Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result waswithdrawn. Deiz talk 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RawVegas.tv[edit]

Prod removed by author without comment. Self-promotion with no sources or references for an internet TV channel, very likely a conflict of interest. Deiz talk 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for removal of prod and discussion opened on article talk page.Chazbeaner 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nawlinwiki, AfD malformatted. Fram 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Smith 2[edit]

vague article needs to be deleted. Sushant gupta 11:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the page has already been deleted. the discussion needs to be ended. here. for more info take a look at the deletion log of Jacqui Smith 2. Sushant gupta 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rlevse (CSD G1). WjBscribe 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final-Players[edit]

Disputed prod. Concern: "A list with unreadable formatting and unclear purpose. May be a speedy candidate as unsalvageably incoherent per CSD G1." --Muchness 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unreadable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real96 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1. What the...? YechielMan 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 - it provides no context, and is total gibberish. So tagged. --Haemo 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:25Z

Saskrotch[edit]

Non-notable Internet musician. Fails WP:MUSIC; article fails WP:V for having no reliable secondary sources. Chardish 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was prodded; prod got removed without reason by an anonymous IP with a long history of vandalism. - Chardish 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found refs but all seem to be from subs myspace and related blogs. Clever name though, I guess.--killing sparrows 01:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any WP:RS either. Fails WP:NOTE --Haemo 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any real references, per killing sparrows. All google hits seem to be from myspace or other sites like it. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article about a non-notable musician that is completely bereft of any sources. --Cyrus Andiron 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE as no independant citations can be found, only promotional websites. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alucard. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur that this doesn't seem notable or even reliably verifiable. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy nothing in the article looks like a claim of notability. Miles away from WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3-D films[edit]

List is not more than a list of films at Category:3-D films, with too many red links and does not satisfy guidelines at WP:LIST. Crashintome4196 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:3-D films does this better. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are easier to maintain (not saying this list is really hard to maintain) as it is automatically sorted and pages are added as the category link is put on the page. If someone wants to make a new article about a 3-D film and they base it on an existing article, they would know to put it in the category as the example should have the category on it. If the example does not have a link to the list, they may not know to add it there. The category has 64 pages on it (not including the first 4 which aren't movies), the list has only 55 bluelinks; it's missing 9. The category is easier to find. All pages in it have a link to it on the bottom and it is in relevant subcategories. The list has only 3 relevant incoming links. Also, the number of redlinks should not matter, the quality should. For example, "Blonde Emmanuelle in 3-D," "America's Greatest Roller Coaster Thrills 2 in 3-D," and some others just turn up a couple online stores (some not even IMDB) on a Google search, suggesting that some are non-notable "filler" links. If this list really is a helpful tool, (while this is generally frowned upon, there is no policy against it) I would suggest redirecting it to the category Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps, if users would describe their rational for making statements as to why a particular article does or does not meet certain criteria, then it would give the community a better opportunity to make fair and considerate judgments. --R e m i 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The red links are exactly what makes a list necessary, and not redundant to a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories should always be used instead of lists. Red links are irrelevant. Add a new article, and it will appear in the category. =Axlq 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). We have tons of list that coexist with equivalent categories. The things that set the lists apart are the redlinks. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard. List could do with some annotation, but with redlinks this is not redundant with the categories. #D films are still comparatively rare, and so a list like this is not unmaintainable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. List is neither indiscriminate nor overly trivial. Existence of redlinks may be an indication that a list is more useful in this case than a category. It could do with some more context and annotation as mentioned previously, perhaps even go for a sortable Wikitable format so that people can peruse the list by date, as well. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I like to see some "value added" in a list, including in this case at least the year of production, country/language and the method (red/green, polarizing filters, other). Redlinks, if documented by a reference, can spur article development and show why categories are not the be-all and end-all. It is not an indiscriminant list since a movie either is or isn't 3-D, and the number of possible films in the list is not too big.Edison 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ever heard of a category?--Dacium 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete to broad for a list. Should be kept as a category. DBZROCKS 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while in many instances categories are superior to lists, categories are not automatic substitutes for lists and arguing to delete a list for no other reason than that a category exists is unpersuasive. Otto4711 05:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use a categorySlideAndSlip 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use a categorySlideAndSlip 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by Otto4711 and because lists can contain useful redlinks, while categories can't. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:27Z

FC Gooshit[edit]

Likely hoax. ArtVandelay13 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax. This (Ykkönen) is the Finnish league they would be in if they existed, yet they are not listed. Nothing on google. Also, the supposed squad numbers and player positions give it away as a very poor hoax. "Police of the field"? What position is that then exactly? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, and not a clever one.--killing sparrows 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=FC+Gooshit&btnG=Search second, third, fourth, and fifth entry. Maybe not a hoax? --R e m i 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://turku.palloliitto.fi/pelitoiminta/harrastesarjat/viking_line-kimppaliiga/kausi_2005/ It is also referenced there. --R e m i 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you check the official Finnish leagues website you will see that the club does not exist. The article states that the clubs aim for the next season is promotion to the Finnish top flight. There is no club under that name, or even close to it, in the Finnish 2nd Division, which also has an article on wikipedia and where this alleged club is also not listed.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxy hoaxy hoax hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like it's a fantasy team, or horribly fails WP:NOTE. One of the two - delete anyways. --Haemo 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo. Sr13 (T|C) 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the top Ghits are to sites with "ucupfantasy.uefa.com" in the URL, so clearly this is someone's fantasy league team, but as it is presented as fact delete as a hoax ChrisTheDude 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear hoax. Qwghlm 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, clear hoax. Also, Samppa3000 (talk · contribs · count) the guy who started the article seems to have signed up only to post about this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GavinTing (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as fantasy. The Rambling Man 10:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Virtual Cowboy 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:BJAODN 81.232.94.183 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax --Duke of Duchess Street 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. I love how the screennames of some of the people appeared as nicknames. Turlo Lomon 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:28Z

Elnordia[edit]

The article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet WP:MUSIC, received 14 ghits including WP.--killing sparrows 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first performance in April 2006? Hasn't released an album yet? Only 14 GHits? Sounds like a clear-cut failure of WP:MUSIC --Haemo 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any useful info on them, not notable. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all the above. I also can find no evidence of multiple non trivial third party articles. A1octopus 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did a search of major news sources (major newspapers, magazines, wire, etc); nothing. LH 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable band, no sources. NawlinWiki 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this list is unencyclopedic and redundant. Mere consistency and the precedent of other articles/lists aren't valid in the discussion of a specific article, nor is a "conditional delete" statement. John Reaves (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by longevity[edit]

It's just a pointless and random article. I see no reason to have it. --Matjlav^(talk) 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would see no point for this article even if it was titled "list of Philippine people by longevity." This is just something too specific and unecyclopedic. Khoi khoi 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a precent-establishing discussion about other lists of Philippine presidents several months ago. I guess they missed this article. YechielMan 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not a fan of lists but this is more pointless (less pointful?) than most.--killing sparrows 01:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps there are more civil words to use to label another's contributions besides "pointless" and "random". Perhaps one of the 6.5 billion people on Earth for some God-only-knows-reason at sometime will need to find out who the longest living Philippine president was, or needs to find out how long a certain president lived in relation to others. --R e m i 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Don't we have something where you can sort a table by different fields? Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of the featured List of Philippine Presidents. And there is a Wikitable sortable class for creating tables that are sortable by anything. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many ways to rank things, those which have some sort of impact on the subject matter are justifiable, but since a president's longevity means nothing to the person's presidency, this is not one of those. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stephen. We already have the List of Philippine Presidents we dont need another one just sorted differently. GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I know, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it does seem a failure of WP:CSB to have an identical article about US presidents and not about any other world leaders. --Charlene 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider that we also have List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, Earliest living United States president, Oldest living United States president, List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity, List of United States Presidents by date of death. How is the current article any different from any of these other than the location of the people in power? --Cyrus Andiron

13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am surprising myself with this !vote, I'm usually something of a strong opponent of random "List of" articles, but Cyrus Andiron makes a very valid point that we have List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, of which this list is essentially a clone for another country. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, but the US list survived an AfD attempt along with a batch of other, similar lists. That makes it precedent, not just "other stuff exists". Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry if my 'pointless' comment offends, but this is trivia (IMHO). I can see no usefulness or any point to this organization of the presidents. As far as the US list (and many others), that seems more an example of WP:BIAS or US-centricity of WP than any valid precedent. Read the keep comments frome the AfD for the US Presidents list; Wikipedia should be a place for masses of information, and Very interesting collections all, and I came upon this page out of my own interest and would feel sad to see it go. Granted I have excerpted the shorter and more succinct !votes, but there are none that make a valid argument. The result of the AfD was no consensus, equivalent to the verdict not proven, in Scottish law. Again in my opinion, other stuff exists, and it too should be deleted.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consistency and precedent matter. Presidents of the Phillipines are no less important or encyclopedic than leaders of Austria, Canada, Germany, and the United states. WP:BIAS is helpful for understanding why we should not delete articles that would be kept if they involved English-speaking or European countries. Considering that List of Austrian Chancellors by Longevity, List of Austrian Presidents by longevity, List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity, List of German Chancellors by longevity, and List of United States Presidents by longevity survived deletion review, this should too. I would also support merging this list with List of Philippine Presidents, but only if someone first makes that list sortable by longevity. -Fagles 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per List of United States Presidents by longevity. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency and precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Fagles. I agree that if the longevity information is added and made sortable on List of Philippine Presidents then this can be deleted otherwise it should be kept. Davewild 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Comment I would lean towards keep, except for the overwhelming delete vote. I'm not saying I am swung by my fellow Wikipedians votes, but this issue seems to have quite a heated basis. Or perhaps I'm just reading between the lines where there is nothing to read. Either way, I'm not giving a vote either way. Jmlk17 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fagles. We must be consistent. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Philippines is a fairly large and significant nation deserving the same treatment as others.--T. Anthony 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this gets deleted I'm nominating List of United States Presidents by longevity out of spite. Just kidding, sorta. TheCoffee 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete iff other similar articles are deleted. --Howard the Duck 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:29Z

Peasants Revolt (card game)[edit]

I've searched a variety of ways but can't find any online references to a peasants revolt card game. Apparently it was just made up. 2005 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://crazystudent.com/drinking-games/crd/peasantrevolt/ --R e m i 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like WP:MADEUP then. CitiCat 03:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Obviously made up, regardless of a "crazystudent.com" reference. GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Rather different from the game described at http://crazystudent.com/drinking-games/crd/peasantrevolt/ (and no, I don't that one should be in Wikipedia either). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BTLizard (talk • contribs) 09:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oops! Sorry. BTLizard 09:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently verified.-- danntm ^T _C 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to see some sources, because I can't find any on this particuliar varient. It is not the same as the link before. Appears made up. Turlo Lomon 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:30Z

College Housing Northwest[edit]

Delete : does not demonstrate notability through sources. Aboutmovies 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps, users should lean towards spending their time expanding articles, improving them, and making them notable instead of tagging them for deletion. Maybe do a Google search and see if the business exists and then maybe try to establish notability that way. Perhaps, add a stub tag, or expand it and move on. It seems that if peoples' work and contributions are deleted that they will not want to contribute. --R e m i 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? I can't believe you would have the gall to even respond in such a manner. First of all, to assume that the above Wikipedians have NOT looked around for reliable sources to back up, or support the notability of this topic is a massive violation of WP:AGF. It's really offensive to even suggest such a thing. Google clearly supports the fact that this business exists - however, I cannot, as I would assume the other two contributors, find any reliable sources which back up notability! Furthermore, arguing for a "Keep" verdict, based on the fact that you have assumed bad faith about the actions of other Wikipedians is absurd in the extreme. As a result, I argue Delete, and urge you to strike your argument out. --Haemo 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when I search for an Oregon company at the Portland Business Journal website and get zero articles about a company, then I usually look no further. Instead I spend my time starting articles that demonstrate their notability to begin with using proper sources. The onus is on the editors who want to keep an article. Not every company/organization/thing in the universe gets an article, as outline in WP:WWIN. I spend a lot of time expanding articles to meet the notability requirments and normally support articles that are up for deletion, but articles like this hurt Wikipedia by allowing others to think articles like this are OK. If it is notable, add the sources and that's the end of the discussion. Otherwise it goes. Aboutmovies 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: BTW, I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Companies to improve and expand the coverage of businesses in Oregon and of the five Fortune 1000 companies in the state I wrote four of the articles. Aboutmovies 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't voted yet, I was just helping Aboutmovies by adding the standard formatting to this page, which he seemed to have forgotten. Please don't assume I was backing the deletion nomination. I haven't decided yet. Katr67 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not to be snarky but the same could be said for creators taking the time to make an attempt to assert notability and provide sources. I found few ghits outside of CHN's websites. I agree they exist, but see no notability.--killing sparrows 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --RaiderAspect 09:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have also used Microsoft's Live Search and find nothing that establishes any notability. I have found a PDF profile for the company at [1] but I see nothing there that sets them apart from any other student housing organization. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. A bunch of G-hits, but none that actually lead to reliable sources. If any Keep proponent can find some we can't, feel free to raise them to our attention. Ravenswing 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non notable. There is nothing here that looks different from college rental companies I'm familiar with in East Lansing. --Helm.ers 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:33Z

Provert[edit]

Delete This just smells phony (I can find no reliable external source that supports the claim that this word even exists). I'd say take it to Urban Dictionary, but it's already there (and belongs there). bd2412 T 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - .edu sites seem to hold few if any references to the term. --R e m i 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one man's neologism, as far as I can determine. Non-notable. =Axlq 06:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like an obvious joke to me. Probably someone has a friend with the surname. Jeff Knaggs 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified neologism, original research, and likely joke.-- danntm ^T _C 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against Delete Sorry that you feel this article is not a serious subject for Wikipedia. Provert is not my personal neologism (if it is, then I gladly claim full credit as the originator), but is an attempt to define a complex sociological word that I believe requires a proper definition. If I have the terminology right, Provert is currently between the Protologism and Diffused stage in society, and is being used in a few conversations on the web. Granted, the word is not as common in English as Pervert, but the concept has been noted in several disciplines, which is one of the reasons I have tried to verbosely explain it in several examples to show these connections (which needs more work). I first came across the word Provert about ten years ago and noticed there was not a formal definition in English, even though Provert derives from Latin. I have talked to individuals who know Latin and have replaced my part of the article with theirs, but I need more people (preferably with a back ground in Logic and Sociology) to contribute the article and check for accuracy. Septagram 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that what we need for the article, rather than experts on linguistics, is some external reliable sources that can satisfy WP:NOTE. As it currently stands, I would vote Delete pending further citations. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a notable social phenomonon, then it will aready have been given a name by social scientists. I know, I used to be one (we're nuts about naming things). bd2412 T 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good, You could be useful, if this phenomenon already has an existing name/word besides Provert, could you let us know? By the way, Google has over 17,000 hits for Provert with a sizable amount of those entries being related to perverts. What do you believe of their use and definition of Provert if it is a non-word? Septagram 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google advanced search to knock out foreign languages, and you get about 277 unique hits. Of those, the vast majority are surnames and misspellings. bd2412 T 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I did a Google English only search and got "9,920 English pages for provert". What else did you put in your search? I also did "provert pervert -latin" and got 135 English hits and 1,940 for "provert pervert -latin" not selecting English. Septagram 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between unique hits and the number of pages that Google turns up. More to the point, can you point me to a single reliable source (i.e. not a wiki or urban dictionary or a blog or forum) where this word is used to mean anything remotely related to the subject matter claimed in the article? bd2412 T 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on finding it. I think it is located somewhere between Neologistics and protologism in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (M-W). If you cannot find those words in M-W, try Wikipedia (but not Wikipedia in M-W). Earlier you said notable social phenomenons will already have been given a name by Social Scientists (SS). Since you are a former SS member, could you tell us what SS doctrine is being lock stepped by the concept of Provert? Septagram 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now, there's no reason to be referring to your fellow editors as SS members. Really what it boils down to is that you just can't sneak a made up word into Wikipedia as an article. That doesn't mean it's not a useful concept, and maybe you can find a legitimate means to introduce this concept into sociology or psychology, and then bring it back here with a pedigree that will allow its inclusion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to put put words into my mouth just because I used an abbreviation. I meant Social Scientist. I do not believe I am sneaking anything in, I'm rather blatant. Provert is being used by others in society, albeit small, nevertheless, my definition not only covers their use of the word but expands and explains. Just because M-W (this abbreviation is for the dictionary and nothing else) has not published it, does not mean the word does not exist. As seen in many other wikipedia articles, many items are not in M-W or other dictionaries. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what SS (as in Social Scientist)concept is similar to Provert? This would really limit the need for a long Provert article since it could be linked to that existing article. Septagram 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I think we'll leave that to the community to decide. And this has nothing to do with M-W; this has to do with the utter lack of any reliable source with an identifiable author having used the term with the meaning asserted in the article in the entire recorded history of humankind. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete looks to be a neologism/protologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say that this is more of a protologism than anything else. A translation does not, in my opinion, satisfy notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'we seen these kind of people in action and for one am very glad to know what to call them and how to define them to other people. 84.248.66.232
Delete this is all original research, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Xyzzyplugh 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinohunters[edit]

Very little assertion of notability. Judging by edit history of article creator and maintainers, they work for the company behind the game. Sources largely trivial. Drat (Talk) 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. Drat (Talk) 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per g-hits include numerous game reviews. i believe notability is asserted with being a pioneer of advergaming. not that it matters, but after several reads today, this article actually seems well put together ;) the_undertow ^talk 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article is appropriate for an encyclopedia, reasonably sourced and fairly well written. Notability needs to be more strongly asserted, and probably could be. =Axlq 06:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A notable game, however the article is in need of sources that are not affiliated with the company that produced the game. I'm sure some information could be dug up at IGN or GameSpot in order to provide some reliable secondary sources. --Cyrus Andiron 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. John and St. James[edit]

Non notable community school--Адам12901 ^T/_C 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, it was in special measures and has been used as an example of how a school can get itself out of special measures (i will add more info when I have the source data), it is also one of only two CofE schools in Edmonton (the only one in Upper Edmonton ward). It has also won several awards.Tamatisk 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no different to any other primary school in Enfield. And that image is a clear copyvio (it even has the copyright notice on it for pity's sake) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is some content: the article talks about the way the schools pathways are arranged. Including this sort of material and nothing more important is an indication that the writer truly look for material, and could not find any. I encourage the ed. to use his ingenuity on a more substantial topic. DGG 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. The article is literate and intelligently put together and I note the originator's committment given above to continue developing it. It could do with some citations, particularly in the awards section. The link to the Ofsted report is welcome but we need to know more history, both in the sense of how old the school is etc and specifically on the issue of special measures we need to know why the school was is them (there was presumably an earlier Ofsted report that led to their imposition) as well as how it got out of them. Properly built on, this article would have value in terms of the local history of the area. BTLizard 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not wastepaper, either, nor does Wikipedia have any policies or guidelines declaring that articles get a free pass on WP:V (which this one fails) if they happen to be literate and well-written. Until and unless this subject is cited in reliable, independent, published sources, there are no valid grounds for retention. RGTraynor 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been created less than a week and already contains interesting and encyclopedic material on an award winning school that shows notability. Sure it needs sourcing, but that applies to half the articles on here. As stated above, the creator is planning to expand the article and should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Bridgeplayer 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see that at all; there is nothing whatsoever in this article to indicate that this school is any different to any other London primary school. The only thing this article mentions that's in the least unusual is that it's slightly smaller than some other primaries (one class per year instead of two). I generally support high school inclusion as they have the potential to be focal points of the community, but (in the UK at least), primary schools are tiny by comparison and there are so many of them (57 in Enfield alone, and 2000 in London) that I can only see a case for listing those in some way out of the ordinary. Those "awards" are far less than they seem - the "Schools Achievement Award" has been won by 13800 different schools and 69% of schools are in the "Healthy Schools" scheme - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What iridescenti says. Eusebeus 11:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notibility shown as per responses above.--Dacium 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Mosque[edit]

