Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Fred Martin (cricketer)[edit]

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

I created this page after failing to find one on 'Fred Martin' the cricketer as it led to a footballer instead. So I did one for Fred Martin (cricketer). However a very good page for 'Frederick Martin' the Kent bowler already exists which I found just after I'd done my one! Total cock up on my part so this one must go. I apologise. Nick mallory 06:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]

This should take care of it. Tintin 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks tintin. Nick mallory 11:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Time (Song by Fabolous and Rihanna)[edit]

Article title formatted wrong, no info. I'd say it's crystal-ballism, but there isn't even any content. Unconfirmed, unsourced. - eo 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. The single hasn't been confirmed, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATT, completely unsourced. RGTraynor 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons, plus only songs which are notable in themselves need their own articles -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that's all you can say about a song it probably needs to vanish. JBEvans 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:ATT, why did they even bother? Realkyhick 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Textbookunion.com[edit]

A probably well-meaning new contributor added this article. To me, it seemed to have a smidge of notability asserted, but the article read like an advertisement. When it was tagged as such (and other clean-up tags) by various editors, the author got rather annoyed and asked for deletion instead of having Wikipedia contributors add to the article every "20 seconds". However, rather than granting this, and to show good faith, I'd rather we debate the article, as it does (just) assert notability. Your opinions are welcome; mine is reserved.RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Advertisement. Company that is not notable for another thing. as "Textbookunion.com" leads to the official website, it clearly exists, but "Textbookunion" only gets 23 g'hits. Bottom line: Not notable, advertisement.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say I'm a new contributer, but I'm new at creating new pages from scratch. I'm open to recieving help, I just don't like the page getting all marked up and criticized withing 30 minutes of when I started creating it. I thought people would like to have more information out there regarding any topics, so why not this. If I'm going to be receiving criticism for everything and more people deleting my work than contributing or helping me clean up a bit, then whats the use. My efforts are obviously not worth it to people. I wanted to do something good and give something back by contributing a page, but people seem more annoyed than anything else. I'd rather keep it up... whats the harm. More will be added over time, but if I have to defend my contributions, then I'd rather not even have the page up. I ask that people please reconsider. Also, textbookunion.com isn't a company out for promotion, its an organization. Because I'm new to editing I don't know how to set the template different. Any help would be appreciated. Deltaforce5000^(talk) 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apoligize for any inconvenience this may have caused, but this page clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines for web content (See WP:WEB).Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Arbustoo 00:26, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, fails WP:WEB. The linked reference is from another university, which admits to some independent attention; nevertheless, the underpinnings of the article are too shaky. That aside, I recommend that the creator look over some of Wikipedia's policies before contributing further, in particular "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." The ability to accept that each and every contribution is subject to the review and approval of the community is fundamental on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:WEB. Also an advert. Sr13 (T|C) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I struggled a bit on this one. I suspect that in time it will become notable but at present it does fail WP:WEB which lists as a criteria "multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." There is only one published source, that being the newspaper clipping. If the author can add to that I would be disposed to look more favorably at keeping. JBEvans 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; violates WP:WEB & WP:SPAM --Mhking 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's spammy enough as it is, but when the author cops an attitude, throw the book at it. Realkyhick 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, already transwikied. --Core desat 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machead[edit]

This article is more like a Wikitionary entry and is in no way notable as an article for Wikipedia. Crashintome4196 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary (English). Xanucia 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it has been transwikied. Realkyhick 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A5, then? --Action Jackson IV 03:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caterina demarco[edit]

does not meet notability guidelines Cricketgirl 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a hoax. Nothing on Google, which is amazing for a supposed youtube celebrity, especially one who got a recording contract: if that were true it would be making news all over the internet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NN, WP:HOAX, and WP:BULLSHIT. There are zero Google hits for this person except for this article and Wiki mirrors. She doesn't appear on the artist list on her alleged record label [1], nor are their any Google hits for her alleged upcoming album. Ravenswing 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JBEvans 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom hoax.--Paloma Walker 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the great Korean War hero Colonel Sherman T. Potter would have said, "Horse hockey!" Realkyhick 01:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete understanding that the correct full name is Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock. The argument that simply being an author is not sufficient for notability is supported by WP:BIO; in the "special cases" section The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Being the oldest author (formerly or presently) would likewise be insufficient in and of itself to establish notability for article status, but it would be sufficiently notable to include in a world records article; for instance, one could create a new section for Oldest people that relates the oldest people to hold particular professions, or one could add a record listing to List of world records. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Porlock[edit]

Prodded as non-notable; prod was removed within minutes. I cannot find any information about this woman beyond the single sentence currently in the article: "Alice Porlock published her first book Portrait of My Victorian Youth when she was 102 years old." There's no reference for this information, and the only ones I could find were random, unreliable websites using it as an example of people accomplishing things despite their elderly age. Propaniac 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per CSD A7-bio, without prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing and asserted notability. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article being a stub is no reason for deletion if it can be expanded. It seems that the web provides insufficient content, but it is not the only source available.--Orthologist 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, but if nobody has any evidence that the article CAN be expanded, I don't see why it should be assumed as such. Also, the one fact that we do have about Ms. Porlock does not make her notable enough for her own article, in my opinion, regardless of how rich a biography we may discover. Propaniac 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon further searching, I've realized that the author of the named book seems to be Alice Pollock, not Porlock, and she may be a current or former holder of the Guinness record for oldest published author. ("Alice Pollock" has no relevant results on Wikipedia and no further information on Google.) Propaniac 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we could move the page? If she's been referred to in Guiness, she is notable.--Orthologist 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is kept, it should be moved to the correct name. And I can't verify whether she is or isn't in the Guinness book; I just found a couple of unreliable references that mentioned she was the record holder. If the page had said that she was a Guinness record holder, I probably wouldn't have nominated, but AFAIK that in itself isn't a steadfast criterion for notability, either, since I believe both the recent, verified recordholders for "most t-shirts worn at one time" were deleted recently. Propaniac 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's in an older Guinness I have here, from 1976 I think (the cover's missing). --Charlene 01:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete <&SEQ=20070330170856&SID=1 Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock (1971; so the age is probably right) but is this notability? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (?) and Redirect. Only 12 Google hits for Alice, and in almost every case all the information posted is the single sentence "Alice Porlock of Great Britain published her first book, Portrait of My Victorian Youth, when she was 102 years old," which is in fact the complete text of the article here. Someone is (not very thoroughly) spamming websites with this tidbit, which is inaccurate, because the real author is Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock, who published her book in 1971 according to Amazon UK. She's in Guiness, yes, but is not notable for anything else, no biographical information for her is available, and no one particularly bought the book, so I don't know if this supports an article even under her right name. Ravenswing 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As per Ravenswing, it shows on US Amazon too although it is not stocked by Amazon. I would merge with the correct name and keep it. JBEvans
Weak Delete with no prejudice against creating an article which includes information, is sources, and is spelled correctly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this in the Library of congress.--Paloma Walker 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, include book as further reading in Victorian era Probably a great source on the times, but not enough for an article or stub. Anynobody 07:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per Baccyak4H's comments, CSD A7 thewinchester 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Publishing a book at whatever age doesn't make someone notable unless there are sources backing it up. A scholarly search using Lexis Nexis revealed nothing that makes her notable. --Mus Musculus 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monk Bonasorte[edit]

Mr. Bonasorte was a college football player at Florida State, where he made 2nd team All-American. He did not play pro ball. See his stats. I don't think he's notable enough. NawlinWiki 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update per article rewrite Delete Notability is a judgement call, here mine is simply non-notable, as raising this level of accomplishment to notability would theoretically swamp Wikipedia. weak keep Sourcing concerns have been positively addressed. His conviction would likely never had made the news had he had not been a football star, so I base my position mainly on the level of coverage of his attributed sports accolades. While they are sparse (albeit high quality), this article would probably merit a keep at the end of the 1980 season. Notability is permanent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Florida State student, still doesn't meet notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely does meet notability. The article was just poorly written and not sourced, so I re-wrote it. Disagree that it's a "judgment call", because it's not just a matter of saying, "He's notable because he did such-and-such on the football field". He's notable if there are non-trivial secondary sources about him. That's not really all that subjective (unless you want to argue about what is "trivial"). Either there are such sources about him or there are not. In this case, there definitely are. Mwelch 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question' (more general) If the home town and the college newspaper happen to write stories about, say, a Freshman who is cut from the team, is he notable? DGG 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wouldn't presume to count a college newspaper, which cannot be assumed (kudos to those that do, but we cannot assume it) to do their story selection or fact checking in the way expected of professional journalists and editors, to count toward estabilishing notability. It might be an acceptable source for specific incidental info in the article, but I wouldn't think for establishing who is notable. I wouldn't see anything wrong with "home town" newspapers, per se, but if they're the only newspaper that ever has mentioned him (other than the college newspaper's story on this years new recruits on the team), that seems to me ot be reason enough right there to question if is truly intellectually independent of the subject. Mwelch 03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let's review; this fellow was a two-time All-American, was GM of a pro sports team, and had a criminal conviction that hit the papers on top of that. The article's decently sourced to boot; there is nothing in WP:BIO requiring that sourcing needs to be geographically removed from the subject, or there would be thousands of articles sourced from nothing more than New York or London newspapers and magazines that would have to go. Looks like enough to me. RGTraynor 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A two time all-american in any sport is notable by definition. That he did not play pro ball does not detract from his work.JBEvans 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to meet WP:BIO standards- significant awards, sourced. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems to me. Notable enough. Xanucia 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the All-American wins could make him worthy of keeping if there was some kind of list or category of winners. I don't know much about football off the field (I do understand how it's played) but if the title is that big of a deal somebody ought to put together an article or list of winners. He isn't the first person in the history of the sport to be arrested, or go back to working in football on the sidelines. Anynobody 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RGTraynor's comments, it's reasonable to keep assuming some further improvment is made thewinchester 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTraynor. --Mus Musculus 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profit Inc.[edit]

Part of a walled garden of articles created by an independent wrestling promoter, for some reason this slipped the net. Non notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Most ghits are for the parent company's webpages or for people related to the organization. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please consider consolidating this discussion with the parent company's AFD nomination per WP:BUNDLE. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I'd been nominating the articles at the same time I would have bundled them together, but the parent company AfD has already been running over 36 hours and I was chastised for adding to an AfD that had been running that long once before. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reponse: I see. Anyway, it appears consensus is being reached to delete them all so... and I put comments on the related articles so editors commenting on one discussion can link to the other discussions easily. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the same as whatever occurs in the other debate. I understand nom's reason for listing this separately, but I have to say that the outcome should clearly be the same. Xtifr _tälk 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify I didn't nominate any of the other articles, I just saw this part of the walled garden had somehow escaped notice. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the parent company's been zapped, there's no reason to keep an article about a stable within that company. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WWC again? Delete as biased, self-promotion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodlums (Rayman)[edit]

Normally I'm hesistant to call anything ' indiscriminate' because that seems to be the argument de jour, but in this case I think it's definately deserved. In addition, much of the information reads like a a game guide, also prohibited. Also, no sources are given, and according to the cleanup request recently posted, some of them are not in the game, raising potential hoax issues as well as the obvious attribution and verifiability issues whenever an article doesn't cite a single source, which lead me to think this might be original research or at least novel synthesis. Wintermut3 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions.
Comment. It's impossible to describe a video game character without talking about where in the game it appears. That doesn't make it a game guide. (It would if the article would describe how to defeat them, which can be removed.) Case in point: we have (or at least had) a featured article about Goombas. Now Goomba's are clearly better known and more notable, but if we can have a featured article on a character in Mario, it should be possible for other game characters without it being called a 'game guide'. The other issues are more serious, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MacGyverMagic as far as the "game guide" issue is concerned. I personally don't think it does read much like a game guide anyway - it includes a lot of information that would be found if the characters described were from a film or book, whilst a game guide would usually be nothing more than a rough description of each character's appearance, a collection of stats and a strategy to defeat it.

As far as the original research and verifiability issues are concerned, most of this information comes from the game in question (Rayman 3). I am the person who added the tags and the cleanup request, and the information that isn't from the game (and therefore unverified) is in the specific sections on "Armaguiddon", "Grims", "Hoodloon", "Hoodstriker", "Hoodstomper (Masterkaag)" and "Mecha-Destroyer". The names "Hoodblaster", "Lavicraft" and "Hoodlock", and the assertion that Grimkeepers "keep a jug of plum juice handy to drink away the shellshock after losing precious Grims in combat" are also unverified and not found in game. The rest is genuine, so rather than delete the whole article, why not just remove the unverified sections and keep the rest? They're also the bits that are written in (at least, what I percieve to be) an innappropriate tone (they're rather informal). I added the tag in the hope that the authors of those sections (StantheGarbageMan and an unregistered user with the IP address 86.52.188.23) would cite their sources, but they haven't done so as yet. RobbieG 15:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much content and EXTREME cruft. Quatreryukami 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think "extreme cruft" would be a page going into great detail about a single character from the list. The Hoodlums are central to the plot of at least one Rayman game, and appear in others. Each type is listed with a short description. I don't think that's cruft, and I think the use of the term is an insult to the editors who contributed to the page, myself included. "Extreme cruft" would be if we went into a detailed analysis of Toots' remarks, or listed every time a Slapdash makes an appearance. The article is nothing like so extreme.

I'd also like to point out that "the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion," and that the term describes "content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic", which is a very vague concept. RobbieG 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'cruft' isn't a term I like to use, if you'll note it is not used in the nomination. On the other hand, the amount of apparently unsourced (and of dubious origin) material in the article leads me to question it's accuracy throughout. Can sources be found? If the requirement for multiple, non-trivial mentions of these things in independant sources is satisfied I'll gladly withdraw the nomination, but my own search seemed to indicate only game guides and walkthroughs (I'm not aware of specific policy but something tells me gamefaqs.com is not a reliable source given that it's all self-published anonymous material). Between the questions about veracity and the issue of sourcing, I had trouble seeing how this could be salvaged in its current form. Would perhaps a merge/redirect to the video game article work? Or maybe a reduction in length?Wintermut3 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: This is what the page would look like with all the unsourced content removed. All the stuff that is left on the page is found in the game (Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc) itself. Would it therefore be keepable? RobbieG 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that even if it only references the game itself I'm still seeing a shortfall from WP:RS and WP:V in that there aren't multiple sources, and it's still all tied to one primary source, I'll keep looking for sources myself, we might salvage this one yet, but to be honest, though the revision does help, I think that makes an excellent merger list. Wintermut3 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if your suggestion is to merge, rather than delete, we can discuss it on the article talk page, not on an AFD? RobbieG 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if that's the way consensus turns out, but in all honesty I have trouble seeing the encyclopedic merit of an article that's a list of enemies from a specific game, especially if no attributions can be found outside the game itself. Wintermut3 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion. Would it help if the article was renamed "Hoodlum (Rayman)"? That would be more in keeping with the site's naming conventions, and it would show that the article is a description of the Hoodlum, rather than a list of types (the article being altered accordingly). After all, we already have Bumpty, Ing, Albatoss, Nergal and even Eggplant Wizard. RobbieG 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since these character types only appear in a single game, I don't think there's enough encyclopedic material to warrant its own article. Wickethewok 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is simply not true - the Hoodlums are recurring enemies that appeared in both Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc and the sequel/spin-off title, Rayman: Hoodlums' Revenge. So they actually appeared in two (and arguably three, as the GBA version of Hoodlum Havoc featured a completely different plot and gameplay style from the 3D version) games. They also appear on various gifts and things that are available from the Raymanzone website. RobbieG 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge This page choud possibly be merged into List of characters in Rayman. It would require cutting it down a fair bit but most of the most important info could be kept.Mattyatty 13:34, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion Why not merge some of the information into List of characters in Rayman, some of it into Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc, and delete the excess? RobbieG 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has no encyclopedic value to anyone who doesn't play the game; therefore, it is a game guide. Why are these characters notable? --Mus Musculus 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of characters in Rayman is the most obvious and non-controversial choice here, and is implicitly suggested as the appropriate action by our Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline. RFerreira 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; userfied (test page). Tizio 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q9R[edit]

The page is very unencyclopedic and irrelevent. Either needs to be rewitten or deleted because it can't be in such a form as an article. Sushant gupta 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few lines of code does not an encyclopdia article make. Speedything 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ozgod 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly and completely lacking in context. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless nonsense--Iyenweyel 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. WjBscribe 00:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearborn Christian School[edit]

Whole page is copied and pasted from schools website, [2]. Not an encyclopedic article, needs either a substantial rewrite in neutral language or to be deleted. As it stands at the moment, i say delete--Greatestrowerever 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this as a copyvio, since it's identical, and no assertion of fair use is made. --Haemo 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation)[edit]

Their is no reason a person would stumble on to this page. Both articles it disambiguates to are linked in the template at the bottom of the article, so their is no put for this article to be. The Placebo Effect 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gan fon 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pointless disambiguation page. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as stated above. Mastrchf91 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary as all the articles are about the same franchise. Metamagician3000 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they're all related to one another. Better as a template - and I think it already IS. — CJewell (talk to me) 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who would search for this?! You wouldn't have Gundam disambig, Naruto Disembig, Doom Disembig, Playstation Disambig and etc. 142.58.101.27 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering they all refer to aspects of the same franchise, they should be referred to from the original article. --Canley 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page is completely unnecessary. Who'd search for this anyway?--$UIT 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the template {{Avatar}}. If this disambig page is deleted, please also delete the {{otheruses1}} template at the top of Avatar: The Last Airbender. -- Black Falcon 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ozgod 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the Avatar (disambiguation) page is already completely sufficient to the purpose. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it's unnecessary. Big top 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Bad Company (drum and bass group). Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC Recordings[edit]

Non-notable website/record label. After the website, Wikipedia is the first hit on Google, and they don't seem to be the subject of multiple reliable sources. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lugnuts 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bad Company (drum and bass group); the article notes two "BC Recordings". The first one is almost certainly non-notable per WP:CORP - 10 Google results for < "BC Recordings" 1979 "Bryan Campbell"> with none of them being reliable sources [3]; while the other generates much more results and is associated with a notable band. Resurgent insurgent 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Resurgent insurgent. I'm confused about Lugnuts' vote -- why should we keep? Please add reasons for a vote, as this is a discussion, not a vote. Rockstar915 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bad Company (drum and bass group); there's no need for a separate article, and the first BC doesn't appear notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Notable in connection with the group name. JBEvans 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per FisherQueen thewinchester 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden. NawlinWiki 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renoir (MNTG)[edit]

Fan-made character from a non-notable fictional fanwebcomic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden --Brandon Dilbeck 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article's faith is closely related to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden, I suggest we apply the same result to both articles. This one can't exist without the comic article and if for some reason the fancomic turns out to be notable, we should probably have an article about the character (here or in a merged form). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have another suggestion... how about a mass nom for all the character articles after the main article's fate is decided? -- Ben 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh. I see. This is the only unique character article. -- Ben 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main entry, Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden, has already met that fate. Aarktica 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable character from a fanfic comic. -- Ben 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article has been. Ab e g92contribs 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if anyone wishes to be adverturous this could probably be speedy deleted per A7 as nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A7-ed. -- Ben 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Performance[edit]

Non-notable company without the barest sign of satisfying WP:CORP. Google for ("Learning Performance" "John Dibley") gets 3 hits, this article, and the company's websites. Google for ("Learning Performance" "Heather Starbuck") manages to get 7 hits - this article, the company's websites, and business directories. [4] The prod tag was removed with the objection: "Learning Performance is mentioned in plenty of external sites, but without reference to Heather Starbuck or John Dibley. They do not run things personally. Also added about Study Skills," which fails to address the obvious problems regarding verifiability and notability:

"mentioned in plenty of external sites" - where? There are no sources in the article. The only external links are to the company's websites and these only show the company has their own web presence, nothing more.
"They do not run things personally" is not even hinted to in the article, and in any case it does not explain why any reputable source who wrote about the company would want to omit information as basic as the name of its founder, which brings us to the conclusion that...
There probably are no external sources independent of the company that have written about it in detail.

