangay is more than just a "neighborhood", I cannot definitively say. So, going on the assumption that the closest analogy is "neighborhood" I would say weak delete based on lack of sources supporting notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closest US anaogy is not "neighborhood" as neighborhoods don't have independent governments with elected officials like towns and cities do. --Oakshade 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, barangays are not "towns", the towns, translated into Tagalog, bayan, are the municipalities. The closest comparison would be the communes of France. --Howard the Duck 10:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many neighborhoods do have such organization. There are community boards, and also overlapping utility districts, historical districts, business improvement districts, police districts, fire districts, sanitary districts, water districts, library districts, and on and on, usually elected, sometime appointed. (Where I live the community zoning board is where the action is.) In a wiki of local interest to a region then probably every one of them would be included. But this is a general encyclopedia. DGG 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what's defined as a "neighborhood." In the traditional American sense, most of those things you mentioned, ie library districts, water districts, police districts, fire districts, etc. are in fact governed by county, city and town (sometimes called "township") governments, not neighborhoods. At least in California, the term "neighborhood" refers to sections of such places that are not independent government districts. For example, Noe Valley, San Francisco, California is a distictive neighborhood, but it has none of those "districts" you mention. All of those services are provided and governed by the city and county of San Francisco. A barangay does have those entities. --Oakshade 06:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it seems to be an official subdivision. — JyriL ^talk 22:51, 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. --Core desat 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida Frontier[edit]

Contested prod. Unsourced article on startup student newspaper with no claim to notability (ie speediable). Notability is not conferred by association with the University. Delete Ohconfucius 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Student newspapers can be notable--we have about 100 student newspapers and about 50 other student publications. The main newspaper from this important university is apparently The Independent Florida Alligator. We do have articles on independent newspapers in addition to the principal one from a few places. Buit this one is too new and too small. Idon't think we'd include a commercial paper at this point in its history either. DGG 04:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else we may as well create an article on the YU Commentator, my student newspaper at Yeshiva University. The whole List of college newspapers should be examined. YechielMan 16:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per DGG Thethinredline 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is quite possible that the YU Commentator]] may be notable, as the principal student publication of a major university, if it has the high editorial standards of some other first-rate student papers. I'll give it a look. Don't assume the familiar is non-notable. I notice a few other apparently non-notable ones are being proposed for deletion recently, so the situation may be on the way to resolution. DGG 07:33, 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. John254 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisano[edit]

Prod contested "This is the only student run newspaper on campus, on the largest university in San Antonio. Low google hit amount is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. This is not a paper encyclopedia". Unsourced article on non-notable small-circulation student journal. 13 unique Ghits for "Paisano newspaper"+"San Antonio" -wikipedia, most of which are directory listings or trivial articles on the subject Ohconfucius 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the Florida Frontier, this is the principal newspaper for the 2nd largest branch of University of Texas. It has been around for over 25 years. Between them, that makes for notability.DGG 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the original deletion tag and left the above quoted reasons. Rather than simply suggest a deletion, why not open discussion on ways to improve article. I'd also be open to a possible merge into the UTSA page. will381796 21:03, 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 KO loss, aka speedy delete CSD A7. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Routson[edit]

Someone other than the author has removed the speedy tag, but I see no evidence of notability from reliable third party sources. I suggest deletion. — coel acan — 01:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged. I see nothing like an assertion of notability here. If not speedy deleted, delete as not notable. Unsourced, which is not alone a deletion reason, but earns no points. DES ^(talk) 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Most things that get as far as Afd are worth discussing. Not this one. DGG 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe possibly asserts notability, but doesn't demonstrate it. NawlinWiki 14:01, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Ludeman[edit]

vanity page for non-notable swimmer. I especially like the image and the section "If you've had a dose of a freaky ghost, who ya gonna call?" Previous prod was contested. Royalbroil 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. If this guy is notable, so am I. Deor 03:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. if not speedy-delted, delete as per nom. not notable. DES ^(talk) 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and I don;t say that very ofetn at AfD.DGG 04:49, 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. --Core desat 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variable-shape geometry[edit]

Appears to be not supported by reputable sources. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well developed as this article is, the only source appears to be the pamphlet listed in the article, written by the "rather unknown mathematician" who created the theory("Val Bess" +geometry gets 0 hits). There are no relevant Google, Google books, or Google Scholar hits for "Variable Shape Geometry." Therefore the article fails WP:V. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly-sourced crankery. —David Eppstein 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and don't forget to remove the redirects that point to it. -- Dominus 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one references is a self-published pamphlet.DGG 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. WP needs to respond robustly and quickly when poorly-sourced probable crankery like this is added. Geometry guy 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete False pseudomath by "rather unknown mathematician," i.e. unestablished. ---Alksub 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Self-published pamphlet is not a reliable source. Gandalf61 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. DavidCBryant 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No GScholar hits, no arxiv hits [4], couldn't even find a page referencing the "unknown mathematician". Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequate sources are provided and importance established. -- Fropuff 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, some of you should not be posting here. I can agree with you if you say this article is not worthy for wikipedia because it can not be verified, but to imply that it is self-published or 'crankery' is uncalled for. I received the pamphlet, was confident that the geometry was 'established', but didn't see an article on Wikipedia so I wrote one. No, I didn't check Google before because I don't like referring to google as my primary source of info. Otherwise, feel free to delete, but next time don't make quick assumptions. Burnedthru 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was more substance to the VSG article, making it clear it was really something that could be called geometry, that would go a long way to convincing people it's worthy of being called geometry. But the article is extremely sketchy, and contains blanket hyperbolic statements such as everything is everything which make it not worthwhile reading, let alone content for an encyclopedia. We're not here for spectacle, an encyclopedia is for reference of hard facts. spectacle is promotion and belongs in another venue. If you feel like this has been a great injustice, on your user page you could attempt to write a more compelling sketch and propose it for adoption. But without more facts on the ground like research papers, I doubt it'll go anywhere. Rybu 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like pretty much nonsense. It appears that it's simply Euclidean geometry with an a method to identify the end-points of lines. Not only does this not clearly even form a geometry - a proof would have to be produced showing that it's consistent. I suspect this is someone's pet project - and is thus non-notable. --Haemo 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if everything really is everything, this is the geometry of the plane where the isometry group is the group of homeomorphisms of

\mathbb {R} ^{2}

. If Bess has non-trivial theorems about the group of homeomorphisms of

\mathbb {R} ^{2}

I'm sure he'd get an audience in the mathematics world.Rybu 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. If only I knew what you were talking about... Burnedthru 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sd: and salt Its a crank page RogueNinja_talk 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May not be a crank, but definately self-published by "Bess". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:06, 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 Redirect. I've gone ahead and redirected the article to the list of characters, but redirecting him to the entire show is an equally good option. The logic being that someone might type it in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Wentworth[edit]

One appearance as a main character, but not even close to being the biggest role (both detectives and attorneys are bigger roles). Not only that, but it's only an appearance in the pilot, and in one of the lesser-aired seasons (look at TNT; an episode featuring Benjamin Stone is rare, except at 4:00 AM). Additionally, the article lacks references and at no point does it assert any notability. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor character. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. We don't need pages on every minor character. DES ^(talk) 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, then redirect to Law & Order. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, is that an argument for keeping it or an argument for redirecting if kept? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an argument for following WP:FICT's guideline number 3 to redirect minor characters wikipedia entries to a list of characters which contains the description of that character. This is problematic for the Law_&_Order_characters page because it contains no descriptions of any character. Phuff 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character, article is only a plot summary, unlikely to be expanded with real world context. Jay32183 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because noteable character on pilot on one of the longest running shows of its kind ever. Thus, important to this history, trivia, and character changeups of a prominent and enduring show. --164.107.223.217 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So that means that every character in that episode warrants an article? Being only in a pilot is never an assessment of notability, especially when they are ONLY in the pilot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The significance of his role (District Attorney) makes him notable enough. -- Freemarket 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The character lacks both real world notability and, Hell, he's not even a notable character in the show. Being in a single episode of a show, no matter how big it is, pretty much ensures lack of notability unless he became particularly popular. Do you have anything to show that this character is particularly well-known, well-liked, or is a subject of popular culture, more so than many other one-time characters? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, the article very much violates WP:FICT, which I'm sure the "keeps" haven't read based on their reasonings. Jay32183 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is no actual description about the character, I for deleting the article, but redirecting it to Law_&_Order_characters. It'd be nice if that page were fleshed out a little more with descriptions of the characters and it'd be nice to keep the picture somewhere, potentially on that page. Phuff 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. It stands as only trivia, and that should be incorporated into the Law and Order article. No need for a separate article. - BierHerr 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable fictional character, fails WP:FICT -- will never be more than a stub. Merge to Law & Order characters. --Leflyman^Talk 06:00, 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. fishhead64 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Nation[edit]

Non-notable song per Wikipedia:Notability (music), not released as a single, being used for WWE Raw doesn't cut it. The article also provides no sources. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable song, wiki is not a list for every song.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hit 29 on the mainstream rock tracks. Tim Long 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep uggg. it was released as a single + #29 Billboard mainstream. hard to say if WWE theme songs are deemed notable, but i would go with keep on this one. the_undertow ^talk 06:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "mainstream rock" charts are selective. Something that hits #29 on that may not even trouble the full Top 100 chart, and it looks like this one didn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sleep On It 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted on a national chart. Plus it was an important theme song. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't even been verified.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this information is on the The Union Underground article! Also if it is that important then it should be added into Music in professional wrestling it shouldn't need it's own article at all. Govvy 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to The Union Underground. This doesn't cut it as a standalone article.
Delete On quick review there is NO relevant information worthy of transferring. The fact that Jacqueline danced to this once isn't really encyclopaedic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates info from an existing article. Adds nothing new. Agree with nom. - BierHerr 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Delete per nom" is not a valid comment. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:00, 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. --Core desat 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

89268[edit]

Non-notable record label. No sources, no notable bands. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite as a number. SYSS Mouse 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable record label. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and do not rewrite as a year or a number, as there is no evidence of the notability of either of those. (Of course, without qualification, the title would refer to a year, and not a number, per the MoS.) Xoloz 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. DES ^(talk) 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a rewrite unless it can be demonstrated that the number 89268 has some special, notable qualities. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:42, 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 Keep per consensus and article's improvement. Pea ceNT 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Chatelain[edit]

This article was originally a CSD A7 speedy deletion, overturned by DRV, which found that notability was asserted. Large portions of the work are translations from the French Wikipedia. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is not remotely as sparse as the version that MER-C tagged A7. It's a no brainer to me. YechielMan 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - most advanced recording studio of its time ... wrote a song that has had 40 covers ... taught guitar by Paul Simon, and recorded Sounds of Silence under his guidance ... this guy is highly notable, though the article does need to be tightened up a bit. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as the Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) AFD Adrienne93 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and troutslap the deleting admin. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 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 Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher)[edit]

This article was originally a CSD A7 speedy deletion, overturned by DRV, which found that notability was asserted. Large portions of the work are translations from the French Wikipedia. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for roughly the same reason as the Chatelain AFD. YechielMan 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Badly written article which all-but suggests its subject is non-notable. However I might be persuaded to change this vote if the focus is switched to his songwriting, and reliable sources are presented to the effect that the songs listed towards the end of the article were in fact hits. AndyJones 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Comment~~ he's handicapped by having a very common name. I Googled for sources, but can't be sure they're really for him or not. this seems to be him, but is just a list, not sufficient. See It through My Eyes seems to be him also. Does he meet WP:MUSIC? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep, meets WP:MUSIC with charted hits per Adrienne93 and Dissolve, below. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the songs listed were co-written by Jack Robinson. See Robin Song Music website: www.robinsongmusic.com/ Also, if anyone has a question about authorship of any song it suffices to go on to Google and type in the name of the song. If they just want to keep the musical references:

Major hits: I Love to Love (But my Baby just loves to Dance (J.Bolden-J.Robinson) Saddle Up (J Bolden-J.Robinson) , Strut Your Funky Stuff ( J.Bolden-J.Robinson-V. Robinson (If You Want It ) Do it Yourself (J.Bolden-J.Robinson), Irresistible (J. Robinson-R.Musumarra, Love Me Like a Lover (J.Bolden-J.Robinson) Rendezvous (J.Robinson-J.Bolden). Jack Robinson also produced King Harvest's "Dancing In the Moonlight", etc.

Be lenient, I'm not english... and it's difficult to me to write in english.