This article fails WP:NOT in that there is no assertion of notability. The only incoming links are from its parent organization and from an article on the Imam which is probably not notable either. JodyB 12:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I think it's probable that the major state or regional Islamic Centers are all of them notable, and we're judging the subject. Yes, its an inadequate article. DGG 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Yes it's a sub-stub but the mosque obviously exists & is a major regional centre. Given the number of church stubs that nobody thinks to deleting, deleting this looks to me like WP:BIAS. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure not going to loose any sleep over this except to say that the existance of other similar church stubs is irrelevant, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm also not sure why it's a "major regional center." The link in the article shows it is one of two mosque operated by an overseeing mosque. And again, there is no assertion of notability, again, WP:NOTE. Finally, the suggestion of WP:BIAS is curious, though I disagree. Anyway, that's my two cents. JodyB 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable churches are frequently nominated for deletion, so why not mosques. clearly NN. Peterkingiron 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a mosque, associated with two others and see no claim to notability. If this was a Christian church with a branch in a nearby city, of whatever denomination I would also !vote delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).Dang that bot is fast!--killing sparrows 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it a little differently-- the mosque is one half of the islamic Center, and the other half is the School. If this were a Christian church and the leading church of its denomination in New England, I would !vote to keep that also. DGG 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point. If this were the largest RC or Presbyterian church in the state, possibly, but I would still want an assertion and refs of notability. Where is the claim, much less the references, that this is the 'leading church of it's denomination in New England'? I must admit that I have a pretty high bar for what I consider not only notable, but encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and expand --R e m i 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a hub for Boston-area Muslims and it has repeatedly been in the news (e.g. [2],[3]). I am adding external links. Stammer 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It's by no means the leading (or the only) mosque in the area; its sister mosque in Quincy (which is down the street from where I live, coincidentally) is. There've been articles mentioning it recently as well, as the INS is trying to deport its imam, but nothing much about it. RGTraynor 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn religious building, like so many other churches; in a non-hierarchical religion as Islam it's POV to say what mosque is the "leading" one; it has not done anything notable, like raised the dead or otherwise attracted more than the passing media notice that any congregation would be bound to do. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- granetd it's a stub, but that oughtn't to result in deletion, or 25% of Wiki articles would be gone. As to "Raising the dead" this is the sort of off-hand flippancy that provokes people to cry "prejudice" -- how many Xtian buildings claim to raise the dead, much less are verifiable for that feat ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:34Z

Kenneth C. Chia, Jr.[edit]

Non notable person Ravedave 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be provided to indicate he's anything more than just another journalist - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per iridescenti. =Axlq 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, NN --Nate 13:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:BIO and possibly WP:COI, as this article represents all the mainspace edits of the creator. Written in a rah-rah style more suitable for a Myspace page. There's no assertion that this fellow is even as much as a notable, recognized local sportswriter ... he's a "technical writing contributor." Translation: the fellow's the stats wonk who supplies the real columnists with research. There are four relevant Google hits [4], and one of them's the staff directory from the newspaper's website. RGTraynor 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:40Z

Rosaura Lopez[edit]

Orphan article with notability issues. kingboyk 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO, with 42 results in Google News. Newspapers such as Diario Hoy (Argentina), Independent on Sunday, and elmundo.es have written about her, so I'd say that she's no less notable than Gordon G. Chang, who also shot to fame on the back of a single book. Unfortunately it will need attention from a Spanish editor because I've no idea what the sources say and that makes me reluctant to add them into the article. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 00:51Z
Keep At first glance, seems notable. I didn't give it a careful look. YechielMan 19:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Because of the extraordinary interest in the subject of her book, I think she is in fact notable. (I think of this as a very usual instance).DGG 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A member of John Lennon's household and published book author is enough assertion of notability for me. Article could use some heavy copy-editing for grammar, though. =Axlq 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaula kuan[edit]

I know not if this pace exists or not. But if its defining claim to notability is the beauty of its flyover and the fact that five road meet there... well, I don't know what to say. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, we are not a tourist guide. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 00:44Z
- I love it when users make up clauses. How about typing "([WP:NOT|we don't write fiction]]" --Oakshade 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Travel guides are explicitly forbidden in WP:NOT#IINFO. Resurgent Insurgent did not make this up. hateless 05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just where five roads meet but five major roads. Yes it needs cleanup but that's not a reason for deletion. It's a named geographic location in a country whose geographic locations are underrepresented on wikipedia. Besides, we (just about) kept Newark Airport Interchange. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Hindu wrote an extensive story about the opening of the Dhaula Kuan Flyover.[5]. A major highway connecting complex is one of the largest cities in the world. --Oakshade 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep probably another example of cultural narrownesss--many more of us have probably made our way through Newark.DGG 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the country's famous, especially cities famous junction of five important roads, two of which are cities lifeline - i.e. [ring road] and one is Delhi Jaipur Highway. The flyover complex built upon there is also on eof the major solution for signal less junction of five good traffic volume roads. Apart from this it is also a prime location of the city from map/tourism/visiting point of view. I think these all points suffice , keeping the article. --Ashish Bhatnagar 15:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple non-trivial sources can be provided to justify inclusion. From the NPOV of someone who has never heard of this before, this article currently seems to be non-notable original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 08:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloke[edit]

Dictionary definition, nonexpandable to anything encyclopedic `'mikka 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. DBZROCKS 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know it's a dicdef, but I disagree with the "unexpandable" - this could easily be expanded on the unusual dual-root of the word (Hindi 'loke'=man and Old Dutch 'blok'=idiot), the way in which the word disappears from American usage in the early 20th century whilst remaining in other English speaking countries, the albums William Bloke and Songs for the Kiwi Bloke etc etc. I also think it's noteworthy in and of itself as possibly the only word in common English usage to enter the language from Hindi (by way of Romany and Shelta) prior to Western contact with India. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Iridescenti pretty much. Similar to Mate, Guy, Man, Lad, Chap, Dude and Homie. It just needs some expansion and more references. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this is not too difficult to expand and improve to an encyclopedic article, and I will attempt to do so tonight (much as with Bogan and Smoko - this is not just a slang term or a dicdef, it is a complex cultural artifact). --Canley 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Canley, especially notable in Australia at least. --Mattinbgn/^talk 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley. I don't see a good reason to delete this. JuJube 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Reference to Chris Franklin's parody song of the same title could be made. Confusing Manifestation 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expansion. Culturally significant, works in with mateship in defining / describing Australian cultural experience.Ga rr ie 06:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Garrie DXRAW 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:40Z

List of airsoft teams[edit]

Procedural nomination -- had been proposed for deletion as "Cruft". --Shirahadasha 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencylopedic cruft. I don't see how any of these teams can be expected to achieve notability. A list of them will not qualify either. Pete.Hurd 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pete Hurd is correct. YechielMan 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are these teams coming from? Until they receive exposure other than through their own web pages, they will not be notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't even a list of nothing but links. It's a list of nothing but purported teams. Almost no sources, almost no links, and what, precisely, is "airsoft?" RGTraynor 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (or merge, which is an editorial decision). Sandstein 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who henchmen[edit]

The idea of listing all henchman in the series is a bit ridiculous. These are insufficiently developed characters who the majority of would not warrant placement on even the various "minor characters" lists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and any characters such as perhaps "Novice Hame" can find placement on the List of Doctor Who villains. May I also point out, that the entirety these minor characters' histories and characterizations are typically covered in the episode articles for which they appear ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any notable characters into List of Doctor Who villains. Looks like an attempt to replicate the idea of List of James Bond henchmen, however in Doctor Who there have rarely been clearly defined "henchmen". Characters are villains or closely associated with villains, but aside from, say, Tobias Vaughn's henchman in The Invasion and a few others, there haven't been that many "henchmen". 23skidoo 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 23skidoo Percy Snoodle 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 23skidoo, but also give Novice Hame her own article as she is as notable as Jake Simmonds and Lady Cassandra who both have their own articles. --GracieLizzie 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She now does.Lizzie Harrison 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The intention of this page was indeed to serve partially as a similar page for Doctor Who as the List of James Bond henchmen does for James Bond. I believe its presence is justified as some of the henchmen listed have more screen time than the main villains listed on the List of Doctor Who villains. Merging with the villains page is not feasible as there are already concerns over the length of that page and this page was designed to serve to alleviate pressure on that page, serving as an overflow. It is not my opinion that all of these characters are 'insufficiently developed' by their respective scriptwriters. Furthermore, they appear in canonical, televised stories, as oppose to those appearing on the List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs, for example. The closest Doctor Who has to a 'minor characters' list is the List of supporting characters in Doctor Who, which merely links to the other lists, (Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures both have minor character lists). Also, it is not my experience that the entirety of most of these characters' 'histories and characteri[s]ations' are in fact included in the articles for their parent stories. As for the use of the term 'henchmen', which has been challenged, I would be in favour of moving the page to something along the lines of 'List of Doctor Who henchmen and villainous associates'. As for Novice Hame - she was not either of the main villains in New Earth - she served Matron Casp, (the other villain being Lady Cassandra), as part of the Sisterhood, so is a henchmen as Chip was for Cassandra and in Gridlock, she seeks to redeem herself and is neither villain nor henchmen, so the suggestion that she be listed as a villain seems flawed. If anything, I agree with GracieLizzie on the point of Novice Hame, although I think it better to list characters in a similar style to Smallville characters Season One, rather than create a new page for each recurring character. Obviously, from the response to Zythe's proposal, it seems that others do not agree with my viewpoint. However, I see no harm in this collection of information, which is, I would argue, gathered around a coherent theme. That is my stance on the situation, seeing as Wikipedia asked me for it. Wolf of Fenric 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier points, I would argue that this list is far less trivial than lists such as the List of Doctor Who items. The henchmen list notes characters played by actors - some of these actors make public appearances owing to having appeared in Doctor Who. Some of these characters appear in merchandise, such as on trading cards. If the Doctor's opera glasses or the Sash of Rassilon have a place on Wikipedia, I am sure there is room for a list of walking, talking henchmen. Wolf of Fenric 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last point for now, I fail to see under which part of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' Zythe is arguing this article qualifies. Having read through this section which he has linked to, I cannot see how this article fits the criteria for deletion listed there. Wolf of Fenric 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're just henchman and the entirety of their characterization exists within the episode articles.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, having looked through the articles for the stories from which these characters originate, in my opinion, their entire characterisations are not given universally. Under the 9 guidelines listed at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, to which Zythe links, I can see nothing to warrant the deletion of this article. Indeed, this list appears to challenge 'Plot summaries' above and beyond lists. Zythe appears to argue that the information provided by this article is contained within the plot summaries, (as stated, not my experience), provided on Doctor Who story articles. Seeing as the guidelines state that 'plot summar[ies] may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic' which those on the Doctor Who articles seek to be, surely it is best not to cloud these with details of characters' characterisation, arguably best contained here. Furthermore, in line with the directive 'Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context', I have sought to add detail on previous and/or further appearances the actors playing these characters have made in Doctor Who. Wolf of Fenric 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to say merge, but looking through the list, I'm not seeing much information there that doesn't already exist in the episode articles, and I don't see any characters notable enough to merge into the villains list. (I can see something more being done with Novice Hame, maybe, but that's about it.) While I can imagine a casual reader might be looking for a list of villains or monsters, I can't really imagine someone searching for Doctor Who henchmen. "Henchmen" isn't really a concept that's particularly integral to Doctor Who. --Brian Olsen 23:43, 22 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 02:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are definite 'henchmen' roles in Dr Who, as opposed to 'villains' or 'monsters' and as it's a sci fi show that's run for nearly 45 years now there's more than enough content to justify it as it gets expanded over, er, time. The concept of the henchman isn't integral to Dr. Who but it is important, with henchmen of the main villain/monster reflecting the role the assistants played with the Doctor. There's lots of potential here and it shouldn't be summarily deleted. Nick mallory 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Exactly whose henchmen are these supposed to be? Surely it can't be that they're meant to be the Doctor's, in which case the title is misleading. BTLizard 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Henchmen in Doctor Who' would be better. Doctor Who is the programme's name. The Doctor is the character's name. The Doctor is hardly ever referred to as 'Doctor Who' in Doctor Who. Hope that clarifies things.... Nick mallory 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little, but not much. The problem is that in any narrative structure, henchmen are always defined by their relationship to a principal, so simply describing someone as "a henchman" makes no sense. What about something like "Villains' henchmen in Doctor Who"? BTLizard 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. Sometimes it's a monster's henchmen too though, and they're different from villains. A villain is usually a human up to no good, whereas the monsters are often not evil as such, merely bent on conquest or even just survival. They use humans as their henchmen, with the henchmen being motivated by greed or occasionally cowardice. Monster's and villain's henchmen in Doctor Who? Nick mallory 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be picky, but watch the apostrophes :-) Monsters' and villains' henchmen in Doctor Who would do nicely BTLizard 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I'd be in favour of moving the article to a new title - something like 'List of henchmen and villainous associates in Doctor Who' or an agreed variation. 'List of Doctor Who henchmen' was chosen to conform to the trend set by the List of Doctor Who villains, the List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, the List of Doctor Who robots and the List of Doctor Who items. Wolf of Fenric 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep as above. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty lengthy to merge. I think this length makes for a good fork of encyclopedic info from Villain article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it doesn't deserve to exist independently at all. Henchmen are not villains. James Bond henchmen get 3 hours of screen time and characterization, there's a big difference there.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm persuaded this is of sufficient expandability and differentiation from the villain article to stand on its own. I also don't see the problem with "Doctor Who henchmen", personally. Why give the article a mouthful of a title to ward off a small and brief bit of confusion for a few? We have List of James Bond henchmen, and I don't think anyone would think that it's a list of henchmen of 007. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to exist. This is a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic, too much to make viable merge (merging is also an editorial decision). Matthew 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it is not notable and 99% of it does not require merging into the villains article at all. Novice Hame, for instance, can receive minor mention under "Sisters of Plenitude" and the rest can vanish.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Matthew, Dhartung, Nick mallory. - Peregrine Fisher 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am afraid that without the continued existence of this page, things will unintentionally be worse: very minor characters such as Novice Hame now have their own page, whereas they should all appear together on one list (if at all). nadav 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't deserve to be noted separately from the episode articles if they are too minor! Sufficient exansion of recurrence means they can be placed on one of the many other lists. For example, Pig Slaves belong in monsters and aliens, not henchmen. The fact that making the call on who is a villain, who is a monster and who is a henchman is pretty subjective. Just rename "List of Doctor Who villains" to "List of Doctor Who antagonists" - problem solved. This is not about votes, this is simply that the List of Doctor Who henchman cannot function effectively and will in the long run only prove problematic and disruptive to the organisation of minor characters. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolf of Fenric. AndyJones 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although his points are contested. Why should a List of Doctor Who henchmen matter? It's just clutter. The characters are minor and summarised in the articles for the episodes in which they appear.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see his points are contested. I agree with him. AndyJones 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:There are a lot of them, and they should e documented. The other alternative would be giving them their own pages which would be ridiculous. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the alternative would be not listing them at all because they are not notable. I hope whichever admin reads this can make a decision based upon the logical points put forward and not simply the favoring that if a character appears, they must be listed somewhere, which is nonsensical. If this survives AfD, it would definitely set that precedent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zythe's point ignores the fact that most of the characters are not detailed in any great extent on their story pages in the plot sections - the plot sections being for plots, not character descriptions. Individually, no these characters are not, on the whole, notable - as a collective, (this list), they are. Villains tend to have henchmen. Doctor Who has villains. Therefore, Doctor Who has henchmen. This list is a good way to group them. Wolf of Fenric 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XWIS[edit]

Fan managed games server, that runs older C&C games - NN, requires a line in the main article at best. Fredrick day 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's pretty stubbish, but I'm not too feeling about merging. Splintercellguy 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eh? What's the policy based reason for keeping? It's never going to get beyond a stub - as it currently stands it should be reduced to two lines at best. It fails WP:WEB, WP:ATT various other policies. --Fredrick day 08:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks importance. Indrian 06:34, 21 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 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They made a fan page, even having links to their player profiles. The entire article can be scrapped. At most, a link on the main article. The extra information is either not relevant outside the community (for example, the detailed banning rules), or complete vanity (details on a team). Turlo Lomon 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:39Z

I Wanna Live In Tromaville[edit]

– (View AfD) I'm tagging this single, along with all of these other albums and singles for deletion, because they fail WP:MUSIC. Let's go piece by piece:

I Wanna Live In Tromaville - After google searching, this single gets only [6] 31 GHits, which are not Wiki's, mirrors of Wikis, or otherwise unreliable. Of the reliable sources which remain, none of these do anything more than just mention this single as part of the bands work. This makes it a minor, unremarkable single, by a relatively minor band.
Elvis Live!! - Pretty much the same story as above; [7] 28 GHits, as above, and none of which give any more than trivial coverage to this EP:
Maqueta - slightly better here [8] but probably only because the word "maqueta" is an actual word in Spanish - bumping it up to a whopping 178 Ghits, none of which appear to give demo Maqueta anything even close coverage which would meet WP:MUSIC.
Killer Barbies/Aneurol 50 split single - [9] as above, except only 2 GHits, none of which are reliable.
Freaktown - this single is doing better than the above, but still only 300 [10] Ghits, and I can't seem to find any which are non-trivial mentions.
Attack Of The Killer Barbies - this is as the above; only 6 Ghits, none non-trivial and reliable [11]
Fucking Cool - again, as above; very few GHits, none providing both a non-trivial mentions and a reliable source. [12]

As you can see, I haven't nominated all their material - just the trivial stuff, since some of their material (and the band) appears to be notable, if currently poorly sourced. I'm only nominated these since they fail WP:MUSIC. --Haemo 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Haemo 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete For all articles mentioned. No notability, hardly any. Do we even agree that the band themselves are notable (not nominated here)? A1octopus 12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be notable. They've released a couple of albums, and had songs in some non-trivial motion pictures. They're Spanish-Language, so I tend to give them a little more lee-way - since I don't speak very good Spanish, and so it's hard for me to tell the nature of sources, and whether or not they're reliable. --Haemo 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Garry's Mod in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:39Z

Gmod central[edit]

Content-lacking page about an unremarkable website that is now defunct. Flingotravels 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, the article admits that the site doesn't even exist any more and there's nothing to indicate anyone other than the 2800 users were interested in it when it did exist - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Never was notable. YechielMan 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defunct website with no secondary sources to say it was ever notable. Bridgeplayer 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be any proof that 28 people used the site, let alone 2800. All that is proved is that somebody once had a personal website by that name. But now they don't. So, yes, delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyvio. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 04:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary Legal Terms English to Spanish[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Spanish-English dictionary. Maybe this should go to wiktionary somehow? I don't know. Calliopejen1 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary Never mind, speedy per MER-C. Didn't look at the article before hand. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother. It's a copyvio from [13]. The large amounts of unformatted text is a dead giveaway. Speedy delete. MER-C 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North London Business Park[edit]

very short, orphan Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of context. Does not really say where the office park is (I guess it's somewhere in North London, but the article ought to give a fairly precise location), and nothing on the history. Just giving the name of one of the business tenants does not make this an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note just a note that this article was radically stubbified in order to counter some serious neutrality/spamvertising problems, so editors commenting here may wish to check out the revision prior to my ruthless hacking. – Riana ^ऋ 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well you were clearly right to do that, Riana. What a mess! I can't see that much is served by keeping the stub, though - it just makes it easier to revert the ghastly original. Get rid, and if somebody comes along who wants to write a proper article on the subject then they can. BTLizard 10:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Borough of Barnet. Someone could conceivably use this as a search term as it is Barnet's name for what the rest of the English speaking world would call a "town hall" (on the A109 just north of New Southgate railway station, should anyone care) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really!!? Why on earth would they want to call a town hall a business park? I suppose they call Brent Cross shopping centre a golf course! BTLizard 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Tower Hamlets doesn't have libraries, it has "idea stores". "Town Hall" is sooo last century - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it belongs to the century before last. The correct last century term would be civic centre:-). BTLizard 08:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 1) no verification, no sources; 2) no claim to notability; 3) no encyclo-worthy information; 4) so short as to be a joke -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content into Brunswick Park or New Southgate I've expanded the article slightly - I don't think it's notable in its own right (it's simply a business park where the London Borough of Barnet has sited most, and other organisations some, of their administrative offices, though the official town hall is several miles away in Hendon) but the site has some history and I think there's a reasonable argument for giving it a short paragraph in one of the other local geographical articles. PWilkinson 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Twin (Comic Book Characters)[edit]