If no independent reliable sources have written anything about the company, we should not have an article on it. Resurgent insurgent 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has potential but needs a major rewrite per nom in lieu of deletion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem with the education suppliers industry in the UK is their low level of internet use and a limited community in which to demonstrate credentials. I was hoping my article might help to address this and start a trend. Having reviewed the verifiability and notability pages I agree that the article I've written doesn't currently meet Wikipedia's very sensible rules. But as Baccyak4H states, this article has potential. Whilst there are newspaper articles and reports on school websites about us, there are only a limited number of relevant internet references that could be incorporated into the article. I'm about to go on holiday for three weeks, however I do believe that I can put together something that is more relevant to Wikipedia. Can we consider either leaving this article as a stub until I return, or simply reviewing my progress in late April/early May? Davidestarbuck 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please userfy to User:Davidestarbuck/Learning Performance --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't really a mechanism for delaying this deletion vote, and the article is sourced only by one article in a local paper. Just another company, insufficiently notable. Herostratus 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ozgod 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not persuaded by the current case for notability, and there are clear WP:COI issues. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with FisherQueen, primarily about the conflict of interest issues in the article. Also, there are no sources for the information. I believe that this article also does not assert the notability of its subject. --Cyrus Andiron 13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Wolf[edit]

Contained sections copied directly from other sites, contains mostly incoherent (patent nonsense) information, little actual information about subject 99DBSIMLR 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is spam, a vanity article, and patent nonsense about a non-notable person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Man, that bot's fast - it took me one second to realize I forgot, but it was already signed for me!) Jaksmata 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Ab e g92contribs 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not intelligible. Clear self-promotion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, the last part is completely unsalvageable. It's nearly impossible to follow the changes in tense not to mention the erratic word choice. Also, the subject is non notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Arend[edit]

Non-notable pornstar. Epbr123 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Appeared on one cover, Hustler's Barely Legal, but that is not the same as Hustler magazine. That's not enough. Herostratus 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Herostratus. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN posted at 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No arguments present within the article stating notability. Tabercil 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting notability standards in WP:PORNBIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States election audits and electoral fraud[edit]

Original research that does not even really cover the topic alledged, merely mentioning that claims of fraud occur from time to time and then presenting a subjective list of notable political machines. Indrian 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of election audits. The list of persons is not sourced and may well be unsubstantiated original research. The remainder of the article is anodyne but not sufficient for an article. Herostratus 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Herostratus. The title is a bad one and doesn't really fit the article. If the article really were a collection of information on various audits and fraud then the topic would be too big and indiscriminate.Noroton 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find the article somewhat incoherent and its main content is a brief description of the US electoral system. The only mention of fraud is three links to other articles, and the list of bosses is culled from the Political machine article where it makes a great deal more sense. The two subjects this article does cover it does so in an inferior way to their dedicated articles, and it doesn't mention audits at all. -- Mithent 01:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to make a legit article about the topic. Koweja 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it's OR, I doubt that even the reddest of 'the cabal' would argue that electoral fraud doesn't take place. I think this article could be very greatly improved, with just a tiny little bit more time and effort. I don't see any attempt to discuss the articles future on the talk page, which I never like to see when an article is up for deletion. I like to think of deletion as a last resort, not a first action. Cloveoil 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on election auditing and/or fraud or both together would be fine, even needed, but this isn't it. I don't think that every poorly written article should be kept because it could be improved. Some should be, but this throws up a title and follows it with nothing. --killing sparrows 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - although the topic has the makings of an important article, the article itself does not articulate it. I say it be started anew (ie: don't protect the delete) with pertinent and referenced information as it is just an original-referenced mess right now. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cant this form part of a sort of disambiguation page, with links to US elections with fraud where there is likely to be detail on what went on during the election anyway? --PrincessBrat 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to mention election audits at all and doesn't analyse the alleged frauds it lists. The phrase "electoral fraud in one jurisdiction or another at any time is a virtual certainty" is indicative of the quality of the article, containing as it does an assumption which cannot be verified. BTLizard 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing article on Election fraud seems to be sufficient to cover the topic, this article doesn't seem to be clearly focused on one subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is entirely WP:OR. The point of the article seems to be to articulate that machine politics leads to election fraud, and there are no sources backing that up. --Mus Musculus 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mishmash. The top material is better dealt with elsewhere. The list of bosses could be moved to Political boss, although I think removing all living persons from the list would be good policy, in accordance with WP:BLP - one man's "boss" is another man's "influential politician"... Brianyoumans 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, unsourced and somewhat confusing. Is it about election audits, electoral fraud, or political bosses? How do the three topics combine to become an article? The topic may be of interest, but this article doesn't appear to be the right approach, to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is unsourced, non-encyclopedic. Not sure if it counts as OR however. But it does not belong without sourcing. Also, the title is inappropriate and does not reflect the content properly. JBEvans 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Not original research and factually correct. The USA is corrupt as hell and this is a quality article which helps people realise that. Xanucia 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what you describe may be so but - unlike Karl Marx's view of philosophers - the point of an encyclopedia is to describe the world, not to change it. BTLizard 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks rigor, and is likely to be a vehicle for POV pushing (not that I necessarily disagree with Xanucia's point about the state of U.S. election "law" in the era of hanging chads and black-box "voting" machines). --Orange Mike 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outerz0ne[edit]

A series of hacker conferences. The second one was attended by a bustling crowd of 50 people. Having trouble seeing the notability of this event. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BlackBear 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, and 50 people attending is pretty small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is something that really needs to have sources online, and it doesn't. Ab e g92contribs 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although my !vote could be bought for one of those kewl T-shirts!--killing sparrows 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet the notability standard. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debu[edit]

Notability not presented per WP:BAND - minor local band and no references. Please use MySpace for this people!! :) Baristarim 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Baristarim 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no other sources. Ab e g92contribs 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above and reads like advertising copy anyway. -- Mithent 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Consur with above. JBEvans 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any evidence of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (for the 8th time) and protect. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scream 4[edit]

Delete. Largely Crystal Ball and speculation. Much of the information is "Maybe, maybe not". The film is not even in production yet. The poster is also obviously a fanmade one. CyberGhostface 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystalballery. --Dennis The TIger 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Dariusk 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect from creation I swear i saw this for the third time. George Leung 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect until there's something verifiable to say about this film. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need more than just unsubstantiated information. A movie with no cast, director, script, or producer does not exist. Thus, neither should the article about it. --Cyrus Andiron 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball. As far as I can tell, it's not even entirely clear if there is going to be a 4th installment. Seed 2.0 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly CB. Too many if's and maybe's. No firm information here. Wait until something solidifies. JBEvans 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Online,The recent News of a Scream 4 was Revealed on both my site and the American Scream Site..A user on the American site came online saying he has a subscription for movies and that in his package was an advertisement for films that are either in production,or in casting Stages etc.. In that same article was a link to type in browsers,this link was for THIS SITES SCREAM 4 Page that has been put here!! I agree that the poster does look fan-made though,i could do the same in 5 minutes and make it look better too.! But i ask that "For now" to leave it on and see what other news appears IF any does soon.. GhostfaceinNotts 14:26, 7 april 2007 (GMT)

Do you have any proof of this article or is it just hearsay on your friend's part?--CyberGhostface 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask the lad to scan it on his Pc so he can send it to me or even post it in my forum.He cant stop talking about it so i believe him.I will contact him today and get back to you ASAP..GhostfaceinNotts 16:04, 8 april 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to The Subtle Knife. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials: The Subtle Knife[edit]

This article is pure speculation, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. This movie hasn't even been announced, and therefore there is absolutely no information / sources that can be found and added to the article. I think it would be better for the article to be deleted and re-created when (and if) this film is announced. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the book, wherever that is. Jtrainor 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Subtle Knife. --Wafulz 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Wafulz. Ab e g92contribs 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Clifford[edit]

Judging from a search on Google and Google News, the subject appeared in a few newspapers for about three days in mid-March. Along with the fact that there are concerns about a biography about a living person (publicizing her DUI even more), I don't believe the subject satisfies notability guidelines with her 15 minutes of fame Wafulz 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no references. --Cúchullain ^t/c 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the user who created the page claims to be the subject herself here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Dariusk 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Certainly not worthy of inclusion and especially so if she created the page. JBEvans 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- cool hairstyle, but not notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not the News of the Weird. Tizio 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep the mention on the Mohawk hairstyle page. Seems worth the mention (unlink it, though), the pic is a nice example, and we certainly have permission for it. More important question: how can you have a mohawk that high and be driving a car at the same time? Was it a convertible? Pinball22 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if it really is Clifford uploading the image, she would not own the copyright to the photo. That would belong to whatever jurisdiction processed her arrest. If that was the case, it would only be fair use in an article on Clifford (which seems likely to be deleted) and not on an article about Mohawk hairstyles, where there is ample opportunity to snag a GFDL, CC, or PD image. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. You mean mug shots are not in the public domain as creations of the government? Glad I looked in on this debate, because I definitely didn't know that . . . oh, and delete, by the way.Mwelch 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think only works of the federal government are automatically in the Public Domain. A DUI mugshot would be either a state or municipal issue. --Wafulz 22:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wafulz is indeed correct. That is not to say that some jurisdictions don't put their images in the public domian, but the usualy Wikipedia tag about images created by government employees being in the public domain generally only applies to the Feds. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged to each of you. I indeed learn something new every day. Mwelch 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... I didn't even consider the possibility that mug shots might not be in the public domain! Pinball22 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, Image:Anna22.jpg would be great for the Mohawk article, but the user did not realease the image under a free license. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of those cases where you have to consider the fact that in three, ten, or even thirty years, no one will know about or remember this. Just because it was news for two weeks, that doesn't mean that it is notable enough for an encyclopedia. I'm not even going to touch on the conflict of interest problems in the article as well. --Cyrus Andiron 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flunks both WP:WEB and WP:BIO. Painfully close to CSD A7. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO DUI/DWI non notable. The mohawk, however, would fit the mohawk page per Pinball22.--Paloma Walker 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I saw her on the smoking gun and got a laugh at her mohawk, but an article is not called for. Especially mentioning her kids names and dates of birth. Anyone who wants to see DUI mugshots can check out [5]. Anynobody 07:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to The Amber Spyglass. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials: The Amber Spyglass[edit]

This article is pure speculation, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. This movie hasn't even been announced, and therefore there is absolutely no information / sources that can be found and added to the article. I think it would be better for the article to be deleted and re-created when (and if) this film is announced. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Amber Spyglass (novel) for the time being. -- Mithent 01:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mithent. --Dariusk 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Educational exchange between Hong Kong and the mainland[edit]

Only Education in Hong Kong links to this article. The article is mostly original research, lacks sources and suffers from poor grammar and spelling. It remains uncategorized. It was created more than a month ago and all edits have been within a couple of days after its creation. No edits in a month. FateClub 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, original research. --Dariusk 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Brazilian apartheid[edit]

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a biased collection of statements, few of which are notable (or even real allegations, per se). There's no way to make a real article out of this. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ changed to Keep back to Allegations of apartheid, the article is not long enough to deserve its own wikispace. --FateClub 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out it's a commonly used term in Brazil, based on real allegations, and used by all sorts of notable people. Moreover, the article has been considerably improved, and is already too long to be merged into anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per FateClub. --Dariusk 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant content (if any) to other articles concerned. Baristarim 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The GFDL does not allow us to delete and merge. JoshuaZ 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Useless and hopelessly prejudicial article. metaspheres 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- many argue this today. Article needs works, but will improve.--Urthogie 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allegations of apartheid has already been deleted, as have past "allegations of apartheid" articles. Just because someone says it doesn't mean the claim is notable, and it certainly doesn't make it true that the situation compares to what really happened in South Africa.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Löwy, Cristovam Buarque, Mark Weisbrot, Tobias Hecht, and others who have used the term are all notable people. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient material for an article, and a theme that needs to be discussed seriously in human rights of Brazil articles and elsewhere rather than in an article which is centred on an occasionally used informal metaphor.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Social apartheid" is a common term for a specific kind of discrimination in Brazil, directed primarily at Afro-Brazilians, and rooted in former slavery. This article is the right place to discuss that seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't, Jayjg. Its an informal rhetorical term occasionally used in passing. The most common terms are "social inequality" or "income inequality" and related to articles such as Gini coefficient and List of countries by income equality etc. If this article was renamed Social inequality in Brazil, then we might be approaching some sort of encyclopedic approach.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the article as it stands now, do you still assert there is "insufficient material for an article"? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I still do, Jayjg. You've just quoted a few people at length who have simply used a metaphor in passing whilst referring to a complex issue, solely to ensure the article remains as part of some strategy involving Allegations of Israeli apartheid. That is not an encyclopedia article. The group of keep voters below, who largely edit Israel articles and whom I have never seen before on Latin American articles or African-diaspora articles, confirms that this is an attempt to distort and subvert the consensus process in order to continue a game, which you yourself admit is a violation of WP:POINT. The knock on effects, which are subverting and damaging unrelated subjects concerning race relations in Brazil, or articles such as Tourism in Cuba reveals that this game does not have wikipedia readers' best interests at heart.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism apartheid in cuba has been an article and significant subject for a long time, so I don't see how it relates to recent actions by Israel editors.--Urthogie 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was written by Jayjg, so that's how it relates. And it was some of the same editors below who opposed its obvious merge into Tourism in Cuba for reasons to do with some WP:POINT game on an Israel article, not for the benefit of readers interested in Cuba.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's important that the accusation of apartheid not be just the subject of an article for Israel. So it's more NPOV than POINT, in my view.--Urthogie 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article lists notable accusations regarding a significant phenomenon in Brazil, and the Allegations of apartheid article is currently deleted. More material undoubtedly exists, and could be added to flesh out the stub, but we don't delete stubs simply because they are stubs. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the references, and added more material so that it's significantly less "stubby". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayjg. Also note that the main Allegations of apartheid is currently under DRV. JoshuaZ 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayjg, else merge to Allegations of apartheid, if it gets undeleted. --tickle me 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand this article. There seems to be very much material online alone. Tewfik^Talk 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if other Allegations of apartheid in X series are kept. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepo - Fine references, but perhaps not presented correctly. Just needs improvement then. The Behnam 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if one set of allegations is notable, so should this. --Leifern 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Social inequality and Brazil and expand this much more meaningful topic. Because clearly, "apartheid" here is a political metaphor. The same division into rich and poor exists everywhere, with the accompanying territorial segregation of slums and palaces, of public and private scools, of street sweepers and lawyers. And the resulting social segregation (this is a standard term, not "apartheid") is but an insignificant part and the consequence of it. Mukadderat 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayjg ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a caveat: perhaps there could/should be a discussion about deleting all articles that deal with the subject of Allegations of Apartheid against X, but what we may not do is cherry-pick among them; that creates an inherent POV. IronDuke 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and I agree with IronDuke, no cherry picking. Carlossuarez46 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shamir1 05:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irritated Keep in the interests of consistency; Allegations of Israeli Apartheid's validity as a keeper being no more compelling than this. Then maybe Allegations of Apartheid can be undeleted to contain the list. Gzuckier 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically, because some editors created an unencylopedic article about Israel, Israeli focussed editors are going around en masse and supporting equally unencyclopedic material on unrelated Latin American subjects to prove a point about consistency? This mass violation of WP:POINT should mean that the fake consensus of "keep" above is null and void.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is trying to bring consistency to the encyclopedia a WP:POINT? If you disagree with this approach then perhaps you should take a larger interest in editing this series of articles.--Urthogie 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "series of articles", they were a selection of disparate topics linked by wikipedia editors to make a point. There can be no consistency of response to issues concerning exclusive hotels and beaches in Cuba, economic disparity in Brazil and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They are entirely separate matters, linked only be one rhetorical word said in passing as part of a broad analysis. Considering that I have contributed to scores of articles that refer to race relations and economics in Latin America, its not really fair to demand that I begin editing this set of phoney articles which was created to make a point about a country in the middle east, and not to enlighten readers about Latin American disparities.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid actually seemed to have consensus for not deleting, though.--Urthogie 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus" in all these matters has been subverted and corrupted by the activities of Israel focussed editors, who are block voting to ensure that "Israel is not singled out", rather than having the interests of wikipedia readers in mind. This has to rank as the most transparent, depressing, and damaging effort to subvert content and the decision making process I have ever seen on wikipedia.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jayg Dsol 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayG thewinchester 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1) Utter nonsense created by a likely vandal only account.--Hús ö nd 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guten tag[edit]

Nonsenese. Would have CSD'd it but I'm relisting it as the (possibly incomplete) AfD process has already been started.Seed 2.0 01:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki and Delete. A Template:Copy to Wiktionary will be added to the article, which will trigger robotic transwikification and post-action article tagging, after which the article can be deleted without further delay. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfuck[edit]

Unsourced since December, an obvious neologism and pretty much original research. JuJube 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for any of the following reasons: original research; unverifiability; listcruft; dicdef; synonymous with and already covered at nonlinear storytelling and plot twists, per the first sentence which equates the terms; no assertion that the term is notably used in literary or artistic criticism (professional or otherwise). Pop Secret 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Pop Secret--$UIT 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. I haven't read up on their policies in a while, but this seems like something they'd take (and they don't currently have a page for it). --- RockMFR 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to say, looking at the title I immediately thought Speedy Delete G1, but I realized I have heard the term before, especially in reference to these movies. More citations are needed, but this has the making of a real article. I know I'm on the losing end of this battle thusfar, but I'm not going with the majority on this one. I think we need to give this article a little more credit and allow it to go beyond the list stage which exists right now. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - this is in common enough use to be more than your usual neologism, but is better suited to Wiktionary. The long lists could be lost, though, as they pretty much boil down to "list of movies containing some kind of plot twist". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is true, keep. It seems to describe a known literary technique. But surely that sort of literary technique has another older non-sexual name? Anthony Appleyard 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki but only in the normal usage, meaning malicious psychological game-playing - that's certainly worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. But this article's usage is different and original research: it fails to provide RS showing it to be an established literary and movie genre term. Tearlach 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary (English). Even though I'm no longer living in an English-speaking country this is a very common phrase and has started to be used in other languages also. Xanucia 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons cited above. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki definition to Wiktionary, but delete OR list of films, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Gman124 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use some expansion and sources, but I think it's worth having on Wikipedia. I have heard the term "Mindfuck" before, and it seems to be more of a genre or subgenre than just the use of certain literary devices. --66.41.145.88 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per 66.41.145.88 and Valley2city thewinchester 04:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narg[edit]

I am pretty sure thwartment is not even a word. --Infrangible 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. No salvageable material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing verifiable I could find (WP:V). The first just seems to be something made up one day; the second I can't find any sources for; the third seems too minor to merit an article, if it is indeed turue. Crystallina 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. nonsense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- - Delete. I am also not sure thwartment is a word, nor is anything else on the page remarkable. (Personally, I thought Narg was what the Brain said.) — CJewell (talk to me) 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense article--$UIT 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete unsourced & nonsense & unnotable --Iyenweyel 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable neologism. (aeropagitica) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trash. Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the record, though, I understand 'thwartment'- so it must be a word, right? Maybe it wasn't a word yesterday, but it is now. It's the best thing about this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability (hey! I have ten toes too! going to write one on myself). NawlinWiki 04:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Mayer[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person. Contested speedy. ... discospinster _talk 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Dariusk 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Having ten fingers and ten toes, playing Scrabble for fun, and watching 24 are not even close to being claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drown Megan Records[edit]

Seems to be a clean-cut case of failing WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find sufficient external coverage (WP:RS) about this record label, and the article text doesn't imply much. Crystallina 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Crystallina. Ab e g92contribs 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drown this article ... err, Delete. Fails WP:ATT, WP:MUSIC, WP:NN. Only 33 Google hits [6], each and every one of them a Myspace page or a Wiki mirror. No assertion of notability, and it looks like there's a good reason there isn't one. Rather hilariously, the top several comments on their Myspace page are spam penis enlargement ads. Ravenswing 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ravenswing. Half the page consists of redlinks at this point anyway and I'm confident in saying this record label is nn. Seed 2.0 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be demonstrated... which seems improbable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete criterion A7. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Pressman[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person. Contested speedy. ... discospinster _talk 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for obvious reasons. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and I re-added the speedy tag because you can re-add the speedy tag if the original author removed it. Nardman1 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with some regret. Achieving tenure at an American university is a major accomplishment, but in and of itself it does not establish notability as required here. I did some investigation of Dr. Scheman's accomplishments before allowing for a Delete consensus. First, the award listing "2006 Fessler-Lampert Chair in the Humanities"; there is a "Fesler Lampert Chair" at the University of Minnesota, but it is in aging studies and Dr. Scheman is not one of the three current co-holders of the chair (ext. link). Second, none of Dr. Scheman's writing credits are books; rather they are book chapters or papers included in compendia. Third, it is clear from the Stanford Encyclopedia article that Dr. Scheman has some influence in current philosophical thought; but her contributions are limited extensions from the work of Wittgenstein and do not appear to set her apart from her peers as a thought leader. These things taken together would appear to not satisfy the requirements of WP:PROFTEST. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Scheman[edit]

complete nomination by anon SYSS Mouse 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete - currently nothing to show she passes WP:PROFTEST, but she may well do so. The comment on the talk page "I am trying to create this page for a group project in one of Naomi's philosophy classes" doesn't bode well, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article, no assertion of encyclopedic notability made, no indication she passes either WP:N or the relevant subject-specific guidelines. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her achievements appear to be those of an average competent college professor, and I don't think she's notable enough to require an article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not completely obscure, but I'm not convinced she meets WP:PROF yet; maybe in a decade or so. Brianyoumans 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for me and of interest to many people. Xanucia 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bio (apparently done by an enthusiastic student) ommited a few details. She has served as Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Minnesota, and she's also been chair of the women's Studies Department. She is a full professor at Minnesota, and Minnesota is a major research university. She is a member of the Austrian Studies Program--presumably as a Wittgenstein specialist. She's edited a book, and published a chapter in another, that they forgot to list, She's held a few important university positions there , including member of the Center for Bioethics,.... . In general full professors at major universities are notable, for they will have done much more than the "average professor" The average professor in the humanities publishes one book or maybe a few articles. To become a tenured professor at Minnesota, she certainly needed to have written a good deal beyond that. She has published one book, edited another ,and written considerable parts of four. She has passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession for appointment and promotion. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. More if I find some. DGG 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sentence from the article sums it up for me (emphasis mine):She is best known on the University of Minnesota campus for her "Sexuality and Self-Image" course in the women's studies department. She is also well known among University of Minnesota students for her introductory logic class. She also gives an introductory course in scientific ethics at the Physics Department there. Off campus she's pretty much unknown. Anynobody 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bellczar 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is poorly sourced and gives little evidence of notability. Furthermore, there are massive conflict of interest issues and much of the page appears to be copied from her bio from the Women Studies department.[7] I believe that many, perhaps even most, full professors at the University of Minnesota are notable, so I would not oppose a recreation of this article from scratch if a user not connected to her can make a well-sourced case for her notability.--FreeKresge 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I used some information from official web pages. The subject's presentation of objective data on official web pages about professional details is generally acceptable. The difficulty writing this article, in fact, was that the pages were not sufficiently informative. I have no personal connection with the subject, have never heard of her before seeing this article, have no particular interest in her academic field, have no connection with the University of Minnesota. Indeed, I discuss the dfficulty posed by he naive writing by her apparent students. That's why I rewrote the article. The information about her research and writing and service is what proves her notability. ' DGG 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources establishing notability must be independent of the subject of the article. After all, many people pad their resumes to make their accomplishments look more important than they really are. The number of publications is not impressive if it represents the sum total of her published scholarship. There is no evidence in the article that any of the publications has been particularly influential.--FreeKresge 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per iridescenti and ors thewinchester 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing here that makes her notable above your average professor. I'm sure she has an on-campus following, but that doesn't do anything for WP:PROF. --Mus Musculus 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-600G[edit]

complete nom by new editor SYSS Mouse 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No notability, only one link, no references, author doesn't seem to know how to write a good article. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft, major chunks of speculation and opinion, essayish/storytelling tone. Note prior speedy and prod victim. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation/fancruft/made up. Maxamegalon2000 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate it when people say "fancruft" in deletion debates, but this really is... fancruft. --Canley 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host for fan nonsense.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It actually references "my original Wikipedia article" - which I guess means this is a recreation of a deleted article. OUT!!! Brianyoumans 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all of the above reasons. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this article for deletion. A strong clean up won't fix any of the problems. elwyn5150 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. desertowl1026 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into RollerCoaster Tycoon (series). Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RollerCoaster Tycoon (book series)[edit]

No notability established (prod contested) SYSS Mouse 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Real published book series based on a somewhat more notable game series. I'd be fine with merging it to the page on RollerCoaster Tycoon (series), but I'm also satisfied with it as a standalone. FrozenPurpleCube 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are choose-your-adventure books and this is just a listing of the contents. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or weak merge book series from a notable publisher, spun off of a very notable bestselling game series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This shouldn't warrant more than a sentence or two on RollerCoaster Tycoon (series) though. Seed 2.0 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now unless someone feels like writing an actual article on the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above comments. Xanucia 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - book series from a notable publisher Yakuman (数え役満) 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Seed 2.0 thewinchester 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Moore[edit]

Claim to notability is appearances as musician on 3 albums by modestly notable other musicians (see talk page). I don't think that's enough. Also including her band The Rabbit, which claims notability only by Ms. Moore's presence. NawlinWiki 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:MUSIC. She's in the Sparklehorse orbit (brother of her Rabbit bandmate) but these two associations are not enough by themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Ab e g92contribs 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no indication she passes WP:MUSIC. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, googling is difficult because her name is kind of common, but I don't see the notability here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both She doesn't appear to be mentioned on the articles for the other musicians she's worked with. Without her, the band article is even more pointless. Anynobody 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:MUSIC. Bubba hotep 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, not enough notabiility. Kla'quot 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The article is anodyne in its current state, the company appears to meet WP:CORP in having "...been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works.", and there is no strong numerical or argument advantage to either side.