Thanks. Adrienne93 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cheesecake manufacturer, but a particularly successful one. If he in fact co-wrote Irresistible that's enough to make him notable. ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fulfils notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
Keep - has had charted hits, so fulfills WP:NMG Dissolve 01:03, 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. Majorly (hot!) 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak scandal legal questions[edit]

This page has POV problems. As other pages covering this topic exist, this page is a POV fork. Furthermore, this page has some huge original research problems. Pablothegreat85 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although an indepth discussion of the legalities involved is more than welcome this article does not look like such an analysis. Also it has the smell of a POV-fork and there is the problem with WP:RS and WP:OR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been lots of scandals and leaks at the CIA over time, the title of this article is misleading as it implies this particular case is the only one. It exists to push a particular political point of view and is therefore against Wikipedia guidelines. This isn't a serious analysis of the case, it's original 'research' of dubious quality aimed to knock Karl Rove as much as possible. If it's left it'll just become the subject of yet another edit war. Nick mallory 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already better covered elswhere, so really nothing here to merge. Title is also cumbersome and potentially misleading. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:44, 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 per Vegaswikian as non-notable group. Luke! 07:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoobears Softball Team[edit]

Amateur softball team—I don't see that this satisfies notability requirements. Speedy tag deleted by author. Deor 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Under WP:CSD A7 -- no claim of notability. If not speedy deleted, delete as not notable unless much better (sourced) evidence of notability is provided. DES ^(talk) 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A softball team? Are they serious? Daniel Case 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably, if there are sources -- oddly enough, "The Zoobear' softball team plays in the Montreal B’nai Brith Softball League (MBBSL), the top level of softball in Canada. The club has won three consecutive Montreal titles." And the top level of national amateur play is notable, according to our rules. furthermore , see Softball_at_the_Summer_Olympics I'm as surprised as anyone else. DGG 05:30, 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 per consensus. fishhead64 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDHS-LP[edit]

This article does not show potential for growth beyond stub status. Also, notability is debateable, as it is a tiny, tiny, tiny radio station (ERP of 100 Watts), owned by a school district in Alaska. RogueNinja_talk 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per the article simply asserts existence, not importance. the_undertow ^talk 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable minor radio station. Davewild 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the individual who created the article in the belief that a comprehensive thorough list of ALL radio stations regardless of size would give Wikipedia more notariety and credibility in the Radio Industry as a one stop site for research relating to the overall trends and insights in radio; especially the relatively new medium of Low Power FM. My goal is in line with Wikipedia Radio Project to do my part to one day give the Radio Station section Wikipedia Portal Status. Perhaps i'm a little myopic and biased as I am passionate about radio and consider ALL FCC licensed radio stations to be relevant whether or not they are in the middle of nowhere or in New York City. I still support deletion as Wikipedia is not my personal site and I respect the consensus of my fellow Wikipedians. Bottom line - I respect your wishes and though I may personally disagree, I respect and admire people who are considerate enough to not simply delete the article and articulately explain their reasoning - so you have my vote for deletion. Transent 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:57, 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. --Core desat 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Teaparty, Nabil Azadi[edit]

New Zealand arts webzine around for less than a year. Article creator seems to have done few edits outside of creating it. No claim to notability per WP:WEB made; no non-trivial coverage found among the two dozne Google results (mainly site itself, this article and mirrors, and blog entries. Seems promotional Daniel Case 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear lack of notability; only 200 ghits. Also delete the article of the magazine's editor in chief:

- Per this vote, I am also nominating the following related page for lack of notability:

Delete fails per WP:WEB. Shows no notable 2nd party references for us to report as a 3rd party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete lacks sources to pass WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided and a Google News [5] and Google News Archive [6] comes up with nothing. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realise that WP:HOLE is a pretty poor guideline to base a delete call on, but as an artist and arts writer working in New Zealand, I'm pretty sure I'd have heard of this site if it was in any way notable. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 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. John254 00:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wren's Nest[edit]

I am nominating this article on a council housing estate for deletion because I can see no notability claimed or sources listed. I did a Google search and while I can verify it's existence, I still see no claim to notability. killing sparrows 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All geographic places are inherently notable. Cheers, DWaterson 08:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The article contains a lot of unnecessary trivia about the estate's awfulness, but scarcely mentions Wren's Nest Hill's central claim to notability: as the link says, it's a classic British geological site that was pivotal to Murchison's establishemnt of the Silurian. There's plenty of material at the Dudley Council page. Tearlach 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wren's Nest National Nature Reserve. Not all geographical places are inherently notable in spite of the above comments to that effect. The general consensus with WP:LOCAL is that inhabited places, ie. towns, cities, villages and other independent settlements are inherently notable, but this article does not specify Wren's Nest is any of these things - it is defined as an "area" with no sources to either corroborate or clarify this for us. The information provided by Tearlach is enough to establish notability for the nature reserve, however, and information pertaining to it should be moved to an appropriately named article, with the other non-notable information excised. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, the article does refer to the Wren's Nest council housing estate, a housing estate being in itself an inhabited place. I note for example that the police describe it as a "neighbourhood" here, though reference to a map of the area would also confirm that it is a built-up settlement. Cheers, DWaterson 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I am somewhat unclear on what a housing estate is. Part of the problem with WP:LOCAL is that it is largely US-centric in terms of defining things like city, town, settlement and so forth. At first blush it looks to me something like a housing development - which usually aren't notable. Is it an independent entity, seperate from a city/town/village, or is it a neighborhood of an existing settlement? That's where the line would be drawn I think, understanding that better might help refine my opinion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, housing estate provides a fairly reasonable definition. In this case, you are right that the Wren's Nest estate is not an independent settlement entity - it is a part of Dudley and I suppose that "neighbourhood" would be the correct term to apply, though I think I would use "suburb". But I disagree at this being the place where you draw the line for notability - I would normally consider most suburbs to be notable. I would draw the line at individual streets, but a particular suburb can very easily have its own distinct character and identity from its parent town that creates notability in its own right. Otherwise, if we draw the line at this point, we would need to start nominating many other articles for deletion en masse. In any case, I'm not sure that WP:LOCAL is the correct guideline against which to assess notability - not only is that guideline inactive, it is also about places of local interest such as "churches, historic buildings, breweries, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, and streets", rather than the places themselves. Cheers, DWaterson 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look at, say, Castle Vale or any of the linked pages in Council house#Examples gives plenty of precedent for the notability of UK housing developments. Such estates are a significant fixture of post-WWII UK urban history; often they have a distinctive architecture and ethos, as well as incorporating (at least nominally) some historical connection with the rural areas they were built on. Tearlach 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback. I understand that WP:LOCAL is inactive, although I was more referring to some of the somewhat recent discussion that had gone on in the talk page regarding the status of minor settlements. I have seen some other AfD's coming up as of late that is starting to further muddle the issue, so I'm contemplating bringing it back up in a broader discussion again ...

In any case, the impression I get is that these housing estates are somewhere along the lines of a neighborhood or housing development. In terms of US cities, at least, when I think "suburb" I tend to think of an independent city that shares a common urban area with a larger city, rather than being a part of that larger city itself. In my experience on AfD's for these types of articles, neighborhoods and developments are not granted "inherent notability" but are forced to rely on the broader WP:N guidelines for establishing notability, such as some sources to verify cultural or historical significance to the region.

I still feel that most of the established notability is for the nature reserve and not the estate, and that information should be moved out into its own article. If some soruces can be found to show the estate itself is notable, and not just for neighboring the nature reserve, then I would not be opposed to keeping it and having the article split, but without more information my recommendation would still be to put the emphasis on the notable reserve and rename accordingly. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to primarily focus upon the nature researve which is what mainly makes it notable. However prefer to keep current name and cover the estate as both in Dudley and not enough information for 2 articles. Davewild 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten to include above concerns. Hopefully the article is now better written and sourced. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs a lot of work but the Wren's Nest area is important to industrial archeologists, naturalists, geologists, waterways enthusiats etc. Martin Cordon 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Create an article, Wren's Nest National Nature Reserve, which would contain the bulk of the current article (most all of which was added after my nomination and is notable!), and the bits on the housing estate could be added to the Dudley article. The estate section is still just about a housing project and has no apparent notability. I guess re: the above arguments on whether this place is notable, I feel that just because something exists, and has been written about, that fact alone does not necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Apologies to anyone who lives there, but who cares? Sure, we've got lots of server space, but we don't have the human resources to patrol, copyedit, cleanup, etc. articles about everything and everyone that is reported on in every newspaper everywhere. If approved I will create the article and move the relevent material. Please notify me of the outcome or send the article to me (userfy). Thanks --killing sparrows 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept because it is about a notable residential area. Many other similar neighbourhoods have their own articles and most of them have not even been considered for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexWilkes (talk • contribs) 09:52, 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 per consensus and article's improvement Pea ceNT 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James and Tom Martin[edit]

Notable enough or not? You, the people, can decide... Chris 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the article, 40 of their songs have been covered by various rock acts. That statement needs a citation but it does assert notability. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - looks like an obvious self bio. Create a Wiki-name tag named after one of their songs, just added photo's and text to this article. Looks like a simplified version of their MySpace bio...! Rgds, - Trident13 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Am currently in the process of researching more songwriting credits to give more "notability" to this article.Will be adding to the page asap if this will help.

--Purplepickledonions 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is certainly not a self-bio. I know the girl who created this article.

--Penthux

— Penthux (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Keep. The article is in need of improvement but they have written/co-written several songs which have charted for other people and therefore they definitely fulfil the notability criteria.Jud 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep With help from another user and a few improvements/new additions to the article, I now feel it more than fulfills the notability criteria. --Purplepickledonions 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. You may only vote once. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:00, 16 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, W.marsh 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was the first one to be created by this user and she was unaware of the various conventions of Wikipedia. I am working with her to try to create a more encyclopedic entry which will include verifiable references.Jud 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article nominated for deletion the day it's created? Give the article creator a chance for crying out loud! =) Above votes make it seem like the subjects pass the notability criteria, so give the newbie a chance to bring this article up to par. →Ed Gl 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with EdGl. Though I do worry about COI per just how the page reads and this discussion, let's give it a chance to breathe. If there's a still problem in two weeks or a month, then we can nom it again. Rockstar (^T/_C) 08:57, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of important and famous Baby Boomers[edit]

I am nominating this list for deletion because it seems to me that the criteria for inclusion are sufficiently broad that the list's contents cannot be effectively constrained. It's better served by the existing categories for birth year. If this list is deleted, I'll also see about removing a similar list from the page on Baby Boomers FrozenPurpleCube 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mindblowingly indiscriminate list that could potentially run to a hundred thousand entries. Horribly America-centric as well.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories like Category:1946 births handle this pretty well. Nydas also makes a good point, and I have really serious concerns about vague terms like "important and famous" in article titles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I would say "famous" might be arguable, "important" is completely indescriminate and subjective, tainting the entire list. -Markeer 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless list. NawlinWiki 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "Important" and "famous" are pretty loaded terms to have in a title. If we distill it down to something more neutral like "notable" then this just turns into a List of baby boomers, as any baby boomers on Wikipedia should be notable per WP:BIO. And listing people by what era they were born in is rather WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the birth year categories handle this much better. JavaTenor 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly anyone in this encyclopaedia would already be famous and/or important, and then we still have years of birth categories.... Clearly redundant Thethinredline 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of arbitrary scope.-- danntm ^T _C 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV title, unmanageable and redundant list. We already have birth year categories. — JyriL ^talk 23:21, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management[edit]

Previously speedily deleted as spam, and recreated. No assertion that this journal is notable, and the article is still rather spam-like. I'll co-nominate other journals produced by Emerald Group Publishing Limited Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they assert no notability, and are from the same publisher:

As a late entry I also found this one, not such much listing for deletion as for DGG's excellent analysis...:

~~Weak~~ redirect or keep Emerald publishing seems to be one of the journal databases to which my university subscribes, and the Google hits for each of these include several .edu domains and such. The articles would need to be rewritten regardless, or simply redirected to a main article for the company, as they are spammy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Emerald Group Publishing. In a similar vein to WP:EPISODE - list the publications and expand as more individual notability / article worthiness can be setablished. And despammify. - Tiswas^(t/c) 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rewrite These have now been rewritten; thank you for the chance to do so. Since there are several other encyclopedia entries for Business and management journals it seems legitimate for each individual page to remain, provided the content is objective. Lawrencemj 11:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to retain an article --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are all peer-reviewed academic journals from an apparently reputable academic publisher. My university library also subscribes to Emerald. It actually seems that an article on Emerald Group Publishing Limited has already been speedy deleted as advertising. The articles should probably be cleaned up and kept, and a new article on the publisher should be written. I have asked User:DGG, who is an academic librarian, to look at this. Pharamond 06:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made my week. In general its been possible to show that every published peer-reviewed journal is notable--, at least the ones in Web of Science and other indexes, but this may be a case where sections may be more appropriate. I will also write a completely new article on the company, and there will be no problem keeping it, as they have been specifically the topic of several published works. Stephen, a good catch. DGG 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management . This journal has actually been rated by several independent raters, summarized in the peer-reviewed article cited (& not published by Emerald), and considered 1st, 2nd, or 6th among the 12 specialty transportation journals using various measures. Thus, I think by our rules it is inescapably notable, even though it is not in Social Science Citation Index, my usual criterion (The authors are university faculty, though primarily not from the US. SSCI is very US-centric for applied journals; Scopus is more balanced.).

Articles about journals traditionally have some puffery--everything is a "leading international journal" or the like. When seen, such comments just need to be removed. Though as you will see there is some reason to be suspicious of the quality of Emerald journals, this one is OK. (to be continued) DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Supply Chain Management: an International Journal. It is in SSCI and JCR, and ranks about midway in its group. Since JCR covers about the top quarter of peer-reviewed journals in the firs place, this is a respectable performance. The authors are mostly academics,not businessmen. DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge for International Marketing Review. It is in Social Science Citation Index, probably because it has been published a relatively long time, but unfortunately its impact factor puts it in the bottom 15% of its group. This is only a rough way of assessing journals, and all the caveats are discussed at Journal Citation Reports and Impact Factor, but it is relevant for the comparison of similar journals in the same field. When I add the publisher article, I'll merge in the essentials.DGG 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge for Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , unless I can find out some more. It isn't in ISI and I have no other quantitative information. There are other ways of evaluating , but they're complicated-- You can look at how many libraries have the journal--which is not that useful as it once as because because Emerald like many major publishers sells most of its journals as packages--which also mess up subscription numbers. You look at a sample who publishes in it, and what their academic reputation is. You collect opinions of specialists. One look And so on. for now, I'd be very content to merge it in the general article. DGG 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the moment for Journal of Knowledge management. This is a new field; there are at most 10 journals in it, & this is one of just 2 of them to be included in Scopus. (None are in Web of Science.) I'd suggest keeping it on that basis. I think it's at least respectable, and the authors are academics. DGG 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - genuine refereed journals should be considered ipso facto notable. Metamagician3000 11:14, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erastide[edit]

While the books are clearly notable, this fictional holiday from them doesn't seem to meet WP:N-EMP 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All fantasy series have stuff like this and they don't need articles. At best crufty stuff like this should be in the article on the books. Better is on an Eddings wiki. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, this should be in the books page. --ConfuciusOrnis 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world significance. Jay32183 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to Belgariad perhaps? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:31, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British idioms[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and unsourced original research. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A), etc. Transwikied, contested prod. MER-C 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a dictionary -- Whpq 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This is ridiculous. Cheers, DWaterson 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete Instead, replace with a single paragraph explaining *what* a Britishism is; and link toList_of_British_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States --Denever6 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. --Core desat 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision overturned per DRV discussion and article relisted at AFD. --Srikeit 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz clubs[edit]

What does this accomplish that a category couldn't do? —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete Provide redlinks to clubs needing links? Unfortunately, given the lack of criteria in the article, I'm not sure that is a good thing. Even if that were changed, it'd still be something of a directory, but maybe somebody can convince me of content to increase its value. FrozenPurpleCube 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The red links should rather be kept as a list on a project page. Dr bab 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Even as a list of red links it is mysteriously vague. Like a List of people. If an individual jazz club is notable someone can make an article about it and, per nom, put it in a cool category. Jdcooper 01:45, 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. --Core desat 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of eugenicists[edit]