Delete this for POV, OR, and lack of verification. The listed pairs of characters are not twins. Any interpretation by which contributors call them "twins" invokes opinion. Listing interdimensional counterparts is redundant to another POV-laden article, List_of_character_counterparts_in_the_DC_multiverse. (The article title is also incorrectly capitalized.) Doczilla 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely WP:OR, totally unreferenced, and totally subjective. Whose to say Venom is Spiderman's evil twin, and not Carnage? Why are we even calling these people "evil twins" when the "evil twin" concept is a myth about actual twins? Is there any objective way to classify two characters paired up like this? --Haemo 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venom came from Spiderman (the symbiote tried bonding with him first), and Carnage came from Venom (Carnage is Venom's offspring - if anything, Carnage would be Spiderman's 'evil psychopathic nephew'). The industry and the fan base both have no difficulty in seeing the nature of these relationships, so I'm not sure what the difficulty is here. Thanks. Starmiter 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla - the disagreement over the List of character counterparts in the DC multiverse is a separate disagreement and has no bearing here; please remove the reference to it. Thanks. Starmiter 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could have skipped saying "POV-laden," but that doesn't change the fact that this article is largely redundant to parts of the other. Doczilla 05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formats are similar, but as far as redundancy is concerned, this one is a straight one-to-one comparison (with just a few exceptions) of 'good' characters paired with their 'evil' versions from 2 different comic book companies (with the expectation that there are more examples among other comic book companies that would be added as time goes by); the other is a general comparison of counterpart characters (both good and evil) from multiple universes within the specific DC Continuity during the pre-Crisis era. Since they are two separate entries, and both are separately being considered for deletion, I would point out that using one as a reason to negate the other (or support it) unfairly skews the decision-making process. The best voting results would occur if they are treated as separate issues, so I again request that the reference here be removed. Thanks. Starmiter 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - please review the main page Evil twin to see plenty of examples of pairs of characters that are not 'twins' in a biological sense, yet are still considered to be good/evil versions of a character. As for references:

Synonyms For Twin At Dictionary.com

Superman/modern Ultraman
Superman/classic Ultraman
Superman/Cyborg Superman
Superman/Bizarro
Superman/Dev-Em - basically, any other male Kryptonian using his powers for evil would qualify as an 'evil Superman,' but since that may be too vague a comparison, I'll concede this one
Batman/The Wrath
Batman/Prometheus
Batman/Modern & Classic Owlman
Batman/Batzarro - by nature of being a Bizarro-style clone (meaning, an imperfect copy, and the imperfection has typically meant doing evil things), that should be enough to qualify as an evil twin, but if not, I'll concede this one too
Spiderman/Venom
Wonder Woman/modern Superwoman
Green Lantern/Power Ring
Green Lantern/Sinestro
Flash/Johnny Quick
Flash/The Rival
Flash/Zoom
Flash/Reverse-Flash - proof is in the character name
Green Arrow/Merlyn
Captain Marvel/Black Adam
Superboy/Match
Hawkman/Golden Eagle
Hyperions, Nighthawks, Dr. Spectrums, & The Whizzer/Speed Demon - one set was 'Squadron Sinister,' the other set was 'Squadron Supereme' - self-explanatory

As for the capitalization error for the title, you got me - I concede. Thanks Starmiter 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil twin article's status as a subjective hodgepodge of original research doesn't mean anyone should commit the same sin here. Dr.Who 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there does not appear to be the same effort to remove or streamline the main article, which seems at odds with the stance being taken on this minor sub-set. Is there a particular reason? Thanks. Starmiter 05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can't seriously think that you can salvage this by posting a dozen or so "references" which totally fail WP:RS. I mean, look in the above, you have 19 total references - which are all either unreferenced fansites, Wikipedia or Wiki-like projects, forums, toy sellers, sites which don't mention "evil twins" , blogs, dictionaries, or Amazon user-reviews. You can't be serious that this is supposed to constitute "sourcing". --Haemo 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I used these sites as references in the sense that they mentioned 'evil Batman' or 'evil Superman' etc., in addition to ones that made references as 'evil twin' (which I think is being taken way too literal in this discussion - be sure to see the main entry Evil twin to see that it's an evolved concept these days) as examples that I am not alone in my thinking (which would be the basis of the 'POV-laden' complaint at the top). Frankly, the comparisons should be self-explanatory all-around, especially if you click each one's link in the grid and read their entries - if you can do that and honestly conclude that these are not 'evil twins' in the sense that they are opposite versions of each other, I'll delete the entry myself. Thanks. Starmiter 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You basically admit here that this article constitutes WP:OR - as you should know, synthesis is a form of original research and is likewise prohibited. You admit you have no reliable sources for your assertions on this page, and the page in question, and that the criteria for inclusion is your own subjective judgement about who is, and is not, an "evil twin" of another character. That's a solid reason for deletion right there. --Haemo 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Evil Twin is perhaps the wrong name to use, I'm not sure of the proper choice, but as a concept, it's certainly a given that there are opposing versions of various characters. Then again, this page is unreferenced, so it might well serve to delete it and encourage the primary editor to work at the page from a new direction. FrozenPurpleCube 05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly OR in its current form; no reliable third-party sites discuss these pairings as "evil twins". In fact, the same is probably true no matter what this could be renamed to. It remains a list of paired comic book characters linked by the author's impressions of similarity. If other, appropriate, sources make those same connections, we can revisit the topic at that time. Serpent's Choice 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose you've read any of the comics, or perhaps seen a Challenge of the Super Friends cartoon, or even clicked and viewed through the above-provided reference links? If you have, then I'm at a loss as to how you can conclude these are solely my impressions. Perhaps renaming the category 'Opposite Number' would be better? It appears that people are trying to interpret 'evil twin' in a literal-sense, rather than in a literary-sense. Thanks. Starmiter 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that whatever I or Serpent's Choice or whoever thinks about whether or not you are right, we can't have an article about it until reliable secondary sources say it. Read WP:OR for an overview of Wikiepdia's policy on original research.Chunky Rice 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - this article is based on a subjective judgement made by author, and is totally void of WP:RS which would make this anything other than WP:OR. --Haemo 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, it conflicts with WP:OR and WP:RS. Although as a concept it does show merit and shouldn't be summarily dismissed, anymore than the other previously mentioned Article for Deletion. It is simply that neither meet the criteria to exist on this particular site. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Delete it - I no longer care to carry on the fight over something so trivial; just be sure to give the same rigorous review to the main article, Evil twin, since it would seem that it is filled with the same kind of "Original Research." And you may want to revise the WP:OR to include 'Original Conclusions,' since the only 'research' done with this grid entry was to make sure the Wikipedia links were correct. Thanks. Starmiter 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge any relevant verifiable information to Evil twin, although it seems to be a lot of duplicate info. Using the table may be a way of cleaning up the appearance of the Evil twin article. hombre de haha 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dobos[edit]

Article consists mainly of peacock words and advertising language and has no citations. The original author appears to have been single-purpose, and no major contributions were made to the article after creation. It seems that if the advertising (for the person's work and more obviously the recording company, per the external links) were removed, there would be little content left. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree it needs a cleanup but that's not grounds for deletion. He's written a platinum album & composed the score for at least three genuine films. There's a problem with sourcing in that most of the English-language hits are reviews or fansites with all the news hits in Hungarian, but the sources do seem to be there - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs to be sourced. While looking for information, I found out that his music is available in over 50 countries. I think that solidifies his notability (along with the platinum success). This article has been tagged since October 2006. If it is not cleaned up soon, I would not be surprised to see it back here again, if it makes it through this AFD. --Cyrus Andiron 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Normand Langlois[edit]

not encylopedic, especially compared to other economists, publications are not major 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I added some books. Full professors are generally notable. --Eastmain 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially in light of expanded publications list. JamesMLane t c 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:41Z

Propaganda and the Turkish Government[edit]

Appears to be a contested PROD. If any of the citations are from WP:RS, perhaps they can be merged somewhere; as it stands, however, this article appears to be an egregious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Human Rights of Minorities in Turkey. Suffers from the same problems as above; created by the same user. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and notify the user about NPOV issues. YechielMan 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most assuredly a POV essay on the subject, has some sources but amount to WP:SYN and thus original research. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essays. Carlossuarez46 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Davewild 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced--Sefringle 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:43Z

Antistasiology[edit]

Not quite sure what this is. Appears to be a theory in the political science realm, but the creator is apparently a punk rocker. Google can't shed any light, either. Contested PROD, so brought here. I've asked the article's creator for any type of WP:RS indicating that this is a notable... whatever it is... but barring that, delete as, among other things, a violation of WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An academic discipline that nobody apart from the inventor of the term and author of the article seem to have written about. --CIreland 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. A term which produces zero Google hits. Suddenly I feel like I am back on a 2400 baud modem, using AOL when it was exclusively Macintosh-focused. And my politics would incline me to keep it rather than delete it. Delete it. Drake Dun 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. If no one else follows your ideology, then does it really exist? --Cyrus Andiron 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author of the article left a very defensive and haughty note on my talk page after I informed him/her of relevant information on sources, verifiability, etc. The full rant is there if anyone wants to find it, but it sounds to me like we won't find any, nor will we ever get any clarification on what "this" "is"... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I found difficult to fathom is how there can be dozens of articles on such scholarly subjects as Torgo and have one set for deletion, apparently at least partly based on the fact the person who devised the subject was a punk rocker in the 70s and 80s. On the other hand an entry on an obviously commercial enterprise such as Kelley Enterprises (Tennessee) can be blithely accepted without serious citations being required. Needless to say, there seems to be a distinct lack of consistency, even on the part of individual admins, which can be extremely confusing. And this can be extremely frustrating to someone who is trying to add a simple page. Sorry if this appears to be another rant but, as I said, it can be severely frustrating to have an entry on the 'study of resistance' be classified as invalid alongside the shining examples of 'validity' as a C movie character and a cotton producing company in Tennessee. Lozen8 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are other articles which violate policies, then you're welcome to nominate them for deletion using any of the three processes involved there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it isn't on Google it doesn't exist. Interesting. Then I'm afraid I don't exist. ;-) Lozen8 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 299 ghits for "lozen8", apparently your postings on a variety of nz websites. therefore you exist. DGG 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another example of fine Wikipedia scholarship. I'm in Los Angeles, California and have never posted anything one a NZ site. Have spoken with the principles involved and, as it turns out, they are not interested in having an entry in Wikipedia. All this crap with you idiots for nothing. Lozen8 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anonymous user (speculation as to relationship to Lozen8 withheld) created the article Frank Discussion (which was a redirect to his band's article) to astroturf the concept mentioned herein. This is noted as a suspected WP:POINT violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It was I, but a) my cookies didn't engage and I wasn't auto-logged into Wikipedia b) it was nothing quite so nefarious as you suspect, merely expanding the entry from a redirect to The Feederz to include the things he's been known for since 1989, such as his subvertisements. These items can be found in the Re/Search publications - V. Vale San Francisco,CA, where, by the way, antistasiology is mentioned as well (but it is not on Google so it apparently does not exist, but of course, in that universe it seems I am actually in New Zealand). This is something I am now doubting would be appreciated by Mr. Discussion himself as he appears to have very little regard for Wikipedia. A view I am quickly coming to share. Some of the above posts illustrate exceptionally clearly the level of scholarship to be expected here. It is terribly ironic that these expositions of reliance on supposition, reading comprehension at a fourth or fifth grade level and rampant inconsistency were made by admins. One actually managed to place me, with great glee at his own sleuthing abilities, over 6,000 miles away from my actual residence. But I suppose I should just be grateful that he/she got the planet right. Believe it or not, I used to support the idea of a GNU style encyclopedia up until I was forced to take a close look at it. I suppose it was one of those things that looks good on paper but... Lozen8 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there are reliable sources out there, regardless of where they are (locatable on Google or otherwise), then they can be used to support the verifiability and notability of this ideology. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is mention of it in V. Vale, Pranks 2 San Francisco Re/Search Publications 2006. But... I don't think that will satisfy these people, especially with the title, although there are some interesting concepts exhibited in that book. Antistasiology is not so much an ideology as simply studying various strategies and tactics used by resistance fighters over the centuries around the world and comparing them (particularly groups that have managed to have sustained success against enemies with much greater numbers and technological superiority) and attempting to find common threads and pitfalls. For example, what do the Taliban's tactics against first the Russians and then the US have in common with let's say Geronimo who managed to carry on a running guerrilla campaign with only 24 warriors against 5,000 US soldiers, plus their scouts who were often Apaches themselves? And would those tactics work now? Would they adapt to an urban setting? and such questions. In this case, you are setting the respective ideologies aside in the attempt to get at the core strategies and tactics used. Funny, I came to Wikipedia hoping to merely add a little article that might give some people some food for thought and possible lines of questioning, since I (obviously) found the concept fascinating. I had no idea it would turn into such a painful experience. Hell, the word antistasiology I think just means 'study of resistance' or something like it in greek... I don't Mr. Discussion or Ms Humara had any intention of anyone considering it a full academic discipline as, let's say cultural anthropology or quantum electrodynamics. Nor had I. It was an area worth studying that doesn't fit into the standard defined areas, so they gave it a name to give it some better definition and a handle. I don't think any of us would expect there to be, let's say classes taught on the subject at UCLA for example. This is where it seems some people may be getting a bit bureaucratic about a fairly simple thing.Lozen8 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit at the outset that I don't have access to the book (I'm assuming it's a book you're talking about) in question, but the fact that it's mentioned is at the very least a start. My apologies, also, for calling it an "ideology" earlier. I mis-spoke in saying that, as it's obviously a field of study or a conceptual framework or whatever you want to call it along those lines. Given your characterisation of it, I'd be tempted to suggest that this information might have a home in something like "Security Studies" or "Insurgency Studies" (the latter of which there's a class about at my university, the former is obviously more related to the study of the state response to the Taliban, Geronimo et al), and that may end up being a better place for it than a stand-alone article. In terms of the lack of classes at UCLA, that may end up being part of the problem. The way that Wikipedia works is that things need to be described in multiple non-trivial reliable sources (that book could well be one such, so don't lose heart) and in such a way as to achieve notability. If there's a class solely devoted to this kind of thing at a reputable university, that's going to be a considerable filip. If there isn't, it may not be the end of the world, all that's needed is more mentions in books/academic papers/newspaper articles and so on. It doesn't always sound fair, this system, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and this particular line is drawn here based on community consensus. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

Subject is a faux-sujet. The subject is not notable in itself, but a manifestation of the Virginia Tech massacre. The plethora of links and references in the VTM article would probably be sufficient indication of the width and breadth of media coverage around the world, without the need for this potential POV fork. Of course one would expect some regular shows and potentially insensitive programming to be bumped, but this is but a factor of the massacre itself. Ohconfucius 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a poorly sourced summary of media which has covered the VTM, and doesn't provide any cogent rationale for why this is a notable topic in the first place. It's prima facie clear that the VTM is notable - notso for the media coverage thereof. --Haemo
Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 06:51Z
Delete. Spongy, particularly effects on entertainment shows. Not everything on TV is notable. This is the sort of thing you get when you write history while it's still hot. That's not necessarily a bad thing; after all, judgements can always be revised. It does generate material that has to be pruned though, and this is an example. BTLizard 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough already! Nobody cares about the media coverage; in the grand scheme, we only care about the event. Haven't we killed this horse already? YechielMan 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Blaster Cannon Yet another branch on the Virginia Tech Massacre tree that is almost becoming uncontrollably large. Less is better in this case. Refine current articles, make them better, stop making new articles, rinse and repeat. --Cyrus Andiron 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The media coverage makes the massacre notable, not itself. I strongly concur with the above sentiment that the web of articles touching on the massacre is becoming overly large and unweildy - there's clearly a lot of editorial interest and effort in the subject but it should be focused on existing articles before rushing off to make yet another derivative article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. POV fork. Edison 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Epson291 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary.-- danntm ^T _C 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as necessary . 132.205.44.134 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author's response. My reaction is shock and disbelief. I saw similar pages about media coverage and pop culture reaction to the 9/11 attacks and the London train attacks (sorry, I don't remember the page titles). I just thought that the massacre deserved a similar entry. I have not seen any good suggestions as to what to do with such an article. I also don't know where to turn to if this page, and all content on it, is deleted. I have a personal web page, but moving the contents of this page to my personal page is beyond the scope of the site (it's a fan fiction site). For this reason, I am asking for at least a merger onto the main page, so that the media coverage of this event is documented somewhere on Wikipedia. - Desmond Hobson 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is too early to write this off and the reason for many deletes is the subject matter is too early for many to have noticed. Even today CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) ran a lengthy critique about US media coverage especially the manic reruns of Cho's video manifesto versus the decision by CBC not to run it at all. The author of this article should not despair, there is time to write about it as more people react to the mad rush of the 24 hour US channels to take cheap advanatage of the massacre. This will become a notable event if not already a notable event. I am sure number of books will be written about this subject matter no matter how much people want bury their heads in the sand about it Taprobanus 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The decision of NBC News to run Cho's video has attracted coverage in itself. Needs a cleanup but it is a legitimate article with available sources. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seriously needs beefing up with citations but I believe that most of the assertions can be properly sourced. That there are many other articles about the event is no reason to delete an article about a distinct and significant aspect of it. To the calls to improve those other articles, I respond that having a specific place to put information about the coverage will help improve those articles. JamesMLane t c 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:JamesMLane. Kolindigo 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with main VT massacre article and redirect. Ill-timed deletioncruft... Ranma9617 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the controversy regarding the running of the videos made it a notable incident in media history. Calwatch 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable part, the media package, is already covered and referenced in Seung-Hui Cho#Media package sent to NBC News. The other information is unnotable. Phony Saint 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Subject is good, but this small amount of references (please, use <ref> tag and {{cite web}} template)... Hołek ҉ 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Holek. We have other articles discussing the media coverage of a highly publicized event so this article has precedent. However, it needs expansion of content and of sourcing which time could provide. Lets let this article develop. ↔NMajdan•talk 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator of the article mentioned similar "spin-off" articles for 9/11 and the London bombings. An example is List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks. At some point, spinning off more and more articles gets silly. Have a look at Template:Sep11, Template:2005 London bombings and Template:2004 tsunami for more examples of spin-off articles. My view is that such spin-offs can sometimes work, but they need a lot of work to succeed. Carcharoth 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom and above. --TREYWiki 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He is quite right in his analysis. Eusebeus 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent article has grown long enough and this subject is large enough to warrant a child article. StuffOfInterest 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, needs to incorporate stuff from the since-deleted Michael Sneed/inaccurate reporting article, the Wayne Chiang stuff, etc. Wl219 13:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:45Z

Destroying Avalon[edit]

I suspect this is a spam article by the books author. Postcard Cathy 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - author blanked. So tagged. MER-C 06:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 - Anthony Appleyard noticed that others edited the page, so it technically fails G7, but those others were bots and had no conscious input to the article. Anyway, it qualifies under CSD A7 as well. YechielMan 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure JoanneB and Postcard Cathy are not bots, but anyway this comment is unrelated to the deleteability of the page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 14:59Z
  - JoanneB was reverting the page blanking, which she thought was vandalism, and Postcard Cathy put in the AFD template. Nothwithstanding, as I said, the article should be deleted for its content. YechielMan 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Steel 13:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PicaJet[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as A7 and G11, but not blatant spam. Spam, nonehtless, thoguh, from a user with few or no other contriutions. WP:NOT a software directory. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Leuko 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vgranucci 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per nom not being accurate. Armypower 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Armypower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per discussion. anthony 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Weakk Keep/merge~~ If you go to the PicaJet site, it has a couple of excerpts of reviews in PC Magazine and Consumer Eletronics. If those can be verified and properly sourced, and the article improved, I think this might lend the company some degree of notability. I'd want more sources, though, and "just the facts" profiles--no marketing language, no self-citing (press releases) or OR. And all Picajet offerings (the synonymous software, any recreation of RoboImport and RoboFolder wouldn't merit seperate articles, but become part of this one. Them's my thoughts. Wysdom 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) program some degree of notability. Furthermore, it seems to have a component RoboImport which was deleted, but could potentially add substance if merged into an improved PicaJet article. I'm onna fence. :/ Wysdom 03:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm back on the fence. Honordrive created PicaJet. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend it. Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's, here. Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/ Wysdom 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually everything related to these articles is the work of a single purpose account. A small nest of them, as it seems. Suspicious? You betcha. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Spokeroad to the list of Picajet sockpuppet suspects. Created today, one contribution: to delete the comment of Armypower from this page (a change which I've reverted).