Whether there is another article in here struggling to get out, about the malfeasance and legal problems of the entity, I do not feel qualified to judge. It's perfectly acceptable to have negative information on an entity providing that (1) it's true (2) you can prove it. I did find it curious that links to legitimate material on the company have been removed and I put those back in. Herostratus 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Herostratus 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDS International[edit]

Admins have removed notable information - inserted Primary Source Material and made this an advertisement. Violates WP:NOR and does not fulfill WP:CORP with all of the press worthy information removed.WizardOfWor 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. "Admins have removed notable information???" To what purpose? Upon perusing the history log, fluff was removed from the article, NOT notable content. As for WP:CORP, how does that relate to this article? The company apparently has a rather interesting technology known as Hypercable; I suspect including material on this alone would suffice for notability. Aarktica 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. This company helped to found an industry not only with Equipment but with legal challenges and then by being prohibited from US sales and imports by a US Federal Court. Why is that FLUFF? Without the "fluff," this "company," now a shell, is not notable. Your link is to marketing material, not a report from a customer or press. Are you familiar with this technology? As well, the inventor of the "technology" left the company due to the "fluff." If the technology is Notable, why is the exit of the inventor, not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardOfWor (talk • contribs) 2007-03-27 15:19:15
Dubious original research from primary sources was used to make the article an attack piece [8]; after a review of the sources due to a complaint to WP:OTRS, I found that little to none of the information of the article was even mentioned in the sources. This article was then stubbified. [9] Since then the only changes have been corrections to basic factual information per the company's website by an employee of the company. Nominator posted this AfD after being unsuccessful at keeping article in his preferred version, which included the attacks and misinformation. Might be worth a note that the nominator also uploaded a company logo for the article claiming self-public domain as the license (obviously, this has been deleted). I will be researching whether or not company meets WP:CORP as follow up to the OTRS request and will update my comments here. Shell ^babelfish 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some secondary sources I believe qualify the article under the notability guidelines:

Bonisteel, Steven (2001-05-08). "MDS Gains Ground In Bid To Share Satellite Spectrum - Company Business and Marketing". Newsbytes News Network. The Washington Post Company.
"Northpoint Technology Underscores MITRE Report Finding of Spectrum Sharing Feasibility". Business Wire. Berkshire Hathaway. 2001-05-15.
"MDS America bolstered by FCC decision to open and auction DBS terrestrial spectrum". Wireless Satellite and Broadcasting Newsletter. 2002-05-01.

This does appear to be a rather brief spurt of media attention though and the company doesn't have an article in the French Wikipedia, which one would expect since it is headquartered there. Just a guess, but I believe the current edit war may stem from an on-going court case, participants in the edit war appear to represent one company or the other: MDS America, Inc. v. MDS International,SARI, 04-72353-DT (E.D.Mich. 2005-12-27).Shell ^babelfish 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is pertinent to this discussion has been moved here. - WizardOfWor 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain ^t/c 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:CORP. Without going into the above conflict, it's plain that whatever information has been dredged from various Internet nooks and crannies, the article's defenders have not put any of it into the actual article. If the article actually establishes some notability and sourcing -- which it does not -- then my opinion may change. RGTraynor 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original article seems to be mainly an attack page; take that out and you're left with dubious notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the material found by Shell.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete. Seems to be a small insignificant company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.17.236 (talk • contribs)
Keep based on findings by Shell. Needs to be appropriately tagged for cleanup and sources, but that is not a reason to delete. --Mus Musculus 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete- no assertion of notability made (CSD A7). WjBscribe 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Aberdeen[edit]

Non notable. Appeared in two compilation films, isn't in IMDB, doesn't meet any of WP:PORNBIO, has less than 600 google results. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7... no assertion of notability here.--Isotope23 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JD & the Nashville Ramblers[edit]

Does not appear to minimum notability standard (WP:MUSIC). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising, no indication WP:MUSIC is passed, no assertion of notability, only 26 ghits. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google doesn't turn up good evidence to support notability; just the usual show advertisements and band site. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not prove the notability of the subject through reference to multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially, and I (like the 2 editors above) was unable to find proof of notability via a Google search. -- Black Falcon 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the first part of the nom isn't a reason for deletion, the second part is. --Core desat 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bhula[edit]

Cricket in the United States just isn't a major sport. Plays for organzations that don't merit their own articles. Citicat 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and the article seems to have been orphaned for a bit--$UIT 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google brings up no hits other than mirror sites. www.cricinfo.com doesn't list him, and they list everyone. The alleged "source" link cited is actually a link to a page on the (somewhat better known) Anil Kumble, not this guy. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:ATT, WP:BIO. Does the United States even have a generally recognized "highest level" at which cricketeers can play? RGTraynor 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd say only if they played for the United States national cricket team - presumably anyone that good would be playing professional cricket in England, India etc instead of staying in the US so would qualify that way. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cricket is bigger in the U.K., nominating it for deletion just because we in the U.S. don't care about it would be presumptuous. (Do they watch it in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada?) Anynobody 07:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not presumptuous at all. This isn't about the relative importance of cricket; it's about the relative importance of this player. Just because baseball is a big sport in the US doesn't mean that WP:BIO needs to be changed to encompass non-notable Pakistani first basemen. RGTraynor 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, cricket is very popular in Australia and New Zealand (and a lot of other mainly ex-Commonwealth countries). However, a 15-year old schoolboy cricketer isn't going to be notable whichever country he's from (Delete). EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Orderinchaos 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JDub Industries[edit]

Non notable company (if that). 1 non-wiki ghit (a blog) Citicat 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unremarkable company. So tagged. MER-C 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please note that the author of the article argued to keep twice. --Core desat 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitello's restaurant[edit]

Vitello's Restuarant is the establishment where Bonnie Lee Bakley, wife of famed actor Robert Blake, was shot to death in a car. That, I'm afraid, is all we'll ever be able to say about this otherwise non-notable restaurant. Pascal.Tesson 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Citicat 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that it figured prominently in a part of popular culture wherein a famous murder took place should be enough to warrant its inclusion in wikipedia. Note that Sparks Steak House where a far less famous murder took place is also included in wikipedia. Juddtrichter 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)judd[reply]
- Note I copied this from the afd talk page; it is the contribution of the article's author. MKoltnow 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. Info on Bonnie Lee Bakley interesting, but not enough to prove notability. --HubHikari 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, etc. In fact, Bonnie Lee Bakley was not shot to death in this restaurant, but was shot around the corner from the restaurant after having eaten there. So it even loses that "claim to fame". Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Heck, even if it were the right spot, which it's not, this would merit nothing more than a Merge and Delete. RGTraynor 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly you don't live in LA if you think Vitello's, a Valley institution and former regular hang out for celebrities, is not-notable. Though I can't vouch for the food. Castellano wasn't shot inside Sparks either, so why don't you go delete that too? Robert Blake and Bonnie Lee had just eaten there, Blake went back to get his gun, when he returned to his car she had been shot. This is an event that will last in LA folklore as long as the Black Dahlia, OJ, Specter and other famous crimes. User:juddtrichter
- Then by all means, go and nominate Sparks Steak House for deletion. Saying that other articles exist is not a valid reason for hanging on to an article. Please address the concerns of this debate that the article does not demonstrate notability by providing sources to reliable, secondary sources that would establish such notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its association with BLB is peripheral at best and that alone would not make it notable. If, as Judd asserts, it is a well known LA spot then that might make it notable however that's not the thrust of the article. If someone were doing research on the BLB murder they might mention Vitello's must I doubt they would need a reference on it. JBEvans 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - historic location Yakuman (数え役満) 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though I agree with Yakuman (数え役満), the article itself is too small. As long as it's mentioned in their articles (Blake and Bakely) it's gotten all the attention it needs. Anynobody 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unfortunately the threshold for notability at WP is low, and being the scene of a celebrity's wife's murder seems to meet it. We have Golden Dragon massacre but no article for Golden Dragon Restaurant, but I would figure that the restaurant would be notable due to the massacre, and body count seems to equate to celebrity in these sorts of things. Carlossuarez46 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as original research and per WP:FICT. As the information already exists elsewhere, there is nothing to merge. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus Decimus Meridius[edit]

Delete or Merge into the Gladiator film article. Article merely details a scrunched plot summary of the film and what is, at this time, an unsourced section about his name. Either way, this character doesn't deserve his own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is little precedent for fictional film characters to have their own articles; I can't think of even any recent Academy Award-winning pictures to do so outside of longstanding print popularity as well. RGTraynor 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of entries for individual characters, places, events, etc. for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so why not for this as well? Hoshq 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, when you have three books of a quarter of a million words, more than a dozen other ancillary works, sixty years of history and a giant fanbase, you have the wherewithal for a lot of articles. (If you mean the film adaptation of those characters, examining the actual articles shows that they're an afterthought to the literary entries; for instance, in the very long article on Aragorn, the information concerning the most recent film adaptation is exactly three sentences long.) RGTraynor 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because other crap exists doesn't mean it should. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - While there is interesting trivia there, most of the info was gleaned from the article, and that which was not seems wholly unsourced. Smite it righteously. Arcayne 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 16:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for being on the "100 Heroes and 100 Villains" list. 1ne 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me, taking in account the WP:N policy, how this list automatically makes this character notable enough for an article; also explain to me how that overrides the fact that this article merely details a torn down plot summary of the film. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primary character (Alastor Moody is not close to being a primary character) of a notable work, has made a Top 100 something or other, alluded to in other media works, as well as James Traficant. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other BS exist doesn't mean anything; that article you mentioned could easily be AfD'd and deleted in a second. Being a primary character doesn't automatically merit an article, either. Also, go read a bit of WP:FICT as well. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire thing is WP:OR. No sources at all, and none forthcoming since no one has written the comprehensive guide to characters in "Gladiator" to my knowledge. --Mus Musculus 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lygodactylus[edit]

List cruft of all red links. Masterpedia 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the german wiki has a good stub and I've copied some material across. Not sure why the nominator thinks a stub on a genus does not belong here. Expand this rather than delete - Peripitus (Talk) 05:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourceable, notable, expandable and encyclopedic. I think every species, much more so every genus, should be in WP.--killing sparrows 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to my knowledge any species/family/genus or other biological classification group can be kept so long as its existence is verifiable, and that doesn't seem to be an issue here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep — Valid genus. Sorry, but to say this is list cruft seems like pure deletionist cynicism. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Biological genera are noteworthy.--JyriL ^talk 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, duh. A genus of geckoes, with a fairly large number of redlinks for the species. Yes, this is pretty specialized, and it may be a while before someone with the requisite familiarity with geckoes comes by to fill them in, but I can't see deleting this for purely subjective reasons. I am suddenly moved with a hankering to own a Lygodactylus rex as a pet. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although there is probably a better visual presentation of all those species. --Mus Musculus 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as notability is verified through reliable sources in the article. Any discussion regarding moving the article should be taken to the article talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Fighter Collection[edit]

This article is about a collection of planes within a non-notable museum. Article is editors own thoughts and analyses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. WP:NOT#OR Masterpedia 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but more due to the issue of failing notability guidelines per WP:LOCAL. Nothing here to support the fact that this collection (not even sure if you can call it a museum?) is notable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The museum it's in doesn't even have an article, and there is no evidence of the collection's notability on its own merit. --Mus Musculus 05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a poorly written stub, but the collection easily passes the google test. It is not original research within Wiki guidelines. Information contained in it was not referenced but was non-controversial and readily available in the public domain - particularly in print, for anyone with access to a New Zealand library. Some references have now been provided.

The importance of the Alpine Fighter Collection is not so much the present aircraft, but

1/ The collection played an important part in expanding the warbird movement in New Zealand beyond trainers such as Harvards and Tiger Moths to the present degree of relative prominence in the warbird world. Though I suspect some Wikipedians may deem all New Zealand non noteable, over 100,000 people visited the collections biannual Easter Airshow, not all of them Kiwis and not a press number, but measured accurately, by ticket sales. (c.f. Oshkosh, which gets a huge well written article for a 2-6x greater attendance, though of course the audience for that airshow are the intrinsically more important Americans). This is not a handful of aircraft in a basement, or a local importance issue like a non-noteable street or library. Over 100,000 people. To quote an authority deletionists may recognise, "Aw, Come On".

2/ The collection has international importance for the work returning to airworthy condition a Nakajima Ki 43 "Oscar", (the Japanese Army's main fighter in 1941, and second only to the Zero in importance), and pioneering restoration work on Russian warbirds - in particular returning a fist full of the previously all but extinct Polikarpov fighters to the air, (The I-16 Rata was the leading Republican fighter in the Spanish Civil War, the most numerous Soviet fighters in 1941 and the worlds first retractable undercarriage monoplane fighters when first introduced. None had flown since the early 50s when the collection started. They restored 6).

While there is no reason for deletion, there would be a reasonable argument for combining it with an article on the New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum. A second best solution would be merging with Tim Wallis and / or Warbirds Over Wanaka stubs, (incidentally, at the risk of encouraging deletionists, the associated Warbirds over Wanaka and Tim Wallis articles could use expansion / wikification). Winstonwolfe 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (modified aditional info 10 April 2115 NZ time)Winstonwolfe 09:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep though my first thought is that it should be merged with the NZ Fighter Pilots Museum (using the Museum for the main namespace) Charles (Kznf) 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but move to New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum or similar and expand accordingly.-gadfium 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per gadfium. --Limegreen 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about famous people[edit]

The article already survived AfD a year ago under a different name but I believe consensus may have changed in this case. The criterion for inclusion is way too broad and the result is a page of trivia and a random collection of indiscriminate (and unreferenced) information. Some of the content might be salvageable as separate articles but I don't think this passes WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - overly broad inclusion criteria. Impossible to fully assemble this list in any meaningful time frame. Equally difficult to determine any threshold for "famous", esp. when discussing songs, which can be famously opaque. --Haemo 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. JuJube 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per WP:NOT. Completely unmanageable list, ambigious inclusion criteria etc. etc. etc. Dr bab 11:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how famous is famous? What criteria does a person have to satisfy for a song about them to qualify for inclusion in this list? Would being the subject of a Wikipedia article suffice? Or is it enough just to appear in... this list? Silly. BTLizard 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and above and WP:NOT. The vague inclusion criteria (who defines famous?) means this is a perfect example of an indiscriminate collection of information. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is as interesting as many other lists in Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Interesting' does not defeat policy, delete per WP:NOT Hornandsoccer ^Talk 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete solely for not answering the Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" question. >: ( Seriously, though, listcruft, belongs on Wikitrivia or something. "Famous" is inherently subjective, and a good portion of the list's entries seem to be "Songs with Famous People in the Title" - c.f. "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle" - or "Songs With Famous People in the Lyrics" (c.f. "Buddy Holly" ~~which oddly enough is not contained for mentioning Mr. Holly, but rather Mary Tyler Moore - don't these kids know Rock and Roll anymore?~~) --Action Jackson IV 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For an answer to the Carly Simon question, you have to check out this. Always read the Daily Telegraph obituaries - the answers to all kinds of obscure questions are revealed. --Charlene 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you for that. I'd been staying up nights, fretting, but now I know. Wot'a'man, an inspiration for !love balladeers! Shenme 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the list does mention Buddy Holly for being called "Buddy Holly", but Elvis has a mention under "actors", so I still stand by my vote. --Action Jackson IV 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1). WjBscribe 06:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Page[edit]

Nonsense promotion page being used as a sandbox PaladinWhite 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: G1: Nonsense. --Valley2city^₪‽ 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harris Goldman[edit]

Article smacks of obvious NPOV violation and article's sole contributor, User:Youknowyouknowmyname, is the son of the subject. This article is in violation of both of the "core wikipedia policies" enumerated in WP:NPOV, both NPOV, and the faxt that User:Youknowyouknowmyname cites himself as a reference as seen at diff. --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no claim of notability, or grounds for one. Pete.Hurd 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see 'claims' for notability (groundbreaking work in technology, compositions performed by major orchestras), but no proof, i.e. references. The burden of proof should be on the creators of articles, not those reading them. --killing sparrows 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the closing admin on the earlier PROD deletion. I restored it when the creator protested on my talk page. I placed the Unsourced template on the page last night to try to get some standard sourcing. The creator replaced it with an effectively WP:OR source that doesn't even touch on most of the things mentioned in the article. We need 3rd party sources for articles like this. I might change my vote if such valid sourcing is provided, but as it is, it should go away IMHO. - TexasAndroid 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I did some digging and found a bit of controversy, but I don't think it is enough to save the article, so far. DPT does seem to have been a pretty successful company; there isn't much about it online because the company was sold in 1999, which is a long time ago in web-time. But if someone found an article saying they made real contributions, this might be worth keeping.Brianyoumans 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtapono[edit]

Seems to be a self-published game, an article that reads like an ad, and some bizarre unrelated references. There is a Conflict of interest too, but that's not a reason for deletion Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. 21 ghits including WP's. No reviews.--killing sparrows 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GHITS according to Google, "119 for juxtapono."Juxtapono 05:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm concerned about the conflict of interest. The article reads like an advertisement and that is my main reason for deletion. In regards to notability, you can buy one ebay, and it looks legitimate. --Cyrus Andiron 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references seem to have nothing to do with the subject at all, there is no assertion of notability, article reads like promotional/spam material, and so on. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, lack of relevant sources Hornandsoccer ^Talk 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE
(1) All references cited are relevant
Bennett, Charles E., Latin Grammar (Allyn and Bacon, Chicago, 1908) defines the compound Latin words JUXTA + PONO and describes their meaning
N. Vincent: "Latin", in The Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds., (Oxford Univ. Press. 1990), ISBN 0-19-520829-3 Further illustrates the use of Latin terms JUXTA and PONO
R. C. Bose, S. S. Shrikhande, E. T. Parker, Further Results on the Construction of Mutually Orthogonal Latin Squares and the Falsity of Euler's Conjecture, Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 12 (1960), pp. 189-203. Illustrates the game form of Latin Squares and how it relates to Magic Squares, Numbers Place, Sudoku

(2) COI: Article is written from a neutral perspective to directly describe and articulate what JUXTAPONO means and what the Juxtapono Board Game is. This article is no more Advertisement form than the articles on Sorry, Scrabble, Chess, Risk, etc.
(3) Every effort has been made to author and submit the Juxtapono board game article as a representation of facts to describe a unique form of SUDOKU puzzle game and to describe the coined word Juxtapono as a new word in the English language with roots in Latin. Juxtapono 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per WP:NOT, All principles of the neutral point of view (NPOV),Wikipedia policies and Article standards have been followed. If you disagree with this statement, please be more specific in your objections and constructive with your comments to include How to fix and What to change examples. Juxtapono 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing the point about citing references. Please read WP:ATT for a more full discussion on the topic, but the problem is that Juxtapono is not mentioned once in a single one of those references. None of them are about the subject, and it remains wholly unattributed. Arkyan  ^(talk) 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey Juxtapono, see my comments on the points you raise on your talk page.--killing sparrows 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take our discussion off-line to the your talk page to discuss your response in detail.Juxtapono 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Impressions (Australian band)[edit]

This was a minor high-school band that was probably on here as a joke. Dan broders 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non Notable. Prester John 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but it does appear they are doing good, and I would like to encourage them. Ab e g92contribs 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't know that you could describe their releases as "hits". Seems to fail WP:MUSIC at the moment. Lankiveil 12:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith University Student Representative Council[edit]

Unsourced and non-notable ➪HiDrNick! 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT Hornandsoccer ^Talk 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't say it better than the nom. Noroton 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student unions have no inherent notability and none is sourced here. TerriersFan 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a reason for keeping an article, and the keep argument fails to assume good faith. --Core desat 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Stein Elementary School[edit]

no assertion of notability Chris 07:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Stein Elementary School —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BOTH no sense even in merging this unsourced material. Noroton 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a school so it's notable. Do you people just want to delete every article on Wikipedia or what? Xanucia 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, that argument doesn't work. There are NO guidelines or policies that say schools are notable, schools have to pass policies like WP:N just like every other article on WP. As for you question, yes, we delete non-notable articles. TJ Spyke 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, personally I want to delete every article on Wikipedia. Noroton 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - What a shame that WP:SCHOOL failed the policy shift, as it would prevent us from having procedural deletions like these. And please WP:AGF and don't resort to WP:ALLORNOTHING.--WaltCip 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom / WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Animal Reform Movement[edit]

Non-notable campaigning organisation. The creator appears to be a member of it, so at creation it was an advert; after clean-up it was changed back to an advert and after clean-up again it became an advert again. I've tried to talk to the creator but she's unresponsive, sadly, as she'd be the only person who could point out any notability or sources (other than the organisation itself) for the organisation. Rather than continue this strange low-level edit war where she writes an advert, I stub it down and ask for notability, she writes another advert, I stub it down and so on, I think this should go. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 08:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It's an advert and it appears to be the work of a single purpose account. If it isn't salted it will most likely continue to reappear. BTLizard 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - having plowed through the edit history & revisions, it's clear this is going to keep being recreated. Although I'll mourn the loss to Wikipedia of the sentence "we lift the scales to glimpse the horrors on your plates". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and spam. I will preserve the quote on my userpage. Yet another reason to not support United Way. --killing sparrows 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that article has been reverted back to an advert, without comment, yet again. I'm not bothering to re-revert again, although I've tried again to contact the author... this time with a warning template, sadly. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I understand the problem, and I suppose the way to go is to eventually ban her from the article. DGG 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagewood Middle School[edit]

save from rating, no assertion of notability Chris 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN school. I would say speedy delete, but there is a minor assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 08:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of ten schools in the area, 8 received 'high' ratings (as did this one), 2 received 'excellent' ratings. This school is not the best even in its geographic area, thus non-notable. --killing sparrows 13:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N/nothing special/per-nom Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Middle School, Parker, Colorado[edit]

no assertion of notability Chris 08:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, it's not even a directory. TJ Spyke 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo assertion of notability, no references. The burden is on the creator, not the reader. --killing sparrows 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. -Seinfreak37 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. No assertion of notability at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph E. Maurer[edit]

Military and civilian physician with no particular notability. Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyvio from Lubbock Online - so tagged. This is another of User:Billy Hathorn's cut & paste obituaries. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if that is the case.--JyriL ^talk 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I won't say speedy because it does look like an attempt was made to re-write the obit, rather than just a pure copy and paste. Nonetheless, the subject is not notable, and despite Billy Hathorn's stubborn insistence on using them, biographies from people's funeral programs and obituaries of non-public figures are not acceptable as sources for estabilshing notability, since anyone can have them, and are also not acceptable as sources for any significant or challengeable article content, since they say pretty much anything the family wants them to say, without being thoroughly fact-checked. Mwelch 22:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification on decision to delete: The article included no reliable sources (the Town Talk link was invalid, this link had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and the RootsWeb link is a generic link to nothing in particular. Being the last (of a total of three, apparently) streets and parks commissioner in a medium-sized city does not in and of itself make someone notable. Nothing else in the article provided any indication of why Mr. Hebert was any more notable than any other streets and parks commisioner in the thousands of other cities that size. Basically, the article failed to satisfy WP:BIO (and by extension, WP:N), WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm P. Hebert[edit]

Local politician, highest elected post, streets and parks commissioner (which apparently is ex officio part of the city council of a modest city). This falls short of WP:BIO. Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The highest office he attained was Streets Commissioner for a small (pop 50000) town. Plus, in light of the creator's history this is probably a copyvio from somewhere. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if adequately sourced. Article claims he received attention from national publications for an innovative water and sewer pipe design. That (unlike a great many of the author's other subjects) sounds notable. As mentioned in the author's other articles, there is a problem with "lazy" sourcing, though, so this assertion is not currently adequately sourced. Nonetheless, I'm not inclined to believe it's just made up. Keep the article and improve the sourcing. Mwelch 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following passage from the article is telling: "Hebert received recognition in three national publications for his groundbreaking design of a cost effective and practical solution to re-lining water and sewer pipes in Monroe." What are these three citations? If added, even one of them might be sufficient to satisfy the minimum notability criteria as described at WP:BIO. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Hebert received recognition in three national publications for his groundbreaking design of a cost effective and practical solution to re-lining water and sewer pipes in Monroe." Did he? What national publications - Time, or Sewer Engineers Quarterly? No citations. The rest of the article is way, way too much information about this unnotable person. If he really did invent a better way of relining pipes, a very short article stating just that and little more would be appropriate. Also, he kept monkeys in his house, and I don't think we want to encourage that sort of thing. Herostratus 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BIO and lack of reliable sources. Also, the main author of the page is citing his own work, which violates WP:OR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Boyce[edit]

Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level. Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.Guidelines say "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office . . . "

This could easily be interpreted to include state party chairmen, who are elected, or even county chairmen, who are also elected in many situations.