This "list of eugenicists" is unsourced and contains no information that wouldn't work just as well as a category (for those who self-identify or self-identified as eugenicists, at least). There is also no definition given for what a "eugenicist" is - is it someone who advocates that people with severe defects voluntarily choose not to reproduce? Is it someone who encourages the supposedly 'fit' to have more children? Or is it someone who forces involuntary sterilization on or murders people based on supposed eugenics principles? You'll find members of all three groups in this list, with no clarification as to who believed/believes what. The list even states that some of those in the list may not be eugenicists - which ones, and why are they on the list? Charlene 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Francis Crick? really? Charles Darwin? Why? Presumably because his cousin, Francis Galton, invented the term, does everyone who is on this list have their cousins included as well? If the term was coined by Galton in the 19th century, then do people like Plato qualify under different rules than those who actually heard of the term in their own life time? Also, the term once encompassed pretty much everything that we now call behavioural genetics and much more, do we include everyone who published in the Journal of biosocial science (formerly Eugenics review), or Annals of human genetics (formerly Annals of eugenics)? Some people consider genetic counseling to be eugenics, do we include everyone in all University Genetic Counseling departments, and all hospital genetic counseling staff? Pete.Hurd 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is actually a very poorly defined list, and hard to define. Every Victorian who considered themselves or others "well bred" could be included. Charlene articulates this well already. Good nomination. Let's drop this article. — coel acan — 07:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, already well argued there. Poorly defined list with no solid inclusion criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list with far too arbitrary scope.-- danntm ^T _C 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rework I would like to rework this with somewhat more defined criteria and , probably, a division into groups; this sort of information is a good purpose for a list a compared to a category. I dont want to make a massive edit during an Afd, so I have userified it, and will edit it as a new article, though under the same title, for it probably is the best title. (btw, Plato did specifically advocate selective breeding of humans as a major theme in the Republic).DGG 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just so you know for the article (if you plan on writing it), Cato the Censor also discussed breeding slaves, although I'm not sure if we know that from his writings directly (not all survived) or from Horace and others who mentioned them. --Charlene 09:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someguy1221 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jdcooper 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear definition. No supporting references. Random list of people who with no clear pattern.Glendoremus 05:02, 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 and redirect to Ralph Fiennes per consensus. fishhead64 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Robertson (Australian)[edit]

The incident received substantial media coverage and should be included in the Ralph Fiennes article, but the the depth of coverage of the subject is not substantial and therefore does not appear to meet Notability (people) guidelines Thin Arthur 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 13:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically her notability stems from the fact she slept with someone famous - not good enough. Delete per nom. Teiresias84 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Teiresias84. This does not meet the required notability guidelines by any stretch of the imagination. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and as noted. Orderinchaos 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. While there has been press coverage, it is a tabloid story, not an encyclopaedic one Thethinredline 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ralph Fiennes to assist anyone using her name to find out about the incident (although, there isn't much to add to what is already in that article).Ga rr ie 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ralph Fiennes although there are living persons concerns about the article as a standalone given the content. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ralph Fiennes article, this is a relevant incident that has occurred and should be documented in some capacity. Beeawwb 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, tabloid nonsense like this has no place in an encyclopædia, and sleeping with someone famous does not make you notable. Lankiveil 13:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect per Garrie. JRG 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Fiennes incident, while the catalyst for interest, lead to the reveation of other items of interest, admittedly of a tabloid variety e.g. undercover policeman who later works as a prostitute, lad's magazine model etc. Combined, these may just make her notable.--Mattinbgn/^talk 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Persons only peripherally related to celebrities do not meet the criteria Ar-wiki 22:34, 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 Speedy delete both g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sas monkey[edit]

Hoax. Alksub 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bundling another page with this nomination, because the same editor created both and they resemble one another:

An IP user removed the prod template from both. Alksub 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - both as CSD:G1 - hoaxes. Google searches yield no evidence of these species in the real world. Luke! 07:23, 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. --Core desat 05:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Altscher[edit]

Article in current state fails to meet notability guidelines for people. The subject of the article was a former contestant on the reality television show, The Apprentice LA, sixth season. The only claim to notability is by way of a contestant on the show. Seven days earlier, I had expressed my concern on the notability of the article subject by way of a {{notability}}. Given that the subject of the article was on a widely syndicated/watched television reality show, and no improvements have been made since then, I believe, it is fairly safe to assume that this individual is not notable. Luke! 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the winners are notable on their own, and this person was "fired" in week five. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I've had enough with reality TV articles about normal people getting on WP. YechielMan 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reality show contestant with no other notability beyond aoppearance on the show -- Whpq 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In respect of reality show contestants I interpret WP:Bio to mean that they are not generally considered notable unless they won the show, or became famous for something else on the strength of it. This one doesn't seem to be in either category. A1octopus 17:52, 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 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoonPie Madness[edit]

Article for a recent event that took place at Virginia Commonwealth University - it's a moon pie eating contest, simple as that, but events aren't speedy deletion candidates. There are claims of some minor local news coverage, but it isn't notable on a wider scale, the text is somewhat promotional (though not quite enough for G11), and the article isn't actually sourced. I have preemptively placed {{afdanons}} given that this article is being advertised on a Facebook community. Core desat 07:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable event. NawlinWiki 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable. But I'm having a yard sale soon. I'll be writing an article on that. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:46, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Mainland-Vancouver Island[edit]

The subject doesn't appear to exist. I've lived in Vancouver for years and this is the first I've heard that these two metro areas are beginning to form into a single urban area. Frankly, it's an absurd claim, and certainly not notable or attributable to any credible source. bobanny 07:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Per nom. Erroneous implication for a non-existent/conjectured urban area, which, when one looks at the actual geographic masses in the title :"Vancouver Island" and "Lower Mainland", consists of an area considerably larger than Belgium. Most of the former is relatively sparsely settled, particularly on its northern half.--Keefer | Talk 07:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing wrong with such a large "urban area", the US Census bureau, for example, identifies a number of extremely large "metropolitan areas" for statistical reasons. Nevertheless, there is no indication that thsi particular area actually exists, and one could say it's original research but it looks more like just something someone made up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard of the GVRD/CRD region spoken in the same breathe, usually in the context as a demographic or economic region, and every few years a bridge is proposed between the two. But I've never heard of Lower Mainland-Vancouver Island connection. I did a quick scan of books about such things but did not find this. --maclean 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above arguments. There's no reported political push to blend the two areas, nor have I seen or heard any indication of public interest in that kind of combination. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. This is a fabricated metropolitan area: OR if I;ve ever seen it. Fishhead64 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this is nonsense. I live, and work, in both of these regions during the year. There is only a very elementary integration between them - by no sense of the term can they be considered a "single" metropolitan area. The Juan de Fuca Straight is quite a barrier to integration, after all. --Haemo 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I live in Vancouver, and never heard of or seen of this term. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy STRONG Delete with a Snowball There's Greater Vancouver, which is Lower mainland plus chilliwack, albesford, Pitt meadows, Langley, and maybe Mission. Vancouver island is never part of Lower Mainland or vice verse; not even the past, not now. George Leung 01:56, 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 neodelete. --Core desat 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neogoth[edit]

newly coined neologism. This article cites no independant or reliable sources for "neogoth". It contradicts itself saying neogoths are members of the goth subculture and at the same time neogoths are a counter movement. It advances original positions such as that cybergoth originated inside the goth subculture. in searching for the term neogoth I can only find 2 cd's both sold by Cleopatra records using the label neogoth (and neither CD actually contains the contents of this wikipage, but rather are music compilations and nothing more). No bands are promoted by anyone as "neogoth".. no one on the internet seems to say "I am a neogoth". google searching turns up no reliable references on neogoth (but many which point back to wiki). and www.neogoth.net is nothing but a placeholder on the name. neogoth.com is for sale. neogoth.org is some kind of error message page. I can not find any reliable independant sources to attibute this information to and I've tried. TheDarknessVisible 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism and original research / POV. The modern day goth subculture is covered in that article. Mdwh 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism + personal opinions on the topic. --Stormie 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all of the above reasons and the fact that it's patently untrue - there's no such thing as a "modern goth subculture," that would suggest that today's goth subculture is somehow different to that which existed previously, but in fact it's just a continuation of the same. A1octopus 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no "modern goth subculture". There's a goth subculture which hasn't changed much since the 80s and just call themselves "goths", and there are a bunch of subcultures inspired by it (dark wave, electroclash, ethereal wave, even boho & emo) who would sooner die than refer to themselves as "neogoths" (well, a lot of them would sooner die than anything, because the world doesn't understand them and it's all so unfair, but you get the picture). Nobody ever uses the term "neogoth". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:17, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary mass type[edit]

This is basically a neologism. A search on Google for "'planetary mass type' -Wikipedia" turns up no articles that use the phrase. A search at the ADS Abstract Service also shows that this phrase is not used in astronomy. Planet already covers much of the material presented here, but it includes references and generally accepted scientific terminology. In contrast, planetary mass type may contain original research. This article should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the classification system in the article is astronomy standard, keep: 7 ordinary pages point to it for the information in it: this info was likely put in its own file, not in Planet, so users would not have to download and ferret through all of Planet for this information. This article is here for the information, not for the name: its author had to call this page something. If this page could have had a better name, rename it. If the information is adequately duplicated in another Wikipedia page, redirect. Anthony Appleyard 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:BlueEarth, who also created planetary mass type added these "classifications" to the other articles (without references). This is very dangerous original research. Dr. Submillimeter 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also note that the ADS Abstract Service is a professional astronomy resource. If the classification system was in use, the terms would turn up there. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research.--JyriL ^talk 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also note that I have nominated subterrestrial for deletion (see the discussion here). This is another unreferenced article created by the same user who wrote planetary mass type. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Neologism. --ScienceApologist 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not appear to refer to a professional astronomical standard. Looks nice, however Delete as WP:OR.Sdp1978 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. This is not a classification system currently in use. Scientists seem to have a hard enough time agreeing on what a planet is in any official context, let alone coming up with a comprehensive classification system like this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you please add references and sources to planetary mass type article. Thank you! BlueEarth 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the original article, so you know best where the information comes from.--— JyriL ^talk 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. However, I would support its recreation or retention given its backing by an authoritative source and/or evidence of its being used by the astronomical community. --EMS | Talk 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know the author put a lot of work into this. But there is no authoritative source that I know about that has published this classification scheme, and it is against Wikipedia policy to create one here. If anyone can find an appropriate source, I would be glad to reverse my recommendation. Vegasprof 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as made up in one school day. And brown dwarfs are not planets (see the Extrasolar planet working group for IAU). [7] 132.205.44.134 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In fairness User:BlueEarth indicated that a brown dwarf is not a planet in his section on brown dwarfs and in the table at the bottom of the page. Though I agree it would seem inappropriate to have them in a planetary classification system.Sdp1978 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequate sources are provided. Someguy1221 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to copy of other people's work. The information on that page is a combination of my ideas and Wilbur's ideas on the |Extrasolar Vision forum of my early suggestion of a planetary classification, John W.'s PCL list, and other suggestions from other people on Extrasolar Forum and Arcbuilder's BBS. Talk:Appearance_of_extrasolar_planets, here on the last section, you can see BlueEarth knows of the Extrasolar Vision forum.
Improved I added four references and one external link to the article. BlueEarth 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the classification scheme still needs references. Also, "A teenager Chris Dybala developed the planetary mass type in April 2007" is not a valid reference. Moreover, the introduction now clearly indicates that this violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dr. Submillimeter 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The first reference, which appears to refer to the origin of the classification system, should refer to a primary of secondary source see WP:OR. This reference does not refer to anything and is therefore an invalid reference. Also your reference suggests that this is original research which is not premitted.Sdp1978 02:49, 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. --Core desat 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Tzouannis[edit]

Not-notable journalist. Before seeing the Wikipedia article I did not even know him. Never heard of him. He works for NOVA Greece and that is all. Is that enough to make him notable? Definitely not one of the well-know Greek sportcasters. If you search in Google, putting the Greek characters, you will have a link telling you that he took some interviewes during a Olympiacos-Panathinaikos match (he was not the main or one of the main sportcasters during the match!), and that he played in a match between journalists! Now, if you click the English name, you'll find only the Wikipedia's article about him. In any case, I do not base my arguments on just Google search. This is just another argument that he is not notable. Yannismarou 08:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In whatever case, he is non-notable and does not deserve a article. Kyriakos 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions.--Yannismarou 08:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he meets WP:BIO and creator's contribs history suggests this is an autobiography. Pascal.Tesson 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comments are redundant. Niko Silver 20:36, 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 Keep per consensus Pea ceNT 06:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Painter[edit]

Contested prod. Apparent fan article about a college basketball coach. Notability is rather dubious. >Radiant< 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable coach. There are many other less notable coaches with pages, including his assistants! It seems all head coaches in every major US sport have pages. Why should this be any different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.229.226 (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He's been a coach at a Division I NCAA school for a number of years. That's notable enough for me. YechielMan 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Davewild 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad faith afd. Mystache 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a bad faith afd; notable by WP's low threshold, that's all. Carlossuarez46 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Division 1 head coach, lead Southern Illinois University to the NCAA tournament in 2004 and reached a ranking as high as 15th in the nation that year. Lead Purdue University to the NCAA tournament in 2007. Further bios scattered around the net on various websites, google news chimes in with more than 300 news articles related to him, and on and on and on and on. Blatantly notable. --Durin 14:38, 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 all. --Core desat 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albuera Street Primary School[edit]

One line article about a school with no evidence of notability provided. While the article may improved in the future, the school is unlikely to be notable Mattinbgn/^talk 10:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons as above:

Addition:

Delete Very few primary schools are notable enough for their own articles, and these seem to be no exception. Mr Stephen 10:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these can be recreated if there is anything notable about the schools but there is no information here that needs protecting. Euryalus 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these schools do not appear to be notable. Lankiveil 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, but redirect to name of town - please, as per WP:LOCAL? That's more useful than just a straight delete. JRG 13:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:LOCAL is not a policy. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - While I'm not actually against schools having articles, these clearly are not notable enough to exist outside one line in the parent article, eg Avoca, Tasmania. (I also added Deloraine - same or similar grounds) Orderinchaos 14:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created these pages because I thought I was being helpful. There is a page called List of schools in Tasmania with lots of red links for pages to be created so I had a few hours free and decided to pitch in and start creating them. I have no knowledge of any of these places. I would not have bothered if I thought they were going to be deleted. I have very little spare time so it is fustrating to find I have wasted it. I thought 'red links' were links where a page was required? Can anyone suggest how I might contribute in future without haveing all my efforts deleted? Also, it seems to me that if a self-interested private school creates their own page, it stays, whereas state funded school don't seem to be important. Just a thought. MrsPlum 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before doing this work it would have been a good idea to discuss it at a talk page I guess - either Talk:List of schools in Tasmania, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tasmania might have been good places to try. Unfortunately this does happen that when articles are created without finding sources first then what is created is a directory-style stub which does not show that the subject of the article is at all notable. Garrie 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, thanks for being helpful and trying to resolve redlinks. If more people did this, Wikipedia would be a much better place. Second, the proposed deletion is no reflection on your work, its just that it appears the articles don't meet the notability guidelines for schools. Schools need to have some notable feature(s) other than their existence - for example, interesting architecture, a number of famous alumni, or a record of winning nationally significant competitions. Many schools can meet these criteria, but these current articles don't include that kind of info. Have a look at WP:SCHOOLS for an idea of the kind of information that might justify a school article.Euryalus 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should have added - WP:SCHOOLS is not official policy, but it is a useful guideline nonetheless. Check out the active links at the top of its page for more current conversations on schools articles. Euryalus 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- List of schools in Tasmania doesn't appear to show there being any huge variation in the number of articles created between private schools, and public schools? (Percentage wise there may be, but that is because of the sheer volume of primary schools, most of which were added in a red-linked form, by an anon user in November 2005). (I'm also not sure why you assume that an article about a private school must have been created by the school itself?) -- Chuq (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability has been provided for any of the schools listed above. If sources can be found to show individual notability then the articles can be recreated in the future.Ga rr ie 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't support standalone articles on these schools unless there is enough material supporting a standalone article. It would be good if there was a page on the school districts or however they organise their schools in Tasmania. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, the list of schools in Tasmania page could be re-arranged into a tabular format with some basic information about each school - like List of schools in the Australian Capital Territory -- Chuq (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a great idea, and should be done for all states and territories, with a separate list for each state. Larger states may need breaking down using some method such as region, type, school system etc. I would be willing to help out on this--Mattinbgn/^talk 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - If the tens of thousands of United States town articles created automatically by User:Rambot a few years ago are kept, I see no reason why these shouldn't be kept also. However, it would help if these article had a bit more content than the name of the town they are in and an external link to the schools website. If keep fails (and it looks like it will), redirect primary schools - either to the town/suburb article, the high school that it feeds into, or a general list article. If not redirected, they will only be re-created later by someone else. -- Chuq (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a problem with someone creating South Arm Primary School if they can establish notability & cite their sources. So I don't particularly see the need to turn these articles into redirects, the articles haven't been around very long anyway (and I don't think they have many incoming links).Garrie 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The good thing is that we can create them as redirects, and they can be converted into articles later if the notability increases. -- Chuq (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - without prejudice to any being recreated if enough sourced material can be found. Meanwhile the way forward, as discussed above, is to add core information to list of schools in Tasmania in tabular form. TerriersFan 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:N. I would say merge what little is there, but that would not be consistent with WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:33, 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. --Core desat 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subterrestrial[edit]

This is effectively a neologism being used to describe planets that are the size of Mercury and Mars. The term is generally not used this way within astronomy as revealed by a search through my textbooks, Google, and the ADS Abstract Service. The article contains no references to verify that it is a term that is in use. The article contains nothing of value; it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Neologisms. --ScienceApologist 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism.--JyriL ^talk 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO and WP:OR. Nothing to back up that this is used anywhere, at all. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, NEO, unsourced. I left a note for the article's creator about original research. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search for "subterrestial planet" turned up only one hit for the full term, and that was a made-up web page which includes a reference to the "Alliance Astronomical Society". A similar Google Scholar search came up empty. The best I could do was a reasonable-looking reference to "subterrestrial-sized planets", and I only could locate one of those! --EMS | Talk 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, unsourced. I think "subterrestrial" is a very nice word, and if it were used and defined in an authoritative scientific publication, I would be very happy to change my vote, providing the reference is given. Vegasprof 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not a dictionary with bogus definitions. (Real definition is here [8]). Danski14^(talk) 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to underground, see this link [9] 132.205.44.134 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is an interesting proposal. However, would the average user that is searching for "subterrestrial" be interested in anything in underground (a disambiguation page)? I am inclined to believe that turning this into a redirect would be inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - there is all of one google hit for "subterrestrial planet," and hundreds for online dictionaries, and other pages in which subterrestrial is used to mean underground. Someguy1221 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Subterrestrial was moved to subterrestrial planet by User:BlueEarth. The user should have waited until the discussion closed. The rename personally does not affect my statements on this article. Dr. Submillimeter 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article sounds like it would be in a dictionary, not Wikipedia. Branson03 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someguy1221 22:06, 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. --Core desat 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle[edit]

Nickname of a character from The Tommyknockers; fails WP:FICT from a character POV, or WP:NEO for the nickname, but either way you look at it it's not notable. Percy Snoodle 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. How far removed from reality can you get? YechielMan 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on the character whose nickname this is would probably not pass WP:FICT. Jay32183 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but imagine a wikipedia where we did have articles down to this level. Jdcooper 01:59, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Hayman[edit]

Freelance photographer, whose only claim to fame is to have been the photographer for the 1-week old short film Take Out. Non-notable in my opinion. -- Marcika 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly not notable. Also delete the film:

YechielMan 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete Take Out. Not yet adequate grounds for notability. A1octopus 13:16, 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. Herostratus 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clairredolence[edit]

This page contains information on a non-notable area of parapsychology. The subject matter is mostly a romanticized new age idea that has been tagged onto parapsychology by its own believers, rather than by parapsychologists. After a brief period of research, I was unable to verify that this topic existed outside of a "fringe of a fringe", and can assert that it hasn't even succeeded in attracting of notable kooks, let alone serious investigators/well known pseudoscientists.

The topic also does not exist in popular fiction. The closest that I've found to a reference to it were a couple of "related incidents" in TV shows (a Doctor Who episode in which somebody smells a familiar smell around what they think is a ghost of a relative, and a scene from the movie poltergeist where a spirit runs through somebody and leave a distinctive odor behind). In these cases, it is referenced through an action, but it never named.

In brief, it's not notable, and should be deleted.

perfectblue 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: subject is not notable, and is largely a piece of new age whimsy riding on the coattails of Parapsychology. perfectblue 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect into appropriate parapsychology article. J. D. Redding 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There doesn't appear to be one. This is new age stuff, not proper parapsychology perfectblue 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It says it's part of extra-sensory perception. IF not, then Delete. J. D. Redding 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of ESP as far as parapsychology is concerned. It's just a new age neologism - perfectblue 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to new age or extra-sensory perception. Is there a list of such neologisms @ either article? Such as "Clairaudience", "Clairaudient", [insert new age term here], etc ... J. D. Redding 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (PS., I know about neologism, I did some work on that a year or 2 ago ...)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phenomena of odours related to supposedly paranormal sources is well-known, but this term gets just one unique GHit [10] that isn't a Wikipedia mirror (and that was written by an "Empathic and Intuitive Mediator"), so it probably drifts into WP:NFT territory as well. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:30, 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 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tejatat Tejasen[edit]

Non-notable person, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Seems creation was made to make the List of converts to Islam list longer.--Sefringle 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as written; claims of notability are unsourced and laced with weasel words. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:16Z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:03, 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. The raw total is 11-5 Delete. But its not a vote. The Keep commentors make the point that (1) It's notable (this is true), (2) It's sourced (this is true) and (3) this is sufficient for the article to be kept absent a compelling reason to delete it. This is a pretty strong position; we don't often delete well-sourced articles on notable subjects. The Keep commentors has a variety of arguments. Is it a POV fork? [User:The Behnam|The Behnam] notes "[W]e have had complaints that it is both too anti-Iran and also too pro-Iran." That doesn't sound like a POV fork to me; I would say that if you have complaints from two opposed camps that you're probably doing something right. Aarktica makes the point "[A]nything that has CURRENT in the title — while news-worthy — is hardly encyclopedic." This is a good point, but not fatal; it appears that it's encyclopedic now and I guess it can be renamed, merged, or delete if and when it is no longer notable. The agrument is made that it's original research, which may be true; but the considerable sourcing tends to belie this, granted it doesn't completely negate it, per Mardavich's comment. For the rest, commentors mainly assert that its unnecessary and unhelpful. But this is not a telling argument when others claim that it is useful and helpful to the Wikipedia. Because of the "vote" totals and the variety of the Delete arguments, I think No Consensus is called for rather than a straight-out Keep. Herostratus 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current international tensions with Iran[edit]

This article seems like a POV fork. Someone on the talk page asked for an AFD, so here it is. Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a POV fork. Its a significant series of events that cannot be incorporated into any other article without making it unwieldy. Also it has many related sub-articles that would loose any connectivity if this main article is deleted. If I saw someone wanting to rename or merge the article somewhere, that would be reasonable (I would still oppose that ofcourse), but nominating this significant article for straight deletion is not reasonable at all.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Matt has never contributed to this article and/or its talk page.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution is not required in order to participate in an AfD. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm 99% certain the only reason you are voting here is from wikistalking me from my contribs.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was created, the events already were tied together by Foreign relations of Iran. It's not clear why we need an article that focuses only on the tensions, and doesn't include the aspects of Iran's foreign policy that other countries can agree with. And there's no clear reason that we need the summary of current events to be separated from the summary of historical events (especially when foreign relations of Iran has long addressed both). --Interiot 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a decent article with lots of sources on an important current issue. So long as a variety of people keep contributing to it, and offer both sides of the story, then it's legitimate - although it could degenerate into another edit war at any time of course. The fact that there's been such an intense debate about it on the talk page shows that a variety of views are being expressed so I don't see the problem. There wouldn't be any articles on politics if they were all deleted for being contentious, it's the nature of the beast. Nick mallory 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move content to relevant articles organized by specific topic or time, for instance Nuclear programme of Iran, United States-Iran relations, Human rights in Iran, to name a few. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too much of an 'analysis' tying things together as if they are related. While they might be, not everybody agrees about the way this unity is presented. I mean, seriously, we have had complaints that it is both too anti-Iran and also too pro-Iran. That's just absurd. Of course, the information itself is good and should be relegated elsewhere, but this article seems to be too much of a construction. I am, however, willing to reconsider if I see some good case for it, but this article has been unworkable for weeks and I have come to believe that it may be a fundamental flaw. The Behnam 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See arguments from myself and User:Interiot at the talk page. Batmanand | Talk 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article definitely started as OR/POV (named Iran international crisis), and people have worked to improve it over time, but even if made fully NPOV, it's not clear there's a purpose for this article. All of the issues covered are already covered at Foreign relations of Iran, History of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or one of the more detailed articles under Category:Foreign relations of Iran. As pointed out on the talk page, we don't have any other article that covers just the most recent events while archiving historical events to History of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except in Portal: space. Or if it's going to go the other way (eventually renamed to something like the 2008 US-Iran war if something serious does happen), then it's crystal-balling to try to predict when the peak in tensions is, or that the tensions will result in hostilities rather than diplomatic resolution. --Interiot 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- this article would beed to be renamed- "current" is not going to be relevant in a years time for example. Thunderwing 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full of original research, and synthetic research. So delete per "No original research" :Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." --Mardavich 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete encyclopedia not newspaper Sleep On It 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepwell sourced and highly notable--Sefringle 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move content to relevant articles organized by specific topic or time, for instance Nuclear programme of Iran, United States-Iran relations, Human rights in Iran, to name a few. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 10:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per user Sefringle - Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't we have individual articles for relations between Iran and country X (especially Russia, Israel, and USA)? I think that the content belongs at those articles (listed at Foreign relations of Iran#See also). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles were brought up three months ago on the talk page [11], but some of the editors seemed intent on describing the current situation as a crisis [12], a crisis that involves multiple countries [13]. It would be good if voters could say whether they've looked at the details of this article and think there's anything worth merging over. --Interiot 05:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article isn't a POV fork, it discusses genuine tensions with Iran, especially from 2003 onwards when Ahmadinejhad was elected. The article is well sourced and is certainly notable. Although individual pages exist for many aspects, e.g. nuclear program of iran, this page serves as something of a summary, and we must remember that tensions exist with iran over more than just its nuclear research. For example the supplying of parts and possibly people to fuel the afghan and iraqi insurgencies.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 09:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mardavich. Original research through synthesis; merge any salvageable content to appropriate articles.--Leflyman^Talk 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name is rather telling; anything that has CURRENT in the title — while news-worthy — is hardly encyclopedic. --Aarktica 13:04, 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 merge to Apple-Intel architecture. WjBscribe 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext[edit]

Delete Non-notable factlet. Not even worth being merged into another article. AlistairMcMillan 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete While in the grand scheme of things, the existence of a Mac OS X kernel extension to block non-Apple hardware from being used to run OS X might not seem significant, it has everything to do with virtualization and digital rights management, both of which are very important topics particularly of late. The article does cite references and is very informative, as well. Perhaps it could be merged with Mac OS X or even osx86? Mstahl 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We're not the hacker's guide to Mac OS X and this is way too technical. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:14Z