Weak keep If the reviews mentioned are included--Wysdom--why not put them in right now? Nothing wrong with improving an article during an AfD discussion. The article talk page mentions some other sites as well. DGG 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete On evidence of COI/spam and a small army of sockpuppets. @DGG: Normally, I'd do that, but the more I look into this, the more it appears to me that this Spokeroad/Armypower/Honordrive/Beganstory/and the four other SPA sockpuppets involved with the RoboImport spamstub is desperately trying to get his/her product some PR at the expense of this community. I wish I felt differently, but the very thought of putting effort into legitimating this... person's "contribution" when there are so many other, good faith contributions needing attention? Yuck. :P Wysdom 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

Andrew Schlafly is not notable outside of his role with conservapedia. Doesn't merit a separate article. Tmtoulouse 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the problem with him but he is alo notable for his work with the AAPS. Of course Wikipedians tend to focus on his Conservapedia efforts. There is also the issue that deleting his entry is tantamount to some sort of censorship. I started the article but if consensus is for deletion then that's OK by me. Barfbagger 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but keep a very close eye on it as it's likely to be a vandal-magnet and I'm sure he'd love a chance to jump on the slightest breach of WP:BLP. I think he gets enough coverage for his role at Eagle Forum University, as a right-wing activist, and as lawyer for the AAPS, to warrant a keep even discounting the whole Conservapedia thing, and would also warrant a keep in light of his running Conservapedia, which has garnered significant media coverage. (He's probably WP:N in more fields than Jimmy Wales, and try sticking a {{prod}} on Jimbo and see what happens.) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable for all the reasons given by Iridescenti. Nick mallory 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Having a job as a lawyer or editting a small online encyclopedia or being ultra-conservative does not satisfy WP:BIO. The sources do not satisfy WP:A. The only reliable source is the NY Times, which only has a routine story that he got married. Perhaps mention in his mother's article. Edison 16:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment plenty of multiple non-trivial etc exist, just nobody had bothered to add them. I've added a few legitimate sources for him, but don't feel particularly keen to step into the hornets nest of actually writing anything about him (this is the man, lest we forget, who maintains a dedicated attack page about Wikipedia and works closely with Daniel Brandt on attempting to find a legal basis for suing Wikipedia editors[14]) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- while Aschlafly is largely notable in terms of being a subject for centrist and left-wing ridicule, I'd argue that still makes him notable, if far less so than his mother. Haikupoet 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability has been established. Davewild 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any source that meets WP:ATT is in the context of conservapedia, pages should redirect there. He does not meet notability criteria. What non-trival, secondary sources discuss Schlafly outside of a context of conservapedia? Tmtoulouse 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Algabal 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm keeping him in exercise by vandalizing everyday some of his stupid encyclopedia's articles. Maybe this can prevent him to use his time to his absurd propaganda. Bye. --Attilios 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you need to vandalise Conservapedia to make it look ridiculous[15], [16] and my personal favourite Countries with high rates of gun ownership such as Iraq are not guaranteed to have a low crime rate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time has passed, and refs were added, but they tend to be about Conservabedia with passing trivial reference to Schlafly, or to be non-independent and non-reliable sources, or to be routine coverage like that he got married. Insufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:ATT. I took a look at Conservapedia, and it is lightly populated with articles, and the have deleted and salted the articles on "naughty" body parts. Edison 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD's are not a vote, but sometimes they seem to go down that way, I would strongly urge whoever looks at this to see if the arguments being made have true merit for Wikipedia. Schlafly is notable only through his involvement with CP. It should be merged there. Tmtoulouse 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think even discounting Conservapedia he'd pass WP:N as general counsel for AAPS, given that in that position he's been involved in so many - er - "unusual" legal cases — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although some Wikipedians would like to think Schlafly is only notable for Conservapedia he has many contentious legal cases via AAPS. With his involvement with Eagle Forum University I can see him being more of a high profile player in right-wing conservative Christian politics. Especially with his mother's money behind him. I think he bears watching and documenting. Barfbagger 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a minor figure at AAPS and Eagle Forum, he is basically a home school teacher and a staffer for various right wing groups, he hasn't done anything of note. But even if he had, the criterion is what WP:ATT sources could we use to construct an entry about it. All most all such sources are either primary or about conservapedia. We can not construct an article with only primary sources and second thought references in articles about something else. I still say merge and redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Schlafly isn't notable outside of his role at Conservapedia. If Conservapedia wasn't just a bash-fest of Wikipedia, this would be a no-brainer. I personally don't want this to become the next Daniel Brandt. --Hojimachong^talk 01:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Who?" -Gobonobo ^T ^C 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When reading about Conservapedia, I want to know about its founder. Who is he? How is he related to Phyllis Schlafly? etc. — Emiellaiendiay 17:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why that requires a DIFFERENT article. We can say that in the conservapedia article fine. Hence merge and redirect is probably the best strategy. Also we can't write articles that we want to see with out sources. There are no non-trivial secondary sources that address Schlafly beyond a secondary mention in an article about conservapedia. Redirect and merge again is the better approach then trying to piece together a WP:BLP with no sources.

Delete More US-centric nonsense that smacks of wiki navel-gazing. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed, article now fixed. Good work. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen L. Nyberg[edit]

"Is a NASA astronaut" may be a claim to notability but it's not much of an article. seems to violate WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly notable with potential to expand. The length of an article is not a criteria for deletion unless expansion is unlikely, in which case merging may be appropriate. 08:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's expanded now. If Astronauts aren't notable there's something wrong with Wikipedia's guidelines. Nick mallory 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As per Nick Mallory above, if "Astronaut" doesn't automatically confer notability the problem is with the guideline, not the article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not to dogpile, but this article, rightly, has been expanded. Astronaut stubs are unquestionably examples of the ability of stubs to grow, not of topics warranting deletion. Serpent's Choice 08:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further expanded and re-formatted. She has also been involved in the deep-sea NEEMO project. Move to speedily close if Guy does not object? Serpent's Choice 09:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I see the article has been substantially expanded, but even then, since when has "not much of an article" been a reason for deletion? There was a clear possibility of expansion, given the notability of the subject. --Canley 08:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Info, and not a directory either. Content is required. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Please refrain from such frivolous nominations. Waste of time. Subject is notable, an astronaut who has just been assigned to her first mission in space, STS-124. I think by the way that being an astronaut makes you notable. Hektor 09:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily kept. Non-admin closure due to expansion of article and parity of results with the Karen L. Nyberg AFD closed by same nominator for identical reasons. Serpent's Choice 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akihiko Hoshide[edit]

Akihiko Hoshide is an astronaut. And that appears to be the sum total of himan knowledge about him. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expanding an article on an obviously notable person, rather than tagging it for deletion, might be a more constructive way to help Wikipedia grow. Nick mallory 08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As per Nick Mallory above, if "Astronaut" doesn't automatically confer notability the problem is with the guideline, not the article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is an extremely frivolous nomination. Indeed I first thought it was a prank. Akihiko Hoshide is one among the handful of astronauts from his nation. He has just been assigned to his first space mission, STS-124, scheduled for next year. This mission will deliver to the ISS his country's space laboratory, Kibō. Hektor 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As various above. At this stage of human history astronauts remain notable per se. Won't always be so, but it is now. BTLizard 11:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I am an American fluent in Japanese and living in Japan. A Google search for this guy in the proper kanji (星出彰彦) produces over 30,000 hits, including many serious discussions of his role in JAXA. Obviously notable. Drake Dun 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't dare to close this myself, but I don't think it needs to run the full five days. He's clearly notable. YechielMan 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in that he is now assigned to a specific mission. NawlinWiki 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory, and close with WP:SNOW. Neier 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:47Z

Zelda chronology[edit]

The basis of the article is speculation/original research. There's already a better one at The_Legend_of_Zelda_Series#Chronology. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That being so, it would seem to be redundant. BTLizard 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think the other chronology is just fine. --Cyrus Andiron 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the chronology in this article is different because it attempts to put the games in order to when they take place within the fictional Zelda universe, and not by release date in the real world as in the chronology on The Legend of Zelda Series. Still, it's a work of original research. hateless 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation. Doczilla 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be purely original research. There is no factually information that can be sourced. Turlo Lomon 11:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Montoro[edit]

This page was created at 04:48, 6 April 2007 and speedy-delete-tagged {{db-attack}} at 06:32, 23 April 2007, but it criticizes him a few times but also contains useful information. Anthony Appleyard 09:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Montoro was a genuine film director & producer [17], [18], [19] and the lawsuit regarding Great White leading to the bankruptcy of FVI is documented. The only possibly contentious claim is the bit about embezzling money, which I agree needs to go if it can't be sourced, but that's not grounds to delete the article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I realized from googling & I queried the speedy when I found it in the list. Anthony Appleyard 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above wasn't a criticism of you but of MER-C for IMO speedying something patently inappropriate for an A6 - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a notable figure in genre movies, something of a cult figure in fact with lots of independent, verifiable sources discussing him. He did do a runner with the money, there's a good interview with a guy called Jim Bertges who worked with him confirming it here. [[20]]. I can't believe no-one's made a film about him yet actually. Nick mallory 09:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations[edit]

SIA Cargo has a very limited network of its own, and could easily be covered in the Singapore Airlines Cargo article. The very nature of the airline industry dictates that on most passenger aircraft they will carry cargo. Aeroflot Cargo is a separate entity from Aeroflot, just like SIA, but to claim that the entity known as Aeroflot Cargo services all of the mainline Aeroflot destinations is misleading. The same goes for SIA Cargo. The list of destinations can easily be incorporated into Singapore Airlines Cargo and/or Singapore Airlines destinations Russavia 09:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm in favor of keeping because we have so many other articles in Category:Airline destinations. Wikipedia tends to split off the destinations from the service, so even if the article is somewhat redundant, it does no harm to leave it alone. YechielMan 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (1) WP is not company's website, (2) there no other information that just a list of airports, (3) who is going to maintain it, (4) bad precedent. Pavel Vozenilek 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please kindly explain why this article should be a "bad precedent", unless it predates the other 210 articles in Category:Airline destinations?--Huaiwei 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Only 3 months ago, a decision was made to keep this and other articles. [[21]] (see list in that link).VK35 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. --Vsion 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one looks at the article, one would notice that some destinations such as Nairobi have "cargo only" written after it. Seeing as this is an article for Singapore Airlines Cargo that Nairobi would be a cargo only destination is correct, and doesn't need the added notation. If not delete and incorporate into Singapore Airlines Cargo or Singapore Airlines destinations, the article needs to be cleaned up. Living in a city which is on the mainline SIA network, I can attest that we do not have service from Singapore Airlines Cargo. As mentioned above by myself, just because a given destination is on the network of a mainline passenger airline does not mean that the cargo airline also serves that destination. Case in point, I can attest that Aeroflot Cargo has never touched down in Murmansk or Tyumen or Sochi, although Aeroflot does in fact touch down in all of those cities, and does carry freight on said flights, and freight can be carried to those destinations using a service called Aeroflot Cargo (the cargo product name, not the airline name). The article also is not correct, given that the inbox on Singapore Airlines Cargo states 15 destinations, yet Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations looks more like a carbon copy of Singapore Airlines destinations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment If you are aware that there are factual errors, and you have the relevant sources to back that up, than you are most welcome to amend the list. Flagging the entire article for deletion just because of a few errors isnt exactly the only option available to set things right. Also, please avoid directly comparing one entity with another, for they are not neccesarily operated or incorporated in the same way. Singapore Airlines Cargo is a fully-owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines. The cargo divisions of other airlines are not neccesarily subsidiaries, and often do not have distinct articles for this reason.--Huaiwei 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines awards and accolades[edit]

Awards which a company receives are not notable. A summary awards should be incorporated into Singapore Airlines Russavia 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:NOT#IINFO. A section in Singapore Airlines summarizing awards should be sufficient. --Muchness 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and copy the EL to Singapore Airlines. YechielMan 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was split off from Singapore Airlines, where it was first added as part of the "service quality" section to demonstrate its reputation in the industry and to the travelling public.--Huaiwei 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should really be incorporated in the main SQ article with a summarisation of awards, and a link provided to their website for a full rundown of their awards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If the idea to keep the main article succint by moving content to secondary pages ends up with the later getting deleted, then we are back to square one. I appears to me that you arent too familiar with the overall setup of some aviation-related articles, and the history behind some of their existance.--Huaiwei 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThe above logic by Huaiwei is correct. VK35 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main article already has too much information. I might agree with Russavia as an alternative but what happens if that information is removed from the site? Maybe we need a discussion somewhere about lists of awards for corporations and how much of this type of information is needed. Vegaswikian 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of series covering a major topic. As Singapore Airlines is recognized as top in its field, its list of awards is itself notable. Similar articles include Career achievements of Michael Jordan, List of awards and achievements for Madonna. Note also that it is common for a major topic to be covered by several articles with notability inherited from the main article. This avoids unnecessary cycle of splitting and merging. This is generally acceptable as long as the sub-topic is non-trivial, e.g. Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. --Vsion 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We should follow the comments by Huaiwei as it is conter-productive to delete it as it has been made to serve a purpose and will cause more problems in the future. But it should be changed a bit, maybe a blurb summarizing it's service and quality at the start and then a list of only the 'notable' awards given in the last few years Tom 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is indeed a very workable idea. There is scope for some content to be added to a simple listing of awards. This should help set the context for otherwise clueless users who think this is merely a standalone "directory".--Huaiwei 06:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Having a look at the entire Singapore Airlines series of articles, they come across as fanboyish. Along with Cathay Pacific and Malaysia Airlines, SQ does have a sizeable fanboy following. I posted on the main article talk page the fact that two awards which are mentioned , namely Scottish Passenger Agents Association and Korea Herald, The are listed in this article, which in the opening states these are significant awards. If you were to go to a travel industry quiz night and a question related to the Scottish Passenger Agents Association, the room would be scratching their heads wondering just who this organisation is, and what makes their award so significant. I know I would be, and I can guarantee so would the CEO of SQ. The list as given is a verbatim copy from this link. Expanding the article to try and put some context in it is pointless, as any information which could be included in the article should, or would already, be covered at Singapore Airlines. Allowing the article as it is to stand will only cause confusion amongst users who are using this site for it's encyclopaedic content, as they will only be met with nothing more than an advertisement. And where does it stop? I could easily make a list of hundreds of awards which Aeroflot has had bestowed on it going back to 1932. Does such a list honestly make much different to encyclopaedic value, particularly when a brief summary can be placed in the main article, along with a link (from which came all the info anyway)? --Russavia 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment There is perhaps a rather blurred distinction between "fanboy" topics and topics which commands singificant interest amongst professionals, academics, and the general public, thus fueling extensive writeups about them. But to trivalise efforts of wikipedians as merely "fanboy" without due consideration for the topic's notability seems a tad insulting to mature contributors, myself included. I agree that the two awards you mention are probably insignificant in the global arena, but a quick look at the list, and in comprison to the official site, shows that the list actually includes all awards received. The opening sentence which once appeared in the main article for a partial list was not updated when it was moved to the expanded list in a new page. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations‎, outright deletion of the entire article is not the only solution to resolve a small factual error. If you are going to attempt a list of all awards won by Aeroflot, please consider if Aeroflot itself is a notable airline in terms of service quality, and a trendsetter in the global aviation industry. Listing all awards won by Aeroflot is perhaps of little encyclopedic value, but when Singapore Airlines claims to be the most awarded airline in the world, there is a far higher likelihood for users to question the validity of this statement, and to consider the range of awards won. Avoid assuming that just because XXX Airline has an awards page, all other airlines must have one too. Ultimately, notability is still key.--Huaiwei 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment And to call people "clueless users" is also quite insulting. But I do think that you have proven my point with what you have written above. Particularly your comment about whether Aeroflot (used for this argument) is 'notable' for service quality, or a trendsetter in the global aviation industry (which it is if you get rid of POV and go back over 75 years of history). It should not matter if Aeroflot is noted for its service quality or not, but a list of awards should be appropriate if it is for SIA. The mere fact that you bring up this point is evidence that there is a high POV in that article, or at the very least, behind the article, for if you were of the belief that such a list is required for SIA, then you should also be of the belief it is required for every other airline out there which has received some award, no matter how obscure that award may be. It also seems a tad strange that it is necessary to have a huge list of received awards which have been ripped directly from the SIA website, then at the bottom of the article is a link to the complete list on the SIA website. Why not write a brief synopsis within the main SIA article, and provide the link to the SIA website as a reference point. To keep would be setting a bad precedent. --Russavia 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment So what is your primary motivation here: Pushing for deletion because you were personally insulted, or because of POV issues, or both? (and speaking of that, kindly inform if this nomination is not a result of cluelessness of the existance of all similar articles, as well as a previous AFD only three months prior?) Now if it was due to POV over whether Aeroflot is more notable than SIA in terms of service quality to the point of actually considering my statements to be POV, then I am simply going to fall back on a fundamental police: WP:V. Please inform if any of those statements with regards to SIA are not supported by third-party publications. Please advise if there are third-party publications stating that Aeroflot blazes the trail in terms of service quality for the global aviation scene, and is well-respected the world over as a company. If so, you are most welcome to add these info to the Aeroflot page. I find it curious to observe that you appear to be demanding that sourced, verified, positive comments about certain airlines be removed by flagging them as "POV", just so that they all read and sound similar to airlines which are far less accredited for their service quality standards. If this is your hidden agenda, then I would think the deletion of this article is itself setting a bad precedent amongst users attempting to use wikipedia's NPOV policy as an excuse to censor out positive (and potentially negative) opinions, depite these opinions being verified and sourced.--Huaiwei 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, main article is lengthy enough. A longer paragraph should be written, maybe summarising some of the major awards. Listing the notable awards as what Tom said would be better and this will not be mistaken as a directory. Terence 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Russavia has nominated another three SIA-related articles [22] [23] [24] in the past few hours, all based on nothing but self-perceived "non-notability".--Huaiwei 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Huaiwei, the main article is already too long to be merged back in. This article could do with a cleanup of references and so forth. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:47Z

Juliet Schor[edit]

Not-notable enough, the page also has irrelevant comments such as "Her favourite student is.." which all add up to suggest that the page has either been written by her or someone who knows her well. The fact her books are listed as well as external links, but no references in the text suggest it is not reliably written. Having authored books and teaching at harvard doesn't jusitfy inclusion in the wiki. Although she has won an award, the award is also not-noteable. Overall the article reads like a self-written biography which is against policy, combined with the lack of noteability suggests to me this should be deleted.> WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of her writing sounds a bit dull but i'd definitely read 'She has a snuke in her sniz?' in paperback. Nick mallory 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "favourite student" bit was vandalism by an anonymous user; regrettably, so was "She has a snuke in her sniz?". I've removed both. The article could do to be expanded but the real question is one of whether or not she meets WP:PROF, which I think she does. BTLizard 11:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's definitely a published author, and not an insignificant one; she's listed in a number of articles on the subject, and her work has been cited by Congress. I think the question is the degree of academic publication required to be notable. I leave that question to others. LH 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professors and research universities are almost always notable, and the books show it. DGG 05:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic whose work has been discussed in the popular press. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)```[reply]
Keep Notable academic who would also likely qualify for notability as an author. definitely notable, a leader in her area --Buridan 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:48Z

Template system formalism/FAQ[edit]

No substantive edits since December 2006. Confusing name and unencyclopedic content. We also need to decide what to do with Template system formalism, which seems to be a disambiguation page pointing only to this article and to a red link – Gurch 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, it seems someone has mistaken us for their corporate wiki and uploaded an excerpt of their database management system programming guide here. The "disambiguation" page should be gotten rid of under housekeeping procedures when this one is gone. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 10:34Z
Delete I believe this falls under Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Writing that address the reader of the page (i.e through the use of "you") is not acceptable for an encyclopedia article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an improper subpage, as well as not making sense.-- danntm ^T _C 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectifs - Centre for Photography & Filmmaking[edit]

Non-notable organisation per WP:ORG. 15 Google hits for <Objectifs "Dawn Teo"> [25], and coverage in cited sources [26] and [27], are just passing mentions of the organisation. In other words, 90% of this article is unsourced despite the citations given.