Here is another state chairman on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Watson

Billy Hathorn 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. In light of the creator's history, quite likely a copyvio from somewhere as well. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.Not a copyright violation. Is it a copyright violation to give credit where the material comes from? And Mr. Boyce is self-evidently notable in state politics and as a philanthropist.

User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete and if this is a third blatant copyvio by said user, dip him in chocolat and leave for Easter bunnies to eat. That stuff really pisses me off. Not the legality, the laziness!--killing sparrows 13:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More like the 300th - have a skim through his edit history and the laundry-list of warnings that constitutes his talk page. There comes a point where you can only WP:AGF so far. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.State party chairman is a major position in any state. The individual is elected by the elected members of the state party executive committee. Mr. Boyce served four years in the position during the Watergate period. He had successes and failures in the post. He was also a philanthropist in Baton Rouge. Billy Hathorn 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or reduce to a stub. I can see the argument for the notability of a state party chair. But right now there is almost zero content in this article that is attributed to something other than original research (Billy Hathorn's master's thesis). There probably are some decent, citable sources out there about the guy. Per killing sparrows, it's fairly lazy to settle for "Oh, I'll just cite my own master's thesis", especially given that if it's a thesis for a bloody Master's degree, you'd think it would be scholarly enough that it would, itself, cite those other, better sources. So, it's not like you have to do a lot of new research to find them. Mwelch 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification.M Welch, Mr. Boyce died in 1990; he was out of active politics in 1976. He is largely a pre-Internet person. There are few Internet links directly to him. Most Internet links are since 1996 or 1997.

Billy Hathorn 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So what? Is there a reason that pre-Internet sources cannot be cited? The world of research does not end with Google. If you wrote a master's thesis in 1980, you have to be familiar with citing non-Internet sources . . . right? Mwelch 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in my opinion and I don't care what WP:BIO says as it's just a guideline and most guidelines are created by a very small minority of Wiki users with no input from the masses. Xanucia 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Look at the state of Michigan under Saul Anuzis. He was the state party chair and has a full page along with other chairs from the state's history. This should be kept. User:tommyduva

delete Not for copyvio--the source is quite apparently the eds. masters thesis, because where else would this sort of thing be published, and I think we can presume he has copyright in it. But almost every one of the entire set of articles he has been adding violates the general idea of an encyclopedia, that articles are proportional to the importance of the subject. By some oversight, we seem to have guidelines that permit people of the most restricted importance as long as they have been elected once to the state legislature, and its probably time we changed that, because nobody would have conceived they could be used this way. But certainly we should not go any further--no party chairman, no city magistrates, no road superintendents, no local grocers, no community physicians. (all real examples.)

This doesn't mean someone in those groups could not be N; Anuzis may be N because of his individual work without that canonizing the position. Most of these articles are OR in another sense than just citing an unpublished thesis--they rely on citing government contract awards, prison records, tombstones, oral history collections,--these are the sort of primary sources used by historian to write history. They are not the sort of material used for an encyclopedia.

It might be reasonable to make an exception for brief notices--print encyclopedias normally have short articles of a paragraph or so for the people who just make it in. But this ed. is writing every article as if the subject were FDR. If these articles are held N, then they are good candidates for appropriate editing. About three sentences: paragraph. When he was born, when he was elected to the job that this ed. thinks made him notable, and one for when he lost it. And a 4th if he's dead. That might be the temporary solution to state assemblymen as well. There's no point doing it to this article now on the small possibility that it might be kept.

But its not as if dealing with this article and the other existing ones will end the problem. There was a new article today on Eugene S. Eason, who filled the remaining 9 months of someone's term in the state legislature and never won an election on his own. The article is filled with the detailed statistics of what every candidate received at each election which Eason tried.

As I said in an earlier AfD, Billy should turn the thesis into a book; it will probably have to be privately printed, so we won't be able to cite it here, but all the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of everyone named will buy a copy. DGG 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A related point, this article is a good example of Hathorn's penchant for irrelevant asides. He sat on many civic boards, including ... the National Alliance of Business, a creation of the administration of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, whom Boyce supported for the White House. What on Earth his support for Nixon has to do with his volunteer work, I don't know. Or Voter registrars often advised new registrants to remain within the Democratic fold or be unable to vote in competitive races except for U.S. president, constitutional amendment elections, or tax referenda. Therefore, the Democratic registration as late as 1960 was often in excess of 98 or 99 percent. Yes, a fine point to be made ... in an article on the politics of Louisiana. (This being a hypertext encyclopedia, and that's what the little blue letters do.) And Goldwater was at first reluctant to take on the challenge but nevertheless declared his candidacy early in 1964, when the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson had been president for only two months and the favorite for a full term of his own. Again, material for Goldwater's article. I suspect this is in here to beef up what would look thin. It certainly isn't about Boyce. Then there's the buried lede: The Louisiana GOP made no headway in statewide campaigns under Boyce's tutelage. Ah. Well if his tenure as state party chairman was so unnotable, why is he here?

Hathorn is skilled at using Wikipedia tools and knows a bit about house style. And it's great that we can have holes filled like Lieutenant Governors and State Senate Majority Leaders. If only we could get these skills turned toward helping the encyclopedia in a way that is acceptable to the community, this would not be as sour a process. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re--read the article, trying for a fresh view, and it seems fairly clear that he never actually accomplished anything. He was busy, he was much involved, but he neither attained any notability of his own nor was of key importance in notable political events. This make him nonetheless a fine subject for historical purrposes: non-notable people can be useful scaffolds for discussions. But it makes him unsuitable for an encyclopedia--WP or any other. DGG 08:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG wrote: ". . . it seems fairly clear that he never actually accomplished anything. . . . "

Rebuttal.DGG, are you really saying that this individual accomplishing nothing? The article says that he presided over a state party at a difficult time, had trouble finding a Senate candidate, but was in the chairmanship when his party gained its first two U.S. House seats. Perhaps, he deserves no credit for that success, but he was in office when it happened. Should we be saying that such individuals "accomplished nothing." And also, "accomplishing nothing" would not exclude one from consideration. It is a very subjective concept to say that one "accomplished nothing".

Billy Hathorn 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He accomplished nothing that is notable for WP purposes. His intrinsic notability is a matter for history, not for settling here. Actual documented accomplishments are necessary, not vague statements like the above. It is your job to show that he accomplished something discrete and demonstrable. Your personal opinion of his role as a party leader is irrelevant. DGG 07:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anetode. MER-C 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Emoticons[edit]

Non-notable website Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Dragons[edit]

Non-notable football team (5-a-side Sunday League) - creator removed a PROD tag shortly after creation and it hasn't got any better since. Bencherlite 09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you can't get much more non-notable than Division 9 of a sports centre Sunday league --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly non-notable team, no reliable sources, the listing of names of team members as references shows (as if it couldn't have been guessed anyway) that this is all original research ChrisTheDude 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Cyrus Andiron 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Sunday league team, doesn't even come close to being notable. Tangerines 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable team Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bryson[edit]

Music act, works with touring band (which is essentially session work), no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As to notability: Jim Bryson has toured solo internationally, including playing the South by Southwest festival. His albums are reviewed by critics in major Canadian newspapers. His music is in rotation on CBC Radio 3. I have just added some of that information to the article, with a list of references. --Paul Erik 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple non-trivial reviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Meets WP:MUSIC criteria #3 (national/international touring), #10 (CBC Radio 3) and #11 (Fuse); extensively written about in Canadian media. Keep. Bearcat 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable. Xanucia 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth Pirates FC[edit]

Another non-notable 5-a-side football team - notability tag added last month, no improvement since or likely. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Dragons) Bencherlite 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly non-notable team, no reliable sources found (or likely to be found), almost certainly wholly original research ChrisTheDude 10:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what a load of rubbish. even if it was notable (which it isnt) its poorly written with jargon a reader with no prior knowledge can udnerstand. For example their greatest win was against The Firm. Which Firm? The Scottish football club whos name I cant remember? --PrincessBrat 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable five a side team. (The Old Firm in Scottish football isn't a club, it is the rivalry between two clubs.) Tangerines 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable team Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Labrats[edit]

There are two groups galled Labrast on AMG (actually a Lab Rats and a Lanrats, plus Labratz and Labrat, but I digress). This does not match the years active for either of the top two. Neither of them has a profile anyway, only a one or two disc discography. This article lacks sources to verify the content. An image was uploaded which looked awfully like a group of teenagers standing in a muddy field. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom: fails WP:ATT by a mile, no sources, little assertion of encyclopedic notability, no indication they pass WP:MUSIC or WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, band does not pass WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability not established.--ZayZayEM 06:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. thewinchester 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Og. Issues at previous AfD not addressed. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Óg[edit]

Gary Óg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Wikify, the merge with Éire Óg. Gary Óg page already deleted at least once for non-notability; remains non-notable; recreated without authorization, most likely without knowledge of prior page history by user whose edits are all (save one) about Gary Óg and Éire Óg (last time I checked) Jill Teed 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Whatever amount of encyclopaedic and relevant info. that's gleanable can be easily merged with Éire Óg. All info for Gary Óg's current page comes from Óg's own self-serving website. Jill Teed 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to increased sourcing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth jurisprudence[edit]

There is some evidence that the term "earth jurisprudence" or "earth justice" is used, but not widely. This article is largely speculative and original research, for example listing the attributes that a putative earth justice model might include for some societies. Nothing firm to go on here, of course, becxause no such system actually exists. Overall it looks to me as if the concept is too new and thus far too poorly defined to permit of a verifiably neutral article. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per well-reasoned nom. No reason for us to think this is anything more than a little-used neologism that it would be highly difficult to write a decent article about: certainly current version fails minor matters such as WP:ATT and WP:NOR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With conferences going back to 2001 and the involvement of respected institutes of higher learning, this seems possibly notable. --killing sparrows 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote here. The article is undergoing significant changes and is now much better sourced. (added sig) --killing sparrows 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Only 1 of the 15 references using the name in the title. No evidence for general use of term. DGG 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG, WP:SYNT, almost a neologism. Perhaps there is a better title? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the inherent problems with Earth jurisprudence is that it is a relatively new field and that is why there are not a lot of references to date. However, the concepts are now being taught at some of the world’s leading universities (the book Wild Law by Cormac Cullinan being a text book on many environmental law courses) and senior academics and politicians have been directly addressing Earth jurisprudence in conferences and talks since 2001 (see History section in this article). The concept of Earth jurisprudence is also now guiding and inspiring a number of legal departments in different parts of the world, from Ethiopia and Ghana, to the United States. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the concept is new, it is difficult not to use what Wikipedia call buzz words. However, you can find a growing use of these descriptives, for example, see this month’s Guardian newspaper article, 'Earthly rights'. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very large body of published works - books and papers - on the subject of Earth jurisprudence. See the Literature section within the article, which is by no means exhaustive. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help me identify an editor to assist us in writing the article in a more encyclopaedic style? --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I offered to do this on the creator's talk page but have heard nothing back. I think a merge and redirect to Environmental law a more feasible alternative but would be willing to discuss it with you here. (added sig)--killing sparrows 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] re: Earth Jurisprudence

Thank you for your pointers. We can easily provide all the evidence you suggest (names of respected legal scholars who have written about the topic, non-trivial mention in legal publications, classes being taught in law schools. (Please also see the recent additions to the History, with the many names of significant and respected independent academics, politicians and leading thinkers involved in the development of Earth jurisprudence since 2001.) I will consult with my colleagues and get back to you with further specific evidence. In the meantime, while I gather evidence, I refer you to two recent leading newspaper articles - Stephen Harding, 'Earthly rights', The Guardian newspaper, London, April 2007; and Simon Boyle, 'On thin ice', The Guardian newspaper, London, November 2006. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with the Environmental law article is not an option as the concept of Earth jurisprudence is not a branch of law but a radically new and separate branch of thinking which requires a reform in the present legal system. I will consult with my legal colleagues and articulate this more clearly. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources for the subject, for an article to eventually be well-attributed, without indications of OR. MURGH ^disc. 09:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, regarding nominators concern for NPOV. I have found one scholarly article with critique of the EJ model and will add a criticism section to the article for balance. --killing sparrows 09:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Éire Óg (band)[edit]

This band is argued by a few fans to be notable, but there is no independent evidence to support that. It is easy to confuse support for the band's politics (their music is political in nature) with their actual notability as a band. It is stated that they mainly played pubs and clubs, which is certainly consistent. Some political pub singers become significant (Billy Bragg, for example) but most do not break out of a small closed world. Gary Óg has just been deleted as a repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Og Guy (Help!) 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom: ghits are plentiful but seem mostly unrelated, and as matters currently stand the article fails WP:ATT and WP:RS: no reliable non-trivial independant sources, no article. Little assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Support delete nomination: Sorry I didn't think of it myself; too bad I made Éire Óg (band) the redirect page for Gary Óg, but that's fixable.Jill Teed 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - has someone deleted material out of this article there used to be a lot more in it (I am sure of it). The band may not have chart success but they are not that type of band. Given a chance I am sure an editor could produce a lot of material for this article. I for one have two of their "reedorded live" albums.--Vintagekits 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Guinnog 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can I just point out that the Eire Og band support Irish republicanism and Celtic FC and that there maybe me a number of Scottish/Loyalist/Unionist or Rangers supporters who may come on here and vote to delete on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis.--Vintagekits 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can I just point out that the Eire Og band support Irish republicanism and Celtic FC and that there maybe me a number of Irish/Republican or Celtic supporters who may come on here and vote to keep on a WP:ILIKEIT basis. *Sigh*, some good faith wouldn't go amiss.-- Rockpocket 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I already pointed out to Vk on his talk page, my "delete" was based more on WP:BAND than on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hats off to Vk for the improvements, but it still looks way non-notable to me. --Guinnog 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I genuinely dont care if the article is deleted but I have now outlined below the sections of WP:BAND which they do satisfy. I defy Gunniog or Rocket to state that the band were not well known to them before this AfD.--Vintagekits 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Never heard of them before this AfD. Rockpocket 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, interesting comment - I thought you were a Celtic supporter - have you even been down the Barras?--Vintagekits 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 April 2007
Comment - I wasnt listed before but is the previous AfD I have also now added some references and detail for it should conform now.--Vintagekits 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Éire Óg may not have a large Internet presence, but they are well known within the trad and rebel music scene throughout Ireland and Scotland. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great - so add the sources that prove it. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. Rockpocket 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure in that is true - they seem to satisfy #3 and #6 under Criteria for musicians and ensembles and #3 and #4 under Other within WP:BAND no?!?--Vintagekits 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No. I see no reliable sources that supports any of these claims. Fanzines, listings and Pro-republican websites do not satisfy WP:RS. Rockpocket 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Pauric comment above.--padraig3uk 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after improvements from Vintagekits, meets criterion 6 from WP:BAND. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "...the most prominent representative of a notable style"? Any sources for that? Because other than listings pages and fanzines, all I see is an anonymous (and extremely amateurish) CD review on a website promoting Irish music, much of which has been lifted to provide the information in the article. Some reliable sources would be nice to verify such a claim. Rockpocket 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an indication that a group may be notable, the primary notability criterion is multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject - in this case we have at most one such source, most are either directories or blatantly unreliable. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - They were pretty ubiquitous (their posters used to be plastered on every flat surface in north London) on the Kilburn/Glasgow/Belfast up-the-provos scene (torrent of abuse to the usual place on my talk page, please) but at the moment the article's hopelessly biased. All credit to the writer for keeping the albums on a single page instead of insisting on a separate page for every release, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Pauric. Dwain 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Dawson[edit]

A character in an advertisement is not notable. Contested prod. MER-C 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. The external links do not appear to be independent reliable sources (one is the Fosters website itself, another is a MySpace page), hence no evidence that the subject of the article meets WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tidy and keep, in case someone looks in Wikipedia to find who Barry Dawson is. I have tidied it. I have put in a redirect from Cougar Arts. Anthony Appleyard 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the content discusses the non-notable fictional world of the advertisement. Fictional people in advertisements is stretching things too far. DGG 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However when somebody actually creates a page for Cougar Bourbon then a couple of lines on this character in the marketing section wouldn't got amiss. Without an article for the product that this character advertises, however, the character has no context on the wikipedia. A1octopus 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Barnsley[edit]

Delete: Non-notable Jill Teed 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Poorly researched AfD nomination based on stalking. Barnsley's case was championed by people such as Julian Cope and the MOJO organisation set up by a member of the Birmingham Six - [10] [11]. Also see [12], [13], [14] and [15]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does appear to be some evidence that Mark Barnsley was, as the article puts it, a cause célèbre for at least some people in Britain. [16] Pop Secret 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no case of stalking - I originally tried to simply wikify and improve grammatically and syntactically the Barnsley page, which is in awful shape, but User:One Night In Hackney reverted those edits and I left it alone, all of which can be verified in the edit history for that page. I finally realized the page is not worth keeping. Something is not worth keeping on Wikipedia because it is a "cause célèbre for at least some people in Britain". It is simply that User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al) on Wikipedia, knows that the "anarchists" in Britain are often Provo fellow travelers and he is simply looking out for his own. In light of User:One Night In Hackney's affiliations (see his talk page) WP:AFG cannot be assumed. Jill Teed 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you strike through that personal attack. Perhaps we should also make mention of your cadre of sockpuppets used to push an anti-Irish republican point of view? You didn't make a single grammatical improvement to the page as the edit shows. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit history does not support user Jill Teed's contentions of either attempted edits or wrongful reversions on the part of user One Night in Hackney. Regardless, the subject matter of the article seems to have sufficient notability for inclusion, whatever one's feelings about Irish republicanism. Pop Secret 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mark Barnsley is well known in anarchist circles not just in Britain, (see e.g. [17] and[18]). The article is relevant for anyone interested in the anarchist movement in the UK and beyond. Stammer 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs to be exapanded but I believe the subject does meet the notability requirements. My suggestion would be to include more references. There are many out there judging by the number of google hits. --Cyrus Andiron 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and I don't see what his support (or not) for the provos has to do with it. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have pages on anyone you don't agree with? Looking through the edit history I can't see any attempt, other than by his opponents, to push a non-NPOV. And where do you get "the anarchists in Britain are often Provo fellow travelers" from? I'm a paid-up hard-leftist and I work for the police, for god's sake. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems notable based on the outcry from his case. I added some sources and external links to flesh it out some more. IrishGuy ^talk 00:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

As has been noted on the talk page, the idea of a single page of a list of recordings by Bach is quite hopeless. There have been thousands made, and there is no way to rank them by notability. Also, there is a website www.jsbach.org that have a database system for Bach recordings which is incidentally linked from the main wikipedia Bach page. Clavecin 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be just an indiscriminate list of recordings. What is the puropose of the page? Why does it matter where, when, or how the music was recorded? It does not even fall into this category. A pointless article. --Cyrus Andiron 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We do not generally delete articles because they subject is also covered in an outside web site. The point of having an encyclopedia is to be more reliable and stable--otherwise every last one of the movie articles could go,since they're in IMDB. But since only a small part of Bach's work is included , the material would be much better as discographies for the individual compositions. DGG 04:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not needed. There are perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of recordings of Bach's works, and listing them all would be utterly meaningless and pointless, for they all are variations of the same music. I deem this article unnecessary. - XX55XX 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JS Bach was one of the most prolific composers in history, and probably the most recorded. Every single classical record label has many tens, often hundreds and in some cases thousands of Bach recordings in their catalogues. Truly notable Bach recordings, such as Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations, Wendy Carlos' Well Tempered Synthesizer or the John Eliot Gardiner cycle, can go in a category, as and when they have articles. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 someone wants to create the article for the handball player, go right ahead. Daniel Bryant 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Kankaraš[edit]

Google search result showing he is a handball player, or poorly sourced football player. Matthew_hk t c 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any citation for notabilty, therefore I believe him to be non-notable footballer, or as nom said a handball player. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on google at all other than the handball player. Tangerines 23:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment professional handball player may notable, but need extensive rewrite. Matthew_hk t c 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Punkmorten 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. --Core desat 03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Faded Spades[edit]

In my opinion, is too much for a CSD A7 candidate, however I believe the notability and COI issues warrant this articles' deletion. Input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going to the same high school as a recognized artist + never-released album + "on hiatus" != notability, I'm afraid. I note some of the personnel also have recently created articles of their own on Wikipedia (see [19]). Pop Secret 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are contemporaneously created band personnel articles.