Comment - mhm yah this is informatiional its not about hacking OS X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.11.149.61 (talk • contribs) 04:27, April 18, 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Reading the notability wikipedia guideline, we can see that "Notability is generally permanent", which makes this article far from notable, since it is a response to the trend of running OSX on non-apple hardware. Dravick 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe this is the correct interpretation of permanence of notability - just because software evolves, does not mean it's not capable of being notable, otherwise we would be deleting all software entries once they are superseded. There are references Ohconfucius 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I wasn't clear. I just meant that it is not a notable subject; maybe there could be like a sentence in a "trivia" section in the apple intel transition page, but certainly not its own article. Dravick 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent, I agree with points madde by Mstahl, although I am not convinced it should be a full "Keep". It is clearly relevant, and worthy of mention. No company has paid more attention to maintaining such a strong link between hardware and software. Merge possibily to Apple-Intel architecture or Apple-protected binaries Ohconfucius 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apple-Intel architecture as Ohconfucius suggested; while not a notable module on its own, discussion of OS X's copy protection would be relevant to that article. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apple-Intel architecture seems better than straight deletion. It is an interesting, relevant, and reference-able piece of information. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since multiple sources indicate this is an item of note. —204.42.16.113 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not an argument, since all sources could be from very technical websites, making it interesting only for programmers or so. Dravick 06:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1) showing the user messages is copyvio (I assume) (2) not notable, does not meet the 10-year test. Herostratus 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles on wikipedia concern a topic less than ten years old, especially computer-related pages. Is that really a valid argument? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps Hero meant the "will the subject still be interesting to anyone in ten years?" test. AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on whether or not Apple decides to keep it in the code for ten more years. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:03, 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 delete (re-creation of deleted material - CSD G4) --rogerd 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned Allstars[edit]

This page has been deleted & reposted numerous times (apparently as a non-notable group), yet the nomination was sort of malformed. I am hereby completing the nomination. TML 11:54, 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 speedy delete CSD G4. WjBscribe 14:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small penis humiliation (3rd nomination)[edit]

Hoax, recreation of a page already deleted, no references, no verifiability, original research. Delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant, yet strong delete - while I find the article quite amusing, it fails WP:ATT, having no reliable sources provided for the article. Delete per nom-EMP 12:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Previous Afd nominations: First (May 2005) no consensus and Second (April 2006) delete. WjBscribe 14:28, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Gheelh[edit]

Hoax article. The only "reference" points to an entirely different school. Although I can't prove it, I have a feelign that this was made up by a student of that school. Tito Pao 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it does exist in the Philippines (Google is inconclusive), there are not enough RS to support an article about it. YechielMan 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Using the keyword "Gheelh" Google finds several pages of the University of Gheelh, so it apparently exists.— JyriL ^talk 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hate to disagree, but I'll bet one months' salary that it doesn't exist. First, I live in the province where this university is supposed to exist. At present, there are less than 10 tertiary institutions with university status, and this one isn't it. If it was, people here would know about it. It also claims that it has its own conservatory of music, but the truth is there are no music conservatories in the province of Bulacan (otherwise, why would the musicians in my province go to Manila to pursue their music education?); so do the other institution in this dubious "university", judging by their names (facilities in "CityLand Pulong Buhangin" which is likely a residential subdivision, "StarsBorn Institute" which reeks of the StartStruck TV series in the Philippines ("where stars are born"), and both "University of Bermillo" and "Ryan College" which looks like the invention of someone named Ryan Bermillo). In addition, the links on Google are either mirrored articles of the WP article, or submitted links to Alumni.net which, to the best of my knowledge, does not verify if organizations exist (members on this website can add their own organizations) and hence cannot be considered a reliable resource. --- Tito Pao 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Delete No official website, no media coverage, no document to confirm its existence, obviously a hoax. And if it is not, not notable to have its own article here. --Mithril Cloud 04:14, 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibia (computer game) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Delete - Only assertion of notability is a big number. Unsourced beyond fansites. Fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Big number is sufficient assertion, in my opinion. This game has been mentioned in Polish media regarding its addictiveness, so it is certainly having a cultural impact. Anything with a cultural impact should be reachable via Wikipedia. Ivucica 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 12:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the fact that this game has been ported to both Linux and a portable phone edition, as well as having had a firefox add-on developed to search the web for Tibia information. I've also found the following articles:

[14] <- ~~Indicates that Tibia is large enough to attract people trying to scam accounts~~ Sorry, this is actually another ten year announcement from a different source.

[15] <- This is the account scamming announcement.

[16] <- Indicates a total player base of 250,000 players

[17] <- Announces the fact Tibia has been around for ten years

I've seen others as well, but the computer I'm on refuses to load IGN and a few other sites, so I can't see if there's anything there. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out by linking to WP:BIGNUMBER, length of time and number of players are not useful for establishing notability. The article still fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. We have one story about account scamming, but then again, any web game that offers premium and free accounts attracts scammers. DarkSaber2k 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That still doesn't address link 3, an independant article which announces the fact the game's been around for ten years. I imagine that when I get home tonight I'll be able to scrounge up more sources in addition to those three. Plus, the article on account scamming is notable because it's a third party announcement. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I did, it was the scammer story I didn't refute, just pointed out that having people trying to scam accounts on a game isn't exactly notable in itself.. WP:BIGNUMBER has numerous other related things on it, one of which mentions the length of time something has been around. DarkSaber2k 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd argue that WP:BIGNUMBER doesn't apply here. This is not a first party source claiming that Tibia's been around for ten years, but an independant third party doing an article on Tibia being in existence for ten years. That's a big difference. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree, as your are trying to assert 'It has been around ten years, it's notable' 'It's notable because it has 250,000 players.' Which is exactly what WP:BIGNUMBER is describing. BUT, the fact that there are articles at all goes some small way towards notability. DarkSaber2k 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that's NOT my argument. The contents of the articles indicates that Tibia has been around for ten years. My assertion of notability here is that Tibia is notable enough that two third party sources felt it was important enough to write articles about it being a decade old. I'm not saying "Tibia is ten years old and is thus notable", I'm saying "Tibia had two articles written about it being ten years old and is thus notable". If I wanted to just go for WP:BIGNUMBER, I'd just state the fact that according to the last AFD, the game's homepage was under 1,500 according to Alexa's traffic rankings. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I get you now, sorry for the misunderstanding. DarkSaber2k 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough in my book. Has more members than alot of other MMORPG'S that are "notable" (EQ, AC, DAOC, AO, etc etc), and has a noticable enough existance. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP:BIGNUM is not policy and I don't agree with it. This game has a LOT of players (hundreds of thousands) world-wide (note 11 other languages whose wikipedias have articles about it), has a high Alexa ranking, a large fan-base, and is known by a lot of people, and therefore has wide impact. That's what notability is. It does need citations for its content, of course, but that's not what AfD is for. (Note that as a German game, it may unfortunately be harder to find English sources than we are used to.) — brighterorange (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable source about mobile phone edition — brighterorange (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent reliable sources presented. Ones listed above are either trivial listings (fileratings.com) or reprinted press releases on mmorpg.com. You need secondary sources to write an article, regardless of how many people play it. Wickethewok 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about this? About 350,000 google hits...take your pick. Clicky --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# of Google hits doesn't show notability - reliable sources do. Wickethewok 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its hard to find external sources for this type of thing. Its a notable game and has a large userbase, it may be of minority interest but its stands. Bjrobinson 17:54, 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 Speedy delete a7, 15 yr old youth team player, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris thomas mckim smith[edit]

contested prod - not notable as footballer guidelines - needs to be a pro. Fredrick day 12:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable young footballer, failing WP:BIO.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he plays first-team football for a professional club or at worst is added to the recognised first-team squad. Alleged promise of a pro contract in two years time doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. doesn't satisfy wp:bio-emp 12:44, 16 april 2007 (utc)
Delete Non notable. Mattythewhite 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete a notable young footballer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokey93 (talk • contribs)
- User:Stokey93 is the creator of the article in question and has made no edits other than to the article and this AfD
Don't Delete in a succsefull football team, with a promised contract in 2 years time with notible intrest from several clubs— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokey93 (talk • contribs)
Delete - not notable GiantSnowman 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - tony pulis is an experienced manager and knows what he talking about stokey93 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment firstly, stop deleting other people's comments, that is considered vandalism, secondly you only get to !vote once, not three times, and thirdly Tony Pulis' level of experience is irrelevant, this player (assuming he even exists, as we have no proof that he does) doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion which are clearly set out in the WP:BIO policy. End of story ChrisTheDude 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this article has been deleted before therefore it is a candidate for speedy deletion ChrisTheDude 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable until he plays for a Football League club professionaly. Kingjamie 13:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:38, 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. --Core desat 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ding (vehicle)[edit]

Unreferenced, and already transwikied to Wiktionary. Article is no longer needed at Wikipedia. Longhair\^talk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as dicdef -- Whpq 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. YechielMan 17:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:08Z
Delete as a transwikied dicidef. Ga rr ie 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it might be worth a mention in the Ding disambiguation page. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a disambiguation page is to assist in navigation to an article, and not to provide dictionary defintions so it would not be an appropriate disambig entry. -- Whpq 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook dicdef. Lankiveil 13:10, 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 speedy delete no assertion of notability. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Jewish Alliance[edit]

no google hit except wikipedia and mirrors. I suspect a WP:HOAX Jon513 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Jon513 13:19, 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. Majorly (hot!) 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RIT Ambulance[edit]

NN student organization ccwaters 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep For an organization that's been around for 25 years and is doing something useful, there may be grounds for inclusion. Google gives about 760 hits. YechielMan 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Disclaimer: I go to RIT, though I'm not involved with RITA or this article.) It's not just a dinky little student group, it's a very prominent service on campus, and Google shows at least a handful of independent reliable sources ([18], [19]) that satisfy WP:ORG. Krimpet (talk/review) 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went to RIT too. Forgot they were known as "RITA". Nothing against them, I generally don't think local ambulatory services are notable. Most student groups or local chapters of frats aren't either. ccwaters 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ambulance services seems to indicate a consensus that EMS services are generally notable, I wouldn't be against a selective merge to Rochester Institute of Technology though if consensus deems otherwise. Krimpet (talk/review) 18:52, 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. --Core desat 05:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona Business School[edit]

Non-notable organization lacking independent sources of information Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete very few independent sources of info, and article was created by owner. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not the first time this article has been created by this user, I seem to recall. - MrArt 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous version was created by User:Roger2424. DES ^(talk) 21:44, 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. --Core desat 05:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartrain[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you've got to be kidding. A graffiti artist stub? I think not. YechielMan 17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article. Incidentally, I live in the same area as Cartrain, and his "work" is certainly not notable in any sense. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shameless self promotion from an inconsequential Banksy plaigarising non-entity. Get rid of it. Now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.99.113 (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 speedy delete no assertion of notability. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-16 17:52Z

Lockleys Riding Club[edit]

Non-notable vanispamcruftisement. Nothing on google. Contested prod. MER-C 14:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there is no reliable sources to suggest that this club is notable. it is written as if it is an advert for the club which is clearly unacceptable. Thunderwing 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to establish notability. Davewild 17:15, 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. fishhead64 01:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Toilet Cartel[edit]

Should have been speedied; the author removed the speedy tag multiple times; no empirical sources; appears to be a non-notable news incident, violating WP:N and arguably WP:NONSENSE; Delete --Mhking 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People buying six-litre flush toilets I do understand. It's something that happens. A cartel of criminals trafficking in such toilets? I'm not seeing this one. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It may sound like an implausible idea, but the author has provided multiple sources, some of which qualify as reliable under WP:RS. As such, it just about passes the "multiple non-trivial coverage" criterion in WP:N. I'm not sure all the information in the article is verifiable, and it does need a cleanup, but that's not necessarily a reason for deletion. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not speedy) - the Time article is real but none of the cited sources describe a cartel or even use the word. So delete as original research which distorts sources into presenting a point of view they do not explicitly state (aka novel synthesis). Resurgent insurgent 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resurgent insurgent above. Most of the sources cited don't even mention any kind of "Canadian Toilet Cartel", and the only Google hit for that phrase is [20], which doesn't count as a reliable source. The author seems to have augmented this with original research. Hut 8.5 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verified information to toilet. The title is problematic, but the "toilet" article could use something besides a list of slang anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that the sources appear not to stand up. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-documented phenomenon and well-referenced article. -Leastdays 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is the possibility of a merge with Toilet as an incidental paragraph in a new section entitled Low flush toilets. The "Cartel" in question is purely a humorous phrase used by Dave Barry in relation to Canadian regulation on low flush toilets. The "references" in the article are mainly to the introduction of low flush toilets in Canada. Other than a link to Barry's book, the only reference to the Cartel is in reference 3 - the other references are about low flush toilets. The article - intentional or not - as it stands is more of a support for Dave Berry's book than an article of merit in an encyclopedia. SilkTork 18:41, 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 07:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nash ( Artist, Lyricist and Poet )Martin Nash[edit]

Asserts notability as poet (see talk page), but no sources showing notability. Obviously needs to be moved to a different title if kept. NawlinWiki 15:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity entry. JuJube 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:13, 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 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelluning[edit]

Contested PROD. Neoglism at worst, Dictionary definition at best. No encyclopedic value. And unsourced. TexasAndroid 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G1 and WP:NFT. (I know that's not a speedy criterion, but there's no reason to waste any time on this.) YechielMan 17:17, 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 02:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Code 13[edit]

Non-notable Internet forum. No sources are available to verify anything in the article. The forum has less than 500 members, which is some indication that it is not important. --- RockMFR 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, that's not enough interest from third party sources, or even first party sources. YechielMan 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this forum satisfies WP:WEB. JavaTenor 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After deletion, a redirect to Code 13 could be made in its place. Punkmorten 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page should not have been created in the first place. It was a rip-off of a former page (One Rugby League) which has now been corrupted by this page permenantly. The One Rugby League page should also never have been created. DAAdshead 08:18, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farmstead Elementary/Junior High School[edit]

can wikipedia house an article on every single school in the world? Wikipedia is not a directory or gazetteer.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school, lack of sources (one of the two sources appears to be the website of the school district the school is in). TJ Spyke 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sources does not automatically mean notability. Its a tiny elementary and middle school. RogueNinja_talk 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The encyclopedia is not complete. Yes, we do hold the potential to provide coverage for all verifiable schools. Yamaguchi先生 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per WP:Local. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no attempt to assert notability. Even the links are not a help. If someone thinks there is something to merge to the district article, that would be acceptable. Vegaswikian 06:13, 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, especially considering the strength of arguments presented and weight given to non-ip voters. IronGargoyle 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Prism[edit]