The author of the page objected to the proposed deletion on the talk page, but he misses the point in that I'm not saying having 15 Google hits automatically condemns the subject to non-notability - the point was that there are no sources that corroborate the information given in the article. Apparently this lack of detailed coverage of the organisation extends to even the local papers - a Factiva search of Singapore press sources shows 83 hits going back to 2003, mostly in The Straits Times, but they're all brief mentions of the organisation's name in "upcoming arts events" listings, without detailed description of the organisation itself. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 10:28Z

Delete Internet imperialism aside, the sources provided in this article do not assert notability. I would be willing to change my vote if some reliable sources could be produced. --Cyrus Andiron 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Revolutionnaire should understand that notability here refers to the fact that the Objectifs center has not been shown to have recieved the kind of treatment in secondary sources that could be the basis for an encyclopedia article. nadav 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was written as part of the Wikipedia:NUS Scholars Programme project. nadav 08:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD G11. - Banyan Tree 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aclaro Top[edit]

Blatant advertising Shoessss 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and note that it's the work of a single purpose account. BTLizard 12:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Tandon[edit]

Subject appears to be insufficiently notable, sources cited are to subject's own blogs, prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOV and other rules. YechielMan 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability, NPOV, single purpose account... Dimitrii 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Terriers F.C.[edit]

This team does not play in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, as required by WP:CORP, in fact the league in which they play, the GFSN National League, is not part of the league system at all and never can be given that it accepts mixed teams and does not follow the standard laws of the game. The league itself is probably notable as part of LGBT culture, but the individual teams are not, IMO. Note that another club from the same league was deleted last year - ChrisTheDude 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be unfair and unreasonable to apply WP:CORP as quoted, inasmuch as it is The Football Association which chooses to discriminate against mixed teams. This would be akin to blaming the victim of bullying for being bullied. Nevertheless, I don't think the team is sufficiently notable yet. BTLizard 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though it may not be right to apply WP:CORP to this one, it is entirely fair to apply the "subject of multiple non-trivial works" rule and this does not seem to pass that test at all. Qwghlm 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, I suggest you read the article gfsn, which all the teams are registered with. This article explains why a LGB league and LGB teams exist across the UK, and indeed the world. It's important to realise that such football clubs aren't just your average "Sunday League Football Club" - these clubs play an integral role in the LGB communities in which they serve. I think it's important that such organisations - which recieve notable press coverage in both local, national and gay publications - are recognised as such on wikipedia, and I believe it would be unfair to delete the article. However, the tone of the article does need changing, with more information about the reasons why they exist and the benefits they bring to the LGB communities in which they serve. Rangemean 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another one was deleted a few days ago. I voted for Redirect but was out!voted. This is the last one left - the link to Stonewall FC in the GFSN National League just links to 'Stonewall'. GFSN National League is definitely notable, the teams less so. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V with no secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article was kept for the reasons given above then so should numerous other sunday league teams. And that is the sole basis upon which this should be judged. Therefore it is not notable.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Tangerines, I completely disagree that a LGB mixed football team, competing in a national league (whether or not recognised by ANY organisation, such as the FA) isn't notable! This applies not just to this article, but for other articles that haven't been deleted. However, I do concede that this article does need more information to reflect this, and should be given the opportunity to do so. Rangemean 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFair enough we all have our different opinions. I should point out though it was not only me who said that the club are not notable. And my reasoning for it not being notable was based on different reasons. And on the basis of it being looked at on an equal footing as every other club, it is not notable. The League they play in has an article in which clubs are listed. And there are a number of Leagues in England who play at a similar level (or maybe slightly higher level) whose clubs do not meet notability requirements for wikipedia. And that, in my opinion, is how this should be judged.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your point of view, and I understand that in context with other local teams, they may not appear notable. But as I mention above, the reasons they exist, their people who choose to play for them, and the things they do for local LGB communities - I believe, warrant some notibility. Rangemean 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I can most definitely understand and agree that the league in which they play is notable and should be listed, from what was said previously another club from the same league had its article deleted recently. So on that basis why should this club be any different? Just a thought, but would there be any value maybe in having a section on the leagues article about all the clubs that play in the league, so that then all the clubs in the league get a mention rather than just one? The point about what the club do for local LGB communities is something that perhaps could be included in the leagues article? You are making it more difficult now for me to maintain my delete vote!! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually a very good idea; an article with a brief bio of each team from the league, linked into the main article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think maybe you're right and this should be implimented. The other article was deleted without this debate taking place. As most teams are broadly similar in terms of how they serve their local region, maybe inclusion in the main GFSN National League article (as a round-up) would be an acceptable comprimise? Rangemean 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFully agreed, which is why I mentioned it, as in my opinion whilst the clubs themselves do not meet notability requirements, I think that as a group of clubs, adding details of each club with the work they do for local LGC communities, to the main leagues article is something that would be as you say an acceptable compromise.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King's Scholar. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:49Z

King's Scholarship[edit]

Small scholarship for a small college? Far from notable, IMHO. TexasAndroid 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reserve your humility for more complicated case. This one's easy. YechielMan 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very strong keep~~ - Eton is "a small college"? It's probably the most famous - and the oldest - school in the world. 18 former Prime Ministers, 50% of the current UK Shadow Cabinet, almost all male members of Europe & the Middle East's royalty (Prince Charles is the only significant exception I can think of) and 37 VC winners are Old Etonians and the King's Scholarship is an integral part of the story of the college. Yes, it's a low value scholarship now (although £2500/$5000 apiece isn't chicken feed), but that's because of 600 years of inflation; the very definition of the term Public school stems from the 70 Kings Scholars, (who had all their fees paid by the state, hence for public and not private benefit). The 70 people on scholarships ("Collegers") still technically form the core of the school; the 1200 others ("Oppidans") at least in theory exist to subsidise them. This article reflects a very significant part of UK educational history, and can easily be expanded (by cut-and-pasting the above paragraph, if nothing else) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one bit of clarification. I said the college was small. 1300 (from the college's article itself) is indeed small. I never said the college was not notable. That said, the bit about this scholarship being the origin of the term "public school", if this fact can be well sourced, would go a long way towards changing my opinion of the notability of this scholarship. - TexasAndroid 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1300 might be small in TX - here it's enormous. The other mega-public schools, Harrow and Stowe have 800 and 600 pupils respectively. Even the largest state school in the country, Whitchurch High, only has 2400 pupils. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into King's Scholar. Not convinced we need separate articles for these related concepts. --Muchness 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King's Scholar, which can adequately handle the concept.-- danntm ^T _C 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change to Merge - didn't realise we already had King's Scholar - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King's Scholar per all above; clearly a very notable and important subject, but article already exists at King's Scholar. -- Ekjon Lok 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern English personal pronouns[edit]

Also nominating Middle English personal pronouns in the same nomination. Both pages exist only to display templates. Templates that are already well displayed elsewhere. No real need, IMHO, for pages for just the templates. TexasAndroid 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both "What links here" shows several incoming links from pronoun words such as "I" and "he". YechielMan 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pages you mentioned I, He, She etc. all display the exact same template. That is what the nominator was pointing out. The template is displayed 9 times on the various pronoun pages. It is also on separate page of its own. Why do we need separate pages that display what is already on the page to begin with? --Cyrus Andiron

18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I created the pages. I intend to add to them sooner or later.

Feel free to delete them, if they get in the way somehow. Nothing will be lost, I'll just open them again later. The point of having them there is to encourage contribution from others. They also mean that the link at the top of the category pages is a nice healthy blue colour. I went to some trouble to set up categories and templates so they all link to one-another properly.

I can't actually see any good reason to delete them, though. They are not inaccurate or slanderous, it's not as though someone wants the name space for something else. They don't take up a lot of disk space. All they do is encourage contribution. Not only that there are English second language people who might even find the page and get something from it, simple as it is. Google always puts Wiki first.

Regarding templates, I thought the whole point of templates is they get used on many pages. Can't see much point in a template that only refers to one page, but I'm probably missing something.

I don't mind what decision is taken. Obviously I vote keep, I put 'em there, seems like a waste to take 'em down only to put 'em back again later. Cheerio. :D Alastair Haines 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that they are there to encourage expansion. But I just don't see what possible expansion there is. Duplicate information in the individual articles? What else could/would go here? You already have the basics in the templates themselves, but the data in the templates is duplicated on all the individual pages already. These pages, for just the templates, are duplicative of the others, and offer nothing new themselves. If I could see how these could be expanded themselves to be useful, I might change my opinion, but as it is, they serve no purpose, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Modern English personal pronouns to English personal pronouns; this appears to be a duplicate article. Merge and redirect Middle English personal pronouns to Middle English. English personal pronouns demonstrates that these can clearly be encyclopedic topics. —ptk✰fgs 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support these redirects as well. If I had spotted the duplicate pages, I likely would have just done the redirects myself instead of AFDing these. - TexasAndroid 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable subject. Once all are expanded all could be kept on their own pages. Similar ot redlinks, separate pages invite embellishment and expansion. "Expand" tags may have been a better idea to place on pages rather than bringing discussion here. I do concede I've seen some healthy article improvement from discussion here. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it exists to provide information about modern English pronouns and happens to be in the form of a template. I must be missing something. It could expand very nicely. hombre de haha 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:50Z

Stamp Student Union[edit]

Non-notable college student union. TexasAndroid 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College cruft. YechielMan 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability and no sources. --Cyrus Andiron 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and no secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Tory[edit]

Neologism, unsourced and orphaned article. Google search for "purple tory" finds no possible reliable sources and several uses contrary to the one in the article (also nelogisms) --Duke of Duchess Street 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; no reliable secondary sources to establish usage or notability. --Muchness 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism without any reliable sources to show otheriwse. Davewild 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantean Wars (ATW)[edit]

Apparently endorsement of their own game Skysmith 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no we are merely players who think this game deserves to be mentioned here. and we will improve the article, where just getting some background data.--Phoenix4ever 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made this wikipedia to help A) wikipedia with its grand collection of articles. B) for Atlantean wars, beacuase it deserves one. C)so people can look up (ATW) and learn things about it. If i wanted to advertise it i would have done a much better job trust me. I got approval of the current Admin of them game (1 out of 5 admins) so i continued to expand it with all the (necessary things) knowledge that seems fit for this article.

I do not break any policy's by making this article because i am not advertising it, nor did i make this article with out proper (ATW) approval.

so if this article gets deleted, it will be deleted knowingly that it did not advertise, or that i made it with out approval. And thank you Phoenix4ever for also posting. We acknowledge we are players, but we are not advertising. --Equnai 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the admin of ATW. They did contact me about it after they had already started, but I don't see any harm. I cautioned them about use of certain terms and other concerns I had and that the article be merely informational. But I don't see why wikipedia is objecting, since you carry pages of other games with similar themes(i.e. Galaxis_Online).

As long as the article is purely informational, what's the harm? Otherwise you need to edit your wiki better.

-- Lycurgus (ATW Admin)

--User: chrisesler:chrisesler

Delete for a lack of reliable sources. The article may or may not be an attempt to find some new players (which I'd call advertising), but it definitely has no sourced content and does not show (or even claim) notability. Number of players currently about 3,000. --Huon 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of reliable source? uhm im not sure but ATW is the main source. i got all my intel from that site, what better source do you sugest? and did i use any terms such as ""join now, join, or any personal apinion about the game" i didnt. so it cant be advert. and what do you sugest should be added then? for your information i (and phoenix) am stil ajusting and creating the wiki article. its not even half way finished yet. but if by making it compleet shows it is a good source and reliable etc. i wil compleet it.

Delete some notes on the above: I agree that the Galaxis Online article is similar, but that means that it should probably be deleted too. For the creators of the article, I'd recommend browsing a few Wikipedia policies and guidelines to understand why people might want to delete this article; most relevant might be notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. If you have any questions, leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to explain further. JavaTenor 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In regards to the comment above about using ATW as a source, it only qualifies as a single primary source. Please remember, that subjects need assertion of notability from multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As of right now, the article does not meet that requirement. That is why I believe it should be deleted if left in its present state. I do not agree that they are trying to advertise. I'm going to assume good faith and presume that they are trying to inform people about the game. Equnai, the AFD process will take five days to run its course. I suggest that, in that time, you find some secondary sources that discuss the game and its history and work on finishing the article. A solid, well written artile would go a long way in proving that the game is notable. During the discussion, please be civil and remember to sign all posts with 4 tildes. (~~~~) --Cyrus Andiron 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When we say "reliable sources" we mean non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, published sources. Until such exist, sorry. -- Ekjon Lok 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well your not gonna let us have this wiki i can tell, i just joined and was planning on adding to more articles. wikipedia is supposed to be the biggest source of human knowledge, well i wanted to add to that, but it seemes you won't let us, well congratulations you scared someone away, and judging by all the other articles up for deletion many more will leave to. cya never, --Phoenix4ever 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad. It even has a disclaimer. The question is, what makes the game notable? I don't think that has been answered. There are hundreds of games just like this one, and no one cares about those either. So, why is ATW so special without mention of it in independant news sources? Oh, and the admin contesting the deletion seems to be a conflict of interest. Turlo Lomon 11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bey funx, and what does make ATW special? that a personal opinion (ich i didnt state in my not finished soon to be deleted article) wich isnt relevant. the fact that im writing an article on ATW is because i couldnt find any yet (i also couldnt find KoC, SGW etc.) so it accured to me, i could do wiki a favor by editing yet an other piece to an already large databse of knowledge. And as for the part that its only one source, tell me all of you how the hell can i find a second source if ATW is only 1 game? well? tik, tak. o wait i cant thats right cause its only one game ... ooo stupid me -_-, (ow btw that was sarcasme ^_^) im really disapointed in you, i truly am. i cant find a second source because there isnt any. and the disclaimer, why is that like its a "join now" sign? ive coem to the part where i am going to express my personal feeling and opinions now!!! ATW is a cool game, i found via my ant, who plays/played KoC at the time and i was in the same alliance. i kinda quited KoC cause i wanted to rule ATW. thats why im typing it now a year later. i thought to myself, why not give back a litle to that ATW comunity by making a kick but article and explaining every detail they worked so hard for to put it in. i didnt care about other ppl joining, it was suposed to be a guide for the ppl already joined. or so thats what i had in mind, i wanted to explain everything ATW had to offer, never once did i get the thought that this might raise there member count or what ever. i understand your points of view on the "recruiting" part, i cant persuade you to believe in the good of poeple, cause most of them are really bad (what gives you the conclusion that im any diferent? nothing thats right) and dont deserve any trust. but hell what does it matter, i made an article and you didnt even give it a week without saying it needs to go, so my trust in wikipedia is like 0 now. even the admin of the game came jsut becaus i made an honest try on making this article (not that you believe its the admin right? you think its me or someone els covering for me?)and it didnt quiet work at as i hoped it would. your probably thinkgin this post is way to long, im whining cause i cant delay the inevitable etc. i know i would do the same thing, hell i might even say shut up and get a life. but its me in the position of being the whiner. so im trying to make my stand, like the spartans did when the persians came and wanted to take over greece. they where first seen by there own poeple as the bad guys, but they tryed to save there own piece of greece. in a way so am i, if something ever did happen to the server or anything in that general direction, then ATW would stil remain here on wiki. and what if i told you there would be a second ATW? on a diferent server totaly new from the old. a brand new version, diferent rules, a new start, ages where there is a reset etc. would it be valid then? can i make this article then? this is no bluf, there wil be an ATW 2.0 on a diferent server, like SGW has with there ascended server. 2 games, 2 sources 2. would that be the sources thing you so dearly want? ifso ill just remake this ATW article in about a half year. im a patient man, so i dont care. ill keep trying, if you want something done right you have got to do it yourself right? and again about the recruiter stuf, look at the runescape article, isnt that a recruiting article? where did it get its sources from? because that 2 is only 1 game, not 2 not 3 nto 4 no only 1 game. but they must be paying wiki to stay right? thats why normal members can acces it? Equnai 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a look at the RuneScape references: The first three are an article in GameDaily, one in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and one from BBC News Online. That's what I'd call a perfect example of "multiple independent secondary sources". But I strongly doubt that anybody not related to ATW cared to write something about that game - and that's why it's considered non-notable. If you find such sources, go ahead and add them to the article - people will change their opinion if there's a reason. But currently I'm under the impression that you don't understand Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines; I suggest you read them up, especially WP:RS and WP:NN. Yours, Huon 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Percy Snoodle 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YODA[edit]

non-notable local deejay Calliopejen1 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strip down to minimal entry and Merge remainder with WYYX. Haikupoet 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nonnotable. I'm not sure if there's much of anything to merge. YechielMan 02:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I'd be up for deleting the WYYX page as well, it does not establish its notability. Idioma 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:50Z

Shelly Asquith[edit]

Non-notable person who has written their own article. No sources and no assertion of notability. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources, non-notable. Less than 30 Google hits, mostly blogs, YouTube, other user-supplied content. This "socialite" is currently sixteen. Somehow I don't believe she wrote for Vogue unless I see some proof. --Huon 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of this appears to be a hoax. JavaTenor 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not cited enough to be credible, dubious links to people who may not be notable themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muffin tree (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, nonnotable even if the claims are true. NawlinWiki 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:51Z

List of songs played at the Bada Bing club[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list of trivia; directory of songs with nothing in common other than being heard in a fictional club on a TV series. Otto4711 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial information. It's background music, not integral to the plot or series. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not an encyclopedic list. --Haemo 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminat trivia list. WP:NOT. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not looked for, unsourced, and doesn't meed notability guidelines The Placebo Effect 01:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Asquith[edit]

Non-notable person whose article has been created by his daughter. Google turned up five different Mark Asquiths but not him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and move Mark Julian Asquith (who appears notable) back here after deleting. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 15:06Z

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:52Z

Young Boltonian Broadcasters' Awards[edit]

non-notable local award, no ghits besides wikipedia. Calliopejen1 14:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no non-Wikipedia Ghits for this, nor for the equally unlikely sounding Bolton and Wigan Broadcasting Association which is alleged to award them. Somebody's idea of a joke. BTLizard 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patent hoax. The alleged winner for the 2005 & 2006's own article (itself prime deletion material) states he only started broadcasting in 2006. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite hoax article. Wikipedia is not for awards made up at school one day. --Cyrus Andiron 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable regardless of existential questions. YechielMan 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Charles Haskett[edit]

Prurient. Unnotable person. Draggedpuppycruft. Granted that he shouldn't have dragged the puppy behind his truck, give the teen a break, he doesn't need this article dogging him for the rest of his life. In the Notes section, the latter two references are to YouTube vids of his car being surrounded by an angry mob; they are basically useless as references. The first reference is to an article where he is mentioned, but only in passing as the occasion for a particularly decrepit-looking MP to bloviate on the general theme of Something Must Be Done. It properly belongs as a reference in Myron Thompson and/or an article about the laws in question. Let this one go, Mneme.