Pop Secret 12:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another non notable band that does not require its own page. I wish more people would read this before creating an article. It would really save some time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a directory of unsigned bands. Much as some editors seem to think we are. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Perhaps someone should add "Wikipedia is not myspace" in big colourful flashing letters to MediaWiki:Newarticletext MER-C 13:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page for a label-less band with no releases that doesn't even exist any more. Has noone heard of MySpace? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! The Wikipedia does not care about non notable bands. Fails WP:Music and WP:Vanity. A1octopus 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Bubba hotep 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A good looking page with a good looking band. The site is new, we should give the page some time to establish proper credibility. Bolsillo 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC) — Bolsillo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete as POV and OR. --Core desat 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversion and terrorism[edit]

The topic of this entry is not notable in the least. As the entry title tells us, the topic is "religious conversion and terrorism", yet the page is filled with only anecdotal information about converts to Islam who have since conversion engaged in (or simply been suspected of engaging in) terrorism. No viable connection is made between the act of conversion and engagement in terrorism, yet by organizing the anecdotal information under such a heading the entry clearly engages in nascent WP:OR, by suggesting such a connection. This is especially problematic because the focus of the anecdotal information isn't "religion" but a religion--Islam. I have attempted to suggest that the entry could be moved, and/or that the entry be merged into Islamist terrorism. Very few (3 total) editors have engaged these suggestions, and the responses have been either that the topic is clearly notable, without ever justifying how or why this is the case, or that the page should simply be deleted. I suspect that a certain group of editors wants the entry to exist to further a political agenda that benefits from making the connection between Islam and terrorism as notable as possible, yet Wikipedia should not be here to further these types of agendas. Please prove me wrong if you oppose this AfD and explain how Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia benefits from its existence and why it can't just be merged. PelleSmith 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete primarily due to WP:OR concerns, lacking any reliable secondary sources, all the references are to examples of "terrorists" who were religious converts and none about the topic of "Religious conversion and terrorism". Furthermore this could be viewed as a narrowly disguised attack page on Islam, and certainly has POV issues with the fact that while the title seems to suggest it is religion-neutral, the discussion is about Islamic converts exclusively. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless vague topic that would suggest that the conversion itself leads to terrorism, which doesn't seem to be the case. The Behnam 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:OR, etc. Wrong on so many levels. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan.--JyriL ^talk 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as those above. — George Saliba^[talk] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article examins an aspect of religious conversion that is specially applicable to terrorism. There are examples of terrorists who have converted to other religions (Christinaity for example), however best known examples are those who have converted from Christianity or Hinduism to Islam. Overwhelming majority of converts are not involved in terrorism. However a significant fraction of the terrorists are known to be converts. That fact that most of such terrorists are converted to Islam, does not mean that this fact should not be discussed. Wikipedia needs to represent facts fairly in a neutral manner, but that does not mean that facts should be censored.

PelleSmith has deleted a number of citations, asking me to work on them, while proposing to delete the article. It is apparent that his mind has been made up, and he would like to see the article gone.--ISKapoor 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODed it a month ago and now I've put it up for an AfD for reasons explained above. I think its obvious I don't think this entry should exist. Cheers.PelleSmith 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that having an article putting these two concepts together suggests that the article will talk about how the two are related. By this, it should talk about how the conversion itself is related to the terrorism, but this will obviously be OR or undue weight on a particular controversial viewpoint. The information is good but is best placed elsewhere The Behnam 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. If I could come up with a list 12 people who engaged in X and subsequently engaged in terrorism, would Wikipedia accept an article called X and terrorism that darkly hints the two are linked? How about Premarital sex and terrorism? Illegal immigration and terrorism? or maybe Driving while black and terrorism? You get the idea. Anybody can come up with a dozen people who did almost anything someone wants to discredit and then subsequently engaged in terrorism or similar. I frankly don't see what makes this article any different from the (deliberately silly) ones I named. --Shirahadasha 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was obviously created to push a POV and should be deleted. Macduff 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Hopelessly POV. Such articles, by nature, can never have a place in Wikipedia. metaspheres 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOR.--Jersey Devil 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are some published studies on this topic then perhaps the studies themselves can have articles but at the moment the article looks like original research. Dalf | Talk 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Islamist terrorism. Religion is the driving force behind most terrorism (not premarital sex or illegal immigration) so a mention of terrorists who were converts is relevant in this case. --Candy-Panda 08:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do not merge or redirect. Religious conversion and terrorism does not deal solely with Islam. KazakhPol 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very interesting topic and should be expanded on. There does need to be a topic on this as its a well known phenomena. If not, then it should be merged.--Matt57 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You've offered exactly no reasons for why this is supposedly the case. That is exactly the problem here. Same goes for the following two keep voters. Thanks, of course, to all of you for showing up and supporting the "anti-Islamic" perspective. This type of blind "POV ballancing" is always appreciated. The day that these types of entries aren't bullied by the two politicized factions on either side of the spectrum will be a day in which knowledge has finally won out here at Wikipedia. Any topic mildly related to Islam, will unfortunately remain, until that day, a forum for unintelligent political rhetoric, and bad OR, as is the case here.PelleSmith 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ITs seems to be reliably sourced and notable.Baka man 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ISKapoor .--Shyamsunder 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research IP198 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to PeleSmith I urge PeleSmith to not delete the citations or parts of the article. --ISKapoor 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that your request is at all appropriate in this forum, however I will continue to delete bad references. If a reference is inappropriate or completely misrepresented then it doesn't belong. Don't try to put makeup on the entry so that people think it looks better on the surface. On top of this, as you can see from the many delete comments, none of your supposed references deal with the real issue here WP:OR. Anyone who deems both the request and this response inappropriate on this page please feel free to delete both. Cheers.PelleSmith 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or at least userfy). Violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and so many others. This article doesn't even have pith, it's just a POV, conjecture, and some anecdoatal bullet lists. Hello, "avoid lists" is in the WP:MOS too. Either delete, or userfy until the one lone single passionate author can write a more objective, responsibily cited article. Oh BTW, the author is canvassing editors via e-mail, another discouraged practice, if I recall. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ISKapoor. It seems an interesting and a notable topic. Currently it suffering from lots of weaknesses thats true but it has long way to go. As I can see the refurbishing process should be start from WP:MOS. Mind everyone, Religious conversion and terrorism is better than this :-) Good luck, Kapoor. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of "refurbishing" can get past the WP:OR issue. I tried originally to suggest a move--renaming the entry--or a merge into Islamist terrorism. If there were enough of these examples across religions of people who convert and then engage in terrorist activity then a merge into Religious terrorism maybe more appropriate. No one was very keen on any of these suggestions because it seems that the supporters of keeping the information in the entry are also adamant about engaging in OR to connect the act of conversion to terrorism. It is that adamancy which prevents any "productive" changes.PelleSmith 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is an interesting topic. I agree it should not focus solely on muslim extremists. -- Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I question whether some of the people listed currently listed actually belong. But that is an issue for discussion on the article's talk page, not here. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember POV is not grounds for deletion. POV is not grounds for deletion. A perceived POV should trigger attempts at a rewrite, or trigger discussion on the talk page. Talk of an article's topic being "hopelessly POV" disturbs me. It particularly disturbs me when those voicing the concern haven't made any effort to follow the guidelines in WP:DEL Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When did original research become grounds for deletion? Whether the topic is worthy of preservation isn't really connected with whether the current revision contains original research. A couple of respondents describe the artilce as I added a couple of entries. I made sure that I cited articles called the peretrators "terrorists", or their acts "terrorism" — which I believe addresses the OR concern. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding PelleSmith's concern that "no amount of 'refurbishing' can get past the WP:OR issue." Well, PelleSmith's first reaction to the article was not a sincere attempt to try to help refurbish it, it was the {{prod}} mentioned above. A {{prod}} does not qualify one to claim attempts at improving the article failed. And the two concerns mentioned in the {{prod}} are not OR. They are notability, and a suggestion that the article is an attempt to "publicize" the study. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is, IMO, a feeble yardstick for determining the merit of articles, because, particularly on controversial topics, like those related to terrorism, it can become unconsciously tainted with POV, and with the inherent systemic bias arising from the wikipedia's membership base. Those who are basically happy with their government's reactions to terrorism, think all terrorists, and the issues arising from them are not notable. Those who think the wikipedia should serve as a tool for interested readers to make up their own minds, and reach their own conclusions about how to react to the threat of terrorism welcome expanded coverage of individual terrorisst, terrorist groups, and the work of authoritative commentators. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a study is authoritative, no one needs to apologize for trying to write a well referenced, NPOV coverage of it on the wikipedia. Their attempts should not be criticized on the grounds of publicity. If the nominator thinks the current version falls short on the wp:rs or wpnpov fronts, they should address it on the talk page. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am afraid IsaKapoor is correct. The record shows the nominator has removed references from the article. It is hardly fair to criticize an article for being poorly referenced, when one is removing those references. 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per original research concerns. Addhoc 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I asked on WP:AN/I, whether it was appropriate for PelleSmith to be editing the article, and removing references, when one of their criticisms was that the article was poorly referenced. As I said above, I think it is an interesting topic, but it should not be confined to terrorists, or alleged terrorist, who are muslim extremists. I introduced a couple of entries for alleged terroirst who were not muslim extremists, and I wonder whether some friend of PelleSmith should warn him or her that removing references when they have criticized the article for being poorly referenced may give the unfortunate appearance of bad-faith. -- Geo Swan 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding bad references does not solve the problem. A reference that does not verify, support or otherwise relate to that which it is referencing is simply a lie. I have provided detailed edit summaries that anyone who bothers to read would plainly understand (unlike others engaged in the entry I may add). What is bothersome is that someone has to waste time to read these references just to find out that they DO NOT actually reference argument made in the entry text they have been added to. If I tag an entry with the unreferenced tag and then someone adds a bunch of bogus references are you telling me that it is unethical for me to remove those references and then re-tag the entry? When that is the case I'll leave this project. I'll stand by my track record regarding this entry in entirety. I have made several efforts to fix the problem with this page and have argued the WP:OR issue from the very beginning. It was not mentioned in the PROD, but then again the PROD had a very vague reasoning to it. See my first response after the de-PRODing of the entry here. Anyway, like I said, I stand by my track record and anyone who finds it problematic for me to remove bad references ought to think about whether or not it is a problem for people voting "keep" here adding bad references.PelleSmith 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Detailed edit summaries" Edit summaries are not the appropriate place for a dialog. How can someone append their questions, or replies, to a "detailed edit summary"? Please put your concerns on the talk page. Not in your edit summaries. Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't know better I'd think you were trolling. Edit summaries are THE appropriate place to explain the nature of an edit. Of course anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the page history or the discussion page knows I've over engaged it if anything. Again concerns don't go in edit summaries, explanations do. A reference that doesn't reference anything in the text is a bad reference, and when editors don't bother even defending them but instead launching attacks on another editor's editing behavior that is the pretty much the most unwiki thing I can think of going on here.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether those references were "bad" or not? That is purely your opinion. IMO, you should have turned to the talk page FIRST, and raised your concerns about the references, not simply deleted them. How does your approach give your correspondents a chance to reply, if they have an answer to your concerns? Aren't you concerned that your approach is an ongoing trigger to edit warring? Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion? I trigger edit warring? That's a very convenient way to look at it. Is it my opinion when a reference is not from a reliable source as defined by our own standards? Or when a reference to the "fact" that a certain individual makes video appearances says that the person in the video was "thought to be" that individual? Are those just opinions? I guess its better to just edit without edit summaries so that you can never be accused of having "opinions".PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are on record, calling the article irredeemable, I am very surprised that you think it is appropriate for you to editing it all right now. If I were the closing admin I would consider relisting the article, and request you refrain from editing it, at all, until after the second {{afd}} closes. Because I would think that the contributors who tried to make the article useful, conform more fully to wikipedia policies, and to address your previously stated concerns would have every right to think your edits damaged the article both prior to its nomination for deletion, and while its nomination for deletion was underway. And this robbed their efforts of the fair consideration they deserved. Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't care about the advice you got when you reported me on the incident noticeboard. Maybe you should at least take it into consideration. There is nothing unethical about my behavior in the least. I again stand by all my edits and I stand by the explanations I provided in the edit summaries. The reason why there just simply aren't any adequate references for this entry is because its WP:OR. Why hasn't anyone challanged my explanations? Why do you keep on harping on my intentions and my behavior? Is it because actually discussing the content would not get you anywhere?PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all supposed to assume good faith. Well, IMO that imposes on you and I an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way that demonstrably -shows good faith-. Even if, for the safe of argument, you or I know, in our inner heart, that our intentions are good, if we behave in a way that appears to show a lack of respect for the views and efforts of other contributors, we are damaging the wikipedia, because everyone only has so much good-will. And, if we give the appearance of reckless disregard to the views or efforts of others, even if we know, in our innoer heart, that our intentions are good, we have unnecessarily drained others of good-will that should be available for disputes that weren't so easily avoidable.

Again I'm going to say that the edit history and discussion page speak for themselves. I have more than enough faith that rational editors can see I am not behaving in bad faith.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your implied accusation that you faced some kind of clique of POV-pushers... you do realize hat this is what you implied when you wrote: "I suspect that a certain group of editors wants the entry to exist to further a political agenda". I encourage you to reconsider whether that comment was appropriate, or fair to those who had contributed to the article prior to its nomination. For the record, I don't know you, other than from this current discussion, and from the article and its talk page. Neither do I remember ever coming across any of the contributions of any of the other contributors to this discussion. I am not a member of a conspiracy. I first came across this article when I read the {{afd}}. I thought it held promisee, and I made good faith attempts to do so. — I shouldn't have to say all that. But you expressed this suspicion about the motives of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then clearly you don't belong to any such clique of editors. I do not go around tossing about conspiracy accusations nor do I think its a cabal, but there are several factions on either side of Islam related entries and some of the editors from one of these factions have made their appearance both here and on the entry in question. There is no secret here, and others familiar with these entries are well aware of what I speak, I just happen to find it exhaustingly unproductive--FROM BOTH SIDES.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for novel synthesis of facts. If you think that religious converts are more likely to be terrorists, by all means, go write your master's thesis on it, but it's not an encyclopedic topic. Considering that the article is primarilly about Islamic terrorism, it doesn't really have anything to offer anyway. There is also an article on Religious terrorism and at most, this topic is worth a sentence or two there. --Born2x 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly OR and the rest is poorly ref'ed. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant POV and OR. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Allotment (gardening) as the content has been merged there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allotmenteering[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, there is a great article on allotment already, making this irrelevant. Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allotment (gardening), where I have merged this page's contents into. Anthony Appleyard 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless neologism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
'pointless neologism' in your opinion maybe! SpondonBongles 09:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete while there has been some suggestions of notability in this discussion in the 2 weeks its been kept open none of this has born any fruit in the article. If someone wishes to do actual expansion of the article I'm happy to userfy the two lines of this article to enable that to happen. Gnan garra 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huu Trinh[edit]

A stub for over a year with no other notability than being sentenced to death in Vietnam. Can't see how this fulfills WP:BIO Strangnet 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Doesn't fulfill WP:BIO Gekedo 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- and expand. Perhaps not quite as well known as Schapelle Corby, however the article subject has been the subject of several secondary sources that are reliable as per the criterion at WP:BIO. See the Google News archive. A short article requires expansion, not deletion. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nine sources, some look duplicated, on Google News seems a bit low for the subject of several secondary sources. --Strangnet 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough source material to create an encyclopedic article, all the coverage is trivial. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhair - I'll do a Factiva search and see what I can come up with. Alexander Downer has mentioned him a fair bit in the past as a person convicted of a crime overseas: he's had better luck with the Vietnamese than the Singaporeans in having death sentences commuted, which means he hasn't got as much coverage as say Van Tuong Nguyen. The article is also part of the List of Australians in international prisons so it should be kept. JRG 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not sure the crime is notable. I would strongly support the article if the matter were political.DGG 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DXRAW 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see that you vote Keep to all AfD-nominations you cast a vote in. Should we consider this an april-fools-vote? --Strangnet 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back up that statement with proof? I would say that you cant. DXRAW 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just looked here and thought it looked a little strange. That with the notice on your talk page. Just a vote don't add to the argumentation. --Strangnet 10:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have failed to show where i have voted keep to All AFD as you have said. DXRAW 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vietnamese citizen commits run of the mill crime in his country of birth and recieves the usual sentence. I thought we were not a directory, but there is nothing other than directory information so far (name, crime, sentence).Ga rr ie 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people getting strong sentences in Asian countries for drug running are routine. If this happened in Australia, then some person may just be sent to jail for 2 years with no further notice. This has not caused a diplomatic incident, and like the majority of similar sentences in Asia, are standard business. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a completely non notable case. His punishment was in line with what is to be expected in that country. While it may be appalling to people in different countries, that does not make it notable. --Cyrus Andiron 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, WP:BIO is just a guideline and was not created with input by the vast majority of Wikipedia users. He's notable because he was sentenced to death and the controversy surrounding it. Xanucia 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being sentenced to death row in a controversial fashion seems notable to me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've already asked to keep this article, but that was pending on a search of Factiva, which has uncovered some more information. Trinh's conviction in Vietnam was secured by information passed on by the Australian Federal Police, according to the articles I found on Factiva - it sparked a debate over the AFP's role in sending criminals overseas to countries where they could be executed (like what happened with the Bali Nine). Howard has also personally petitioned the Government for a commuting of his sentence - he is an Australian citizen, not a Vietnamese citizen as someone wrote above. I think this issue makes him notable - I'll add it to the article when I get time. (That's a Keep too if my comment above doesn't count). JRG 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, controversy? notability? where? Thoroughly non-notable drug smuggler. Lankiveil 12:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JRG. I think the article can be expanded enough to be worthy of remaining. Lunus 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom. thewinchester 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close, since this was bundled into another AFD and deleted there. --Core desat 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick "Moxy" Mead[edit]

PLEASE NOTE I have bundled this nomination into the pending AfD for the band. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Faded_Spades

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pop Secret (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Non-notable member of musical ensemble The Faded Spades, which has also been nominated for deletion Pop Secret 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another non notable musician who does not require his own page. I wish more people would read this before creating an article. It would really save some time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan O'Connor[edit]

May well be a hoax. Claim of notability seems to throw up nothing on Google, and I can't find any other sources. Delete unless claims of notability can be sourced. J Milburn 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax -- Chuq 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing verifiable within. - Longhair\^talk 12:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This can not be speedy deleted. There is no criteria for hoaxes (unless they are patent nonsense, which this isn't) and there are claims of notability in the article, and so it cannot be speedied as non notable. The author assures me there are sources, and linked me to a whole huge website, and I have now asked them for a specific page. J Milburn 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7 I'd say. He claims to have been nominated for an ARIA Award for Best Hip-hop Artist - a category that doesn't even exist. -- Chuq 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable musician. And it could be speedied under this criterion. --Cyrus Andiron 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:CSD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be a new user experimenting. -Haikon 05:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. --Guinnog 12:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Lankiveil 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We are not a crystal ball. --Core desat 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions for Harry Potter 7[edit]

unsourced speculation (disputed prod) Rick Block (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant and unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much the perfect example of a crystal ball rule situation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not to beat a dead horse or anything, but definite crystal here. --Cyrus Andiron 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SmartGuy 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prediction - Deleted. The future looks cloudy for this case of crystalballery. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:CRYSTAL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Hornandsoccer ^Talk 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as crystalballery. Only one sure fact - Harry's relation (or not) to Dumbledore - is confirmable. --Dennisthe2 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no earthly reason to keep it. Besides, surely it should be under Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows anyway. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* Most of this is just speculation, and the very few facts are already mentioned in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This belongs on a fanboard, not on wikipedia. Neville Longbottom 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Scott[edit]

Non-notable graphic designer, created by subject for self-promotional purposes. Eloquence * 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio, db-context, db-spam, take your pick. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sandburg/References[edit]

This article is really nothing more than a list of books. I believe that an anonymous poster at Talk:Carl_Sandburg started this article to list the references, believing that to include them in the main Carl Sanburg article would make the main article too long. This is not the proper procedure, however; references for the Sanburg article should be properly listed in the article itself. SmartGuy 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I copied and pasted the contents of this article into the Talk:Carl Sandburg page, so that the information contained is preserved for possible future citation use. SmartGuy 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom now that it has been archived properly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:ESkog. MER-C 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Muller[edit]

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO - only 23 Google results for "The X-Fairy". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - nowhere even close to noteworthy subject. I put a speedy tag on it. Anytime you see a new article about a high school student, it's a fair assumption that the article qualifies for WP:SPEEDY SmartGuy 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Tom harrison. --Core desat 03:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayasaki Yuuya[edit]

NN. Text mentions that a song of his has been the official jingle for a radio station - however, this radio station seems to be a community-radio station, and my hunch is that its jingles rotate frequently. Google.en returns approximately 16 hits for Hayasaki Yuuya Action Jackson IV 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guidelines, only 18 Google hits for Hayasaki Yuuya. Stoic atarian 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable.--JyriL ^talk 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broozer[edit]

Nonsense. — Jack · talk · 18:08, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - poster child for G1, patent nonsense. So tagged. --Action Jackson IV 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to General covariance. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General coordinate invariance[edit]

Delete, as the author of the article was probably unaware of General covariance. MP (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpatel (talk • contribs) 2007/04/04 22:45:23 [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about redirect there? Tizio 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General covariance; merge any distinctive content (I'm not enough of a specialist to tell if there is any). Newyorkbrad 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a redirect would be ok. Everything that's in general coordinate invariance is already in general covariance, so a merger isn't needed. MP (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to General covariance per Newyorkbrad. Just going ahead and doing so wouldn't have required an AfD. —David Eppstein 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness!!![edit]

Delete, No real assertion of notability. Lakers 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, notable but not well listed DCUnitedFan2011 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable!!! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an album of someone notable enough for an article, this is the precedent. At least redirect to that artist, as this would be a plausible search term. --W.marsh 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some more research (note to self: it's probably a good idea to disable all content filtering code before doing research ), I'm still not convinced this article should be deleted. Notability isn't a big problem as far as I am concerned (the article certainly doesn't establish it but the lady in question and the song appear to be noteable and, on a completely unrelated note, she also seems to have a thing for rather bizarre music videos). Normally, I'd be opposed to keeping this (and I'm not a big fan of fancruft in general) but I'm satisfied this meets WP:N. -- Seed 2.0 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Xanucia 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you may withdraw my nomination a mistake on my behalf sorry. -Lakers^Talk 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa LaRue[edit]

Non notable musician. I didn't speedy because of the NAMA nominations, but I can see no evidence that she is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Delete unless sources are provided. J Milburn 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as I've actually got one of her songs. Xanucia 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's hardly an expression of notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability established. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural fear[edit]

I have never heard of this band in Greece! I even tried to find its members in google and I had no hits. After all it is a band of Edessa, probably not well-know in the rest of Greece. Then why should it be notable for the English Wikipedia?! I am not sure it is even notable for the Greek wiki! Yannismarou 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-notable band who've never even had any releases and no longer exist. My inclusionist credentials are fading fast today... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghosts of Chernobyl[edit]

Author admits to not having sources. Encylopedias by definition are not places for personal essays but for well documented articles. Strong Delete. Postcard Cathy 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following text was in the article. I moved it here as it related to the discussion. Tizio 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been warned by a bot and cannot delete/report this document I would like to clarify.