Procedural tagging. No opinion. --Onorem Dil 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total failure of the article to assert its subject’s non-obvious notability —Ian Spackman 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) *keep as per article's talk page. notablity established with three independent references - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - manchester evening news articles are merely reports of joiners & leavers, the other articles are either press releases, or reports of co-op bank buying some software. Slow newsday stuff. And nothing since. - Tiswas^(t) 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references provided satisify WP:CORP. CiaranG 09:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.212.8 (talk)
Keep: Per above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete. There are references only in that periodical titles and dates are listed (such as this one, in its entirety: "Manchester Evening News, 24th October 2005"). There isn't the slightest indication of the references's importance, subjects, scope, or even titles of the articles. --Calton | Talk 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References or not, it doesn't seem notable enough. Hell, I could find references on myself, doesn't mean I'm notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are not sufficiently detailed enough to show that they are reliable (i.e. not adds or reprints of press releases) and non-trivial. Local paper coverage in paticular does not ncessarily demonstrate notability per WP:NOT. Eluchil404 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Tunnels[edit]

This is an unecyclopedic account apparently based on nothing more than student hearsay without published sources (perhaps added by those involved or their friends - it may be true, but Wikipedia rules insist that everything is supported by reputable published sources) and does not add anything useful to the section on the Westwood Tunnels in the main Warwick University entry, which summarises the main information in this article, but itself lacks sources. This article also fails the notability test. ThomasL 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and bury in a catacomb per the nominator. Wikipedia is not for stories about your legend trip. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's more like a story about some vadding trips. Not really all that notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's highly believable that these tunnels exist, but not noteworthy. Mike1024 (t/c) 13:23, 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 speedy delete website "created on 10 April 2007" gives an idea of how much notability was asserted - none. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-16 17:40Z

Angel-Babies[edit]

Website does not meet any notability criteria such as Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization.. Shiva0x007 17:12, 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 speedy delete by Anthony.bradbury as "author's request". —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:13Z

Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals[edit]

Looks like uncited original research; even the atomic numbers, the whole basis for elemental positions on the Periodic table are not fully defined. We've already recently deleted pages for lots of "potential/future" elements and uncited names for groups of them (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium and also those who remember User:Cosmium) on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL and that what we can say about them are just mathematical results and/or obvious trends. I'm taking to AfD because there are several inter-related pages here...bundling several forms of an uncited name for this non-existant group of elements. Looking further, I now see that we already have an extended periodic table at Periodic table (extended), which does include the actual useful info one would want (and can know). A redirect there for the 8-atomic-orbitals page might be reasonable if "Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals" is a resonable page name or WP search term. DMacks 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now... Perhaps we can ask the author to provide some sources. Based on what I remember from my chemistry courses, the table appears accurate for what would happen with 8 orbitals. I don't think deletion is appropriate... just yet. - grubber 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you bring up Periodic table (extended), it seems that these articles have significant overlap, and the "extended" version even goes out to 9 orbitals. The only difference I can see is that this AfD version uses a different coloring scheme. I personally prefer the "extended" version, and I'm not sure I see any reason to keep both. I'm tempted to change my vote. - grubber 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grubber. My understanding is that the strength of the periodic table is that it allows the prediction of yet undiscovered elements; and as such the series it predicts can be discussed meaningfully; it is not a mere crystal ball prediction. Note, though that octonium, linked here to element 121, seems to be something completely different. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur that it can be useful, but the page does not appear to contain the info that would make it useful (cf. this one). DMacks 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the article has been blanked by the creator Thunderwing 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I tagged it with {{db-author}} per WP:CSD#G7. →Ed Gl 21:12, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmuck[edit]

None of the content seems to meet wikipedia guidelines.

Vernacular Usage - goes against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Use in popular culture - Not references, not very notable - not encyclopaedic in the way it is written

Surname - Of the four people mention one (Roger Schmuck) doesn't have an article, two (Marcus Schmuck and Peter Schmuck) have stubs and one (Donald Schmuck) has an article that has been nominated for deleted on notability grounds with a result of no consensus - not the most notable bunch then.

Taking all of this into account I'm not really sure if this page it at all necessary - if you want to find the definition of the word there are many internet dictionaries that can be used - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At the most this should be disambiguous page for people who's name is Schmuck (as suggested previously) - although taking into account their (small) number and lack of notability I don't think this would be necessary - with maybe a link to the List of English words of Yiddish origin article for information on the word. Any thoughts? Guest9999 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of English words of Yiddish origin, per a lack of encyclopedic content. It's essentially a dictionary definition. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not only a dicdef, it gives a bit more origin to the word, and shows some of its other background. The problem here is that there seems to be a very fuzzy line on what constitutes a dictionary definition - and while it defines the term, it also gives some background to it. Perhaps revisit it in a few months and see what it looks like. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is essentially a disambiguation page. I will format it to look more like one shortly. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the "pop culture" section. Also as Dennis notes above, the article is borderline and probably could be expanded into a full-length article. However, even now I think it's fine as a disambiguation page. -- Black Falcon 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If adding a background means that the article is not a dictionary definition then any word could have an article - especially in English where most words have a somewhat interesting history - essentially this makes the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy redundant. [[Guest9999 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Well, what I'm seeing is kind of weird. If it's a strict etymology cite, then yes, it's not only a dicdef, but a really good one. If you can flesh it out beyond an etymology (case in point...well, schmuck), then you might have something. The line's really fuzzy, though, as near as I can tell. Probably should bring it up in a talk page somewhere. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment - The information about the origins of the name seems to come from a website called Schmuck Fest [[21]] I don't know how reliable this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs)
- Well, you know what they say, it takes a Schmuck to know a Schmuck. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides Rosten, there are other discussions. It's more than a word, its a concept. But the people should go on a different page--and why doesnt Roger have an article if he was a major league baseball player?DGG 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to the page specifically to look up the history and finer details of its vernacular usage and was enlightened as to its non-American meanings and histories through the page. That said, the article is fairly dumpy and could stand a solid rewrite and perhaps an instance of the Schmuck family coat of arms. Krapitino 05:52, 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 delete nothing but a product catalogue. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:09Z

Active_Ankle[edit]

this page is clearly an advert created by the company that sells this product ConfuciusOrnis 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 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 no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ball Manipulator[edit]

Unimportant and barely notable fad. The Wired source mentions this only briefly. It got a lot of views on YTMND and was a fad on Something Awful. Not much more needs to be said. --- RockMFR 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. The brief mention in Wired indeed only mentions it in passing as part of an article on YTMND, it's not the actual focus of the article or any other reliable sources. Belongs on a YTMND or Something Awful fan site. Krimpet (talk/review) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this was a huge fad among the animation community (4 million views of the original Blue Ball Machine and over 40000 Ghits), this is the kind of "significant trivia" article where Wikipedia really shines. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the fact that WP:ILIKEIT, it fails WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The said gif has been given over 4,000 delicious bookmarks. Thats more than a fad and there is no other simular article on marble dropping machines on wikipedia.--207.233.76.17 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are delicious bookmarks important? Why are "marble dropping machines" important? --- RockMFR 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - RockMFR, you may want to re-read WP:N - N has nothing to do with "importance". If you think it does, slap a {{prod}} on Bellsprout and watch what happens - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing the point. This fad is neither important nor notable. Bookmarks are obviously not evidence of notability. Is that what you are trying to say? --- RockMFR 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a popular image that spread around Something Awful and YTMND. It deserves to be written about. Lzer 04:06, 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 Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tsarion[edit]

subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, "sources" used are inadequate (i.e. not reliable and/or commercial) and keep being replaced when removed. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources found; [22] is about the only reliable source now - not self-published, or a product sales listing, or a passing mention of the subject's name only. Fails WP:BIO as currently written. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:51Z

Strong keep: Plenty of adequate sources have been given: Tsarion is mentioned as being a "close friend" of Jordan Maxwell, whose article is no longer in deletion dispute (yet still has a "not verified" template, which can simply appear on Tsarion's page too). Tsarion is supposedly the grandson of Tara Singh [23] (not Tara Singh, however). Tsarion's appearance on the Sci Fi Channel documentary Quest for Atlantis, his Conspiracy Con (and other forum) appearances, and numerous radio interviews (of which the aformentioned Chris Pirillo source is) like Coast to Coast [24], Jeff Rense, and Kentroversy (Kent Daniel Bentkowski). He has been written about in The Stranger (Seattle newspaper). Tsarion is also part of the Horizon Project. He's got PLENTY of notability if you just do the basic research. Besides, WP:BIO and WP:RS, which Jefferson appears to religiously adhere to, are GUIDELINES, not POLICIES. See Talk:Michael Tsarion for more info. -Eep² 07:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. He was a speaker at Conspiracy Con and appeared on nationally received programs such as the Chris Pirillo show, Out There TV,[25] and the internationally received Sci Fi Channel. The article could use more diverse sources, but considering the subject matter the sources included are adequate. El hombre de haha 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the subject might not be globally notable in the same way that George Bush or Adolf Hitler are notable, he is highly notable within his specific field, and he has received plenty of media coverage including multiple appearances on Coast to Coast AM which is an extremely popular show with a wide following. In my book, he meets all of the criteria for inclusion, though some more rounded sources would be advisable. - perfectblue 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur with the above and I deem him rather notable. I remember hearing a great episode of Coast to Coast AM on his thoughts concerning the empire of Atlantis. DrWho42 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google search yields 56,600 results. I see no reason to delete the article. fissionchips303 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article should have been tagged with {{Template:cleanup}} and {{Template:primarysources}} instead of deletion (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:58, 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. --Core desat 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Extermination Song[edit]

This article was first nominated for deletion on 12 April with a prod tag.

This was after discussion at User talk:AkiShinji; we established that the term "Native American Extermination Song" is not in widespread use beyond the article creator and his close friends. Therefore it does not merit an encyclopedia article.

The prod tags were removed on 16 April, and so I have started this AFD process. NerwenGreen 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original Research --Darksun 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's original research. -- Whpq 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research indeed. Fram 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive policy violation. --Haemo 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief, bad OR. MURGH ^disc. 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, nerdcruft, and the precedent for not deleting it would the the creation of articles like "All seminal instrumental tracks about water birds." A1octopus 16:03, 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 07:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Sidford[edit]

Entirely non-notable non-league football team, plays well below the normally accepted Level 10 criteria for English football clubs fchd 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Before voting, I just wanted to check and I eventually found this - Devon and Exeter Football League which is the league in which this team plays. The Premier division of the league is at Level 12 in the FL system. Sidford play in Intermediate Division Three, which is presumably way below what qualifies as a notable level of football for inclusion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails "Level 10 rule". Julius Sahara 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:35, 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 Redirected to 2007 AFL season. -- Longhair\^talk 09:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Ladder 2007[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No sources. Seems to be the result of primary research. Francisco Valverde 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not an article or a list, just a couple of tables. Seems unencyclopedic, way too detailed, and (as mentioned above) "an indiscriminate collection of information." →Ed Gl 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom --ConfuciusOrnis 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 AFL season which already has a ladder in the context of the season. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Capitalistroadster. The problem with these images (apart from the ghastly colours) is that no other editors can update them without the original Excel file. "2007 AFL Ladder" is a likely search term though, hence the redirect. Delete the images though, and encourage user to learn arcane wiki table markup! --Canley 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into 2007 AFL season, the information is possibly useful but it does not need a standalone page, it cannot be edited without the original file and the colours are hard on the eye. Euryalus 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capitalroadster. That someone pasts images made in other software rather than creating tables says wonders for user-friendliness of Wikimedia software!Ga rr ie 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per Capitalistroadster. -- Chuq (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Simply an ugly duplication of information that belongs at 2007 AFL season. JPD (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Lankiveil 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Template:2007 AFL season/Ladder or 2007 AFL season.Stats Fanatic 04:44, 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. --Core desat 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory[edit]

Unreferenced and possibly original research. Article creator, User:Cyberguru, is the originator of the theory. User:Nima Baghaei, a contributor to the article, added a {{pagenumbers}} template, but this is incorrect -- none of the footnotes actually are references; they simply spell out details of the book title that is the source of the footnote. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been helping clean up this article, from what I can tell the article is fine, we just need to get more specific page numbers from the books in citation (unless the entire book itself is on the subject hehe) and check the wording to make sure its neutral ... also if anyone can find any other references that would be great but the article is fine and should stay, the images also add great improvement to the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't doubt that the "cited" titles have been published, but more likely than not they're being used to support a point of view they did not explicitly state. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 00:58Z
Keep The article is well formulated and coherent in explaining the theory. As all new theories it has little historical background or reference, but that is not a reason for deletion. The cited books of Trevor James Constable indeed do propose a similair energy being theory, therefore share the same point of view. The reference films also support the theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberguru (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, that is a reason for deletion. Has this theory been published in any reliable sources yet? Doesn't sound like it. As you so admit, your cited books don't talk about this theory itself, but only a similar theory. Thus, this is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a new theory that according to the article itself "has not been accurately explored by the scientific community yet". --Tikiwont 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is classified as paranormal so you dont need to delete it (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Only well-known paranormal topics are worthy to be mentioned in the Wikipedia. Science or paranormal, Wikipedia is not the place for publishing new ideas.— JyriL ^talk 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Resurgent insurgent. If this is so new and so unknown that it has "little historical background or reference", then we shouldn't have an encyclopedia article about it. Furthermore, if we have no reliable sources which say that the "cited books of Trever James Constable" actually describe a similar topic, then making that assertion is original research and therefore streng verboten. Classifying as paranormal does not save this page — see WP:FRINGE. Anville 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious original research. — JyriL ^talk 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is nonsense and the idea isn't even new. H.G. Wells wrote a science fiction short story called 'Horror of the Heights' about huge, strange animals which lived in the clouds which, in his story, the first biplane pioneers started running into. Nick mallory 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Someguy1221 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note that User:Nima Baghaei has a history of advocating such material, in addition to Cyberguru's blatant WP:COI. Michaelbusch 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge some of the content into Atmospheric Beast -- the sources given seem to fit there fairly well. DGG 06:54, 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 MERGE into Debagging and Redirect. Herostratus 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantsing[edit]

Trumpetband 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Trumpetband 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and verifiable information to debagging as they represent the same prank. -- Whpq 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with debagging. →Ed Gl 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely certain that debagging is an appropriate article, either, but I suppose that's a separate discussion. JavaTenor 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't bealive that anyone would think that 'either' articles would be approprite for wikipedia. Trumpetband 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed, it may be more of a wiktionary entry, but that is debatable.- HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to debagging, but the term pantsing, or the action to pants is a rather common term, if only colloquially, so a redirect should definitely be included. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this prank occurs in America as well and I recall people doing this in elementary school and junior high to various people and calling it pantsing or depantsing. Best, --164.107.223.217 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with debagging...though better in Wiktionary? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect, it's a perfectly valid article but it discusses pretty much the same thing as the more established debagging.NeilSenna 22:47, 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 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London School of Astrology[edit]

Advertizing for non-notable organization, created by single-purpose editor. Pleclech 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPAM Thunderwing 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any reliable sources from searching Google, and Google news. -- Whpq 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising --ConfuciusOrnis 20:40, 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 redirected both to Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3 and tagged {{r from merge}}. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:04Z

Hammer Brothers' Suit[edit]

I have merged this into a new article, at Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3. I merged another article in, which I will bundle into this discussion shortly. Basically, I didn't think that it was enough of an article on its own. That is why I created the page with the long name to start with. Now that it has been made, there really is no reason for this article to be around any longer. Luigi Maniac 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article because it has also been merged into Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3:

Comment Under the GFDL, aren't merged articles supposed to be kept and redirected, rather than deleted? In any case, it makes more sense to make these into redirects to Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3 than to delete them entirely; they are plausible search terms. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3. Georgia guy 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just remembered that I should have redirected it instead before coming to check on it. So, now what do I do with this now that I have realized it was a mistake? Does someone come to close it? --Luigi Maniac 00:18, 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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians in popular culture (2nd nomination)[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion back in october, the result was: "Keep, nomination withdrawn". Only two arguments were put forward: that the list was useful, and that the Category:In popular culture exists to "keep the crap this out of the main articles". Furthermore, the debate was closed by a non-admin other than the one who nominated the page. This page is an indiscriminate list of librarians in popular culture, completely unmaintainable. Usefulness is not an inclusion criteria. Putting the trivia and unencyclopedic stuff in an article of its own does not make it any less encyclopedic.