(Here's another thing I love, you see this a lot: "The case has led to a great deal of controversy". O RLY, the No-Dragging-Puppies and the Hell-Yeah-Drag-Puppies camps are engaged in a fairly equal contest for the hearts and minds of Canadians... Serously, controversy? An untrue fact.) Herostratus 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt this is exactly notable on an international scale. The "controversy" is very real but has to do with whether animal abuse should carry a stricter penalty. A true fact, but again, perhaps not notable. Personally, I hope he gets "dogged" by this for the rest of his life. --Charlene 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I certainly understand where the nominator is coming from in regards to the quality of the article. It is poorly written and a little over dramatized. However, this teen has definitely drawn the ire of animal rights activiists. Take this website for instance[28]. The problem is that the dog is getting more of the attention than the kid. Most of the articles that I came across in regards to this subject were geared toward the suffering of the dog rather than the plight of the young man. I don't think the soruces presented in the article assert his notability. Are his actions terrible and cruel? Absolutely. Will this case be remembered in 5 years? Probably not. There may have been an initial firestorm, but it will calm down. Surely they won't brand the kid for the rest of his life. --Cyrus Andiron 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines don't say anything about people who do something horrific that they inspire a country to pass laws, but they probably should.Chris Croy 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete under BLP until conviction. At this point there is only a news report. DGG 05:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Much of the article is a copy-and-paste copyvio from the one news article. DGG 05:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. Subject is accused of crimes which have inspired efforts to have laws passed. If he is convicted, the bills become law, and -- most importantly -- we get more reliable sources, then it may be time to revisit. Until then, WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL both apply. Serpent's Choice 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Daisy Duke Petition" comes up with 1,350 references. It doesn't have to have laws passed to be a subject for Wikipedia, it just has to be referenced in "multiple, non trivial sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instant gentrification[edit]

Unsourced, probably unsourcable. The only three Google hits linking "instant gentrification" to the term's purported creator Devereaux are Wikipedia mirrors. Even at its best, it will never be more than a dictdef: "Instant gentrification is gentrification that's instant." Huon 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On its own admission a neologism. BTLizard 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, it admits to being a neologism, and thus should be deleted per WP:NEO --Haemo 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphic, Inc.[edit]

The page is about a company that doesn't appear to have actually done anything at all. The page was created by a user with the same name as the owner of the site, whom the article only refers to by his first name. Altogether, this suggests to me that this is nothing more than a vanity page. grubber 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A7 as a non notable company. People at school thinks he's a billionaire because he owns a company. It is a very interesting place. BUY STUFF! I think that says it all. --Cyrus Andiron 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hugely non-notable (WP:CORP I guess) and almost devoid of encyclopediac content at all. Orphic, inc article about same company by same author (Kaio393; note likely WP:COI) was speedied earlier this year. DMacks 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Orphic is a company. We do make products. Try and do some research. And a person has a right to edit thier company's own wiki page, I never saw any rules against that. Wouldn't you rather have to facts straight, than none at all? So try to do some research: [[29]] Kaio393 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading through the official company homepage, I still have NO idea what your company purports to do. Wikipedia only allows articles for people, companies, things, ideas, etc that are deemed "notable" -- how else do we ensure that WP does not have 7 billion biography articles, one for each inhabitant of the planet? Even you acknowledge that your company hasn't done much yet (as of 12/2006). When your company satisfies the criteria for inclusion in WP, I hope you create an article for it. Until then, it is my judgment that the company is not (yet) notable. - grubber 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have made several videos, one of which has over four thousand views on the popular website, YouTube. We have made several podcasts. We have made hundreds of graphics, and most of which were requests by members. We have done plenty to be notable. Please allow our page to stay Kaio393 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to give you the chance to provide the following information, which will support your case that your company is notable. To be considered notable, your company must "be the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." (This is from WP:CORP#Primary criterion). Can you provide secondary, independent, reliable sources that talk about your products? - grubber 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, on the podcast [[30]], they have spoken about us a bit, the most recent is on episode 23. I provided some music and graphics for them on that episode. Some more: [[31]] - Kaio393 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second link you provide is a forum post by you, which is not an independent source. As for the site psphacking101.com, Orphic is never mentioned outside the site's forums [32], and you are involved in every forum posting I looked at in a cursory sample I did. Again, that's not independent. As for the podcast, I listened to episode 23 and the only reference I heard was a quick "thanks" to you for doing graphics and music at the end. Do you have any other secondary sources? - grubber 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - our new Admin, Dack, made a video BEFORE he was an Admin or even a member of Orphic talking about it. Does this count? http://orphicinc.com/mysticmovies/index.html Also we do have podcasts out, we have made movies, we have made a couple of apps for the PSP. Aren't those concidered notable products? I mean they mentioned one of our projects on WiiHacking101.com The PSP Sensor Bar.Kaio393 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Orphic, is owrth it. We do graphics and we are trying to grow. At the moment we are doing PSP customizations, PSP hacking, Graphics, Pod Casting anf many other things.rob
    - I appreciate the work you are doing to grow as a company. Wikipedia is a place for things that are already notable, not for things that could be notable someday or have the potential to be notable. I haven't seen evidence yet to convince me that the company fulfills WP's requirements. If you can provide secondary sources like I asked of Kai, that would definitely help your case. - grubber 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am supposedly to be in a future podcast, which they talk about Orphic in, so hopefully this will delay the delete of this orphic wiki

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:53Z

Information on Bhutan from the CIA[edit]

inevitably NPOV, non-notable, riginal research Sarcasticidealist 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons (except that by "inevitably NPOV" I clearly meant "inevitably non-NPOV"). Contested PROD.Sarcasticidealist 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is pure original research & should really be titled Why I think the CIA's wrong about Bhutan. Do we really want an attack page on the CIA, anyway? These people know where we live. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unencyclopedic by definition. Haikupoet 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and POV essay. Davewild 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NPOV. Edit the Bhutan article if you want. NawlinWiki 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers[edit]

Contested prod. This article has no references; I could find none beyond the society's own website. Google hits are mostly directory entries. Non-notable, possibly OR. — mholland (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - it does appear to be a genuinely big society, but presumably any sources would be print-only from university, local or specialist campanological publications so un-dig-out-able for anyone not either at the university or prepared to root through a copyright library; while I do try to do my bit for Article Rescue, there is a limit. Change to Keep if anyone who is in either of these positions can add sources - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, university societies don't need their own articles. To justify a page there needs to be significant secondary sources showing notability, for example that they have won a major award or achieved significant favourable reviews. Bridgeplayer 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete.This article is useful to prospective students learning about the society and its activities. It is also the societies 50th anniversary this year and therefore it will be useful to reunite old members and get in touch with past students. It is a valusable resource for past and present members of an active society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.4.104 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— 86.21.4.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not Delete. As the original editor of this page I accept your criticism of the lack of references. However, having been involved with the Society since 1996 I would argue that it is an important society which is one of the oldest university bellringing societies and which has supported the development of many bellringers, a number of whom are now leaders in the change-ringing exercise. Although such a statement may seem a bit grandiose it is worth bearing in mind that there are 40000 current ringers in the UK and it is a significant part of English cultural heritage (eg Betjeman, Summoned by the bells). I do not think it is a hopeless case and with some work can be brought up to an acceptable standard. [Can anyone let me know what time-scale these discussions take place over? Thank you for your input.] Andrew.cairns 09:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that there are two issues here; firstly whether the society is notable as a university society; and secondly whether the society is notable in is own right (and just so happens to be also a university society). I believe there is sufficient secondary evidence (most of which only available in 'print' format; some now referenced in the article) to back up the second claim, even if the first point is unsuccessfully argued. 80.44.161.117 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speaking as a member of the society still resident in Nottingham, I know first-hand that our presence on Wikipedia has been useful both in terms of recruiting new members and in getting back in touch with graduate members of the socity with whom we have lost touch. In addition, our knowledge of the history of the society has been enhanced by discussion/correspondance generated in response to the entry. The society has taught and developed many ringers over the years, many of which are in leadership/teaching roles all over the country, helping to maintain the art and science of change ringing- hence it is definitely an influential society within bellringing itself. --Andrew Wignell 07:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Andrew Wignell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - changing to keep in light of the rewrite and sourcing of the article; while it's "only" a university society, it's clearly a major player in their (admittedly specialist) scene with multiple coverage in specialist publications — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references added would seem to resolve the concerns around notability. - Fordan (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavarlal Jain[edit]

Not notable and possibly written by a relative of the subject. The author removed the prod notice, not being sure quite what to do. YechielMan 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The accomplishments in the article, however ineptly reported, are notable. I found a totally independent reliable source for the award of a honorary doctorate from an agricultural university. Though a google search yielded a report of 23 hits, there were actually 124 documents, at least half of them non-duplicates. That isn't many, but there may be some name variation. The author may not have known what to do, but others can improve the article. DGG 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, [33]. I've recently adopted the creator and am trying to work it out with him/her. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the copyvios have been removed. Article could use some independent sources, but that's not enough reason to delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup Can somebody please remove the copyvio immediately? My Adobe Acrobat reader has just died so I'm unable to confirm the violation myself. The subject sounds to have achieved some notability so if this was cleaned up it would be worth keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability is not disputed as he has been bestowed with 'Significant Contribution to the Irrigation Industry outside the United States.' instituted by Irrigation Association, U.S.A. Founded Jain Charities a well known charitable trust working for economically backward, Handicap with Medical aids [34] [35]. Need further copy editing with references. Aldenan 08:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable person, he is a founder and chairman of the company Jain Irrigation, which is now a second large in irrigation sector in the world , third-largest dehydrated onion producer in the world, with a combined capacity in excess of 25,000 MTS/annum also largest processor of fruits & vegetables within India. Yogita t 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (US Season 8)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dalejenkins 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this isn't crystal, what is? It won't even be produced until 2008-2009. Let's wait a year until more information is available. Then it will be appropriate to create the article. What is the hurry, I see no deadline in the immediate future. --Cyrus Andiron 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 hasn't aired yet and here is some fan creating articles and inviting speculations about 8? Scratch. Ohconfucius 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burninate (Delete), Wikipedia shouldn't be a crystal ball. Period. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bravedog 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. That was a rather bad AfD discussion. Most participants, please contribute more policy-based arguments for or against deletion in your next AfD, and less name-calling / WP:AADD. Sandstein 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Arastu[edit]

Subject is not notable. Arrow740 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish the notability of the subject. Beit Or 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesnt look notable. There are so many artists, but they're not all notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple Newspaper references, 30+ solo exhibitions in many different countries, around 70 total exhibitions. Work displayed in many Museums, art galleries, universities. The article is created yesterday and still under writing. What it has even right now is enough to keep the article. --- ALM 11:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matt57 and Beit Or. -- Karl Meier 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ALM. IP198 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not very notable. Not many sources are mentioned.--Sefringle 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is whole proceeding is a sham. For all intents and purposes this individual seems at least moderately accomplished as an artist. However, to claim that her artistic merits brought this entry into existence would be ridiculous. The entry was clearly created because she fits the category "converts to Islam". Likewise it was clearly nominated for deletion for the self same reason. How many of the editors who have commented so far have any history of editing art related entries to speak of? How many people here are qualified to comment on her notability as an artist ... which is clearly what is called for? Pardon me for commenting on the editors but this whole scene pretty much goes against everything an encyclopedia stands for. The POV war going on here is clearly reaching ludicrous proportions.PelleSmith 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it gets even more intricate than I imagined (see below) but that only reinforces the gist of my comment. Lets say ALM created the entry for the reason Proabivouac described, or for another reason other than the supposed fact that she is a notable artist. None of the delete voters are voting in truly good faith based upon any knowledge of her notability but are all voting as a knee jerk reaction to the fact that ALM created the entry or because of the possible advantage ALM may gain because of the entry. This type of political voting is inherently unethical and against the very premise of this encyclopedia. If Proabivouac is correct then the reaction to the entry creation is no better. Since ALM did create and has now fleshed out the entry editors need to consider the content on its merits--I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that is the basic premise of this encyclopedia. Of course I have chosen to comment on this process and not on the entry contents but then again I AM NOT VOTING here either.PelleSmith 11:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Re PelleSmith 2's comments above, this article is a side effect of the depictions of Muhammad discussion, wherein it was (falsely, though probably in good faith) argued that the most common method of "depicting" Muhammad in Islamic tradition was to write his name as a sort of logo. The search for images of this nature turned up very few examples (in fact, two) notable examples. This image, created by Salma Arastu (who also makes greeting cards), was one that didn't quite merit inclusion (although for whatever reason it's since been placed rather ridiculously on Islam.) After the image was found, ALM scientist e-mailed Ms. Arastu and asked for the rights to use the image, which, according to ALM, she granted. Then, this article was created: it exists only to support the use of the image, which itself was uploaded only to displace actual depictions of Muhammad.Proabivouac 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should in good faith consider striking your vote because even if you are correct you cannot consider deleting an entry based upon an editors motivations (however frustrating those motivations may seem).PelleSmith 11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAD FAITH Assumptions: The image is in Islam article since couple of months. I created article couple of days ago. If the article is deleted even then the image will remain there. This assumption that I have created it because she a Muslim convert is also wrong. I am going to take it out from the article right now. If that helps?? Please continue having bad faith assumption.She is my mother. What about that ? --- ALM 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so bad that this article is made Islam, anti-Islam thing. It was just a simple contribution. It is shame how badly wikipedia works these days. I have removed her convertion to Islam thing. I will not add it again too. --- ALM 09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is your mother?

Like I said, ALM, you first found and uploaded the image in order to displace depictions of Muhammad, then placed it in on Islam for whatever reason (perhaps so it wouldn't be orphaned?) then created the article to make it seem notable. It's supposed to work the other way around, on all counts.Proabivouac 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see inside my mind? It is such a wrong assumption. --- ALM 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing Admin: Points so far for deletion are following
1) Not notable: Material is written about her NY Times, The Times of India, San Jose Mercury News, Philadelphia Inquirer, by MIT Press, by Stanford University, Oxford University Press. If she is still NOT notable then tell me what is called notable? Delete half of existing wikipedia too because they are also not notable then.

2) I created article becasue she is a Muslim convert: That has been removed from the article and I will not add it again. Even though it was a bad faith assumption.

3) Created article becasue of a picture: That picture is in Islam article since more than a month where article is create 2 days ago. Finding link between picture and article is another bad faith assumption. Even the article is deleted the picture will remain in Islam article. --- ALM 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Finding link between picture and article is another bad faith assumption."

Really? The beginnings of this discussion are accessible to all in this thread and those it followed, at a time when you didn't even know how to spell her name.Proabivouac 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How you know that I am making that article to make the picture notable? It is not at all true. I do not tell lies and if I am telling one only for this article then may Allah give me death. --- ALM 10:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closing Admin: Consider the following facts because this AfD is not based upon good faith:

No one has even bothered to use Talk:Salma Arastu to discuss the merits of the entry or the issue of notability
No one has tagged the entry in order to have issues of notability addressed
None of the voters have any history editing art related pages nor any qualifications to judge the notability of a minor artist
Many or most of the voters have a long history of edit warring and politicized editing on Islam related entries

Make whatever conclusion you wish but all of these facts make me firmly believe that this AfD is a sham and a mockery of the good intentions of this project to compile knowledge in a neutral capacity.PelleSmith 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that notability has been established. The article is well sourced, and the artist seems to have a well documented career. Also, I think an article should be given a reasonable amount of time to improve, use the talk page before AfD. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If Academic presses like MIT Press and Stanford University, Oxford University Press, as ALM says, have written about her, then she is certainly notable. --Aminz 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- —Cel ithemis 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the sources cited are merely passing mentions, but the artist's website includes scanned clippings of substantial articles about her in several publications. That's good enough. (The long list of solo shows should be cut, though; an encyclopedia article is not a résumé.) —Cel ithemis 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now this has finally been put on the arts-related list, as it should have been in the first place, you should get some comments from editors unaware of any history & baggage on this. She seems pretty borderline to me - there are many exhibitions, but none apparently in really major galleries. The press coverage seems mostly short notices re the exhibitions, in the relevant newspaper for the city. I can't see any real coverage or analysis from significant art papers or magazines. She seems here [36] to be selling a 20 x 20 inch acrylic for $1,500; more here [37] at $1,500 to $4,200 - not really notable artist prices. It's hard to assess the book references, but neither seem to be art books. I have to say a weak delete Johnbod 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your points, but I think an artist can be written about enough to be notable for other reasons, without necessarily being a notable artist. The Philadelphia Inquirer story is in the Faith rather than the Arts & Entertainment section, for example, but it's still nontrivial. —Cel ithemis 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She lives in or near Philly; I doubt that everybody who gets a profile in the Faith section of the paper is notable. But my comments were on her as an artist - the article doesn't seem to assert any other claim to notability. Johnbod 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for giving this artist a look with trained eyes. Arrow740 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC

May be selected biography at her page (http://www.salmaarastu.com/resume.htm) might be interesting for you to look at. Also there are many Newspaper (http://www.salmaarastu.com/press.htm). Please help in improving the article too by contributing becasue art is not my subject. --- ALM 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep nominating an article for deletion based on the notability should only be used for uncontroversial subjects. No attempt on the talk page was ever ask for claims of notability, the article was never tagged for notability, etc. all of which shows that the afd was done in bad faith.--Kirby♥time 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Proabivouac and Johnbod--ProtectWomen 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable--Shyamsunder 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiliteracies[edit]

Neologism - Although I find quite a few occurrences of the word on Google, it should be remembered that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LittleOldMe 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme delete - this isn't even a dicdef as it doesn't actually define the word anywhere. Not worth transwikiing - Wiktionary would turn their nose up and send it back - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definition that does not define. Useless. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance australia[edit]

Prod removed without reason. ~~NN-company, no noteability asserted~~. Dr bab 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, seems to be noteable and sourceable after all.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a slight spammish tone, but I'm pretty convinced notability is asserted by the awarding of Australia's AUD$1 billion Coastwatch contract. As for notability, there are some possible references from the ABC (New planes boost border surveillance, SA company wins big defence contract), and I'm sure there'll be several government sources. --Canley 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some more government sources: Flight Safety Magazine, the Civil Aircraft Register as a source for the companies fleet (both at CASA), also the Attorney General's Department press release, the Australian Customs Service annual reports, and it's not independent, but the company's submission to Parliament may contain some useful information. The article needs a big cleanup certainly, I'll work on it today if I have time. --Canley 23:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Canley clearly identifies multiple secondary sources per WP:CORP.Ga rr ie 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News Archives comes up with over 100 hits for this company. [38]. Should be moved to Surveillance Australia. Look forward to Canley's cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtform[edit]

I nominate this page for deletion on grounds that it is bollocks. If I'd seen when it was first created, I'd have speedied it for nonsense. I prodded it, but User:B9 hummingbird hovering, the nearly-exclusive author of the page, objected. Hence the AfD. Michaelbusch 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be bollocks but it is notable. Arrow740 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not clear to me, probably because the text is so incoherent. Michaelbusch 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that large portions of the article run very close or over the limits allowed by the ArbCom Decision on Pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete An WP:SYN collection of various ideas that are like this author's idea of "Thoughtform (TM)" all welded together into a novel synthesis. I see no WP:RS documenting the notability of the thesis, as advanced here in this article, as having an independent existence outside Wikipedia. "It is contended that a meme is not a thoughtform, though it may be deemed an informative correlation.", yeah, right. Even the "Thought Form" book does not appear to be about "Thoughtform". A properly sourced article on tulpa would be a good thing, but this is just not an encyclopedia entry, it's an OR essay. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (god help me). Yes, it reads to me like WP:BOLLOCKS but so do Eucharist, Xenu and Dharma. As far as I can tell - and I'm not any kind of expert here - this isn't OR or WP:SYN but a straightforward explanation of a belief - if there's any Bön practitioner reading this (we must have some), hopefully they can clarify that. I do agree that the stuff about Annie Besant and the Gaia hypothesis do have a strong whiff of OR about them and should be cut unless someone can provide evidence that someone else makes the comparison, but that's not grounds for deleting the whole thing - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I objected, not User:B9 hummingbird hovering, so don't blame him/her. It needs repair, not deletion. The subject is notable, and poor as it may be, this is the only information currently available on the topic. DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only information currently available, then how is it notable? If you mean 'the only information currently available on Wikipedia', that is somewhat different, but I'm still not convinced of WP:N, simply because the text is so incoherent. I've been reviewing the references as well, and some do not meet the reliability guidelines. Michaelbusch 21:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some refs seem reliable: One is by Simon & Schuster, and one by Shambhala, a reputable publisher for the subject. But I think the word in English is probably a neologism, and the article should be renamed to Tulpa, which is currently a redirect. DGG 06:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is confusing, but is in need of heavy editing, not deletion. The concepts are interesting and informative, and the author's take on the topic unusual but not OR. (See further comments by me in its discussion page.) Quacksalber 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in need of some editing, but I don't see where it's unusable. It calls into mind a practice that is plausible, has been used in popular literature, and isn't just crap. jwhouk 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of books on this topic, both non-fiction and fiction. It's a notable, well documented idea. You can't delete articles on the basis of crackpot qualities of the idea. If an idea is notable, it is notable regardless of whether it was cooked up by crackpots or not. Perhaps it is even notable because it draws crackpots like flies to honey. See Aura, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster and so forth. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:55Z