Chernobyl did in fact have a meltdown in reactor number 4 due to power usage experiments.
The reactor melted down due to the fact that their was minimal to no power going to the cooling turbines.
Since the turbines stopped suppling water the core temp became critical melting and burning the graphite control rods.
The heat caused by this fast reacting accident melted the cover to the core itself releasing radiation into the atmosphere.

This article is extremely flawed as their is no story officially or unofficially that I could find, nor were the sources sited for this document. So I warn you be alive this article at your own risk it is in no way true or reliably represents the truth behind the Chernobyl disaster. User:Solaris17

I have removed from the article anything that would be reasonably covered in Chernobyl disaster. Tizio 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is uncited, and if there are any citations of ghost stories, there's already Chernobyl in popular consciousness which could be used to hold the information. I would say merge, but lacking citations, and given the quality of the article, there's no real reason to do that. FrozenPurpleCube 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give the author time to provide references for these ghost stories. Anthony Appleyard 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially nonsense. Unreferenced and there's really no need for having a new article for every ghost sighting. Pascal.Tesson 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per nom. To user:Anthony Appleyard, the editor already admitted to not having any sources, so finding any for such a trivial article will be for a waste. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent fabrication unless proved otherwise.--JyriL ^talk 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I strongly suspect that this is a spam teaser page for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and unverifiable.--Isotope23 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth pine[edit]

Not notable. The claim is for making a low tech product for the last few years. Peter Rehse 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like spam. Anthony Appleyard 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability in the article. It also lacks any references to back up the claims that are made about the distribution and use of breaking boards.--Cyrus Andiron 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:NN. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo tycoon 3[edit]

Suspected hoax, internet searches don't turn up any sources or references. Seinfreak37 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom; I can't find anything either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three for three can not find a thing. Probably should have been labeled with a speedy deletion tag.Shoessss 12:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The guy who created this page has also posted a lot of other nonsense about the Zoo Tycoon series, all with the same bad grammar and all of which did not exist. I am part of the Zoo Admin boards and we have a strong connection with Blue Fang. They would have told us about a ZT3 if there was one. That guy needs banning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.244.31 (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps it's some leaked information from the developer, but without references - and none seem to exist - the article can't stay. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. --Core desat 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith O. Williams[edit]

Nominating these two articles created by Kowilliams (talk · contribs) in a likely conflict of interest. Self-published author and minister. The two articles are self-promotional in nature and are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Seinfreak37 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 87.86.171.131 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a take your pick really. I'll throw out some criteria here: notability, definite conflict of interest, not a soapbox, and finally WP:SPAM. I'll choose notability. Not every pastor deserves their own page. --Cyrus Andiron 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and WP:SOAP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. feydey 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability, COI, soapbox. andy 15:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott Richardson[edit]

Not a notable character, page created to "expose" individual (Falls under A7 and G10) Imstillhere 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article solely exists to disparage the individual. The individual noted in this article was a member of a racist group and was sued for making anti-muslim and anti-jewish comments right close to september 11th (3 days after the event). This in no way makes him notable. There is no reason why he is on wikipedia other than the attempts by certain individuals to "expose" racists. This is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. There is no evidence that the individual tried to "kill the prime minister" other than the TITLE of a sensationalist news article. Never charged or brought to trial for "attempting to kill the prime minister". Imstillhere 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was done incorrectly, so I fixed it. --W.marsh 16:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Imstillhere 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what is going on with this article can be seen at AnnieHall's talk page. The removals of the "Melissa Guille" and "Canadian Heritage Alliance" articles were discussed. The article was then taken and posted on a website called NaziWatchCanada [20] including the inflaming remarks and unsourced information that the article was deleted for in the first place.

Strong Keep Notable bigots are notable. He's notable in several senses --as being ( I think) as extreme a bigot as Canada has to offer,and as receiving major media coverage. Once someone has received external notice and reportage on their acts, then they are notable. And once N, he remains N, a permanent bad example. I see no POV or BLP problems. He was convicted of the crimes, and sought publicity for his statements. We don't expose racists, we record the N ones, just like all other newsmakers. Thats part of Not Censored. We don't try make bad things go away. DGG 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proves my point. He has no criminal record. Never convicted of a crime. Charges against him based on the 'September 11' threats were dropped without a day in court. [21]. So the article IS in fact serving nothing more than to disparage the subject.Imstillhere 13:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE: London Free Press - Lawyer Feared For his safety - Aug. 31, 2004

"In a high-profile case that garnered praise from anti-racist advocates, London police charged Richardson and Kulbashian with uttering death threats and counselling to commit murder. But the charges were dropped last year by assistant Crown attorney Peter Kierluk."

Strong keep A prominent figure in the Canadian far-right, and notable accordingly. CJCurrie 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last i heard, he hasn't been involved in ANYTHING for over 3 years. Imstillhere 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, he's a prominent figure in the Canadian far-right from the early 2000s, and notable accordingly. CJCurrie 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and CJCurrie. semper fictilis 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Regardless of the "votes" the article clearly falls under A7 and G10. 74.102.214.189 06:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous votes generally don't count toward the result. CJCurrie 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, there are no votes to count one way or another. Remember, this is a discussion and not a vote. Anonymous editors may participate in the AfD debates and when their arguments are made based on policy and guidelines, their opinions most certainly do count toward the restult. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DGG Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Barnard[edit]

Article subject does not meet notability requirements. Does not show up in any searches. Speedy deletion has been deleted. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that all of the editors of the article could be sockpuppets of the same user. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted on March 21, 2007. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation. No Ghits on "Parks Elliot Barnard". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not speedy, this page should be deleted, and probably could be speedy deleted as an nn-bio. The only claim to notability is through relation to Brynn Bernard, who may or may not be notable enough for an article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Blair (police chief)[edit]

Non-notable, police chiefs should not get a wikipedia page as they are of insignificant value.

User:EEERRRRR Apr. 4, 2007 5:21 UTC

Keep Police chiefs are not of insignificant value, many are quite notable. Given that this is the police chief of Toronto, a major city in Canada, I'm saying Keep. FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with keeping police chiefs of minor towns, but this guy's the Canadian equivalent of Ian Blair or Raymond W. Kelly. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the equivalent to the above two named. The above two have established notability whereas this Toronto police chief article doesn't. The above two have been formally knighted under British notability ranks, received awards/medals to varying degrees and have numerous properly cited content (such as controversies, possible diplomatic postings, etc.) There is nothing in Bill Blair's article, in its current state, to indicate equivalent notability status. Luke! 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescenti. Toronto is a world-class city. --Dhartung | Talk 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep bad faith nom. "Police chiefs are of insignificant value?" Come on! --JayHenry 03:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is a single purpose account, and the subject is notable. I added a reference. --Eastmain 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't support the idea that every police chief in the world merits an article, but the chief of police of one of the five largest cities in all of North America certainly does. Bearcat 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominent public figure in Toronto. CJCurrie 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - notwithstanding the allegation of single purpose nomination account and per my reasoning above, I don't see any content that is notable enough to make up an article. However, there are weak claims to notability. The alleged "high-risk take down" and first police chief appearance at a Toronto city-wide LGBT parade are notable, but need to proper referencing per WP:BLP. Luke! 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. GreenJoe 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Wheeler[edit]

Has been speedied a few times but I am prepared to give her an AfD. There are two incoming links. I get a strong whiff of self-promotion about this article. -- RHaworth 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We've got one interview and a couple mentions that push the edge of being neglible. The Washington Post cite doesn't specifically sinlge her out, just the blog that she contributes to. That probably needs to be removed or changed drastically. Overall, I'd say it's a borderline case, though I lean towards keeping it.Chunky Rice 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she were just a cub reporter covering the story, there'd be no question of non-notability. I appreciate some quarters of the press understand blogging to be some sort of world-historical development; but I'm not so sure. Or perhaps as the New York Times put it: Even the Web-savvy may ask, Fire dog what? Pop Secret 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question I have is, are we allowed to disregard press articles because we disagree with them? My understanding of WP:N is that their mere existence confers notability.Chunky Rice 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can exercise independent judgment, with press cites being the evidence to which we apply that judgment. It surely can't be the case that Wikipedia must include an article for anyone the New York Times or the Washington Post covers. Pop Secret 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I think that if we agree that the articles are non-neglible coverage from a reliable source, we do have to include it (or, rather, not delete it). Per WP:N, notability is not subjective. That is, we shouldn't be judging whether or not the article should have been written as you seem to be. We should only evaluate the depth of the coverage and the reliability of the source. At least, that's how I read it.Chunky Rice 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather we should judge whether the coverage was "non-negligible" or not, right? It's a borderline case, as you mentioned, which means reasonable people will probably differ on the appropriate treatement: deletion or inclusion. We will have to await the combined wisdom of the wikipedians. Pop Secret 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your vote for deletion. As you noted, I think it's a borderline case. Rather, the phrasing in your comment just made my ears perk up, where you said that you appreciated that some press thought this was newsworthy, but you didn't. That's why I poked my nose in, because I disagree with that reasoning for deletion.Chunky Rice 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being the first blogger credentialed for a major trial is notable and multiple sources corroborate the importance of the Firedoglake liveblogging, and even Hamsher (whom the Times paid more attention to, they've profiled her before) would say that Wheeler was the key to that coverage. e.g. "Marcy Wheeler's standout reporting for the blog was so thorough that even the mainstream media relied on it." -- the Nation, At worst, it's time to break out Firedoglake from Jane Hamsher and merge there. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Of course Marcy Wheeler passes the notability test. The "Fire dog what" criticism is specious; it's a very well-known and trafficked site. Wheeler is not merely a blogger (on multiple sites, her home base being The Next Hurrah), she's the author of Anatomy of Deceit (January 2007), the most comprehensive and authoritative book so far on the CIA leak and Niger forgery scandal. The fact that her book has been acknowledged in connection to the coverage of this case in itself makes her notable; she's one of only a handful of political bloggers who have so far made the transition into publishing. (I'm thinking of Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota, among others, whose Wikipedia notability is unchallenged. Is it because they are men?) In addition, Wheeler broke many key details of the Libby case (including the Armitage and NIE revelations), and has been widely acknowledged by the mainstream media for leading the coverage of the trial. So what's the objection? The fact that she shed light on a scandal highly embarrassing to Republicans? That she's female? Her detractors should be honest about the repeated efforts to delist her. Obviously a number of experienced Wikipedists have tried to start this entry. While I may not like the way the entry is currently written, the claim to non-notability is unsupported in this case. —Sandover 04:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not borderline at all. First of all if two major national newspapers covered it, its N. Second, it would be N anyway if there were any other kinds of sources. Some bloggers are N. Political ones are most likely to be N, at least as far as conventional sourcing is concerned. DGG 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MW wasn't exactly the first blogger credentialed. The "Scooter Libby trial" was the first where bloggers were recognized and credentialed. But MW validated the precedent of giving credentials to bloggers. Thanks to Sandover and others for validating my perception of MW... The first two versions of the article cited MW as a major proponent of beer thirty. Beer thirty is the state of mind reached when you've had enough, it's time for a beer. The time can be approaching beer thirty, or whatever, like "It was beer thirty an hour ago". MW was the first person who I heard mention beer thirty, and I liked the phrase. I have no idea whether she was the inventor, I doubt it, mostly because it seems such an obvious concept, it must have existed for quite awhile. I realized that without any evidence of MW's priority regarding the concept, I shouldn't cite this as contributing to her notability, although for me it made her notable. --Turtlens 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your edification, I recommend to you Marcy Wheeler's "prologue to Anatomy of Deceit", where she describes the evolution of her involvement in the Plame affair.--142.68.186.200 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To clarify, although the "vote" stands at 2 to 3, the delete voters are citing policy and have more substantive arguments for their position. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ross (American actor)[edit]

I speedied this earlier as blatant self-promotion of an utter non-notable voice actor. However, it has been restored and as a copy-paste violates GFDL. If the community wants to keep this, then the history should be restored, but I suggest you may not want it. He's had 'background' voice roles in some movies - meaning? He's 'auditioned for' - presumably unsuccessfully. And he's a 'fan of' - who cares? Having an entry in the IMDB isn't evidence of notability. If anyone can find a reason to keep this, fine by me. -Doc^g 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if we must vote to make a speedy stick. No real notability asserted, pace "substantial roles in independent films". --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry on IMDB makes him notable in my opinion. Is this article harming you by being here? Xanucia 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I gather any actor can get on to the IMDB, so that alone doesn't make you notable. What are you suggesting he's notable for? Being on a database?--Doc^g 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable actor with ongoing career. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but what is it? And what's secondary sourcing?--Doc^g 08:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only speaking roles have been minor parts in low-budget indies. Hardly a "notable actor" as previously opined, at least not yet. Caknuck 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theartproblem[edit]

New non-notable website (no Google hits!), written like an advert. JyriL ^talk 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sources can be found to establish its notability. It's true that there are no google hits for "theartproblem", and I couldn't find anything relevant with "the art problem". Leebo ^T/C 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominating argument. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Google hits should appear within 1 week, Advert writing has been removed, article is neutral, worthy subject for submission -- Bjtaylor01 ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by "Google hits should appear within 1 week"? Also, removing the advertising doesn't solve the problem of notability. Leebo ^T/C 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request Also, Bjtaylor01, in this post, you signed as Mufka, and then changed the signature to Bjtaylor01 in this edit. Please explain. Leebo ^T/C 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advert. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Answer I copied and pasted the example code when editing and it accidently included mufa's name, so I quickly changed it when I saw the final page. Bjtaylor 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request Leebo what would you recommend to increase notability. There are no sales, or google clicks, or any source of income associated with this project. This is a new idea that has never been tried on this scale and I think it is a very interesting concept that could be a valuable contribution to wikipedia users who are interested in fractal art. If I had links to media articles on the project would that increase it's notability? Thanks for your time. Bjtaylor01 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia defines notability in the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. Essentially, notability is "worthy of notice." So, it's usually established by multiple publications in reliable sources that focus on the subject. Also, since this is your project, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It's strongly recommended that you do not write about subjects to which you may have difficulty retaining a neutral point of view. Leebo ^T/C 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Can media publications be considered if available? This project is too subjective to ever be published in an academic journal. I think it is worthy of notice, but if it needs publications then I agree that it should be removed until publications can be created. I think this page would fall into a "events" category. Just to let someone know that this group tried this for x amount of years and failed, or succeed, but it seems that only media publications could support that. Thanks for your reply. bjtaylor01 ^T/C 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You can read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what can be used to establish notability. Any source that is a reliable, fact-checking source can be used, it doesn't have to be an academic journal. Newspapers, magazines, etc. Can you give me any examples of things that might be usable? Leebo ^T/C 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We are in the process of interviewing for media coverage on this, however it is not complete at this time. I am fine for deletion of this article until I can later present all of the media coverage with a resubmission at a future date. It would be the reno gazette journal which is the main newspaper in Reno, Nevada. At least I know what I can do for next time when I resubmit that page. I really appreciate your time and help on this. I will not try to do anything to retard the deletion of this article. bjtaylor01 22:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is deleted, and you later have more sources, please do not recreate the article yourself. It is always recommended, per WP:COI that someone who is not affiliated with a subject write the article. You could present the sources to Wikipedia:Deletion review perhaps, but someone else should actually write and edit the article. Leebo ^T/C 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an example, there was an article about The Nine Planets, a venerable Solar System website that has existed for 12 years and has a number of mirrors across the Internet. The article was deleted since the website was deemed as not notable enough.--JyriL ^talk 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student art project. Does not have multiple independent reliable sources. If and when it is reviewed as serious art in reliable publications, it can be added back. —David Eppstein 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Benello[edit]

This appears to be the biography of a graduate student of no particular distinction that probably only has an article because he happened to be on Pan Am 103 when it exploded. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and it is also not a place for those who have not achieved particular distinction in their field. This person does not meet the standard for academics in WP:BIO. Indrian 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although a softer sell for deletion might have been in order. It's not a vanity page, after all. Pop Secret 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 TNA television ratings[edit]

Tagged as unsourced since February with no sources for the information forthcoming. Furthermore seems to violate WP:NOT#DIR, not sure how an article that is nothing more than a table of ratings is encyclopedic.

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

Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only place television ratings have on Wikipedia is if they are somehow notable (exceptionally large for whatever reason related to a sourced event) or as a small piece of info in the show's main article. They shouldn't be the focus of an article. Leebo ^T/C 17:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI find that ratings are still an important part of the wrestling business in general. Gruntyking117 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not notable. Unsourced. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Aaru Bui. TJ Spyke 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information is crucial! We need to keep it! Oh, wait a minute, no we don't. Delete WP:UNENC and WP:A. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit they really aren't that useful - what about the pages with the WWE ratings on them e.g. 2006 WWE television ratings? Davnel03 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Govvy 14:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 WWE television ratings. McPhail 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. NN, violates WP:NOT, wrestling is way overrepresented on WP anyway. Biggspowd 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:CORP. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chariot (company)[edit]

Non-notable company founded in 2003. Only one article links to it. Uncategorized FateClub 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Little assertion of notability. Caknuck 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seretone[edit]

Tagged as an A7-speedy, but asserts notability, though short on references. Non-musical I am unsure whether the debut album meets WP:MUSIC; I'm sure the inquisitive minds here at AfD will sort that out. Xoloz 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon further review the speedy tag was removed by the original author of the article. Even if he asserted notability as his reason for doing so, that is in poor practice. It clealy states on the tag not to remove it yourself. That being said, I do not believe that this band is notable enough to have their own page. They have produced one album and may only be popular locally. The article is short on references and that is always a problem because then it looks like OR. Furthermore, the article is written like an advertisement for the band. It definitely does not conform to a neutral point of view. I believe it could be speedied under the following criteria non notable band or blatant advertising. --Cyrus Andiron 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While an original speedy tag was removed by the author in 2006, that is now not especially relevant. I removed the most recent speedy tag, while CSD patrolling, and have brought the article here. Xoloz 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical definition of God[edit]

I stared at this one for a while to try and decide if it's at all salvageable as sometimes WP:OR can be. Perhaps an encyclopedic topic with this article could be written, but what is here is nowhere near that and not worth trying to salvage. You get to the last paragraph and it devolves into some weird ... I'm not sure. Something about Einstein and the Theory of Relativity. Totally unsourced. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - something might be made of the topic, but this article isn't it. No sources other than the biblical cites, and Wikipedia isn't the place for exegesis. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually several sources, now. Uncle G 12:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God, special relativity, if only we had Cantor's Theorem, we would have had all the traditional enthusiasms of the journeyman crackpot. Pop Secret 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if "In this article, with the help of physics I defined God" isn't OR, I don't know what is... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename (Biblical conception of God). The OR paragraph about physics at the end of the article (Pop Secret, Iridescenti) was added later by a crackpot and I removed it. The topics itself is notable and was subject of numerous books and articles. The problem is that our article is not sourced (and not well balanced etc.), but temporary lack of sources is not a valid deletion reason.--86.49.47.138 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors appear to be basing their judgement of the topic upon some unencyclopaedic content that was added to the article by one single editor. Yes, this article contains no sources. But that does not mean that sources do not exist. In fact they do. ISBN 1419164619 spends pretty much the whole of page 10 on "God is Spirit", for example. ISBN 0825431549 discusses "God is Spirit" on page 35, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches, which it describes as "perhaps the best and most biblical definition of God". ISBN 0867050535 devotes pages 6 to 8 on God "In the Bible", and can be used to confirm several points of analysis given in this article.
The correct way to salvage this article is not to nominate it for deletion, but to employ the aforementioned sources and any others that one can find to check the article for accuracy, citing the sources against which it is checked and modifying the article to bring it into line with the sources as needed. The correct tag for that is {{verify}}, not {{afd1}}. Keep. Uncle G 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nature of God is discussed very fully from every notable point of view in various articles. This is just an essay summarizing the topic. The content is already included. DGG 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Names of God in Judaism. IZAK 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussions that the sources have about the definition of God in the Bible are not solely about the name, and are not related solely to Judaism. Uncle G 12:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, precisely per Uncle G's point. --Keefer4 | Talk 10:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The matter has already been covered in other articles. This is just an essay, bordering on OR. 202.54.176.11 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:V. Understanding that the issue is the topic, not the article, I don't believe we have the ability to verify an article on the subject. Which Bible? The Jewish one, the Christian one (and within that, the Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic, or what)? Moreover, each version is subject to many varying interpretations. All we have available to us is what various religions and writers say is the Bible's view. How can we tell how much of what they say is "the Bible's" view and how much is their own view? Even if we did nothing but select quotes someone would have to determine which quotes to select, and different selections would result in very different views. I think we could all agree that an article called God's view of God couldn't be verified when all we have in the way of sources is people's view of God. This article isn't different enough to come within WP:V. --Shirahadasha 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We can reliably source the Westminster Confession of Faith's view of the Bible's view of God. But why not just call it the Westminster Confession of Faith's view of God? It seems that either material here would be duplicative of material elsewhere, or this is a WP:POVFORK.--Shirahadasha 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All we have available to us is what various religions and writers say is the Bible's view. — In other words, we have secondary sources that have done the research and analysis, whose conclusions Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can report. You have just made an argument that the article is both verifiable and not original research, entirely contradicting your first sentence. Uncle G 12:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per IZAK. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse-it in-Dorset festival[edit]