Dr bab 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ah, In Popular Culture, we meet again. Once more, there's another article about X in popular culture and once more, it consists basically entirely of an unreferenced catalog of virtually any mention of someone, or something, being, playing, seeing, doing, acting like, mentioning, or talking about, X. This is not the purpose of an in popular culture article. They are not meant to be the garbage heap of Wikipedia, where we throw all the unreferenced gibberish that drags down other articles - they are supposed to be encyclopedic articles about the portrayal of something in popular culture; NOT a pile of unreferenced trivia. --Haemo 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was goung to say keep it for inclusiveness, but Haemo and Dr bab's arguments make sense to me. But the references are amusing. Perhaps someone can move them to an ALA wiki page that would be easy for people to maintain. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as indiscriminate as it gets. "World of Warcraft features several librarian characters"? "Questionable Content is another webcomic that recently began featuring a character who works in an academic library setting"? "Debbie gets friendly with a librarian in Debbie Does Dallas (1978)"? Krimpet (talk/review) 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, indiscriminate nomination. With respect to WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA, I'm having trouble seeing how this nom doesn't apply to the whole category or other article sections spread throughout WP. Although this list is not encyclopedic (or complete) in the traditional sense, to me it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses -- and I'd hate to see it go ahead of similar pieces. --John Hubbard 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Librarian, and author of the linked Librarians: We're Not What You Think site, which some of this article's text is taken from.)[reply]
- Comment Several of the In popular culture articles are probably good candidates for deletion. That they exist is not an argument that we should keep this one too. Dr bab 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I give credit to John Hubbard for revealing his identity and his connection to the contents of the article. As I edit various pages here, I have noticed a definite pattern of page editing by top members of the American Library Association who do so anonymously, and by using sock puppets, and in a biased fashion. So to see librarian John Hubbard announce his identity and his interests is quite refreshing. Perhaps, to reward such behavior, this page could be put on a slow deletion timeline in respect of his interests and openness. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First the nominator did not recommend improving the article, or engage in any discussion to that effect with the authors, it should always be marked for improvement first, unless the article is total crap. This one is not total crap. It is actually useful. If it was improved upon it would be even more useful. If wikipedia has popular culture articles in regard to profesions, which it does, there is no reason to think that this one should be deleted more or less than any other on the basis of the aforementioned positions. Keep for utility, keep for improvement, and keep because nominating to delete an article that just needs improvement is wrong. The article is also encyclopedic, in that diderot had literary references (some even popular) to professions in the encyclopedia, as did the classic britannica. --Buridan 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sorry if you feel I should have "engaged in discussion" with the authors before nominating an article that is "not total crap". I am of the opinion that this article really is unsalvageable. It is a completely indiscriminate list of appearances, mentions etc. of librarians in all sorts of media. Please note that usefulness is not an inclusion criteria, nor is the existence of other "Popular culture" articles in worse state than this one. Dr bab 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment The list is notable, it is encyclopedic. It needs improvement, not deletion. We disagree as to whether it is 'total crap'. --Buridan 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - first of all, this is an article, not a list. Part of the fundamental problem with these kind of articles is that they are treated like lists, when they are not. Either actually bother to write an article about the topic in popular culture, or make it an actual list, so it can be deleted for being indiscriminate on that basis. Furthermore, I have no idea what it means for a "list" to be "notable", but I'm sure it's not an inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the arguments WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not arguments for inclusion. This article has been around for a long time, so you really have no excuse for not referencing and improving it. You still have until this AFD ends to do it, so I suggest you trim all the unreferenced, or WP:OR, material and then comment here so people can re-evaluate how it's going in the mean-time. --Haemo 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment why don't you just dig out the citations instead of cutting it? why don't you want to improve the article? it is notable because it describes a notable profession in a significant context. --Buridan 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - why don't I dig out the citations? It's not my job or something to root around for citations for an article - that's the job of people who want to keep this article. I did my good faith best to look around for some WP:RS for this article. I couldn't find any. I'm sorry, but that's just it. If you want to keep this article, then ensure that it meets WP:ATT - don't toss the burden onto other people. Furthermore, you still aren't making any sense - you claim this article is notable? What? First of all, that's not the reason for deletion - there is no doubt that being a librarian is a notable profession. However, even articles about something notable that completely fail WP:ATT get deleted. What you have is a collection of apparently unsource-able trivia - since neither I, or I assume, you, can find sources to back them up - yet you argue against deletion because "this article is notable". I'm sorry, but that ain't in the Wikipedia policies, and admins are empowered to disregard WP:AFD arguments not based - or in this case, pointedly contrary - to stated policy. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment This article is not a list, but it is still a 'listing', and might as well be named list of librarians in popular culture. If the article should be improved to an acceptable form, it would mean to cut away everything that is there now, as listcruft, and write a completely new article, that is actually an article, and not a list. If everything is to be cut, I say delete the article and leave the space empty until someone that cares about the subject (and there appear to be at least a couple) takes the time and effort to create a good, non-list article.Dr bab 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep I don't think that improving this article means throwing away the content: generally, if you're suggesting just 'getting rid of' content, you're not really trying to improve what you've got to work with. What the list *could* stand is a bit more meta-organization, and a bit of clarification w.r.t. the utility of the text. There's a lot of useful stuff collected together, here, and someone just needs to retroactively make some sense of it. Strong Keep, as the person nominating it for deletion has not done due diligence. --elijahwright 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment User: elijahwright has made a single edit outside this debate.Dr bab 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment I don't understand this obsession with how people arguing that this article does not meet standards are throwing away content, or are "refusing to help out" or "aren't doing due dilligence". First of all, people in AFD's are not required to do any of those things. Furthermore, if it's so easy to find sources, then why haven't any of the people arguing for keeping this article done that. I know I have - I looked for sources for many of the facts, and came up empty-handed. It really makes me upset when people start arguing that I haven't done any work, or am not trying to improve the encyclopedia. I work hard when I try to comment on an AFD, and it's totally contrary to WP:AGF to assert otherwise. As it stands, you're trying to keep this article because the people arguing that it fails WP:ATT haven't tried to improve this article. Not only is that patently untrue, and violates Wikipedia policy, but it's totally offensive. This is not an argument for inclusion - and it's vastly offensive to me, personally, and surely to other editors who are being tarred with the same insulting brush. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all just get along like true wikipedians? Whether the article stays or goes, it can be discussed in a civil fashion. No? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Hubbard, "it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses." It could just use a little cleaning up.Sils660 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - what? This doesn't even make sense. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of material, and it's certainly not a collection of article which fail WP:ATT. Your argument is a pointed example of WP:ILIKEIT. --Haemo

KEEP! What harm is it doing to have this wiki up on the website? In fact, it is a great way to share with people just how prominent librarians are in the world since we often have the misfortune (and sometimes fortune) of disappearing behind the scenes. The whole purpose of a wiki is to assemble information for people to find easily - indexing the instances where librarians come up in pop culture is both fun and enlightening. If you feel left out, go start an "engineerss in popular culture" page or something. That could be fun, too.
- Comment - So, in other words it's WP:ILIKEIT] coupled with an insulting claim that people are arguing against keeping an article people they "feel left out". That's ridiculous and offensive. The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect information - however, that information must be reliable and meet WP:ATT. This article does neither - which is the entire rationale behind deletion - not whatever sort of insulting jealousy you've decided to attribute to me instead. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment fixing WP:ATT is easy, just do it. --Buridan 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I can't - that's the whole point! I've looked for WP:RS for this article, and I can't find any. If it's so easy, then why don't you be bold and do it? --Haemo 00:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The people arguing against this article's deletion have so far, in short, put forward the following arguments:
- It's useful
- There are other articles like this one
- They like it
- Or because it does no harm.

Neither of these are valid arguments. In addition, it seems, like Haemo pointed out, that some of them seems to be of the impression that the responsibility of fixing this article lies with the nominator, and the other people voting for deletion. This is false. Dr bab 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

VERY SUPER DUPER HIGH TENSILE STRENGTH REALLY STRONG DELETE: After evaluation of the argument above, the KEEPers are unpersuasive. The DELETEers are guided by and following Wiki policy. Wiki policy is the guide to follow. In this case, Wiki policy supports the deletion of this random list.

By the way, one of the five places to "visit" in the "Blues Clues" computer game for children is a library. Anyone want to add that fact to the list? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just a plain keep. If it were a reasonable delete, there woud be no reason for the stressed words above. The role of librarians in popular culture is particularly interesting to most librarians, who generally think of most of it as denigrating their professional status. The attempts to compensate for this are similarly interesting. non-librarians also find this of interest, as shown by the frequency they use the role as a symbol. This does not mean the article should be kept because it is interesting. It means , that because it is found interesting, notable works have been written using it as main or subsidiary theme, notable characters created, and the appropriateness of them all have been notably discussed--in a great variety of media and a great variety of sources. A summary page like this is appropriate. It isn't OR because the material is either supported by the main WP article on the book or film or whatever, or else is sourced. DGG 07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am not opposed to an article that discuss the role of the librarian in popular culture, if it was properly sourced and not original research. The main reason I am opposed to this article in its current form is that it is a totally indiscriminate list, the number of times a librarian figures in any form of media is ridiculously large, and attempting to list them all is just futile. I know I keep repeating myself, but I can't see how this article should not be deleted based on WP:NOT#IINFO. If we keep this article/list, wouldn't it also mean that we open for similar lists that list every single appearance in popular media of composers, firefighters, policemen, lumberjacks, carpenters, cooks etc.? Dr bab 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment of course, it is not an indiscriminate list at all. There is also no reason not to have the other accounts of professions in popular culture, monty python's lumberjack skit for instance, is surely popular culture, as is the story of paul bunyan. The discriminates here are two categories which is librarians and popular culture. That for instance removed the references to librarians in unpopular subcultures, such as wikipedia editors;) --Buridan 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 11:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The function of such 'popular culture' articles (and sections), is to provide a place for people to put indiscriminate information, with which they might clutter up genuine articles. In other words they are a defence mechanism against a variety of quasi-spam. It may well be that such articles need to be pruned occasionally, but they serve a useful purpose in protecting serious content from being diluted with mundane and irrelevant allusions. Peterkingiron 16:04, 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 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-american fashion designers and fiber artists[edit]

Written like an essay, appears to be original research. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somewhere between OR and PN. Mystache 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per --Sefringle 04:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Original research POV fork non-wikified personal essay.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:04, 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 02:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Heights Learning Center[edit]

Really wanted to "prod" this, but I figured it wouldn't be a totally uncontroversial case because it's a school and most schools are kept here. Anyway, after removing all unencyclopedic info, you're left with a tiny stub about a school with no way to gauge how "notable" it is (so it probably isn't). If someone can add some great information to the article, then maybe this has a chance, but I'm thinking this will be pretty one-sided: delete. →Ed Gl 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know I generally follow keep-all-schools but a school with fifteen pupils needs to make some effort to convince people there's a reason for it having an article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:N. School articles that don't have much more information than a phone book would have (with the possible exception of high schools and colleges) can usually be prod'ed. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt gracious today, but from now on I will take your advice, Mr.Z-man. →Ed Gl 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as not asserting notability. It seems they are a very small school with about 10 students in each grade. Nothing should be exempt from deletion if it's not notable, schools included. Ohconfucius 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Technically a speedy as per Ohconfucious. Too few students, no sources, and thus no evidence of anything. The population of the city it is in is 449,811 in a 2000 census, this school seems abnormally small for a standard school. I don't see any reason it should be kept, other than a blanket reasoning about schools in general. Kevin_b_er 18:19, 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: Speedy deleted per CSD A7. Judging from the article's content and the impossibility to verify them (and until reliable sources are brought for further scrutiny) the possibility that the assertions made at this entry regarding the subject's sex life and behavior may also fall under CSD G10 must not be ruled out. - Phaedriel - 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Weber[edit]

Asserts notability but the first two pages of a google search revealed nothing about him and to quote the article itself "not well known amoung the general public". I'd like to see some properly verifiable references to allow the information in the article to be checked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as hoax. Possible Speedy as attack page. JavaTenor 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREDJUDICE as hoax. Already nominated for speedy deletion. exolon 22:03, 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 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trial With Fire[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Also, can't see a clear assertion of notability but wish to give benefit of the doubt at this point. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried googling the band name and the name of its founder, and couldn't find any evidence of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, fancruft at best, vanity at worst --ConfuciusOrnis 23:28, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoSM The Movie[edit]