List of ambiguous patriotic songs[edit]

An unsourced, strangely constituted list that imho can only ever be added to in a subjective way. Violates WP:NOT, I contend. kingboyk 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. Zero non-wiki ghits. --JianLi 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is pure original research. *** Crotalus *** 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the criteria for inclusion here? The entire article is open to interpretation. What makes a song ambiguously patriotic? It appears to be complete original research. --Cyrus Andiron 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. No sources in article nor on talk page. A Google search shows nothing but WP and mirrors, so there's no indication that this term was been used in multiple independent reliable sources to make it qualify under WP:ATT. "Be Kind To Your Web-Footed Friends" is on this list just because it reused a particular melody?? I have a taste for subtle criticism but I think the purveyor-of-original-research found something nonexistent. Barno 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective item. Doczilla 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary list consisting of pure original research.-- danntm ^T _C 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I scratch my head at this one. Haikupoet 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't fathom what on earth's going on in the creator's head here. Penny Lane a patriotic song? Streets of Philadelphia? Not even OR, more a random list of songs - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, and not what it claims to be. An "ambiguous patriotic song" is one that can be read as being patriotic and also can be read as exactly the opposite (e.g, "Born in the USA"). Grutness...wha? 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with your main point, I don't think Born in the U.S.A. (and to a lesser extent, Fortunate Son) can be classified as anything but "songs that have been ironically misinterpreted as patriotic". Even though they do seem to get heavy airplay every July 4. :) --Xtifr _tälk 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, normally the problem with such lists is that they don't specify the inclusion criteria well enough (or at all). This one has an entire paragraph describing the inclusion criteria, and that actually makes it worse! "Well, it's songs like this. Or maybe songs like that. Or maybe something else." Original research, hopelessly indiscriminate, subjective POV, completely unsourced...that's most of our content policies being violated. And to top it all off, the very first song listed is...Blame Canada!? Er, wouldn't that fit better in List of unambiguously nonpatriotic songs? :) 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes in literature[edit]

The article is just a short list with a useless introduction ("They fascinate the human mind probably since his very first consciousness"). JianLi 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A completely unreferenced and short list. The introduction is written like a school essay. --Cyrus Andiron 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The introduction reads like original research, and the list has every opportunity to grow to unmanageable proportions, considering how many books there are that probably deals with earthquakes. Dr bab 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Dr bab. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. It is the vandalised version of this page that was brought to AfD. Pea ceNT 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie[edit]

This article provides little to no content at all on it. I can't even see what the article is about. カラム_{Talk with me!} 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs to be restored to here [39]. It appears to have been changed by an anon and never reverted. --Cyrus Andiron 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, restoring the previous page might be a better solution. How do I close this up?--カラム_{Talk with me!} 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I didn't change it, I figured the closing admin would restore it after closing the AFD. --Cyrus Andiron 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've restored but left the AfD notice in tact. If the nominator wishes to withdraw, I'm sure one or the regulars will come along soon and close this up. Next time, please check the history before nominating. --StuffOfInterest 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable Dickin Medal recipient. If we're allowed to have biographies of Medal of Honor winners, and Victoria Cross winners, the animal equivalent winners should be allowed articles as well. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not really up for AFD, please read the preceding comments before posting. Just a bit of a mix up, no reason to fret, it will be cleared up soon. --Cyrus Andiron

19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark_Prophecy:_The_Dawn_of_Tomorrow[edit]

Not an article about a real game in development; no links to gaming media sites, developers, publishers, and excess information unavailable at this stage of development (For example, ESRB rating). Tohya 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete all of them as a non-notable game development, if not an outright hoax. I'm pretty sure that the PSP cover at Dark Prophecy: The Dawn of Tomorrow is actually a badly Photoshopped splash image from RPG Maker 2003, and I'm pretty sure Sharingan is a trademarked term by this point. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My memory rocks. Check out this image, which confirms my memories of the RPG Maker 2003 splash screen being correct. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All This looks like another good example of Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. The cover design for the boxes looks like fanart to me. Also, none of the articles are sourced properly, so even if the games are in production, there is no way to ascertain that from reading the articles and checking sources. --Cyrus Andiron 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Hoaxalicious. Perpetrator also made Koden, a fake anime. JuJube 01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This definitely appears to be a hoax, and the screenshot appears photoshopped. The article reads more of a wish list then anything else. Turlo Lomon 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sashank Mavayya[edit]

Clear hoax. Creator Sc4900 (talk · contribs) was reported on WP:ANI for creation of hoax articles and was subsequently blocked. As per WP:HOAX, hoax articles are not speediable, hence the AfD. Regards,xC | ☎ 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see - WP:ANI#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material

List of hoax articles created by Sc4900 is also present on that ANI thread

ThanksxC | ☎ 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see from that link the ANI thread, please can you point me to it. Thanks, Malla nox 02:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that, pending any sources being produced, this appears to be a hoax. Note that the article is linked to from various places, so if the article is deleted, we should remove those links as well. JavaTenor 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put it through the grinder. Don't believe for one second that this is genuine - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, suggest early closure on the grounds of WP:SNOW. ANI thread has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive232#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Malla nox

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond Pun[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable secondary sources of which the term "James Bond pun" is the subject, per WP:NEO. People have used these sorts of puns before Bond and the implication that the form arose with Bond smacks of original research. May implicate Wikipedia is not a directory, since the bulk of the article is a loose association of quotes. Otto4711 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Truly a great collection of puns. Unfortunately, the neologism cannot be sourced and thus usage of the term cannot be verified. I don't think there is a way to work these into the main Bond article, but they are good for a chuckle. --Cyrus Andiron 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or de-generalize and rename to "List of James Bond puns". I'd agree that the article's apparent attempt to label this as a general term originating from James Bond but applicable outside of that context is OR. That needs to go. But the list of quotes itself is entirely from actual Bond movies. So why couldn't that be merged in to the James Bond article and/or made a list article? For example, the article currently has a section talking about his use of gadgets in general, with that section containing a {{main}} article tag pointing to a separate "List of James Bond gadgets" article listing specific gadgets. The use of the puns is a recurring theme throughout all the bond movies, just like the use of gadgets is. So why can't something like that be done with the puns? Mwelch 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because as a list article it's still just a collection of trivial quotes. Otto4711 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as funny as this is, its not encylopedic and it has to go. DBZROCKS 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as if this is a List of James Bond puns it should be on Wikiquote, and if it's an article about puns in James Bond it would be better to include Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, and other action stars known for esprit d'escalier lines on exeunt, and it isn't nearly fleshed out for that. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of TCP and UDP port numbers[edit]

This list is unmaintainable and could become massive (with nearly 50k ports around)! Computerjoe 's talk 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — At the very least the well-known ports section should be maintainable. — RJH (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. "Could become massive"? I'd say it's pretty massive allready. Dr bab 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, though it could stand for perhaps a bit of reorganizing. I realize this list is unwieldy, but it's rather important information for anyone who does any serious network administration. Haikupoet 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is not an unmaintainable list, because there are a set number of ports (65,534, or 0xFFFF, to be precise), and the overwhelming majority of said ports have documentably assigned functions - and even then, those who have multiple functions have no more than a few. Granted, that's a lot of ports related stuff. List is not only well documentable, a number of RFCs document the living daylights out of this. Not only notable and verifiable, but we have our reliable sources. At the risk of WP:WAX, might I also mention that TCP/IP is documented here on Wikipedia, as well? Can't merge into TCP/IP as it's too big for that article, keep it separate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Additional comment - WP:NOT#INFO does not apply here as the information collected in this article is not indiscriminate. WP:NOT#DIR does not apply either; the topic at hand is not a list of loosely associated topics (in fact, quite the opposite - while the services are dissociated, the function is appropriately documented), and it is neither an equivalent to the white pages nor the yellow pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is being successfully maintained right now. — brighterorange (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is being maintained and, while somewhat massive, it is a good resource on the topic. DStaal 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is very needed list for any novice in the area. It covers the subject matter even so has appearance of the list or directory. One needs to know a bit about this subject before voting on it fate. User:Abune 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being useful is not a defense. Computerjoe 's talk 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some work, and perhaps application of WP:NOTE on ports>1024. sendai 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vital component of TCP/IP coverage, and while there are 50k possible ports, the number which actually have (or are likely to have) any function other than "sequentially assigned" are considerbly less. Using WP:NOTE for individual elements, other than those with no public exposure at all, would devalue the usefulness. Ace of Risk 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please. Useful reference, exactly the sort of thing you would expect Wikipedia to have. Much better than pokemons, porn starlets and star trek trivia. 195.172.215.82 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard ports are maintainable and the information is not indiscrimate. -Nv8200p talk 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. Gigs 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could not be held in better fashion. It, by it's nature will conflict with some of Wikipedia's standards. 00:50, 27 April 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.98.104 (talk • contribs)
Keep This is not indiscriminate information, and it seems maintainable. Gimmetrow 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as no real assertion of notability (awards and courses without articles) and probable nonsense ("Mulligan Cup" is suspicious enough on its own). The author also blanked the article at one point. --Wafulz 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Blackham[edit]

new article about a golfer on JBGA tour however a google search of "Chris Blackham" JBGA produced nil responses. In an unsourced article that spells major verifiability and notability problems. As there is an assertion of notability its not a speedy so we are here at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unclear what JBGA is from the article. It might be a junior tour. Gogling JBGA gives me the Japanese Blind Golf Asscoiation. There are no sources provided, and none findable as per nomination. And the article is abit spammy with the golf clinic contact info. -- Whpq 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Ibrahim[edit]

Delete Seems unnotable, only 1 google hit (rest on his name are a different person). Russeasby 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak conditional keep. I had nominated this for CSD before, but I think there is a horribly weak notability claim since he's on some wealthiest person list and is involved with philanthopy, etc. I won't lose any sleep over it getting deleted though. As such, the article is unreferenced and the claim needs to be checked out for validity and there should probably be more assertion of notability. The serial removal of the unref and CSD tags isn't helping either. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what its worth, last years version of this list is here on WP Sunday_Times_Rich_List_2006, 2007 one is not published for a few more days. But note how many on this do not have articles, the ones that do primarily seem to have them due to notability for something other then happening to be on this list. Russeasby 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Russeasby. -- Jeff3000 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V with no sources whatsoever and nevermind no secondary sources showing notability. Bridgeplayer 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Goddyn[edit]

Appears subject may be non-notable Part Deux 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have some serious WP:V, NPOV, and spam issues here. Not sure about the notability, however. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this even assert any notability? --RaiderAspect 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Goodman (fictional character)[edit]

Self promotion (Creator's name matches the article writer's name), not reliably sourced (all links are IMDB), so no real establishment of notability. TexasAndroid 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any WP:RS for this article. There's only about 900 GHits for "Saul Goodman" and "2006" - and most of them have nothing to do with the movie he stars in, let alone about the titular character. Furthermore, the movie appears to be an "underground" film, which was never rated by the MPAA and gets only minimal coverage - mostly in blogs, or other unreliable sources. Pretty sure this fails WP:NOTE --Haemo 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious self-promotion. JuJube 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd metal[edit]

Unsourced orphan article on a neologism. Google brings up no reliable sources, let alone a consistent definition. Not verifiable. Wafulz 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:RS to show this is not WP:NFT. Punkmorten 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is totally made up. I would even consider it an attack page, as it specifices specific bands, and associates it with the word "nerd", which can be taken in a derogatory manner.Turlo Lomon 11:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:57Z

Petronella Wyatt[edit]

Procedural nom; proposed for speedy deletion with reason "She is not notable. There are a lack of unbiased published reliable sources verifying content and notability. She in her column admits to creating the article violating our conflict of interest guideline." Speedy deletion tag removed here with suggestion to "take it to AfD". Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; after reading a recent article ^[1] in the Daily Mail, I believe this Wikipedia entry has been set up as a bit of self publicity. She is a well respected journalist, not what I'd call a notable character deserving of an entry on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JT72 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Definitely can't agree with the first two reasons. Just a quick Google check turns up lots to indicate that she's notable, as well as to verify what little content there is in the article to verify — namely that she's Lord Wyatt's daughter and has written columns for the Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator, and currently writes for the Daily Mail. And of course the Boris Johnson thing is already referenced I didn't see anything immediately that verified where she went to school or her specific interview list, but I didn't look very hard, either. Even if those specifics can't be verified, it still doesn't justify deleting the article, but instead just removing that info. That she created the article herself does violate WP:AUTO, but such a violation, by itself, is not cause for article deletion. WP:AUTO discourages creating your own article, but does not absolutely forbid it. Mwelch 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the original nominator obviously wasn't in the UK at any point in 2006; she was barely out of the news. Even without the whole Boris Johnson business she'd still pass as a major journalist. <rant>There's nothing in WP:COI to forbid writing (or citing) yourself providing you maintain NPOV and I wish all the people who prod articles with "written by the subject" as the reason would take the time to realise this.</rant> - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She'd be notable purely for the Johnson episode but even without that she's written for major newspapers and magazines and been a fairly regular television pundit. A Google News search excluding Johnson still brings up over 200 non-trivial articles. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept the Johnson section could always be reinsterted. If PW removes it again for no good reason, and continues to do so, then she could always be blocked for a while... LessHeard vanU 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reasons above are convincing. --Liface 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable UK journalist. While the origin of the page is somewhat debatable - as is Mr Wyatt's censorship of the Johnson episode - but it would seem like sour grapes to trash it, because sooner or later someone else will create it again. Nick Cooper 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep may orginally have been a vanity article, but she is undoubtedly notable.--Simul8 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Undeniably notable. Felixboy 11:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As all above - Adrian Pingstone 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as highly notable, SqueakBox 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a regular commentator on and behalf of a particularly British viewpoint, representing the political bias of the publications she writes for. She has enough UK media and political presence to establish notability. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything that links to it, as far as I can see, is about the Boris Johnson affair. She merits a paragraph in Boris Johnson but not an article in her own right. Js farrar 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above as an undeniably notable subject which passes WP:BIO with flying colors; if this article is to be deleted many children will utter petrified cries. RFerreira 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the convincing arguments provided above, meets WP:A and all other relevant policies for inclusion. Burntsauce 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - minor, but notable. Also a useful example for Wikipedia:Biography - David Gerard 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Separation Diet[edit]

Fails WP:N - this is a proprietary diet which has not been the subject of any independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Unsourced (and unsourceable) promotional article is the result. Any relevant information might be merged into food combining. Prod was contested on grounds that "This diet has helped many indivuals such as myself." Propose deletion as fails WP:N based on lack of "multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Someguy1221 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. szyslak (t, c) 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nishkid 64 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once Dead[edit]

No claim to notability. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. AfD because it was recreated after speedy.Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete once again. Still no claim to notability. --Haemo 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Defense Initiative storyline[edit]

covers the same ground as Global Defense Initiative, which frankly I don't think needs an article either but that's for another time. Cruft-filled and bloated, fails WP:NOT, WP:ATT and whatever the game guidelines are that I simply cannot be bothered to look up at the moment. Fredrick day 21:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a rehash of Global_Defense_Initiative. Why all this game cruft? Is this not a walled garden? GDI characters of Command & Conquer, GDI technology of Command & Conquer, Kane (Command & Conquer), Colonel Burton, Brotherhood of Nod, Nod characters of Command and Conquer, Miscellaneous technology of Command & Conquer, etc, etc. etc. Are we there yet? Is there enough cruft already? Why isn't one article, say Command & Conquer series, adequate coverage? Pete.Hurd 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepImportant information that orginal article does not cover adquetely, considering altneartive endings, backstory, and other issues. --Eldarone 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goes indepth about the plot on the GDI side of Command & Conquer. The C&C series is a big subject here as it can be seen in the template. --Gamer007 09:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic treatment of GDI would vastly bloat parent articles regarding Command and Conquer, and thus, per WP:FICT policy the article is permitted. I do think it needs to be cut back, and if an encyclopedic treatment does reduce it to managable levels then it should be combined with the main GDI article. Peptuck 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notible game. Lots of sources for background story. Keeps the base article from becoming unwieldly. Turlo Lomon 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In accordance with the Wiki policy of keeping the articles reasonably long, this page avoids making the Global defense Initiative article unfeasibly long. Mikael GRizzly 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 credible assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Bravo[edit]

non notable film; the page originally claimed it was produced on a zero budget, but the claim was removed with the prod. Much of it sounds like a hoax. Brianyoumans 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moio's Italian Pastry Shop[edit]

Reason WP:OR unsourced. Seems to fail WP:CORP. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Davis (mediaevalist)[edit]

This is one of a series of articles initiated by Graeme Davis, promoting the on-line journals of which Graeme Davis is the editor and the institute which sponsors those journals. SteveMcCluskey 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion as the whole series constitutes self-promotion.

--SteveMcCluskey 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In further checking Graeme Davis's edits, I found his self-promotion extended to modifying Template:UK-nonfiction-writer-stub so it became a promotion of his name. SteveMcCluskey 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like some kind of mistake on his part, as a new WPer. Steve Dufour 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete for Davis; Google & Amazon show that he has written all those books, which would imply he's a major expert on Old English, but I can't find any significant sources or awards to satisfy WP:PROF. Delete the assorted journals as all too specialist to be of general interest - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Google: "Graeme Davis" site:open.ac.uk - did not match any documents. Pete.Hurd 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not so surprising; a lot of semi-retired and independent academics do some work with the OU to keep themselves "in the loop" but don't appear on their staff lists - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone help with what is fast becoming a big problem. My career is being damaged by Wikipedia, and I cannot find a solution.

I am a UK academic and a mediaevalist. I write on subjects including the Vikings. There is also a war game author who shares my name, has an article on Wikipedia, and happens to make games and some fiction books about the Vikings. His Wikipedia article shows up in Google searches. Recently this has: 1) Lost me a job interview because the recruitment team googled my name and found what they thought was a lot of junk about me. 2) Probably lost me a job – the interview panel had structured questions around an identity that is not mine, and a good chunk of a 1hr interview was spent persuading them I am not someone else.

The easiest answer I can see is for an article about me to go up on Wikipedia. There is ample justification for such an article as I am well known in my area, and many of my peers do have articles. I’ve tried to sort this out – Graeme Davis (mediaevalist) - but run foul of Wikipedia’s self promotion rules. I’ve now deleted the article that seems to be causing offence. But please can you help me here. Wikipedia cannot be happy with a situation where confusion it is creating is blighting peoples’ careers.

Read WP:PROF and WP:N, which list the criteria an article needs to meet to stay up. The main problem with the article as it stands is the lack of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources; basically you need to show that at least two other non-trivial publications have written about you, and that all the information in the article has already been published somewhere else (otherwise, it constitutes original research by Wikipedia rules). Despite what some may say, there is nothing to forbid writing about yourself, but make sure that it is neutral about anything potentially controversial. If the article does get deleted, you can recreate it later in a form that satisfies Wikipedia policy. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, but it isn't a solution to this particular problem. I'm trying to find with Wikipedia a solution to a very serious problem where Wikipedia is damaging my career and my reputation because it is allowing confusion between me and someone else who bears the same name. There are issues with the existing material on Wikipedia which really cannot be discussed in an open forum because they are sensitive and have a legal dimension in many jurisdictions, certainly including England and the US. How do I talk privately to someone who can help me?

Go to WP:AN/I and post a summary of the problem there; this will notify the Wikipedia admins of the problem. Be sure to come back periodically to check for replies as they'll reply on the same page. If that doesn't solve the problem and it's causing serious problems, go to WP:RFO and follow the instructions there; you'll need to email the address given at the bottom of the page with the url of the page in question and what the problem is, and the Wikimedia Foundation (owners of Wikipedia) will take whatever action's necessary. Only use RFO for serious issues such as posting personal details without your consent or serious libel; AN/I should be enough to clear it up in most cases - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Graeme's rationale for his biographical page, I will agree that he has a professional justification for wanting to be differentiated from the author of role-playing games. I have added disambiguation notices at the head of each article and am perfectly agreeable to allowing his biographical article to stand, subject to the need for citation of independent sources already noted by iridescenti.