Non-notable event that started "in the early 2000's". Google search result s in only 147 hits, uncategorized. No links to this article. FateClub 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Richard 04:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic House of Candia[edit]

Apparently a noble family that played a major role in pre-republic Italy, but I can't find any sources to verify that it exists, much less that it played the role in history that the article claims. The sources in the article are two images, two recently-created articles in the English and Italian Wikipedias, and a French blog entry. Google search for "House of Candia" and "House of Candie" has no hits and an ESBCOHost search for any articles mentioning such a noble house turn up nothing~~, so this looks like a probable hoax to me~~. Also nominating François de Candie, supposedly a memebr of this family. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Francois (not Francoise) did exist but wasn't particularly notable. Likewise, the family was genuine, but don't seem to have actually done very much - their main claim to fame is that their ancestral home (the Chateau de Candie in Chambery) is now one of France's poshest hotels. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are truly notable historical subjects, as shown by the attention given them in sources dealing with the country. It is good to see such an article actually sourced for a change. Sources 2 and 3 are printed books. They are French printed books, they are 19th century printed books, there may possibly be newer printed books as well, but we do not ignore them as sources. The other material is supplementary, for ease in finding further information for those limited to the internet. DGG 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hm, hadn't noticed those sources. I guess I'll withdraw the nomination, although the article is in need of a serious cleanup and copyedit. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm about 90% certain that this family were the original owners of the Turin Shroud - which is a subject I wouldn't presume to touch but if true ought to be in here. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was My mistake... copyright violation. Seems like an interesting fellow, though, if anyone wants to write some reliably-sourced original content. Xoloz 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shaw[edit]

Article was originally an A7-speedy; talk page appears to reveal the article came from a relative. Still, subject seems likely notable, but total lack of sources. Sent to AfD for notability concerns/fact-checking. Xoloz 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronids[edit]

WP:POVFORK of Kohen, created to present Richard Elliott Friedman's POV on the subject bypassing the normal editing and consensus process and WP:NPOV weighting. Any useful material can be summarized and merged with Kohen. --Shirahadasha 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) It might be worth noting that Aaronites was previously made into a redirect to Kohen following a merge approved by the community. It appears the issue is being revisited with a slight spelling change. --Shirahadasha 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shirahadasha. 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)רח"ק | Talk | Contribs
Delete per nom; pov fork. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. IZAK 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear POV fork. Despite 13 footnote there is only one source! Jon513 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't the same subject as Kohen; it addresses the Aaronids as a distinct subgroup of Kohen, in particular as opposed to the non-Aaronid priesthood, such as that based at Shiloh. The existence of non-Aaronid priests is quite clear in the Bible, whether you agree with textual criticism or not, Samuel wasn't an Aaronid, neither were any children of king David, despite their ministering as priests, and the priests from Shiloh that Solomon expelled weren't Aaronids either. For the record, I wasn't aware that the Aaronites article ever existed (I've always heard them termed Aaronids, so it never occurred to me to look for Aaronites), but now that I look in its history, I note that even Eastons Bible Dictionary thought that the subject was worth having an article about (aaronites), separate to its article (priest) about the Kohen; why would Easton's ever have an article that was a POV fork of another of its articles?. How it can be a POV fork, when it doesn't address the same issue is beyond me. ----User talk:FDuffy 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since under this perspective the Aaronids are considered to be a sub-class of Kohen, the article could fit within a section on critical perspectives within Kohen. It might also be worth noting that the traditional view on Samuel, David's children, and the Shiloh priesthood is different from the critical view you present. The traditional view is that Samuel was a Levite who could assist priests; David and his progeny are traditionally accorded a certain familiarity and certain privileges ("And David sat with God..." -- the rest of us have to remain standing at all times if we ascend the Temple Mount), but they aren't priests; and the Shiloh priests were descended from Aaron, but Solomon kicked them out because he consolidated the priesthood in the Temple in Jerusalem. Both views are views, not self-evident facts, and need to be presented as such, with appropriate supporting detail and sourcing, per WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. WP:STACK appears to have gone on here. Particularly since the above signatories appear to be the same ones as signed here, despite the fact that the articles have little connection beyond being raised on my talk page and at the place where I am alleging that vote stacking seems to have occurred.----User talk:FDuffy 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion started before this nomination was made. It just seems many people feel uneasy at your roughshod ride through Wikipedia in your desire to advance your agenda. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biblical Criticism --Shirahadasha 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a POV fork. --pIrish 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, revisionism under the guise of scholarship. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Electionist[edit]

Non-notable short film which fails Google test, marked as {{prod}} but author removed it Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. ArchStanton 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Marino[edit]

Likely a hoax. 1 Google hit for an unrelated person. One article links to this page and it is about an unrelated person. Uncategorized. Created by a user with only two edits and both to this article. FateClub 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, a non-notable gangster even if it is not a hoax.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing how there are no sources verifying this person exists/existed and that the article's author goes by MafiaRPG, it's probably safe to say this is a fictional mob character of no note. Caknuck 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mabe[edit]

Little or no assertion of notability, minimal context. Still looks speedy-able in its current form. --Finngall ^talk 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear notability, SqueakBox 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tom Mabe has appeared on The Bob and Tom Show numerous times. As it is a nationally syndicated radio show, that asserts his notability. He is well known for his role reversal pranks on telemarketers. He was interviewed on CNN, here is the transcript. I'm sure there are other sources like this one out there. I only looked for a couple of minutes. While the article may be short it can be expanded. --Cyrus Andiron 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well known Louisville area comedian. He's released three comedy records that are listed on Amazon.com. His shtick involves making up bizarre responses to telemarketers and recording the conversations he has with them. (The bit where he asks a carpet cleaning telemarketer about how good they are at removing bloodstains, and whether they can get out all of the DNA, is classic.) Various news archives suggest he's attracted reprint interest from The Washington Post[22] and The Guardian[23], unfortunately the links are broken. At any rate, this stub is definitely expandable. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable person, but needs more information.J'onn J'onzz 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't find any evidence of votestacking. --Core desat 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levite Tithe[edit]

~~Created as a WP:POVFORK of Maaser Rishon to present a specific POV independent of other editors.~~ Any non-duplicative reliably sourced material can be merged with Maaser Rishon --Shirahadasha 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Agree with Pharamond that this is a simple content fork, not a POV fork, and existence of two articles representing two POVs would better be addressed through a merge proposal, which has been made. --Shirahadasha 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Shirahadasha. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; pov fork. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. IZAK 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. Jon513 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I can tell, Levite Tithe, the alleged "POV fork", was created two days earlier than the article the nomination claims that it was forked from. Did someone use a time machine to accomplish that? (Levite Tithe was created, more or less fully developed, on November 12, 2006, and Maaser Rishon was created two days later, on November 14.) Pharamond 13:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, it cannot be a POV fork, since it was created first. Maaser Rishon is the POV fork. By the way, Levite Tithe isn't representing an independent POV of the other editors (not least because the article was created first), but is actually representing this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. I'm going to spoil the fun of anyone who wants to guess who it was that created that POV fork - it turns out that it was Shirahadasha, the editor raising this afd--User talk:FDuffy 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. WP:STACK appears to have gone on here. --User talk:FDuffy 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. When I made my post on WP:JEW, I was unaware of this discussion. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also posted article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biblical Criticism --Shirahadasha 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pharamond's point is well-taken and I agree this article does not have the same history as Aaronids, its companion AfD, and shouldn't be treated in the same fashion. Accordingly, I now believe a merge proposal would be the best way to handle the parallel articles Maaser Rishon and Levite Tithe, and both this AfD and the parallel AfD for Maaser Rishon should be closed as premature without prejudice to future actions. --Shirahadasha 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Mars[edit]

Improperly application of AfD template redirected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. My preference is to transwiki to an appropriate site. RJH (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are number of minor planet pages where this (aspect) information is included in the content, but I don't think it's an appropriate location. So, depending on the consensus here, I'd like to act on the minor planet aspect data accordingly. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE I am including this corresponding article which user:RJH neglected in this new round of AfDs:

I'd like to point out that I did include the aforementioned discussion in the header. But I apologize for missing the other articles since they were located well down in the Aspects of Pluto AfD, which required a scroll down to locate. — RJH (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Proper process was followed for nominating multiple articles. This AfD is improper.
Comment Saving the content of this article in the history does not preclude a transwiki. The fact nobody will do a transwiki is proof that this random jumble of numbers belongs in no wiki anywhere, much less wikipedia.
Comment There was consensus that the article should have been expanded to explain the data, which was not understood by anyone in the AfD discussion, including User:RJH. Nobody in the AfD discussion did the research to find the article "astrological aspect." When I read that after the AfD was closed, I was educated enough to realize the article did not even live up to its title: it should be a list of dates for significant positions. The title of the article is incorrect. Let someone be WP:BOLD.
Comment Having the vague sense that an article is over your head and must require expertise, and thus must convey expertise somehow, does not justify making a counterclaim to WP:NN. If this article cannot be merged to ephemeris or astrological aspect due to blatant non-notability, it doesn't deserve its own article.
Comment: The fact that no consensus was reached in the previous AfD does not mean nothing should be done. I made the only logical step towards a wikipedia:transwiki, if transwiki happens to be your personal preference, given that no destination site has been suggested yet.
Comment If you must renominate, please follow WP:BUNDLE. Potatoswatter 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD should be speedy closed, it does not follow the correct procedure (as user:potatoswatter points out above), further it comes for too soon after the last AfD (see talk:afd for guidlines on standard practice) since no new evidence has been brought forward. The correct procedure after an AfD closes without concensus is to discuss on the articles talk page, sbandrews (t) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not transwiki - This is the kind of material on Wikipedia that harms my students! Last time, I stated that these articles were comprised entirely of indiscriminate information that was so poorly organized that it was of no use to anyone. Listing one set of distances, one set of brightnesses, and one set of apparent diameters on the same line as four sets of dates is confusing, as the distance, brightness, and apparent diameter changes over time. Given that these ephemeris tables have been compiled for 96 asteroids or so, they look like they are being created for astronomical (not astrological) reference. As astronomical reference information, these tables will cause great confusion and turn people away from Wikipedia. Moreover, as stated before, the material is unreferenced. It should be deleted. It should not be transwikied anywhere. Dr. Submillimeter 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Pluto was just recently up for AfD by itself, with a result of no consensus. We're not going to get any further, except by accident. Transwiki is meaningless without a target to tranwifify to. DGG 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not put up by itself. There was consensus that the four articles nominated did not belong in Wikipedia, so we can keep them in the history for later transwiki in case someone decides they are not nonsense. Potatoswatter 05:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Pluto AfD closed only one day before this one was started with a result of no consensus. This certainly wasn't time to address the concerns raised, which should have been done on the article's talk page rather than in a new AfD. I realize that this one is an attempt to discuss the series of articles together, but process wasn't followed. I would suggest this be withdrawn, and if necessary renominated again in a few weeks after there has been discussion on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced unorganized data-dump of a trivial nature, without explainations 132.205.44.134 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what about Aspects of Uranus and Aspects of Neptune? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mu301 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Sneakily enough they have separate AfD's with practically no activity. I just fixed Uranus so it linked to its AfD... Potatoswatter 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Uranus[edit]

Improperly application of AfD template redirected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. My preference is to transwiki to an appropriate site. RJH (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are number of minor planet pages where this (aspect) information is included in the content, but I don't think it's an appropriate location. So, depending on the consensus here, I'd like to act on the minor planet aspect data accordingly. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

Speedy close this should be WP:BUNDLEd to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Mars. Potatoswatter 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can't bundle, there are !votes there already. --Dennisthe2 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a "!vote"? Nothing is there besides the nomination, which does not count as a vote, and my comments that it should be closed with no further discussion, which also do not contain a vote. Potatoswatter 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A !vote is, for lack of a better term, a vote - but not. See, since this process is not actually a vote, per se, but a discussion to reach a concensus, anything cast isn't a vote. It's called a "!vote" because the exclamation point prefixing it, in this context, means "not" - and aside from looking fairly clever, it also is easier to type "!vote" than "not vote". See this link for a better explanation of the usage as a negative boolean operator. --Dennisthe2 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whatever. At the time only the nominator and myself had weighed in. My point stands. Anyway that AfD can serve for this article even if nobody takes the initiative to bundle. Potatoswatter 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto as referenced from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Mars, this AfD is improper and should be speedy closed one way or the other. Potatoswatter 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link from aspects of Uranus to this page was broken until now; I just fixed it. Potatoswatter 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Neptune[edit]

Improperly application of AfD template redirected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. My preference is to transwiki to an appropriate site. RJH (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are number of minor planet pages where this (aspect) information is included in the content, but I don't think it's an appropriate location. So, depending on the consensus here, I'd like to act on the minor planet aspect data accordingly. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

Speedy close this should be WP:BUNDLEd to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Mars. Potatoswatter 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crooks & Straights[edit]

Non-notable band that recorded an album with a non-notable independent label. 56 google hits FateClub 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. If it's this obvious, just redirect it in the future. There's no need to go through AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Garden City[edit]

Obvious overflow from the Garden City article, the only article that links to this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipsenaut (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Garden City, New York if this term really is used, valid search/link term. Otherwise probably delete. --W.marsh 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garden City, New York. There just doesn't seem to be enough subject specific information on this "greater" variation to such a small town; ie Greater London or Greater Los Angeles. --Oakshade 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Sinai[edit]

This person is not likely to exist. Only sources proving his existence are Israeli newspapers. Looks like propaganda if anything. Emбargo 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, why would the fact that it's an Israeli newspaper make it likely to be fabricating some person's existance? I don't really follow that argument. Our article on the source, ynetnews, says it is "Israel’s most-read newspaper". Although the Jerusalem Post seems to mention an Avraham Sinai, it doesn't seem to be the same guy [24]. So you might have an argument here, I just need more information. --W.marsh 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Isreali newspapers are reliable sources. PCock 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom. The nominator has already been blocked in the past for making comments like Jewish garbage wants to provoke. His basis for this is that only Israeli newspapers are sources...as if that denotes that those aren't reliable since they are Israeli. IrishGuy ^talk 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom. --Shuki 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and improve. Shimeru 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison Middle School[edit]

Previously listed as part of an AFD for Beth Shields Middle School, but added late by User:RGTraynor. I have to agree that this school doesn't meet notability requirements (and is in fact little more than a directory entry for two schools at the time of my submittal), but I am of the opinion that, given the lateness of the add and that it had been added after some delete !votes had been cast, it warrants its own AfD. That said, I'm doing this with the latter problem in mind (late add to existing AfD), and therefore I am submitting this AfD with No Opinion. Dennisthe2 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as special type of disambiguation page per Wp:disambiguation#Summary_or_multi-stub_pages. When each article expands enough to have its own article it is branched off. Nardman1 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATT and WP:NN. Non-notable middle school, one of over a hundred middle and elementary school stubs put up by the editor over 14 months ago, zero substantive edits to this article since. There seems to be no real prospect of the article ever being sourced or improved, and all that's been done to it has been shuffling around of the basic information given over a year ago. This was originally filed as a prod, removed without any explanation, then or subsequently. (I admit I am also curious as from what parent article Nardman1 feels this was forked.) RGTraynor 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what I was implying was /this/ is the parent article. Re-read WP:Disambiguation to get a bigger clue. Nardman1 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. In which case this is a non-notable disambiguation page containing a pair of stubs that are unlikely ever to be improved. Any "special" status the page has because of the disambiguation doesn't exempt it from attribution or notability standards. RGTraynor 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is certainly a weird type of page. I have added some more and more to come :-) The degree of notability varies but one or two seem very notable. However, there is no point in putting a lot of time in if the page is going to be deleted. In principle, to have a place to plant stubs and allow them to grow so that they can be split off into their own article if they flourish seems fine by me. TerriersFan 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thing is, though, in order to change our minds, generally you'll have to improve the article. There's plenty of times I've changed mine on those grounds, that's for sure. Remember, just because it's here doesn't mean it's automatically going to be nuked, it just means it's up for discussion. --Dennisthe2 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since with a single exception the long list of similarly named middle schools TerriersFan appended were presented with no more information than a street address, I've reverted the edit per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. RGTraynor 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a rational article. it is not about a particular school, it is not about schools in a particular district, nor about those with a particular program. it is about schools that only share a common name. We have not solved the middle school problem yet, where some of us use different standards of notability than others and there is nothing resembling consensus. But of all the possible ways of handling it, this is the very worst. There is no point in having a disam page when the items don't have articles. This is a peculiar indiscriminate list, but that's what it is. . DGG 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited an editorial guideline that contradicts your view. Nardman1 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is clear from the sourcing I have given on the Roanoke, Virginia school, plus the fact that it is a magnet school that attracts (as it were :-)) a certain degree of notability, that there is enough to be said about it to justify its own article. I am prepared to split it out and develop it into a fully fledged article but first I need some sort of view that it would be supported because there is no point in doing further work if we are just going to jump through these hoops again. TerriersFan 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's notable, yeah, we'll work with it. But, as you're showing a willingness to improve the article, I'll change my mind and go with a Keep as to hopefully grant you some time. Just in case, I'd suggest copying the article into your userspace and, should it delete, work on it there. --Dennisthe2 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honk Soundtrack[edit]

Delete. No other Broadway musical article has a separate article for its soundtrack (see Wicked, West Side Story, and Rent). I realize that this isn't a good enough reason to delete, but the fact remains that the article was created by User:Honk Tha Remix, a known sockpuppet of User:Josh Gotti who creates vanity and vandalism articles. I have already had to delete intentionally incorrect information about the album from Honk's main page. The soundtrack of a Broadway musical is not notable, as the soundtrack is right there in the production -- there's no point making an exception for an article created by a vandal. I say either delete or merge it into the Honk! article. Rockstar915 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Cast recordings does exist (created by myself), though is sparsely populated. I currently have no opinion as to whether these might be all nonnotable. –Unint 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment. In my eyes, the difference between the cast recordings in your category and the Honk Soundtrack are that there are notable people (e.g. Harry Connick, Jr. and Elvis) involved in yours... as far as I can tell, the Honk Soundtrack is not notable and was only created to promote Josh Gotti's own agenda (see his original edit here to Honk's main page:[25]). He created Honk Soundtrack simply in order to promote Dolla Billz' extremely non-notable remix of the album. Rockstar915 00:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe that this article contains any information that isn't already in the article for Honk!. Completely unnecessary. janejellyroll 04:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advert. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bri bayresritz international[edit]

Non-notable corporation. Can't find non-trivial coverage of this company in reliable sources, this failing WP:A and WP:CORP. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screamin' Armadillos[edit]

Contested ProD. Fails WP:BAND by a long chalk. Two self-released albums only. No sources, 5 ghits. Bubba hotep 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages

Delete all per Bubba hotep. I'll add that I placed an Importance template in the Screamin' Armadillos article shortly after it was created, and that this was removed by User:69.149.69.251 without any information about notability being added. EALacey 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Two self-released records, zero references, nothing within the article that even hints at notability. --Bongwarrior 05:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I've only heard of these guys because I live in Fort Worth. Fails WP:BAND. Caknuck 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield-Windsor School Spring Musical[edit]

Not a notable topic. Nearly every High School has a annual musical. Sean Martin 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DMacks 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is only days old, and the deletion nomination appears to be premature. The article also appears to have someone who is very interested in the topic and willing to improve it, and, according to WP:ORG: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." When you're holding your spring musical in the 965-seat Albany Municipal Auditorium in Albany, Georgia, with parents putting together the scenery, and with a daily newspaper in town, I think it's extremely probable that the creator of the article or someone else can provide reliable independent sources, probably from the local newspaper. Noroton 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is putting the cart before the horse given that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the Deerfield-Windsor School, so I'm not sure why we would put in an article about a single activity at the school first. In my experience, general newspapers tend to give minimal coverage, at best, to high school theater, so I will wait to actually see the reliable independent sources before giving the article credit for them. --Metropolitan90 00:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton and renominate later. Rjgodoy 11:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:A. There's no source and not even a hint of an assertion of notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename 'Deerfield-Windsor School' - This article would probably be more notable if it was about the entire school and not just the musicals. After that, if the article still does not satisfy notability guidelines, then it should be renominated for deletion. Camaron1 | Chris 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless modified and renamed as suggested by Camaron1 | Chris. Making the article about the School and then including all this info in a "Spring Musical" section seems extremely reasonable to me. -- Sean Martin 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inuktitut Wikipedia[edit]