Lack of third party sources means this doesn't meet the verifiability Policy. This is a self pennedarticle and we certainly do not do autobiography. The film may well be notable by association with the subject but the director isn't unless there are sufficient independant third party sources and I'm not seeing these. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Somehow I managed to send the wrong article to AFD using NP Watcher. MY apologies. I'm not sure that this article requires AFD given that the subject is notable so I'm leaving this as a screwed procedural nomination because there are already support votes. Check the AFD on Nick Krasnic for the nomination I intended... --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is spam.TheRingess (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only substantive author blanked the article after the AFD notice was inserted. I have therefore tagged it as a CSD G7. The blanking was reverted as vandalism but I think the author's intent is clear. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 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 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Krasnic[edit]

Lack of third party sources means this doesn't meet the verifiability Policy. This is a self penned article and we certainly do not do autobiography. The film may well be notable by association with the subject but the director isn't unless there are sufficient independant third party sources and I'm not seeing these. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.TheRingess (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is absolutely nothing here. No assertion of importance at all. Should probably be a speedy A7. IrishGuy ^talk 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only person absolutely floored that he used {{Infobox Celebrity}}? —Cryptic 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources establishing notability. Mwelch 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a CV, so fails WP:NOT, also fails WP:COI, WP:V and WP:N as already mentioned. Ohconfucius 03:04, 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. I myself didn't believe it when this word made it into Merriam-Webster, but we can't control what our sources choose to make notable. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 00:33Z

Truthiness[edit]

I have decided to stick my neck out on this article. It is actually is a repost (it kept on getting reposted, and eventually forgotten about). But why should one word in a TV show get its own article. This is the tried and true definition of WP:FANCRUFT. Delete. Part Deux 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy Keep. Because this one word was more notable in 2006 than Anna Nicole Smith was (she obviously made a splash in 2007). Certainly there's no reason to list all the words that pop up at the start of the show, but Truthiness, with the huge amount of attention this word got (check the scope of the citations) is definitely of note. Deleting something just because it's been deleted before is not an argument that the current article should be canned, and should be counted as irrelevant to the article as it stands. The article is certainly too long and informed to be merged back into the already very long Stephen Colbert article. This reads like you want to set up a set of rules so that should a word or short phrase be notable, it can be deleted, because it's just one word, which would be a really bad precedent. Thespian 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>Editing to add: I also think you need to look into WP:CONS, specifically, "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." If the article keeps coming back because people want it, with many people editing it, then arguing it and nominating it for a third time, is ignoring consensus. The initial deletion happened before the word became so popular. The second was withdrawn. The situation is completely different at this time, and this is now inappropriate with the amount of external coverage.Thespian 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was just one word on a TV show, it would indeed be worthy of deletion, but the article is well cited and establishes notability. The term was selected as the Merriam-Webster 2006 Word of the Year and the American Dialect Society 2005 Word of the Year, and has been used on news shows and in the New York Times. That's more than sufficient for an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Very widely reported by many news outlets; the ADS and the MW references in particular raise this to a very high level of notability. bikeable (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep With all due respect to the nominator (whose name I have purposely not looked at), are you shitting me? Look at the sources! How many highly-regarded papers and TV news programs need to discuss something at length for it to be acceptable? Whatever the number, I'm sure this article meets and exceeds it. The word is obviously incredibly notable, and there are far more than enough reliable sources to back that up. Jeez, there's a reason articles make Good Article status- not just because editors have spent many hours bringing it up to snuff, but because there are enough sources to make an excellent article possible. -- Kicking222 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's good enough for the American Dialect Society and for Merriam-Webster, it's good enough for us. I would assume that those two organizations have a more rigorous review process than we do. Also, the article was illustrated as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'll WP:AGF that Part Deux was not actually trying to cause a disruption with this nomination, so that would take it out of the realm of speedy keep. Nonetheless, the nomination does seem to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since identifying the term as nothing more than fancruft (i.e. non-notable) is utterly absurd given the sources and citations detailed in the article. Mwelch 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its a WP:GA...A good article! How can we possibly delete an article that the community has rated worth of high respect... it has 42 references...it was the American Dialect Society word of the year... the Merriam-Webster word of the year. WP:FANCRUFT doesn't apply because Truthiness is notable. 42 sources and you say it is the true definition of fancruft. I too will WP:AGF... but you almost made me not. MrMacMan^Talk 00:21, 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 Speedy deletion by myself. I didn't realize that "Hokies" is the nickname for the Virgina Tech sports teams. My deletion reason is that this is a tasteless hoax. If someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'll revert myself.. Dina 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putt Putting for the Hokies[edit]

I can find no record of this proposed film via google [26] so I placed a "hoax" tag on it which was removed by the creator. I am deeply suspicious that this article is more influenced by recent events in the US but I am not 100% certain, and so this Afd for more discussion. A lot of my suspicion is based on the fact that it's an utterly ridiculous film title, but I recall thinking the same when I first heard Bowling for Columbine Dina 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Actually this Virginia Tech Hokies, which I wasn't aware of, might just clinch it for me. Dina 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - doesn't officially qualify, but it should. WP:HOAX, ridiculous WP:CRYSTALballery. Part Deux 22:16, 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 consensus. Afd is not the place for resolving disputes. Pea ceNT 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish[edit]

This article is utterly atrocious, full of uncited POV, original research, and continuous edit warring. In my opinion, the title alone makes it inherently POV and unsalvageable. The result of the previous deletion discussion was "keep and cleanup," but, as usual, the latter part hasn't happened – and it's clear to me that it never will. The problems with article ownership are just too severe. It's been tagged for cleanup for nearly a year, but is actually worse now that it was then. It's time to pull the plug. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it's badly written, of dubious POV, and a magnet for WP:OWN, but unfortunately none of those are a reason for deleting it. One way forward might be to cut it down to its bare (and sourced) definitions. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim down to its very core. Absurd article. --Haemo 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to do that when I get a chance, but I have the feeling it will be reverted in minutes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for solving the problems listed in the nomination. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for solving scientific disputes. 80.138.172.213 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the last few months the HongQiGong, me (Teji), and to a lesser extent Computer1200 have contributed the most to the discussion and editing of this page. Despite intense differences of opinion we have actually made some minor progress. It is easy to come into the article (or back to after a year) and say "delete." But I encourage those for deletion, but especially those who want to keep the article to review the following discussion sections (as consensus on the first few paragraphs has been reached.) Furthermore, the main problems with the article is the use of student opinion pages and internet forums as support for outlandish begging-the-question statements like "Asian fetish as a cause of crime." Half of the article (or more) consists of these unattributable and unsubstantiated statements. To appease Hong, I recommended creating a separate section called "Commentary, Opinions, and Activism" to address the issues to which he is so attached. With support, we can move the questionable material into that section, or remove it altogether. Most importantly is the support of the editors on this page. Please help the article by supporting and enforcing my restructuring effort, or at least the effort to remove questionable material.

[[27]] - Initiation of rewriting, first paragraph

[[28]] - Discussion on terminology section and rewrite of the paragraph

[[29]] - Discussion of origin of term section, rewrite of Hwang's theory, discussion on moving Hwang's theory out of terminology section

[[30]] - Discussion on separating neutral info from commentaries and opinions

[[31]] - Suggestion to remove "Asian fetish as a cause of crime section"

[[32]] - Suggestion to remove "Stereotypical media portrayals" section.

[[33]] - Complaint about racism

In general, removing the opinions would remove any need to balance them or verify them. Most of them are based on student opinion pages, forums, and are generally unrelated, unreliable, and unsubstantiated. Please make support the effort to remove or restructure. With more support, this article can be cleaned up. Teji 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive coverage given to Hwang's theories clearly violate the undue weight provision of NPOV. This is a marginal scholar, and yet his views are about the only ones given any room in the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EliminatorJR and Maxamegalon. I recommend using higher forms of dispute resolution if necessary. (I think there was an RfC at some point, but no arbitration cases.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. --Candy-Panda 13:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, goody. The Asian Fetish vandal is now back, adding Nazi rubbish to the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and instead or removing dubious material, preferably source it or reword it in a neutral way, though it does seem that has been tried without much success so far DGG 07:46, 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 redirect to Interactive voice response. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 00:02Z

Guided speech IVR[edit]

Relevant content of this article was merged with older article IVR pgillman 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not just redirect, then? Dancter 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected Done. pgillman 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should the nomination be withdrawn, then, so an administator can close it? There doesn't seem to be much point in further discussion. Dancter 23:14, 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. WjBscribe 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Records[edit]

Non-notable record label. Unreferenced and fails WP:CORP. Also, it has been tagged for notability since October 2006 to no avail. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only newspaper reference I've been able to dig up is an off-hand mention in the Pittsburgh Post. Context: "You always train like you're racing the best," said [Marco] Aledia, 27, who runs Ma Records out of his home in suburban Columbus, Ohio. "When you get a shot at one, you've got to take full advantage." Note - Be careful when doing any sort of search, google or otherwise, for MA Records. 'mas records' is a phrase that seems to come up a lot in Spanish media discussions, and I found many, many hits for "MA Records" that had NOTHING to do with this record label. Chris Croy 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would hold that the minimum criteria for a record label to be notable would be having at least one notable artist on the books. This one doesn't. A1octopus 13:18, 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. Majorly (hot!) 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westock[edit]

Non-notable student music festival. 1,990 hits on Google (-westock is in the query because that was included as a 'did you mean' search), many of which don't pertain to the festival. Delete. 1ne 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable high-school music festival. None of the 2 Ghits appears relevant Ohconfucius 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Metamagician3000 10:59, 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 — anthony^[review] 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Masterton[edit]

Article originally submitted for Speedy deletion, apparently because of lack of verifiable sources and other concerns that, however, do not seem to fall under any criteria for SD. Further discussion at the article's talk page. - Phaedriel - 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would strongly encourage people to check out the talk page because this is a classic case of "I don't like it, so delete it!" Now, the AFD. The source for the article is his own brief autobiography. You can confirm most of its truth claims with a quick googling; He definitely wrote commentary on UseNet starting in 1992, he definitely writes for LaunchCast and dotmusic, and his content DID move to Yahoo. The remainder(ie his date of birth) are utterly uncontroversial. I'd also point out that his commentary is considered reliable enough to be cited in six different Wikipedia articles. Finally, I believe he passes notability: Many people really do care and talk about what he says. The BBC has quoted or cited him on on three occassions. Googling for "James masterton" music coughs up 22,800 hits, almost all of which have people actually talking about him and his commentary. Chris Croy 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is required to be reliable, independent, third-party sources; one's own autobiographical website doesn't count. Furthermore, the sources must not be a "trivial mention," but be about the subject. None of your BBC quotes are about Masterton. Pending some genuine sources talking about Masterton, rather than Masterton talking about someone or something else, Delete as failing WP:V, WP:BLP. RGTraynor 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regard RS as generally destructive nonsense. Apparently, people are reliable sources except when making uncontroversial statements about themselves. Again, every truth claim made in his autobiography, with the exception of his year of birth, can be verified by anyone with an Internet connection and a couple spare seconds. He has been writing chart commentary since 1992, he does write chart commentary for yahoo, and the content was acquired by Yahoo. Finally, if a 'reliable source' discussed him, you know what their source would be for all of the above facts and others? Him. Journalists don't follow up on claims made by subjects unless they have some reason to believe the subject is screwing with them.Chris Croy 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if no journalist, anywhere, wants to say anything about a subject, that tends to suggest the subject isn't notable. In any event, neither your opinion nor mine budges the requirements of WP:V a single jot. RGTraynor 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's as non-notable as the sites he used to work for. Triangle e 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's influential, respected and relevant. Bentley Banana 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He writes for a high profile website, has done for over a decade, appears on TV, is quoted by the BBC on matters relating to music and appears to be one of the most widely debated writers on the web. What a strange debate. 217.28.34.132 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic notability seems clear--the only question is whether it sis sourced, and the BBC is quite adequate for that. We usually accept autobio or web page statements for uncontroversial details.DGG 07:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If his notability isn't an issue, I can verify everything in his entry, including his date of birth, as I have known him for 15 years. Lfbarfe 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - marginally notable figure. Metamagician3000 10:51, 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 speedy delete being a Pink Floyd tribute band is not an assertion of notability in itself. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 00:48Z

The Great Gig in the Sky (band)[edit]

Non-notable tribute band. No independant sources cited. Fails WP:MUSIC. DES ^(talk) 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 00:13, 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 Pea ceNT 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puttur,_Tamil_Eelam[edit]

This article is non-notable, POV plus so poorly written that it makes no sense. It's an article about a place but instead focuses on an educational establishments located there. Additionally, it has an advertisement requesting some university alumni to contact somebody. Qwertyca 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All towns are notable. I removed the request that alumni contact someone by e-mail and added the latitude and longitude. Google has several references to reports of atrocities that are said have taken place in or near Puttur. I would like someone to add the material that usually appears in an article about a town: year of establishment, population, name of the mayor, local industries and infrastructure. And I suspect the article should be renamed Puttur, Sri Lanka since the boundaries of the area controlled by the LTTE are continually shifting. --Eastmain 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been bold and renamed the article per established WP convention. I have also added a reference to the existence of the town; the rest of the article remains unsourced, but all extant towns are notable even if there's nothing much going on there. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that this town, site of the first free school in SL, would qualify as notable, not just for the school, mind you. Ohconfucius 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete references to non-existent place of "Tamil Eelam" (including the redirect Puttur, Tamil Eelam) and other uncited content. I'm yet to find a citation that it housed the first free school in Sri Lanka, so if not cited that bit should probably be deleted, but I guess that's beside the point of the AFD. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as towns are inherently notable. Serious clean-up is needed, though. "Tamil Eelam" apparently refers to the Tamil breakaway region in the northern Sri Lanka. Since the state is not internationally recognized, the town should be considered as a part of Sri Lanka.— JyriL ^talk 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actual town where people live, work and call home. Inherently "notable." --Oakshade 07:56, 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.