I'm still of the opinion, however, that the articles on the journals and the institute constitute self promotion in violation of Wikipedia policy and should be deleted. SteveMcCluskey 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup While I understand the implications of the Conflict of Interests (et al.) policies, I do not think deleting is the right thing to do. I mean, this article is not a piece of marketing or something alike, it doesn't hurt anybody and, although it is not a perfect Wikipedia aritcle, it does not violate any policies (apart from the COI and probably the Verifiability one). Therefore I suggest keeping this, especially, in view of the danger of confusion with the other Graeme Davis, who, as I learnt, can be associated with Mediaevalism as well... --Mbimmler 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments above. I don't understand how to make citations from independent sources (though clearly this is a good idea). If anyone can tell me how to do this I'll do it. In this context is it just a case of linking book citations to the publishers' websites? (I can manage this). I'm not really a wikipedia article writer, nor have I any particular wish to become one. There is a very special reason for me wanting to avoid confusion with the other Graeme Davis and any further damage to my career this confusion might cause. I've just lost a job through this, and you will all understand I'm pretty sore about this. The success of wikipedia now means that prospective academic employers in the UK are giving credence to wikipedia to the extent that they structure interview questions around what they think they have found there.

A note on a comment above. The Open University is Britain's biggest University, as well as one of the best achieving in all league tables. A policy of the University is that it does not list its thousands of associate lecturers on its web site. A handful may be listed where they have another role, but almost all are not.

The brief articles I put up about three journals pre-date my editorship of them. I think they are of interest to wikipedia readers (they are big players among academic journals). But if members of wikipedia don't like them I'm really not bothered if they are deleted. What I am bothered about is confusion with someone that leads to big career problems for me.

Thanks, Graeme Davis_

Comment I've left instructions on how to do citations on your talk page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescenti. I've had a go at adding references - internet links seem simplest, but no shortage of paper references if they are worth typing in. Hope this helps. Graemedavis 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm assuming good faith in Mr. Davis's comments. Steve Dufour 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Graeme Davis posted on the BLP noticeboard but I thought he was saying he was a third Graeme Davis. I was thinking any Graeme Davis who is not notible enough for an article can be mentioned on the disambig page maybe.

Keep per WP:IAR. Given his publications and expertise, the individual has a substantial chance of being at least marginally notable by the regular criteria, and including a marginally notable individual doesn't really damage the encyclopedia per WP:NOT#PAPER (no worse than including yet another piece of The Simpsons trivia or similar). By WP:AGF, we have no reason to doubt Dr. Davis' story and so we have to treat it as legitimate. This means we have to accept his claim that the superficial similarity between his personal details and another individual of the same name is causing him serious difficulties. WP:IAR therefore demands that we bend the rules to accommodate a difficult situation that nobody ever had in mind when the rules were designed. This is exactly the kind of case that WP:IAR was intended for. It must control. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the issue of his biography is resolved, suggest a separate AfD for the journals where we can take a look at their notability independent of Dr. Davis' personal situation. I don't see a need to ignore the rules for the journal articles. Because the two situations are very different, I don't recommend covering them both in the same AfD. --Shirahadasha 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Shirahadasha. FCYTravis 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, not a puff piece. Could use some ISBNs and {{primarysources}}. — Athænara ✉ 07:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article will be salted through the end of 2007 and if it is real it can be recreated without a crystal ball in 2008.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Forest[edit]

Created by a suspected sock of hoaxer Lyle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Lyle123. The only reason I took it to AFD is because the speedy tag I added was removed on the grounds that "hoax" is not a valid speedy criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szyslak (talk • contribs) 21:56, April 23, 2007

Delete, can't find this on IMDB. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No mention on Disney site or fansites and no Ghits on the character names. Whoever removed the tag is right, btw, suspected hoaxes always have to come to AfD for consensus - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true in most cases, but so far most suspected Lyle123 hoaxes have been speedied as A3 (vandalism), in some cases after a prod or an AFD, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Tod (1974 film). szyslak (t, c) 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Please see this user's entry at the Long Term Abusers section of wikipedia. This isn't just a hoax, it's a hoax by an abusive user who refuses to go away and insists on wasting everyone's time. Esn 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it speedy for exactly the same reason, but someone came along and removed the speedy tag, on the grounds that I used invalid speedy criteria. I know "hoax" isn't a CSD, but I think this qualifies as vandalism (A3), as it's a hoax that fits the M.O. of a known and persistent vandal. There's no good reason to make this article sit on AFD for any longer. szyslak (t, c) 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax by frequent hoaxer. —tregoweth (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: See this note from the page's creator. He more or less requests deletion. szyslak (t, c) 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He also gives a strong hint that he will recreate this article after it's deleted. Perhaps it should be salted? Or is it too early? Esn 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tobacco Lawsuits. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Litigation[edit]

News article, delete. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - To Wikinews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool Blue (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of [40] - do not transwiki. Tagged for speedy deletion. exolon 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent copyvio breach. Bridgeplayer 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've taken care of it by redirecting to Tobacco Lawsuits. BTW, the user who contributed Tobacco Litigation posted copyvio text to many articles today. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia[edit]

Tagged for deletion as spam, deleted, that was rejected by DRV, so here you have it. This article has no sources, has been tagged for cleanup since November 2006 without any evident progress on that, and the sole asserion of notability rests on Alexa - which, as we all know, is not reliable. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable site with sources available see [41]. I would give it time to develop especially given the Deletion Review. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but I'll change that to keep if I'm convinced. I looked at LexisNexis and found nothing, and skimmed that Google News link and didn't really see anything that fits under WP:RS. But convince me I'm wrong and I'll change my vote. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some cleanup and sourcing, but the Alexa rank certainly shows this to be a major site. StuffOfInterest 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep per improvements. I have added another reference to the article. There are a number of other sources out there, which I cannot access as they are by subscription only. In terms of sourcing, the article really is borderline. However, I am inclined to think this is due to my inability to find/access available sources rather than a total lack of sources for a top 500 website in existence since 2001. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But neither of the sources you added fall under WP:RS. Alexa doesn't mean anything and the other source you used was a Press Release... I do have full access to LexisNexis and couldn't find anything. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly that. One unreliable, one not independent equals no independent, reliable non-trivial sources. And "keep and clean up" is also a pointless !vote since this has been tagged for cleanup for months with no result. Looks notable? Sure. Looks it, but there's no supporting evidence. Maybe the Alexa rank is due to their hosting of binaries with questionable copyright... Guy (Help!) 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whoa, wait ... First, could you please explain why Alexa "doesn't mean anything"? Alexa is surely a valid source for Alexa ratings (it's not being used in the article in any other context). Second, I'm not entirely sure the other source is a press release. PR Newswire publishes both press releases and news articles and I think the source I've noted belongs in the latter category. Third, even if it is a press release, it is not a press release of Softpedia, and is therefore independent of Softpedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alexa rankings do not mean notability. That's what I meant. And yes, PR Newswire does print news as well as press releases, but what you provided is a press release. And it doesn't matter that it was written by another company, it is still not a reliable source. Have you ever written a press release? I have. If you mention another company in your press release, you must work closely with that company to make sure that all interests are aligned. Press releases, in any form, are therefore not independent nor reliable. This article still does not fulfill WP:N or WP:RS. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, yes, Alexa rankings don't automatically mean notability, but the Alexa source itself is not unreliable. Given your comment, I am slightly modifying my suggestion ... I'll probably revisit the discussion after a few days to see if anyone was able to dig up additional sources; I'm finding it hard to believe that a top 500 website (out of tens of millions) has zero published works about it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a reason AfDs are open for five days. As far as I'm concerned, if nothing surfaces in five days, it should be deleted. You know as well as I do that WP isn't a crystal ball, so we can't base our judgment on what might happen in the future. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We're in agreement. If nothing surfaces within 5 days, I will withdraw my recommendation to keep the article. As much as I may find it strange that there are no readily available sources about the topic (at least ones that I could find), the only thing that matters in the end is what we can prove. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, great! Yeah, don't get me wrong -- I think it's weird too. Something's fishy if a top 500 Alexa site doesn't have any reliable sources written about it... Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reliable sources: 1 2. Good enough? [I'd call Alexa 3, but apparently you don't consider that a reliable source?] anthony 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        Pretty sure that a site-sponsored review including a message from the Softpedia folks isn't a reliable source. And Alexa is a resource for information, but not a reliable source. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Pretty sure that a site-sponsored review including a message from the Softpedia folks isn't a reliable source." What do you mean by site-sponsored? Softpedia didn't pay to have that review. It's not even a fully positive review. Yes, they give site owner a section to provide comments, but I don't see how that excludes the review from being a reliable source. "And Alexa is [...] not a reliable source." Why do you feel Alexa isn't a reliable source?
        
        I think these three sources are clearly enough for a short article on the website. There is clearly a large and growing group of people who want to know more about Softpedia [42], and I think it would be unfair to give them a blank page when we can at least say a few things which we know to be true. anthony 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think we can judge what people want to read. I think we can judge what our guidelines for notability state, and as of right now, they state that this article fails such guidelines. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Let me rephrase it this way: if we're going to ignore our policies and guidelines, why have AfDs in the first place? We're here to discuss the current merits of the article, not what it *might* become or whether you like it or people *might* want to read about it. And as it stands, the article should be deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The McAfee review is independent. So what if Softpedia was allowed to make a comment? Defendants are allowed to make comments during their trials ... that doesn't make the judge any less independent. The article currently has four references: 3 are independent (McAfee, Kraynak, and Alexa) and 2 are unquestionably reliable (McAfee and Kraynak). You and Guy stated above that "Alexa" is not a reliable source but haven't exactly specified why ... we agreed that Alexa rankings alone do not establish notability, but I don't see why the Alexa source is unreliable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit that the article isn't a greatest, but it's fine as a stub-class or start-class article (it still needs more rigorous sourcing, of course). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no point arguing further. Sure, keep the article for now but if it's not updated with real reliable sources (you can infer that Alexa is not a reliable source if you read WP:RS) in two weeks or a month, I'm coming back at it with a vengence. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am quite familiar with WP:RS. In fact, in looking at it again, I noted that it states that reliable sources are ones where the authors are "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". I think it's safe to say that the authors of Alexa Internet are authoritative in relation to their own rankings. However, even if one discounts the Alexa source for some reason, there are still the McAfee and Kraynak sources. I really don't see why you'd have a vengeance against this article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Softpedia website is referenced many times by many publications as can be seen from the Google news link above, this shows it to be well known and notable. - hahnch e n 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, but looking at the talk page there seem to be one or more persistent POV pushers editing this article. We need to come up with a way to keep them from ruining the article. anthony 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Certainly has the potential to be a good article. It just needs proper sourcing. GarryKosmos 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some better sourcing, but it's up there with Download.com and Betanews/Fileforum as a source of program reviews and files. Ace of Risk 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:58Z

TTC By-Law 1[edit]

This article violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Ample time has been given to the original creator of this article to do something about it, and nothing has happened. Because the entire text of the By-Law is not included here, it is not a suitable candidate for being transwikied to WikiSource. Ground Zero | t 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure copy of a primary source easily available elsewhere with no other content. Probably speedyable as a copyvio as it breaches TTC rules on reproduction of content - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iridescenti and the nominator. This article restates what is already written somewhere else, definite copyvio. --Cyrus Andiron 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is certainly not a law book. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Alvestrand 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dumping the text of a bylaw is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. And the bylaw itself is rather pointless as an article. -- Whpq 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead score[edit]

Article is merely a dictionary definition of a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary nadav 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. JuJube 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICDEF, maybe move to Wikitionary if not aleady done. Felixboy 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Burton[edit]

minor video game character - requires a line in the relevent C&C article - WP:NOT. Fredrick day 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic game cruft. Pete.Hurd 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series. Punkmorten 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only major characters like Kane deserve a separate entry. Mikael GRizzly 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sanchez[edit]

I previously prod'ed this page. The prod was remove because the original author said that the subject was properly referenced. As far as I can see these are all links to the subjects own papers presented during conferneces. Ergo it's not establishing the notability of the subject, but the "potential" (i don't know the rep of the conferences) notability of his work. Are these kinds of external sources significant enough to warrant an article ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the refs are from the University Texas itself btw. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joe Sanchez is listed on the Second Life wiki page as a researcher, so this page added to the credibility of another wiki page. He is published in several academic peer-reviewed journals and was listed in outside news sources for SXSW and The Austin Forum named him an emerging leader. Fits wikis biography and notability guidelines. Just added the page yesterday, it is still a new page. I am adding an external links section now. Brentwood

The page lists five Secondary sources and I just added several external links, he shows up in Google scholar six times. Brentwood

In my eyes his work is better suited as a source for the article Second Life, rather than that the person itself is notable enough for an entry in Wikipedia. I'm not questioning his work, i'm questioning the fact that that work makes him a notable subject (and no matter how much work this page sees, i doubt it will ever achieve that). We simply don't have entries for all published researchers in the world. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sanchez meets the WP:PROF criteria for academia Brentwood 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is a PhD student, the lead section sentence stating that "Joe Sanchez is cited in peer-reviewed academic journals." is supported by a link to a pdf, whose title page includes the descriptor "A Research Study Submitted for Presentation at The Academy of Business & Administrative Sciences Conference, Cancun, Mexico, June 22-24, 2002", so I have no idea which peer reviewed journal this is supposed to be. A grad student with a couple of publications, and a single citation falls far below the bar of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student, not yet notable. The article is written in a breathless style which attempts to make even the most standard grad-student accomplishments seem important, but I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is in the top one-percent of his field. Only 1.25% of Instructors in Higher Education are hispanic. In the entire nation, only 3% of graduate (PhD) students are hispanic. He is published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and the first to publish on the use of Second Life in Education. Certainly qualifies as more than "even the most standard grad-student accomplishment." http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61 Brentwood 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]
Note, this is Users' 2nd !vote, and further, may qualify as a SPA. Pete.Hurd 13:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have signed every post signifying I am the creator of the page and am not a SPA. but do believe the top 1% of field is a valid argument for notability WP:PROF.I have added the data to the page.thanks! Brentwood 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood [reply]
While AfD is not a vote, users are expected to cast only one !vote (e.g. keep, delete, merge). You should feel free to add as much discussion of the rationale behind your opinion as you feel is required to explain your view, but cast only one keep !vote. This is what I meant by "Users' 2nd !vote" above. Pete.Hurd 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as indicated on it's Talk page, the logs also show that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as evident from the talk page comments, the page was deleted without notification to the author (against wiki etiquette) so I had to recreate the entire thing. The comments on the talk page sound like they are from another grad student wiki page Sarah Robbins who may have an interest in making Joe Sanchez's page is unavailable for fear of scholarly competition. Brentwood 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]
Ummm, so you are suggesting that Sarah Robbins, or her agents, are attempting to undermine your career by having your Wikipedia page deleted, so you had to recreate it after it was deleted? Can an admin check the deleted version to see if this is CSD G4? 68.148.40.121 05:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no admin, but A7 seems a lot more likely (in which case undeleting and going to an AfD is quite legitimate). If it were G4, there would already be an Articles for deletion/Joe Sanchez, but clearly there wasn't because it was created for this AfD. —David Eppstein 05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete During early April this page was deleted after I added several comments about improvements. It is not a new page as Brentwood says. None of the improvements were made and the page does not meet biography template or academic notability. I believe the user Brentwood is Joe Sanchez and also the anonymous IP 24.155.108.14 making this a vanity page also. Typewriter 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I marked the page for deletion and after the required time limit when nothing was changed it was deleted. If Sanchez has notability it should be easy to fix the page. There is room enough for all notable academics on Wikipedia. The article is not a bio, does not have NPOV and does not meet academic notability requirements. If changed to do so, the page should remain. Requests were made in the ast and went unheeded. I have no interest in scholarly competition but wikipedia advancement and quality. Typewriter 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS? There are considerable concerns about a potential bias of User:Typewriter. User seems closely related to, or in fact is, Sarah Robbins whom is apparently active in the same area as Joe Sanchez. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply TheDJ - If the improvements are made to the page I have no problem with it staying. I am not Sarah Robbins but Mark Bell. I do maintain her page. If the requess for change I have made are incorrect please let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typewriter (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Nice try at beefing up notability, but clearly he isn't (yet), per David Eppstein. --kingboyk 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Robbins. --kingboyk 01:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is very well known for his SL research and everyone is blogging about him... he should keep the page up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.209.15 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ingram[edit]

nn criminal, not every murder involving alleged Satanism is noteworthy, the sourcing of this article seems not based on reliable sources and is hence violative of WP:BLP Carlossuarez46 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the book & TV movie throw you; the imdb entry for the movie says it was based on the McMartin preschool events and doesn't mention Ingram at all. Also, the WP article for the film itself makes some leaps of logic unsupported by facts to weave a semblence of support to the premises advanced: that this guy was wrongfully convicted despite his guilty plea. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I cannot help but conclude that this is a nomination intended to push a POV; how else to explain the nominator expressing concern for WP:BLP violations and in the very same sentence asserting "nn criminal" (a point that is very much in doubt) and talking about "murder" -- an act that the article makes no mention of, and Ingram was not charged with? Carlos claims "the IMDB entry for the movie says it was based on the McMartin preschool events" and complains that "the WP article for the film itself makes some leaps of logic unsupported by facts", but it is in fact Carlos whose logic seems unsupported by facts: the IMDB entry does not say that it was based upon the McMartin preschool events. Carlos seems to be basing his allegation that the movie is about the McMartin case upon a user comment which begins "This is an interesting film which was made after the McMartin scandal, the many headlines of Satanic rituals, and the Fooster child abuse/daycare scandal in South Florida." Moreover, Carlos claims the IMDB entry "doesn't mention Ingram at all." Well, that is in fact just plain false, because the main page of the IMDB entry says "Based on the case of Paul Ingram, who was accused of sexually abusing his daughters during the child abuse/satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the late 1980s." And guess what? You get to that before you get to the user comment which Carlos so radically misinterpreted -- so how is it that Carlos missed the statement which says in plain English "Based on the case of Paul Ingram" and skipped right down to a user comment which says "this was made after the McMartin scandal" and proceeded to misread it as "this was based on the McMartin scandal"? There's no doubt in my mind; this is a nomination in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad faith? I laugh. Under WP:BLP unsourced negative information on living people MUST BE REMOVED. You are pushing your POV that Paul Ingram was somehow railroaded. The article is a sourceless possible character attack either on Paul Ingram or on whoever YOU contend railroaded him. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your actions speak for themselves. You talk about WP:BLP violations but you are the one who added the completely unsourced implication that Paul Ingram's case involves a "murder involving alleged Satanism." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable case discussed on TV and in numerous reliable sources[43][44][45][46][47]. The nominator seems to be incorrect; IMDb, which is not a reliable source for this sort of thing anyway, does in fact mention Ingram, while a user comment brings in McMartin (definitely NOT a reliable source in any way shape or form). (Antaeus says the same thing in more words and too much formatting.) In any case, the article may have some leaps of logic that would be solved by better attribution (and must be, per WP:BLP). But the subject passes WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If imdb is not a reliable source, then the whole article is a WP:BLP violation and should be deleted along with its history. You prove my point. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not once in the history of the article has it ever presented IMDB as a source. The person who started trying to use IMDB as a reliable source was you, but as we've seen, even if all editor-approved content on IMDB was reliable, you ignored the editor-approved content and based your assertions on a user comment. Even if all content on IMDB was reliable, even down to the user-submitted comments, your assertions are still unsupported because the user comment which mentioned McMartin said the movie was made after McMartin (and similar cases), not based on McMartin, as you claimed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His unfortunate life story is described in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (which can, I believe, be used to cite all the unsourced claims). Anville 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and bulk up --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450045&in_page_id=1770. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450045&in_page_id=1770. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]