Non-notable website; it does not appear to meet WP:WEB to me. Tizio 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. On one hand, it is a sanctioned version of wikipedia. On the other hand, we do not have information for EVERY single language pages. Proposal: Post link in Wikipedia info page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.58.101.27 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Assuming this is real, it's a part of Wikipedia, and see previous discussion on this subject. While most of that discussion did focus on the poor choice of a mass nomination, there is a strong support for keeping them in general. That said, the article itself needs some cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Assuming this is real": that's exactly the point! Is there any source independent from the subject which can be used as a reference for this article? Tizio 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Needs some fixing up. Mr. Manticore has it, there's a precedent for general concensus for keeping other Wikipedia sites. That said, I wonder now if there's one written in Klingon.... --Dennisthe2 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless sources towards WP:WEB can be found. Now is a good a time as any to try to reduce the level of bias... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination) for an article that had more sources than this one and was deleted, but it was about a website/company we didn't like. --W.marsh 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Prior AfD aside, Wikipedias must be weighed against the same standard as any other site. To treat them differently simply because they're run by the same foundation that runs our own is an unacceptable conflict of interest. That said, its entirely possible that some editions of Wikipedia meet those requirements, but this one doesn't seem to.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm treating them with the standard that since Wikipedia has an article, and since foreign language editions are a notable subset of Wikipedia as a whole, describing each of them is completely reasonable. I'd be comfortable with this page having a one or two-line summary on a collected page, even a paragraph, but I also have no objection to it being on its own. And just so you know, WP:WEB is a rough guideline, not a fixed standard. FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is based on WP:N and WP:A/WP:V, so the "Well we don't have to follow it when we don't want" argument isn't very strong. --W.marsh 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also says This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. There's also WP:BURO to consider. So instead of making your arguments based on some rather imperfect rules, I would suggest considering the situation itself. It's important not to become rules-blind. FrozenPurpleCube 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the situation, that we should include an article because it's about Wikipedia, and we like Wikipedia? That's bias... and what I try to avoid. --W.marsh 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about liking Wikipedia or this foreign language version. Wikipedia is itself notable (if you are arguing that, go run a news search), this is part of Wikipedia. All foreign language Wikipedias are part of Wikipedia. Therefore, I feel it's important to document them in covering Wikipedia. You might convince me a single page covering all (or even just the smaller languages) is a better way to present the information, but you aren't going to convince me not to cover some just because they're smaller. That would be biased. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So any portion of a notable site is inherently notable? That just doesn't make sense. There's simply no reason for all 250 Wikipedias need there own article. I'm not disputing Wikipedia itself is notable, that's pretty obvious, but I fail to see how that notability automatically extends itself to every edition of Wikipedia. That's akin, in my opinion at least, to saying that we ought to have an article on Cherry Pop-Tarts because Pop-Tarts are notable.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... but these things always come back to someone wanting to bend the rules and logic so we can have another article about Wikipedia. --W.marsh 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to have an article on Cherry Pop-tarts, though I can't imagine what content one could provide to have such an article. However, if such an article could be developed to be something like Coca-Cola Cherry or Crystal Pepsi, that would be fine with me. Those I would say are closer examples to what we're talking about here. I see how each language Wikipedia is produced in is a distinct and separate content, that warrants some degree of coverage. I could accept a single page, but that is not what's being proposed here, is it? If you do want to do that, feel free to bring it up on a project page or the Village pump. However, the deletion of an article without what I consider a replacement for providing the same information is not the way to do that. And note, I'm not saying any portion of a notable site is inherently notable. I am saying that given the nature of Wikipedia, the foreign language versions of it are notable enough they should be covered. This is because they represent the effort of a language's speakers to develop a knowledge presence on the internet. FrozenPurpleCube 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I have zero fondness for having another article on Wikipedia about Wikipedia. I've never created any of these articles, and if I've edited them, it's to fix typos and other minor errors. So please don't accuse me of vanity, thank you. FrozenPurpleCube 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use the correct analogy, this is like wanting to have an article on every sub-forum, injoke, business venture, cliche and so on from Fark.com because we agree that the top level website is notable. When in fact, almost all of that stuff just gets merged without any objection back to the main article. It's really when it's only when it's related to Wikipedia that people are dead opposed to a redirect. --W.marsh 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. First, you are obviously unaware that I am not opposed to some kind of merged article. Second, not every section of Wikipedia is being proposed as an article, the only issue is the foreign language versions. Not the Village Pump, not the Sandbox. If you can come up with some website with a comparable situation, that might make for a good analogy. Fark.com, AFAIK, isn't it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were dead opposed to a redirect, but I am certain that if I redirected this article, someone would revert me. --W.marsh 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your belief, perhaps it's even true. So what? Perhaps that would be an opportunity to work towards consensus with other editors. Maybe you could try producing a page combining the various languages. I don't think, however, the continued AfDs are a solution. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are unique features of this worth description, that might not be otherwise obvious to an English speaker. Tho I agree that the MyWikiBiz AfDs had an absurd result, the solution is not to remove other articles about WP as well. DGG 05:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube.Biophys 06:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep wikipedia language editions are notable, in worst case merge into an "Indiginous American Language Wikipedias" combined article combing say cherokee, cree, nehiyaw, nahuatl, or whatever, and and if a certain edition grows, likely quechua or nahuatl they can splinter off or be split into indignous north american and south american if it gets too long, i do fear that it would be dificult to have an interwiki box for every of a dozen language editions however and they do need to be there, so combos are just a terrible idea i must say.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each and every one of the Wikipedia branches are notable, and if there isn't enough reliable third party information about one of them we should find a home to merge it to. RFerreira 05:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Science-Fiction Timeline[edit]

Contested prod. A list of completely unrelated fictional facts, without any secondary sources, outside commentary, ... WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of facts, and this is a potentially endless list of unrelated facts. Looks from the remark on the talk page to be original research, which is yet another reason to delete it. Fram 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god, delete. This is so very wrong and is a flagrant violation of WP:NOT. Collection of unrelated facts is putting this lightly. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a somewhat entertaining list of semi-obscure fictional events but that doesn't change the fact that it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Handy for (SF-related) research purposes, I suppose, but still in violation of policy, in parts WP:OR and, realistically, very much unmaintainable. Please also note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_fictional_historical_events. -- Seed 2.0 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is unchanged from what it was for both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, Timeline of fictional future events and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events prior to the 20th century. Grouping the events by date, instead of by fictional universe, is simply the wrong way to go about this. Notice that List of fictional timelines does this the right way. This is simply the resurrection of a bad idea. The rationale that I gave in January 2005 still applies. Uncle G 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's not indiscriminate--in fact one objection might be the limitation to some of the major series. I find it an interesting viewpoint. It might just possibly fit into wikibooks. It would be a shame to lose the work. DGG 05:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I don't see much of a "limitation to some of the major series" when it includes items from Harsh Realm, The Super Dimension Fortress Macross, Century City (TV series), Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century, or Exosquad. I don't think any of these (and many others used in the timeline) can be described as defining moments in the history of science fiction, and are instead indicators of how huge this list can easily become. There is no clear guide what to include and what not (and I doubt such a rule could be given), and thus it is indiscriminate. Fram 07:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly merge some into more topical list such as timelines for sci-fi literature, films etc. This is just too unfocused, random and potentially massive, and would prevent it from being an appreciated resource. MURGH ^disc. 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; A truly random listing of works that, in most cases, simply happen to provide a future date for their events. Nifboy 12:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UncleG and as non encyclopidic. On the other hand, the list is brilliant, funny, and entertaining, and would make a great addition to someones personal website, perhaps. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Luce, Honor Academy, and Teen Mania Ministries[edit]

No sources for notability. Some unsourced claims about authoritarian teachings, but nothing remarkably famous. These and similiar articles that all appear to support one another were started by Davidwilson (talk · contribs). Very spammy and devoid of notability. Arbustoo 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirects too: Extreme Camps, Global Expeditions, Center for Creative Media, Acquire the Fire, East Texas Adventure Course, Teen Mania, and Honor Ring. Arbustoo 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources out there - the preceding were just the ones that showed up in a perfunctory Google News search for the last month. The article needs to integrate these sources, but Luce and his ministry are clearly notable. JavaTenor 00:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ron Luce and Teen Mania Ministries. As mentioned in the preceding comment, there are many more articles out there, including here and here, that focus on the organization and Luce. More references to media coverage that could be added to the subject articles are in the Battle Cry Campaign article that is specific to Teen Mania's current initiative. The Honor Academy article should probably be merged with the Teen Mania Ministries article. Mike Doughney 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ministry is at least news worthy for its events (like any other band / or play, since its ATF events are primarily drama). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hopquick (talk • contribs) 03:41 April 6, 2007 (UTC).

Keep -- Definitely notable, with plenty of mainstream media coverage. --Eastlaw 04:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand and improve -- Here's another mainstream media report on Luce, from NPR's On The Media, 4/6/07.--HughGRex 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recently reported in Rolling Stone Magazine. centuri0n 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this seems to be growing, based on the above Rolling Stone article. Definitely keep because it will probably be reported on more as it grows over the next few years. GreatRedShark 7:48 PM EST 11 April, 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Copeland[edit]

This article contains unencyclopedic material like he "turned his life over to ministry work," a long list of 2006 doctrines, and three poorly sourced quotes. Seems like an ad for this ministries combined with uncited controversies. There is nothing notable in the article other than he was on Believer's Voice of Victory in 1979, but "Believer's Voice of Victory" is an unsourced article with questionable notability itself. Arbustoo 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written maybe, but I think the questionable quote in the nom is just a flowery way of saying that he began working full-time on the ministry (as explained in the later sentences in that paragraph in the article). He seems notable (director of known church/religious movement/whatever-you-call-it, been in mainstream news several times for his controversial statements (the controversy was the news not just his statement), so the article would need cleanup work and more citations, not deletion. DMacks 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the guy, but he is a very prominent pastor in Christianity. --Dennisthe2 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- Eastmain 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable, I think. --Eastmain 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume that by "he was on Believer's Voice of Victory in 1979" the nominator means "he has been the host of Believer's Voice of Victory since 1979." Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see all of the above). dr.ef.tymac 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Eventualist in me says that this article will eventually get sorted out and will be just fine. Nswinton 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs some writing skills applied to article with reliable information in the controversies section. He's controversial, this is true, but what he supposedly says that stirs up controversy is not true.
Keep notable, but needs improvment as already noted Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unsalvageable unsourced original research. If someone wants to create a new article covering the same topic but written in an encyclopedic manner, that won't be a problem. This article was just a mess, however, and would take more effort to rewrite than simply creating a new article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU trade disputes[edit]

While there is almost certainly an article that could be written on this subject, this is not it. This is just a mishmash of topics almost completely unreferenced and with statements and choices that constitute original research. Indrian 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly relevant. -- Petri Krohn 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevance is not the issue, WP:OR is. Indrian 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs rewriting and adding references. Beagel 06:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or rename to a better and more encyclopedic title at Economic relations of the European Union. However, in its current state the article resembles an essay by a high school student, therefore might be better to delete and create a seperate article at ER of the EU. Baristarim 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has problems, but it's not so bad that deletion is necessary. I suggest application of the appropriate tags and lets give it time to evolve. I do not disagree with Baristarim that another title might not be better, but these are larger editorial issues that can't all get wrapped up in AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple rename to Trade disputes in the European Union and some elbow grease will suffice. --Hemlock Martinis 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Nazism[edit]

Unsourced extremely POV article that is wholly unsuitable in both tone and content. The title in inherently POV and even a redirect is probably unacceptable. I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make but I vaguely recall the suggestion that we were not a soapbox. If there is an article here I strongly suggest that we get rid of this one and start again with a proper title. Disclosure - I'm currently in Denmark but I'm not Danish. Oh, and the author removed a speedy tag which is why we are here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless major cleanup done -- this reads like a (translated?) junior high school paper. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spartaz has said it all in the nomination - an unsourced, unreferenced schoolboy essay. (aeropagitica) 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and (aeropagitica)—though perhaps it should be "schoolgirl essay", given the article creator's username. Deor 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'"Edit'" Evidence in 1964 suggests secret relations between goverments, although this was not paid much attention to. The writing is simply atrocious though. -New History, April 2007
- Note to closing admin that this user account was created on 6 April and AFD was the first contribution. No contributions outside here and Danish Nazism Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Save Testimony: My great grandfther was taken way and put into a "concentration camp". He reluctantly tells me that the Danish police arrived and took him away from his home at 23:00. Grandfather was then taken to one of the camps, which were actually similar to harsh barracks. I would not like to share what happened next, as it would be disrespectful to my great grandfather. I also feel uncomfortable recounting it. -anonymous 2007
Save I The following link supports my wiki page: http://www.dk-christmasseals.heindorffhus.dk/frame-DenmarkNazi.htm . Alexandra55, April 5, 2007
- Comment Can I ask whether you found time to read the link to the guidelines on reliable sourcing that I left on your talk page? That link doesn't appear to fit that guideline and a subject like this really needs a number of independant scholorlu sources to justify the contents. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you need to be more scholarly and spell the very word itself right Alexandra 55, April 6, 2007
Delete and let a better supported article be written.DGG 05:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Baristarim 23:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no salvageable content Alex Bakharev 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Please pull anything you wish to keep from the history of the article edits. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Parents[edit]

Article reads like an essay and is at least problematic with regard to WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:OR. There is a proper article (Helicopter parent) which I suggest the salvagable parts be merged into. Seed 2.0 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. My vote is a tad bit ambiguous, as was helpfully pointed out to me by a fellow editor (thanks!). To make myself perfectly clear, I'm obviously in favor of deleting the article (hence, the whole AfD). So, in the interest of clarity, my position is to merge the little information that is salvagable and to delete the article. -- Seed 2.0 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mess and unsalvagable. The term could be transwikied, but this whole article needs to go. --Helm.ers 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just merge what you want to merge and not involve AFD in the first place? Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Merger and deletion are mutually exclusive, because of the requirements of the GFDL. It would have taken fewer edits to merge the article than it has taken already to perform the AFD nomination. Uncle G 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two reasons: policy and practicability. If I had just merged the very few useable parts, I still would have had to AfD this article . It certainly doesn't meet CSD G6 (or any of the other straight-up CSD criteria for that matter) and it does cite some sources. It just makes more sense to do it this way and, at least to me, appears to be the more sensible solution. -- Seed 2.0 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I had just merged the very few useable parts, I still would have had to AfD this article — No you wouldn't. Once again, with emphasis: Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. The last stage of a merger is a redirect. You could have had the usable parts in the main article and a redirect created, all by the process of normal editing, using tools that all editors have, and without need to involve AFD at all, by now. Uncle G 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV essay. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely written from a single point-of-view, numerous examples of rhetorical questions, unencyclopedic in scope, tone and content and superfluous as an encyclopaedic article on the same subject already exists. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete, bordering on speedy. Essay that could never be made into an article or merged with the existing one even in part. Probably copyvio too. Term has already been transwikied when I created the article. Absolutely no reason to have this. I would be invoking WP:SNOW at this point if I were an admin. Daniel Case 02:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked Google for replication of a unique phrase from the article and found nothing suspicious. I doubt it's a copyvio, reads more like an original essay. Caknuck 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this is an incredibly straightforward and uncontroversial merge. AFD should have nothing to do with this. Just merge whatever's useful and redirect. --JayHenry 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing to merge, and we dont usually redirect from plurals to singular. DGG 05:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) and Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, if there is nothing to merge. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helicopter parent. Not much here worth saving (just the sources, really). Caknuck 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete soum (0_o) 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Pandya[edit]

No sign of significance, aside from the unsubstantiated claim that he's "high profile" (which just stopped from speedily deleting it). It reads like a vanity article, to be honest. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see that this meets the requirements of WP:BIO. The second of the two external links leads to some kind of Indian dating site—could that be a clue? Deor 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you think that the word 'high profile' is an unsubstantiated claim then you could have rather chosen to edit/delete this word and not the whole article. The second link is to metrojoint.com of which Kunal is the co-founder. They don't have any management page on metrojoint so that I can link it. A few regional newspaper articles lead me to create this page as he is perhaps the first and only entreprenuer from the state of Gujarat (India) to venture into an internet company. These local newspapers do not have a web version. He owns ncrypted technologies (ncrypted.net) and you can find a link of them on metrojoint itself. Sparshmehra 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User's fourteenth edit; previous edits all concerning this article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Article completely lacks sources that would demonstrate notability. janejellyroll 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Why? Mel, I dont know what's wrong here. I am not here to contribute to the whole society like you. I am just concerned about topics I know of and I feel like writing on. You better reply to the above stated message and tell me why we should still delete this article? And delete it for what reasons? Due to lack of sources? I already linked to his profile on ncrypted's page (which is universal) - I hope you know how big the company is. And ncrypted clearly mentions that they created metrojoint.com. So, both of my links demonstrate enough notability. Should I scan those local newspapers and paste it here for your kind consideration as well? Sparshmehra 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One "vote" per User. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founder of a handful of non-notable Web start-ups. I may be able to support this if reliable sources were provided, but not as is. Article is walking the fine line between bio & VSCT. Caknuck 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kerr[edit]

He is a non-notable footballer as he has never played in the Football League. Mattythewhite 21:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Mattythewhite 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately having a trial with a big-name club doesn't cut it when it comes to notability, delete until such time as he at the very least signs with a Football League club ChrisTheDude 07:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until he joins a FL team I have made a copy to re-add when he does make the "big move" Kingjamie 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - wikipedia is the biggest world encyclopedia and even such a footballers like Lee Kerr should have own article . Bartekos 10:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has not though, as yet, played in the Football League. In addition a copy has been made by Kingjamie to re-add him once he does make the "big move", but until such time as he does, he remains non-notable, and should be deleted. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin-air-ey[edit]

Non-notable group. Very few results in multiple search engines. Squirepants101 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find nothing at all that is notable about this "group." Seems like complete bollocks. --Evb-wiki 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this "article" was created by a vandal, who was blocked both as User:R.tails and as a sock puppet. User:R.tails removed the speedy-delete tag I originally placed numerous times. --Evb-wiki 14:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads incoherently and doesn't appear to have a point, as well as being unsourced and unreferenced. Possible candidate for {{db-context}}. (aeropagitica) 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article with no relevant Google hits, about a fictional organization but written from an in-universe perspective with no context explaining where one would find references to this organization in the real world. --Metropolitan90 23:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Completely fails the Google test. Not clear what kind of group this is is supposed to be, but we speedily delete more coherent articles about somewhat less non-notable gaming groupings all the time. --Finngall ^talk 02:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete difficult to understand what this supposed to be about, but I gather it may be a potential "cartoon" judging by the reference added to the WP article on the Cartoon Network, [[26]], but the ref has been deleted as unfactual. Seems like something made up in school one day, judging by its lack of any sources whatsoever Slp1 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Monsters[edit]

Non-notable sporting team. I can't remember why I Prod'ed it rather than Speedying it, but an IP removed the Prod and added a blog reference attempting to assert notability. This is a team well below the top flight in its country, so there's no notability in the offing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{{db-group}}, WP:BIO refers. Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable non-adult team. I'm intrigued to read, though, that The team is significant because it is said that the best soccer players in Annandale have joined the team and The members of the team are composed primarily of members of the Annandale High School band department - is Annandale a unique concentration of teens who are combined soccer/music geniuses....? ChrisTheDude 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable school team.--Slp1 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable High School Band Department football team. Not even close to being notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as an empty article about a non-notable 'sport' that was made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Ball[edit]

This is almost a textbook WP:NFT case. Anon-removed prod of a sport created in 2002 and with a website reading "coming soon!". No other sources provided, and none seem to be around online, which is perhaps unsurprising. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Textbook case, also supported by Google and two other search engines. Seed 2.0 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn by Bridgeplayer. TJ Spyke 08:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday in Texas[edit]

Fails WP:N. This event flopped and there are no secondary sources showing notability. Unless we are to argue that every televised 'sporting' event is notable, and of course there are plenty that aren't, this has to go - Delete. Bridgeplayer 23:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn now the article is sourced to meet WP:V Bridgeplayer 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Keep This was a internationally broadcast PPV from the biggest wrestling organization of the world. Whether it was a "flop" or not is irrelevant. 23:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - nothing in WP:N that I can see that makes 'internationally broadcast PPV' notable. What is needed are sources to meet WP:V attesting that out of the thousands of PPV events broadcast each year that this one is notable. So far, there are none. Bridgeplayer 23:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WWE (then WWF) only does a certain amount of PPVs a year, in this case 5 in 1991. Being a PPV from the largest wrestling company is notable enough. I can add more refs, but even without them it's notable. TJ Spyke 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Keep I definitely agree with TJ Spyke. It was a very important WWF card in which the WWF Championship changed hands. This is more than just a televised event. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 00:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A World Title change. ~~The first WWF PPV not on a Sunday.~~ As far as I'm aware, WWE PPVs are generally considered notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor point, the first few Survivor Series PPV's were held on Thangksgiving day (Thursday). TJ Spyke 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were? Ah well fair enough ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign

Strong Keep PPV from the largest sports-entertainment company in the world with its world title changing hands. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of how one feels about this sport, it is notable because of who produced it. JBEvans 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above.-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable just like the other WWE PPVs. MPJ-DK 06:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This event flopped" is listed as a reason for nomination? Since when was that a wiki criteria?? MPJ-DK 06:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well it's pretty obvious - it's a PPV. Davnel03 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the mind boggles that this was even nominted, PPV write-ups, championship lists and wrestler bios are the three main planks of this project, to remove this page would be lunacy. Darrenhusted 11:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, article now meets core content policies. RFerreira 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Darchangelo[edit]

Contested prod. Yet another non-notable independent wrestler. No sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:A, 9 Google hits and not a reliable source among them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, I was in the process of updated the article when it was nominated (literally one minute after the prod tag was removed [27]). This article is admittedly in serious need of a cleanup, however the main complaint of the article has been resolved (both his ringname and real name being misspelled). However, this would be apparent to anyone who had read the article that something was obviously wrong when none of his career highlights showed up on a google search. MadMax 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You removed the prod without improvement when the proposed deletion wasn't until April 7. I stand by my nomination, independent wrestlers are by and large non notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated I removed the prod in the process of improving it. I only noticed the afd tag during an edit conflict during initial changes. MadMax 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And as I stated the article wouldn't have been deleted until April 7 at the earliest, so you could have removed it when you had finished couldn't you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair anyone can remove a prod if they object to deletion of the article for any reason. I shall wait a few days before voting and see how it looks then. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and I'm not objecting to the removal of the prod. The point I'm making is that the article could have been improved first, then the prod removed, couldn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could have indeed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you nominated it before you saw any changes I had made. I had assumed I had a resonable time to improve the article before its nomination, however, had I known I had less then a minute then I wouldn't have removed the tag. As you've made your feelings quite clear on the subject, I honestly don't believe there is anything I could do to improve this or any other article that you wouldn't have an objection to. MadMax 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Article has been here six months, yet still no evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:A. No improvement. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Seinfreak37 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypes in the Old Man and the Sea, Washington Square, and The Scarlett Letter[edit]

This is a school-type essay, not an encyclopedia article. "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge." See WP:NOT#OR. --Metropolitan90 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because he spelled 'scarlet' wrong ;) - Hornandsoccer ^Talk 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but Wikipedia is not a repository of term papers. —Cel ithemis 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete author blanked page a while back. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deor 00:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom--$UIT 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. It is not possible to believe that this article won't be deleted. Noroton 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Baristarim 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jannock[edit]

This is a stub that was created as a dictionary entry. There exists a Wiktionary entry (Wiktionary:jannock) and the reference and one definition was moved into this entry. The remainder is embellishment on the definition. There is reference to a book called Jannock but neither the book nor author have an entry on Wikipedia; there are no incoming links to the page, indicating that the book is not referenced by other articles. In principle, the title could be used to create an article on the book or be a redirect to the author, but in practice the article as it presently exists is a dictionary definition that is redundant with a Wiktionary entry. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef, and nothing to transwiki - the wiktionary article seems sufficient. --Dennisthe2 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, book reference appears to be non-notable. –Pomte 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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